# 7993-96 / landscape • sink • common things ~ a "trick" of sorts

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN THAT, IF I HAD MY druthers for an exhibition of my photographs, there would be a red velvet rope barrier along the gallery walls that would restrict viewers to a print viewing distance that forces them to view the photographs in their entirety. Why do I harbor this never-to-be-realized fantasy? Let’s ask Henri Cartier-Bresson ….

“If a photograph is to communicate its subject in all its intensity, the relationship of form must be rigorously established. Photography implies the recognition of a rhythm in the world of real things …. We look at and perceive a photograph, as we do a painting, in its entirety and all in one glance. In a photograph, composition is the result of a simultaneous coalition, the organic coordination of elements seen by the eye. One does not add composition as though it were an afterthought superimposed on the basic subject material, since it is impossible to separate content from form. ~ Thanks Henri

My translation: if a photographer establishes a relationship of form derived from his/her “recognition of a rhythm in the world of real things”, aka: “the organic coordination of elements seen by the eye”, aka: commonly referred to as composition, the only way in which a viewer can see the result of the photographer’s capture of the organic coordination of elements, aka: form, is to look at and and perceive a photograph in its entirety and all in one glance”.

iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, exquisite form is what distinguishes great photographs from “merely” good photographs. And, exquisite form can be recognized and extracted from just about any referent in the world of real things.

For instance, consider Shore’s Beverly Boulevard and La Brea Avenue, Los Angeles, California, June 21, 1975 photograph; based upon what is literally depicted, the photograph is just a semi-anonymous picture of a commercial district street replete with a lot of signs. Show this picture to 100 different people and that is all that most would see, and, most would be left wondering why anyone would make a picture like that. However …. there would probably be a few people who see something that is beyond / independent of the literally depicted subject matter–the visual pattern, aka: form, that Shore saw / recognized in an isolated segment–as defined by his framing–of elements in the world of real things.

I believe the “trick” to seeing / recognizing the something beyond the literally depicted subject matter in a photograph is to, literally, ignore the literal subject matter in order to be sensitive to the visual rhythm and pattern of the lines, shapes, colors, values, form to be seen across the flat, 2D plane of a photographic print. Or as Szarkowski put it:

“To see simultaneously both the blue and the sky.”

I also believe that if one can learn to see “simultaneously both the blue and the sky.” in a photographic print, one will also be able use that ability to recognize “rhythm in the world of real things” while making a photograph.

# 7066-70 / around the house • landscape • common things ~ all grown up

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

LATELY I’VE BEEN PULLING OUT PHOTO BOOKS–SPECIFICALLY INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPHER monographs–from my photo books collection. The primary reason for doing so is to get a comparative feel for my book, re: does it have the look and feel–design and content–of other-like photo books? Does it have a book store presence?

I believe that it does. That feeling is backed up by the response of a large regional book store manager who, when viewing my proof book, asked not only how soon could he get it on the shelves but also would I do an in-store book signing event. He even suggested that I should raise my suggested price for the book cuz, in his opinion, it is a very “high quality product”.

Be all of that as it may, my perusing of some photo books from my collection instigated some thoughts on the current state of photography arts; most of the books in my collection were published in the first decade of this century. Many were retrospectives of work created well before that time–1970>late1980s. In fact, many of my most recent purchases of photo books showcase work created in that early era ….

… all of which leads me to wonder if my interest in “fine art” photography is locked into work from the past. Have I reached a stage in life where I have lost touch with “what’s happenin’ now”, photography wise. Or, is it that there ain’t all that much happenin’ that’s opening up new frontiers in the picture making world?

In defense of my idea that I ain’t dead yet, photography wise, there can be no denying that 70s>80s was a time of ground breaking photography revolution; the New Color Photography and the New Topographics movements were the prime instigators of a radically new picture making paradigm–goodbye Ansel Adams, hello Robert Adams / Stephen Shore and company. And, not only did the picture making world change–any-thing / every-thing became legitimate subject matter–but so did what could be hung on gallery walls–goodbye camera club walls, hello MOMA.

That written, am I in the wrong to write that there ain’t much goin’ on that generates a lot of excitement in the photo world? I mean, where/what’s the next big thing, where/who’s the next big name?

I am willing to admit that perhaps I am asking too much of the photo world cuz it is quite arguable that the medium has matured to a point where a truly radical transformation is not possible. Perhaps I should just relax and appreciate the fact that I experienced and came of age, picture making wise, during an exciting period of artistic evolution.

After all, that transformation made possible a recent experience where, when a complete stranger (a 60ish aged woman)–sitting at a bar eating lunch–was handed my an Adirondack Guide photo book by the bartender, she spent a considerable length of time–20-25 minutes–viewing it. After which she turned to me and said, “A great book with really beautiful photographs.”

That encounter was rather amazing inasmuch as her reaction to a book full of straight, somewhat deadpan, pictures of the mundane, commonplace life–places, things, people–in the Adirondacks might not have been possible a couple decades ago. It might have be viewed as amateur, snapshot junk. Apparently, times have changed.

# 7031-34 / common places-things • kitchen sink ~ everything all at once

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

iMnsho, one of the best texts ever written about photography–in general but also about color photography specifically–is the intro essay by John Szarkowski in the book William Eggleston’s Guide. I truly believe, without exaggeration, it could easily be a syllabus for a year of photography graduate studies.

I mention Szarkowski’s text cuz yesterday, at a big family / clan gathering (our daughter married into it), I showed my an ADIRONDACK Guide proof book to a respected artist / university art professor (a painter) and one of the many things he liked about the work was my sense of “composition”. His comments brought to my mind something Szarkowski, in his essay, quoted, re: composition–the words of the photographer Robert Adams–which my artist acquaintance sorta mirrored ….

in the act of making photographs…. “the photographer inventories what seems an endless number of angles; he explains, if asked, that he is trying for effective composition, but hesitates to define it. What he means is that a photographer wants form, an unarguably right relationships of shapes, a visual stability in which all components are equally important. The photographer hopes, in brief, to discover a tension so exact that it is peace …. The form the photographer records, though discovered in a split second of literal fact, …. implies an order beyond itself, a landscape into which all fragments, no matter how imperfect, fit perfectly.”

With the exception of “inventories what seems an endless number of angles”–cuz I generally inventory subtle arrangements of a single angle–that quote pretty much describes my picture making M.O., re: “composition”. FYI, I place quotes around the word composition–the act of arranging parts or elements to form a whole–cuz unless a photographer is making a still life, he/she arranges nothing. The best he/she can do is to select a POV that visually organizes the visual elements, perceived as “shapes” of a framed segment of the real world, into a pattern that, to his/her eye and sensibilities, creates “an unarguably right relationships of shapes”, aka: a pleasing / interesting form. An act that Szarkowski describes as “a contest between a photographer and the presumptions of approximate and habitual seeing.”

That written, it should be emphasized that this process of organizing has no “rules”. The playing field on which the “contest” is played is infinitely variable and, consequently, so are the possibilities that might be employed in the engagement*. And, since there are no rules to guide the practitioner, the primary “tools” available to solve the problem are feel and intuition; in my experience, the recognition of the right relationship of shapes is truly “discovered in a split second”, i.e. a photographer just knows it when he sees and feels it. If a photographer thinks about it, iMnsho, that’s a recipe for failure, or at least; a recipe for approximate and habitual seeing.

All that that written, here’s the million dollar question; can this “tool”–feel / intuition–be learned or taught? My life experience, mine that of others with whom I am familiar, lrans me in the direction of “No.” It is something that one either has or does not have"; a “god*”-given gift, if you will, or so the adage goes.

In my case, it took me a long time–most of my life so far–to recognize that, while I have very good eyesight, i.e. being able to perceive depth and distance, aka: my vision, I also have, simultaneously, an ability to “see” shapes–if you will, sprinkled about the landscape–comprised of color, tone, lines, et al. An ability that exists without any, absolutely none, conscious awareness on my part. It just is what is. Asking me to explain it is like asking me to explain why I am 6’3”, 215 lbs. I can’t, other than to paraphrase Popeye, “I am what I am and that’s all that I am.”

This ability allows me to see, as Szarkowski put it, both the blue and the sky.

AN AMUSING ANECDOTE : re: composition. Adams wrote that a photographer “hesitates to explain it.” Szarkowski explains that hesitancy thusly:

When it was pointed out to Eggleston that “the design of most of [his] pictures seemed to radiate from central, circular core … [Eggleston] replied, after a barely perceptible hesitation, that this was true, since the pictures were based compositionally on the Confederate flag–not the asterisk, or the common daisy, or the Dove of the Holy Ghost, but the Confederate flag. The response was presumably improvised and unresponsive, of interest only as an illustration of the lengths to which artists sometimes go to frustrate rational analysis of their work, as though they fear it might prove an antidote to their magic,”

*as I learned in the Army, the “in the field expediency method”

**DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT get me started on the idea of a supreme being hanging around in the prenatal division of creation handing out special gifts to lucky individuals.

7000-05 / common places • common things ~ 2 fer 1

all photos ~ (embiggenable)_

I HAVE BEEN MAKING PHOTOGRAPHS WITH THE CHUZHAO camera on a regular enough basis that I have added a gallery on my HOME page for the pictures. For sure there are many more to come. Could I be tempted to stop making straight photographs? No. Never. That’s cuz …..

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

…. there is the gift that keeps on giving; everyday life and the kitchen sink.

Speaking of which, the wife and I are leaving early this Sunday AM for a 4 day / 3 night meander about the Adirondacks. The purpose of the drive about is for me to make some photographs for the Adirondack Survey / Guide project. Specifically, I will concentrating on the lower eastern quadrant of the Park. That’s an area of the Park that I do not regularly traverse so I do not have many photos thereof for the project.

This came to my attention––on hindsight––when I was assembling the latest version of my project book, due to the fact that I might have made a mistake; unlike the first proof book in which the left hand pages opposite the photo pages were left blank, in this second version I decided to name, in a subtle, small typeface, the location of each photo on the facing pages. In doing so, that drew my attention to the fact that I was lacking photos from the previously mentioned southeastern quadrant of the Park. Therein is the reason for my upcoming drive about. However ….

…. it has occurred to me that the inclusion of photo locations in the book may have been a mistake. Why so? That’s cuz, when viewers looked at the first proof edition of the book––the one without locations mentioned––no one seemed to care about the actual locations of the photos. To the contrary, the book left them with the overall impression of daily life in the Park. Which is not to write that they didn’t recognize some locations but it seemed to me that it was the totality of the body of work, not the location of individual photographs, that was what created the impression of everyday life.

That written, I would hope it would be understood by viewers of the book––or of an exhibition thereof––that my intent in the making of the work was/is to create an art project not a travel guide. An intent I hope I made clear––if viewers are paying attention––in my artist statement wherein I stated that the work was “created as an engagement of personal vision rather than as a topographic documentary”.

So, in any event and all of that written, I have been left with the question of whether or not to include the photo locations in the final version of the book.

# 6997-99 / around the house • kitchen sink • common things ~ for many there's never enough

All photos ~ (embiggenable)

SO THERE’S THIS GUY, WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS, ON THE interweb, I will call him “Mr. Unhappy”, who has returned from a long trip and has been waxing poetic, so to write, about his experiences with a particular camera; a camera brand that I have used––in one iteration or another––for the past 23 years. Long gear-head blather made short, he pretty much liked the camera and the files it produced although …. it come ups short in one gear-headed, pixel-peeper fetish aspect––it did not have “enough” resolution.

Please forgive me, but I have to call bullshit on this one. I have never, during my 23 years of picture making, had any kind of lack of resolution issue with said cameras / sensors. In fact, during that time, when processing my RAW files, I reduce the sharpness setting along with a reduction in both vibrance and saturation in order to mitigate the “digital look”––a look that has, to my eye and sensitivities, a rather harsh and somewhat garish appearance. Call it, if you must, an attempt to give my prints a more “film-like” look––that is, a softer / smoother, transition between colors and tones.

Simply stated, to my eye and sensibilities, and, iMo, a softer / smoother image is much more “poetic” than those more “analytical” hyper-sharp / super vibrant, color saturated images. Cuz, as Sleepy LaBeef sang, “It ain’t what ya eat, it’s the way how ya chew it.”

So, if asked by Mr. Unhappy, re: his complaint, I would again turn to a musician ….

Unhappy, unhappy, you have no complaint
It is what is and it ain't what it ain't
So listen up Buster, and listen up good
Stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood*

~ from the song Dear Abby by John Prine

ASIDE word of advice from me: Resolution does not a good picture make.

*a declaration concerning one's unfavorable situation

# 6992-96 / common places-things • sink ~ summertime and the livin' is easy

wratten filter holder ~ all photos (embiggenable)

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

IT WAS A QUIET 4th OF JULY CUZ THERE WERE NO LOCAL fireworks due to the fact that the individual who owned and ran the hereabouts mall town fireworks company past on into the grand fireworks show in the sky a few weeks ago. That written, the weather was perfect so we dined alfresco––steaks and potatoes on the grill with fresh local farm veggies salad and fresh local strawberries. Indeed, the livin’ is easy.

# 6980-91 / chuzhao snapshot • common places-things ~ somestime I just wanna have fun

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

BEEN MAKING A BUNCH OF CHUZHAO CAMERA pictures in a variety of situations over the past few days. “Why?” you might wonder. Answer": cuz I can––with a bit of idle curiosity, re: its capabilities / liabilities, thrown in.

VERDICT Assuming that the camera user has a modicum of post picture making software processing capabilities, the camera does reasonably handle a variety of casual user picture making situations. Without processing skills? Meh. That written, its primary flaw is situations with extreme dynamic range where shadow detail occupies a large part of the picture frame; in most cases the highlight area will be way over exposed––there is no in-camera fix cuz its all auto exposure all the time, no exposure control whatsoever.

ATTENTION: lest you think I am going all Mike / Kirk / et al mucking around in the miasma of the gearhead swamp, hang in there with me as I continue ….

…. re: “cuz I can” what I am suggesting here is that there is a pleasant vibe to be had from just fooling around, aka: having fun, with a quirky toy camera. A camera that has no logical rational for even existing. That written, I do wish that the camera was even more quirky; a good start would be a really crappy lens that exhibits all manner of flaws. Ya know, like an acute lack of sharpness, extreme vignetting, flare prone, and for good luck, maybe an off-kilter color cast. Now that would offer up a world of fun.

In any event, this camera just flat out ain’t nearly crappy enough and I have to admit that I am jonesin’ for a crappy camera. So, I am giving thought to pulling out one of my KODAK Wratten filters––made of dyed gelatin––attacking it with sandpaper, crumbling it up, and scotch taping it––although, I do have a clamp-on warren filter holder––to the camera lens.

STOP THE PRESS––just before hitting the SAVE AND PUBLISH button for this entry, I followed my own idea––placing a crumbled up sheet of acetate in my clamp-on warren filter holder and putting it on the camera––and made a couple test photos. The results are definitely moving in the crappy camera direction.

#6968-70 / common places-things • adk survey • sink ~ I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

DURING THE ARTIST AS ENTREPRENEUR EVENT, ONE OF THE points that was emphasized–in fact, emphatically stressed–was the importance of writing an artist bio and artist statement; a point with which I equally, emphatically and vocally disagreed.

The moderator stressed that it is vitally important in the writing of an artist statement to inform viewers / audience / gallery directors re: what it was/is that drives you to create the work that you are presenting and what is your intent in the making of that work. Throw in a bit about how the work was made and you are good to go. The rational behind that (iMo) absurd idea is that doing so will illuminate the person and the mindset of the work’s maker which will help a viewer reach a better understanding of the work.

My hand raised, verbal response to that idea was simply, “Who I am as a person and what drives me to make my art is no one’s business but mine.”

The rationale behind that statement is, again, quite simple; in the Formalist tradition, I believe that everything a viewer needs to know about a work of art is contained in the art itself. Consequently, I eschew tell-all artist statements, and, concomitantly, never title or caption any of my work. Simply written, my desire is that a viewer comes to my work and makes of it what they will based solely upon what they see and intuit–literally and metaphorically.

Case in point; at the aforementioned event one of my fellow participants, while viewing my Adirondack Survey book expressed, in great detail, what she was seeing and what she was experiencing / feeling as she viewed the work, some of which surprised the hell out of me. That written, she never uttered a word about the why, how or intent of the work’s making. Nor, I should mention, did she never asked me what color underwear I was wearing (metaphorically speaking).

All of that written, in today’s NY Times there is an article, 8 Proposal for a Better Art World, in which 9 artists were queried for thoughts on the matter. One artist / curator / critic, Michelle Grabner–a person after my own heart–opined:

“An art world where we’re not trading on individual biographies or identities. That would put more work on the viewer, who’d have to do some interpretation. A problem with the professionalized art world is that it’s become overly transactional. Removing the author, the artist, the biography from the conversation may take us a long way.”

Be still my heart. I am always delighted to discover that I am not a lone voice howling in the wilderness.