# 6700-03 / common places-things • picture windows • single women ~ OT New Jersey and some whiskey

December 31, 2024

SPENT THE WEEKEND IN NJ FOR THE WIFE’S family holiday get together. Snuck (aka: sneaked) out with a few family members to see-2nd time for me-A COMPLETE UNKOWN. Both the drive down and back were a Dylan music fest in a car, our car. At times it felt like we were on Highway 61.

Speaking of which, Highway 61 wise, for the Holidays Dylan gifted me a copy of his hand annotated lyrics to Subterranean Homesick Blues. It was wrapped around a bottle of his Heaven Door Homesick Blues Minnesota Wheated Bourbon Whiskey. How nice of him.

FYI, here’s a review typical of his whiskeys:

Okay, so there's something just a teensy bit creepy about naming a booze brand after a Bob Dylan song with a title that's a euphemism for dying (via YouTube). Dylan does own the distillery, though, and presumably drinks the whiskey as well, and he's still knock-knock-knockin' right along in his 80th year. By all accounts, the man is quite the whiskey aficionado, so he's not going to attach his name to any old plonk. While not all celebrity-branded booze lives up to the hype, Heaven's Door Master Blender's Edition seems to be well worth the price. You can still pick up a bottle for around $100, which is not bad at all considering its striking Dylan-designed artwork.

BTW, not all of his whiskeys are $100 but, that written, I do have one (2020 edition) that was $650 off the shelf, now selling for $1,000-2,000+ a bottle. That’s why I have 2 bottles-one to drink, one (it was a gift) to hang on to for later sale as the supply dries up. The 2019 edition is currently selling in the $3,000+ range - iMo, this is a rather bizarre / ridiculous absurdity not unlike, say, buying a “bargain” priced, used Leica M4 for $7,557.29.

For the record, I do not buy whiskey as an investment. I buy it to drink it cuz, ya know, I enjoy it.

FYI, the design on the bottle is of one of his much sought after iron gates; gates he makes in his iron working studio that are put together with scrap metal he gathers while on tour.

# 6594-99 / common places-things • kitchen sink • landscape ~ over the river (lake) and thru the woods

December 24, 2024

***Vermont as seen across Lake Champlain*** (6th largest lake in North America-120 miles long and 13-miles at its widest point)

CROSSED LAKE CHAMPLAIN INTO VERMONT AND went to Middlebury, a quaint college town, to do some Yuletide season shopping. The main street is lined with a number of small, eclectic gift laden shops. 5 miles out of town we drove into a snow storm which created a stereotypical winter wonderland vibe. Throw in a roaring waterfall along side of the main street and a late pub lunch and it was a grand day out; although, no visions of sugar plums dancing in my head were to be had.

In any event, Merry Holidays to all and to all…goodnight (and no, rest assured that I am not saying goodbye, blog wise.)

# 6514-19 / common places • common things ~ free your mind instead

October 21, 2024

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” ~ Paul Simon from the song Kodachrome

THIS SONG LYRIC HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH me when I think about the idea of going to school-college / university level-for the purpose of learning about how to make good pictures. An idea that, iMo. I believe to be the complete antithesis of how to achieve the goal of making good pictures. That’s cuz, hold onto your hats, I am certain, beyond any doubt, that, in fact, making good pictures cannot be taught. FULL STOP.

For me, this is not a recent conclusion; back in the early-ish day of my commercial photography career, a professor-the same one who brought John Pfahl to my studio for a visit- from RIT’s School of American Crafts / College of Art & Design would bring students from RIT’s School of Photographic Arts and Sciences to my studio on day trips. During those visits I considered it my civic duty to inform those students that, within 5 years of graduation, only 7% of grads would be making a living making photographs. And, to understand that, after learning how to operate a camera, their way around a darkroom (no computers in the photo world at that time), and how not to kill themselves setting up high-powered strobe banks, they would be better served, financially and aesthetically, to get out of school, get a job in some facet of the photography industry, buy ton of film, make a zillion pictures, and, consequently, learn how they see the world.

I am certain that those students were very impressed with my work and studio: nationally-known client work on the walls and in my portfolio. I am also certain that they most likely were more than a little perplexed by the fact, which I drove home quite emphatically, that I had not spent a day, not an hour, not a minute learning anything about photography in a school, workshop, or any other learning institution. Don’t know if anyone ever heeded my advice. But, the simple fact was/is that I figured it all out on my own initiative.

FYI, the only thing I learned from someone else was how to spool 35mm film onto a processing reel; that took all of 5 minutes although it did require quite a bit of practice to consistently get it right.

That written, I did read nearly anything I could get my hands on, photography wise. Primarily, that included popular photo magazines which, sooner than later, I moved away from to read mags that featured photographs, not gear. One notable exception to the magazine focus was a subscription to the Time Life Library of Photography. I ended the subscription after receiving 4 books: The Camera, The Print, Light and Film, and Color. The books were hardbound, beautifully printed, and fairly informative, and, mercifully free from any advice from “experts”.

All of that written, Paul Simon sings that his lack of education didn’t hurt him none. I would suggest that a lack of education ain’t hurt a lot of folks none (to include myself). Like, say, as a notable example, Frank Lloyd Wright: with just a little bit of civil engineering education-no degree-under his belt, he went on to be declared by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time". In 2000, one of his projects, Fallingwater (I’ve visited many times), was named "The Building of the 20th century" in a "Top-Ten" poll taken by members attending the AIA annual convention in Philadelphia.

In any event, I ain’t agin readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, per se, as long as that educatin’ teaches one how to think. Ya know, so’s yinz can read the writtin’ on the wall.

# 6504-08 / common places • common things ~ in the eye of the beholder

October 6, 2024

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED A VERMONT based gallery-PhotoPlace [GALLERY] (link)-that conducts, per their website, “monthly, juried photographic exhibitions to photographers worldwide, each with a new topic and internationally recognized juror”. Their current juried exhibition’s theme is The Poetry of the Ordinary; a theme that is right up my alley.

Over the years I have submitted photos for many of their monthly exhibitions and am pleased to report that on 12-15 occasions (I have not kept count) my work has been accepted for the gallery exhibitions. Considering that there are usually 3-4K worldwide submissions per exhibtion, that is a reasonable accomplishment. In any event, I will be submitting work for the current call for entries which states:

As photographers, we have developed skill in seeing beneath the surface of our subjects, and often find in them the beauty, poignancy, and poetry that exist in ordinary moments. For this exhibition, we seek the simple poetic elegance of the ordinary.

As I wrote, that statement seems to be right up my alley. However….depending upon the juror, he/she might have a very different understanding on the word “ordinary”. For instance, in the 3 example photos on call for entries page, is the spreader in the mist/fog ordinary, or, is the runner with the broom in the smoke(?) ordinary? ….

…..to my and sensibilities, I think not. Inasmuch as the runner himself and the spreader itself are rather ordinary, the circumstances in which they are pictured is seems to be very much out of the ordinary. Of course, what I think doesn’t matter but someone-the juror? the gallery director?-thinks otherwise. And that situation- a differing definitions of what constitutes the ordinary-makes me think my pictures of the ordinary might not be what fits the bill.

Then there is, for me, the idea of “seeing beneath the surface”-an adage / concept that has been bandied about the medium seemingly forever. And, it is a concept about which I am very uncertain, re: what the hell does that mean? I am fairly certain it does not mean that one should elevate / pick up one’s subject to see what’s underneath it. Nor do I believe that it implies that one is making pictures with an x-ray device.

Wise comments aside, the phrase when used as a proposition means: aspects of it-one’s nominal photographic subject-which are hidden or not obvious. That is a meaning which I can embrace-with caveats-cuz in my photographs I try to capture and express something about what I picture that is not obvious to the casual observer-the “hidden”, aka: unseen in situ, but can be made “obvious” in a photograph, aka: form.

The primary caveat I have about making a photograph that is about something hidden or not obvious is that, in my case, I am not photographing something, the referent, which I or most anyone would consider to be, in and of itself, beautiful, poignant, or poetic. Rather, my intent to is to make a object, i.e. a photograph, that, in and of itself, may be considered to beautiful, poignant, or poetic.

Consider the referent in the photos in this entry. No one I can think of believes that, as an example, my kitchen trash can, stove, and floor are beautiful, poignant, or poetic in and of themselves. However, I do believe-please forgive my self-aggrandizing opinion of my work-that the photograph thereof and the form it presents is a beautiful photograph, in and of itself. Or, at the very least, visually interesting. Of course, I am also comfortable with the fact that other viewers may not agree.

All of that written, I can only hope that the juror of the exhibition will agree that one of pictures fits the bill.

# 6441-44 / kitchen sink •rist camp • common places ~ behind and beyond

August 26, 2024

TOOK A 50 MILE DRIVE FOR DINNER WITH SOME NEAR-to-Rist-Camp friends. Dinner was at a husband and wife owner-built home in trendy Bolton Landing on Lake George. A good time was had by all.

Lake George, a summer tourist hot spot, is the place where Alfred Stieglitz and his paramour Georgia O’Keeffe spent summers on Stieglitz’s father’s large estate-staying not in the lakeside villa but rather in a modest farmhouse on the estate. It is where Stieglitz made his famous Equivalents photographs. In case you are not familiar with the photographs, they are photographs of the sky / clouds,

In the making of his Equivalents photographs Stieglitz maintained that these works were a culmination of everything he had learned about photography; he “wanted to put down my philosophy of life—to show that my photographs were not due to subject matter—not to special trees, or faces, or interiors, to special privleges—clouds were there for everyone.”

As photography historian Sarah Greenough wrote:

“The Equivalents are photographs of shapes that have ceded their identity, in which Stieglitz obliterated all references to reality normally found in a photograph”…by doing so ”Stieglitz was destabilizing your [the viewer’s] relationship with nature in order for you to think about nature, not to deny that it’s a photograph of a cloud, but to think more about the >feeling< that the cloud formation evokes.”

Additionally, art critic Andy Grundberg wrote:

“Equivalents remain photography’s most radical demonstration of faith in the existence of a reality behind and beyond that offered by the world of appearances. They are intended to function evocatively, like music...[E]motion resides solely in form, they assert, not in the specifics of time and place.”

Now, to be truthful, I present this entry not only as a history lesson, re: the medium and its apparatus, but also to reiterate my picture making M.O.—that is, my photographs are meant to suggest something behind and beyond the visual appearance of the quotidian world-not only the surprising visual form that can be extracted from the ordinary but also a hint of my philosophy of life.

That written, have no doubt about it, the making of my photographs is not concept (aka: content) driven. It is driven my my desire to create interesting visual form as manifested in, ya, know, a picture.

However…on the other hand, some might consider form as a rather ethereal / intangible apparition rarely perceived or experienced whole cloth in situ. And, iMo, it is only on the surface of the photographic print that form becomes something “real”. But, even then, for many the perception of it is most often a rather elusive idea, aka: concept.

So, inasmuch as the point of my photographs is not about the their literal referents but, rather about something behind and beyond that offered by quotidian world appearances, I especially like and appreciate this exchange by Stieglitz and a viewer of one of his Equivalents photographs…

Viewer: Is this a photograph of water? Stieglitz: What difference does it make of what it is a photograph? Viewer: But is it a photograph of water? Stieglitz: I tell you it does not matter. Viewer: Well, then, is it a picture of the sky? Stieglitz: It happens to be a photograph of the sky. But I cannot understand why that is of any importance.

# 6459-62 / people • foilage • sink • picture window ~ philistinish pleasures

August 8, 2024

645 medium format camera / transparency film ~ ***all photos*** ~ (embiggenable)

IN A RECENT T.O.P. ENTRY MIKE JOHNSTON prattles on (and on and on and on), re: that whatever a picture maker’s intent, meaning-wise, a viewer will make of it whatever they want, influenced by what mental / emotional makeup he/she brings to the viewing. A postulation which is totally dependent upon the idea that a photograph is capable of possessing / communicating a meaning. An idea that I-and many others-reject.

Unfortunately, iMo, the art world has, over time, reached a point wherein content-what a piece of art “says”-is valued over form-what a piece of art looks like. Me?… I subscribe to K. B. Dixon’s idea that:

“The contemporary fine-art establishment is a coalition of vested interests. They are not doing the medium any favors by relegating the idea of “visual interest” to the scrap-heap of philistinish pleasures. In a photograph, as in a painting, the photographer wants to see something he wants to look at. He does not want some ancillary item—some half-baked idea of intellectual profundity.”

Call me a philistine but I much prefer visual interest in a photograph-or any art form-over “intellectual profundity”. Or, to put in another way, I believe a photograph is meant to be seen, not “read”. I want a photograph to hit me in the eye like big pizza pie cuz that’s amore. If you wanna read, get a book.

I believe Susan Sontag got it right when she wrote:

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy… the very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness.” ~ Susan Sontag

I also think she got right again when she wrote:

“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art. ”

That’s cuz I believe that, if you want to suck the life out of a photograph-or any piece of art-try turning it into words instead of letting it seduce and captivate your visual senses.

FYI the pictures in this entry are meant to represent the fact that there is no “magic” format for creating interesting form. No cropping was employed in processing / editing these photos - full frame only.

# 6452-54 / kitchen life-sink • around the house ~ some facts of life

July 30, 2024

part of ***death in the ER*** sequence from ***Day In The Life of An Urban Hospital*** book

The photographer’s bias is for straight photography. For a photograph to be called a “photograph” it should first and foremost be a fact. Insofar as it is not, it is something else. ~ K.B.Dixon

Some facts are crueler than others.

# 6447-48 / kitchen sink • diptych ~ allusive, formal, and breathtakingly efficient

July 22, 2024

“These collections of the photographer’s are pictorial notebooks—efforts to capture an evanescent emotional reaction to a visual stimulus. He is not really trying to say this or that has existed, but that this or that has existed for him in a particular way.” ~ K.B.Dixon

iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, the very best of photographs are those made by a photographer who see the world in their own innate / particular way; an M.O. that is most often labeled as their vision. And, the success of those photographs is most often conditioned upon, not what they photograph, but the resultant photographs which exhibit an exquisite sense of form.

Some might opine that creating form is just another picture making cliché; a tried and true formula for making pictures. To which I would write that, if it is true that everything that can be photographed has been photographed, I believe that it is true that no matter what one photographs there are endless possibilities for the creation of new form.

And, photographs that exhibit an allusive, formal, and breathtakingly efficient sense of form are those that separate the really good photographer from the merely talented picture makers.