# 6457-62 / rist camp • common places-things ~ simple is as simple does

September 7, 2024

ON MY AM CRUISE OF THE WEB, PHOTO SITES WISE, I came across a site with an entry that, on my first glance, caused me to think, this guy is yet another how-to-make-better-photographs guru doling out exceptionally idiotic advice. But, then I took breath, dialed down my over-reactive boiling point and decided it would be best to address his advice from a more even tempered point of view….

…. the advice which got my knickers in a twist was that picture makers should show less in order to show more. Essentially a take on the well worn adage of “simplify”. Ya know, cuz, in his words, “the more you put in the frame (or fail to exclude), the less impact any one element has, and soon it’s a photograph that isn’t really about anything specific…. because busy photographs are exhausting to read…. because what we do not exclude dilutes the power of what we include…. I need you to simplify.”

So, to be unremittingly uncharitable, it sounds to me that this guy is a rather simple-minded twit. Ya know, maybe he can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. But wait, here’s where I get a bit charitable….

…. it is quite obvious that, upon viewing his photographs in the entry, he is, like the preponderance of most “serious” amateur picture makers, literal referent oriented / biased. That is to write that people-places-things is their raison d'etre for making a photograph. Consequently (and to be kinda kind), I guess his advice is on-the-money for the room.

That written, this advice reminds me of an idea I have mentioned before; there are 2 kinds of art, Fine Art and Decorative Art. And, according to the authors of Einsein’s Space and Van Gogh’s Sky (from where this idea originates) Fine Art turns on the brain whereas Decorative Art turns off the brain. Or, to put it another way, Fine Art is meant invigorate / challenge the senses, whereas Decorative Art is meant to relax / sooth the senses. Or, yet another way to explain it, Fine Art can instigate a multi-dimentional experience where as Decorative Art promotes a singular experience, aka: a simple experience.

Therefore, iMo, whether he realizes it or not, this “guru” is advocating for his followers to make pictures which are decorative rather than fine. So, as I often say, whatever floats your boat.

# 6427-31 / nocturnal • common places ~ the night is filled with shadows

January 27, 2023

***fiddling*** ***while house burns*** ~ fireman taking a picture (embiggenable)

SPOILER ALERT: well, not really. However, this entry will divulge a key part of my intro for the Philosophy of Modern Pictures book/project. To wit….after a lot of thought and research, I have come to the conclusion that the more things change, the more they remain the same, or, as David Byrne sang, same as it ever was.

Ever since the introduction of the digital picture making age, there has been considerable caterwauling and lamentation-don’t get me started with the monochrome crowd who can tell you the day the music BW died-re: the landmark, tradition changing, revolution about how picture making has change. To which I call, BS.

A far as I can see, sure, sure, light sensitive picture making substrates has changed from film to digital, print making has changed from the wet darkroom to the desktop / software ”darkroom”, and making good pictures, technically wise, has gotten easier BUT, paraphrasing Robert Adams…"

“…the only thing that is new in art [insert “photography’ here] is the example: the message [insert “photographs” here] is are, broadly speaking, the same-coherence, form, meaning.”

In other words, the medium and its apparatus are still inexorably / intrinsically a cohort of the real. That is, we all continue to make pictures of real-world referents-you know, people, places, things. Sure, sure, the tools have changed, but the “message” remains the same.

Of course, one could argue, what about all that special effects / filters / digital constructions stuff? Answer: one of the earliest “movements” in photography was Pictorialism and continued through the ages with Jerry Uelsmann as one of many prime examples. However, virtually all of their works, aka: acts-of-the-imagination pictures, start with pictures of referents snatched from the real world.

iMo, and that of many others, those making acts-of-the-imagination pictures are not photographers. In point of fact, they are artists-often referred to as photo artists-who employ the tools of the medium and it apparatus to create images, not photographs. And, there ain’t nothin’ new ’bout that activity.

So, from my point of view (literally-how I see the world-figuratively-my picture making vision), everything is the same as it ever was.

#6207-09 / commonplaces • nocturnal ~ night prowler

August 18, 2022

THERE ARE MORE EXAMPLES OF CLICHED / BAD ADVICE FOR the making of pictures than one can shake a stick at. iMo, the leading candidate for bad advice, re: the making of pictures which might be considered as Art, is the oft heard / read idea that one should make pictures of some thing about which one cares or is interested in. A bit of advice which, on its face, makes a certain amount of sense. That is, except for the fact that the idea of ”thing” is almost always understood literally, aka: as an actual person, place, or thing.

Consequently, the bulk of “serious” amateurs head out and make pictures that I would label as quite literal. Straight forward, descriptive pictures which are focused on actual people, places, or things. The result of which is a zillion or more very nicely composed, technically competent, markedly look-alike Decorative Art pictures.

And, the inevitable result of that glut of samo-samo pictures is the oft heard complaint, “every thing that can be pictured has already been pictured”. That angst leads to the pursuit of making pictures of the same old subjects / things but with special “effects”. All in an effort to make pictures that are “different” or more “artistic”. Which, iMo, is taking a bad idea and making it even worse.

In any event, my idea-in the cause of contravening the preceding bad advice-is to interpret the notion of “thing” as a mental concept or abstract idea as opposed to an actual physical thing, aka: person, place, or thing. As an example…

…the pictures in this entry. The literal-ists in the crowd might perceive that I made pictures of a white house, a shed, and a side door when, in fact, while those “things” are depicted in these pictures, the “thing” I was picturing was the concept of “night”.

While the concept of night is not overtly intellectually complex, it is, for some (including myself), emotionally compelling / complex. Although some might consider this concept to be somewhat simple-minded, my point is that a concept does not have to be mind-bending or a trip down the rabbit hole.

The important thing is to get away from the mindset that making pictures is all about the literally depicted referent cuz it is at that point that a picture can truly be about more than what meets the eye.

# 5828-30 / landscape (ku + civilized ku) • nocturnal ~ drawing with light

November 11, 2021

RE: SQUARESPACE SCREWED UP MY BLOG - late yesterday afternoon, all of the issues with my blog suddenly (and unbidden) self-corrected. That is, in exactly the same manner-seemingly out of the blue-in which the issues suddenly appeared a couple weeks ago. In any event, only time will tell if the issues are gone for good. Moving on …

OVER ON TOP IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT “I would never have transferred the word ‘photography’ to digital imaging. They [film and/or digital picture making] are enough different that they each deserve their own name.”

iMo, that idea don’t mean diddly squat to me inasmuch as, over the years on this blog, I have used the phrase picture making to describe what I do with a picture making device (of any kind). If one prefers, one might label the use of that nomenclature an affectation of sorts, but I use it cuz it describes the idea that I make pictures. Although, if one prefers, what I make-by means of the medium of photography and its apparatus-could be labeled also as photographs.

FYI, Meriam-Webster defines photography as the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor).

However, my point is rather simple…that is, who f**king cares what you call it? I mean, are we not all just drawing with light?

# 5744-50 / nocturnal • landscape • people ~ round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows

September 8, 2021

BEEN OUT AND ABOUT DOING A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES. Hikes, night walks, evening dining cruise, tourist cabin searches, to name a few. Also revisited my favorite Adirondack glacial erratic-16 ft tall and fractured. And, I am making a surprising number of pictures.

All of that written, as I sit here making this blog entry, I continue to be rather flummoxed, re: trying to imagine a continuing direction / purpose for this blog.

The fact of the matter is, to be quite honest, I wonder about the viability of the entire photo blog milieu. It seems to me that the only photo blogs with "legs" are those which fester on gear or those that offer up a healthy dose of the cult of personality...2 topics which hold very little interest for me and certainly topics I do not wish to pursue on this blog.

One site that has been holding my interest is Cluadio Turri ~ immagini da un diario. It continues to hold my interest cuz: 1. I like the pictures, and, 2. it is all about pictures (no words). And, as I have repeatedly mentioned, for me, the medium and its apparatus is all about the pictures.

All of that written, I do enjoy reading (and writing) about the medium of photography and its apparatus (aka: apparatus = conventions and practices).

# 5739-43 / civilized ku•nocturnal•a kitchen sink•made from a chair ~ into every life a little rain must fall

September 2, 2021

rist camp sink ~ (embiggenable) •iPhone — ***rist camp sink*** ~ (embiggenable) •iPhone

approaching rain ~ made while seated - (embiggenable) •iPhone — ***approaching rain*** ~ made while seated - (embiggenable) •iPhone

DON'T KNOW WHY IT COMES AS SUCH A SURPRISE that here in the Adirondacks in the month of September-where did the summer go?-the daytime temperature only climbs to about 70˚F from a nightime low of 40-50˚F. With a similar 7 day forecast, it appears that autumn color might be arriving on the scene sooner than "normal".

In any event, I continue on my quest to produce nocturnal pictures with the iPhone that, out of the camera, do not look at all like the actual nocturnal scene. On that quest, a few nights ago, I drove the 20 miles to the nearby tiny hamlet of Long Lake. The night sky was overcast with nary a hint of stars to be seen. For my photographic intent that was fine and there were enough man-made scenes to allow me to explore my nocturnal picture making explorations.

That written, I came away with a few pictures which, with subsequent processing, produced the nocturnal look and feel I was after. In a nut shell, that look and feel can best be described as a solitary / isolated illuminated area surrounded by a dark, murky-with subtle detail-area. All in an attempt to capture that mysterious, ill-at-ease, fear of the dark (more or less) that seems to be nearly universal to the human senses.

5797-98 / civilized ku•people•nocturnal ~ California # 2

May 30, 2021

UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES I GET A GREAT DEAL OF PLEASURE FROM DRIVING. However, then there is California.

Driving in California is more akin to an ol'-timey, wild west cattle stampede. And, day or night, it never ends. If I were to live in California, I would need to have a very fast automobile and a chauffeur. Preferably a retired, championship caliber Formula One driver.

# 5778-86 / nocturnal•noir ~ other worldly?

May 21, 2021

WHILE I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY CONCENTRATED UPON the making of pictures of the dark side of life-that is, the low-light side, not the negative, troubled, or antagonistic part of life-I find that, nevertheless, I have a collection of approximately 100+ dark side / low light pictures (thank you, discursive promiscuity).

In any event, I must admit that I am drawn to nocturnal/noir-type pictures in a manner that I do not fully understand. Although, it would not be a stretch to associate my fascination/attraction to/with nocturnal/noir pictures with the "normal" human condition-not a phobia (nyctophobia)-of fear of the dark. An emotional state which conjures up ghosts, monsters, strange noises, apprehension of the unknown, or, even a feeling of detachment from self or feeling "unreal". Or, simply written, other worldly. I would even go so far as to write that, when viewing my dark side pictures (and those made by others), those feelings are amplified relative to what I experience in situ.

That written, to my eye and sensibilities, my nocturnal/noir pictures are quite different fom my "normal" work inasmuch as my "normal" pictures tend to be, on their surface, a rather "cool"(non-emotional), detail-oriented observation of real world referents. Whereas my nocturnal/noir pictures are slim on detailed referents and heavily oriented toward an appeal toward the emotional side of the street. That being the case, what both picture making M.O.s have in common is, iMo, that both approaches to picture making tend to instigate the same reaction, re: what is going on here? / what is this picture "about"?

Dispite instigating a similar question, each body of work tends to direct a viewer's answer to that question in a different direction. My "normal" work is biased toward the recognition and application of the principles of art and the nature of beauty, i.e. a somewhat reasoned appeal to the intellect (albeit not without an emotional aspect). My nocturnal/noir work is biased toward an immediate assualt upon the emotional senses (albeit not without the recognition and application of the principles of art).

Case in point:

Judge for yourself. What is going on in these pictures?

PS I am not afraid of the dark.