# 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.

# 6891-96 / common places•things ~ some thing small is beter than the same thing big

June 10, 2024

*proposed book spreads* ~ all photos (embiggenable)

DON’T HAVE TIME TODAY FOR A LENGTHY entry cuz I’m heading off to the University of Vermont Medical Center for a prostrate reduction procedure. However, I have been giving thought to an idea, re: the medium and its apparatus, which is along the lines of this dictionary definition of a word that denotes a specific form of communication:

work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm

Any want to venture a guess about which word?

# 6873-75 / picture windows • still life • fashion ~ it's a window, as I see it

February 5, 2024

IT IS MY FIRM AND CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, in the straight photography world, a picture can be viewed as “a window through which one may better know the world” (Szarkowski). Although, Winogrand might state that a picture can be viewed as a window through which one may better know “what something will look like photographed”. Szarkowski most likely would not have disagreed with Winogrand inasmuch as he also stated that … “the factuality of a picture, no matter how convincing and unarguable, is a different thing than the reality itself. Much of the reality is filtered out in the static…image, and some of it is exhibited with an unusual clarity, an exaggerated importance. The subject and the picture are not the same thing”.

All of that written, one could be led to the question of what exactly is a photograph? There are many possible answers to that question but most “serious” photographers-according to Szarkowski-tend to cluster around one of two possibilities; a photograph is either “a window through which to better know the world (an exploration)”, or, a photograph is “a mirror reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it (a self expression)”. However….

…iMo, the very best photographs are both a window and a mirror. That’s cuz a photograph that exhibits a high degree of convincing and unarguable factulality is able to help us better know the world when the captured image is the result of a picture maker’s unique manner of seeing, aka-his / her vision (literally and figuratively). That written, and to clarify my thoughts on the matter, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, The best photographs-as described above-are those that stand on their own two visual feet, AKA-their appeal to the visual senses.

Too many picture makers try way too hard to imbue their photographs with meaning. “Artistic” techniques / effects and accompanying artspeak are the primary evidence thereof. A picture never be just a picture. I.E. a thing that gives pleasure to the eye, what Sontag called the erotics of art.

In order to be “understood”, the purveyors of such pictures seem to insist that their pictures must be viewed as stand-ins for something else; a symbol, a metaphor, or a sign that reveals a hidden and invariably “deep” meaning. Ya know, like an apple for instance…is it a symbol for love, ecstasy, fertility and abundance, or, if your mind is of a certain bent, an apple core sliced in half represents the vulva. Take your pick. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that an art theorist / historian / MFA / critic and the like will have a zillion other possibilities.

In any event, all that decipher- the-meaning stuff requires thinking. And, just as the advice goes, re: don’t think when making a photograph, I apply the don’t-think idea when viewing photographs. That’s simply cuz I want to see and feel what a photograph has to offer, aka: what the photographer saw as he / she sees it. Inasmuch as photography is a visual medium, I want my eyes to do the investigating, not my intellect.

Call me simple-minded, but that’s how I see it.

# 6864-67 / common things • still life ~ good is as good does

January 22, 2024

WITH ALL OF THE ATTENTION GIVEN TO COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY, most notably on TOP, I must admit to being rather flummoxed, aka: confounded, or, simply confused, re: the idea of what is color photography and/or who is a color photographer?

It would be simplistic to write that / everyone who makes photographs with a device or materials capable of rendering reasonably accurate colors of the real world-as seen by a healthy human eye-is; a) making color photographs, and, by reasonable extension, 2) a “color” photographer. However, it would seem that in some quarters, just making color photographs is not enough to qualify one as a “color” photographer.

Apparently there is some other criteria that must be meet in order to be consider as a color photographer”. And, therein is where my confusion resides.

iMo, making color photographs makes one a color photographer. To my way of thinking, it is as simple as that. However…..

….I believe it to be indisputable that there are good color photographs and…gasp…not-so-good color photographs. iMo, the difference between the two is very easy to identify. A good color photograph is, quite simply, first and foremost, a good photograph.

My definition-influenced by my bias(es)-of a good photograph is summarized by this Cartier-Bresson quote:

“To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition in a fraction of a second the significance of an event, as well as the precise organization the forms that give that event its proper expression. And this organization, this precision, will always escape you, if you do not appreciate what a picture is, if you do not understand that the composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.”

I would substitute the phrase moment in time for the word event (a moment in time could include an “event”). However, that written, to my eye and sensibilities, the overall form seen in a photograph derives from the organization of the visual elements-line, shape, space, color and value-as framed and presented in the photograph. That organization is, in essence, balancing act. All of the visual elements must conspire to create a congruous whole-congruity determined by what the photographer wishes to express.

And, when it comes to color, I think it important to understand that the colors as presented in a photograph are just one visual element of any number of other visual elements that might be found in a good photograph. In my experience, I have found that color photographs that are saturated with color-or color(s) that has been over saturated-for color’s sake tend to slide over into the category of kitsch and dreck.

ASIDE Nevertheless, kitsch and dreck rarely fail to elicit fawning praise from the unwashed masses. cuz, ya know, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. END OF ASIDE

All of the above written, I would guess that therein could be found my definition of what constitutes a good color photograph and that a photographer who makes good color photographs is a good photographer. Although…

…I’ll stick with the idea that there is no such thing as a good color photographer, or for that matter, a good monochrome photographer. iMo, there are only good photographers as defined by their making of good photographs of any variety.

# 6859-63 / common places / things ~ a day in the life

January 20, 2024

woke up. looked out the front door. made a picture. ~ **All photos** (embiggenable)

drank coffee, had a donut. went upstairs to get dressed. made a picture.

after a doctor appointment went to grocery store. made a picture.

went back home. went upstairs to warm up the cocktail hour porch. made a picture.

late night just before retiring noted part of an 8 year old arrangement on the fireplace mantel. made a picture.

SO ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY HAS ME thinking, re: forget about defining what may or may not constitute a good color photograph and/or photographer. Instead, how about defining what constitutes a good photograph independent of categorization- i..e., bw / color, street / still life / landscape / et al.

CAVEAT there can never be a universal definition cuz, as Julian’s grandmother said, “For every pot there’s a lid.” Itaque, the definition found herein is decidedly influenced by my bias(es).

It would be easy, and a cop-out, to just quote Ansel Adams and be done with it:

“There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs.”

On one level that makes some sorta sense. Although, yes, he was most likely offering an opinion about rules, as in, you don’t need no stinkin’ rules to make a good photograph. However, the fact of the matter is that, if there are good photographs there must also be not-so-good (bad?) photographs-plenty of which were made by the rules. In any event….

My photographs-and those which give me viewing pleasure made by others-tend to be driven by an openness to every picture making possibility the world offers. An openness-sorta like making photographs “to find out what something will look like photographed” (Garry Winogrand)-which is akin to curiosity. That is, a curiosity which recognizes that any thing in life, if accurately and profoundly penetrated by “seeing…observation full and felt” (Walker Evans) is interesting and always strange.

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-most often present interweaving repetitive visual elements of line, shape and color. Nevertheless, the recognizable individuality of any motif is superseded by its role in the pictorial whole. It is the resultant pictorial effect, not the technique, that predominates. The whole is indeed is greater than the sum of its parts. And, I might add, the whole is most often greater than that which is literally depicted.

I am not interested in technique beyond having enough to get the job done. And, the last thing I would want to be evident in my photographs is how they were made. To wit, Robert Adams said it best:

“…if the goal of art is to be reached, only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.”

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-always dwell in the two dimensional world. That’s cuz there ain’t no 3D in the world of photography. It’s flat as pancake, paper (substrate) thin and best viewed-and pictured-in that perspective. Apologies to stereoscopic practitioners.

All of the above written, I suppose I could have just written that my photography pursuits have the goal of suggesting that the commonplace is a never-ending, ever-changing world of visual patterns / forms which present the opportunity for the making of interesting, strange, and therefore, to eye my and sensibilities, beautiful pictures. I also like pictures made by other like minded picture makers. Although, I am always open to surprises.

# 6835-45 / all things considered ~ life squared-a year in the making

January 3, 2024

(all photos embiggenable) ~ ***adirondack scenic***

***quite possibly my favorite picture from 2023***

AT THE END OF THE OLD / START OF THE NEW year, it customary in some quarters to do a year-in-review thing. In many cases it is a a “best-of” kinda thing. In any event, here is my take on it…

Inasmuch as, in an overall scheme of picture making things, I toil in the discursive promiscuity garden of picture making, I nevertheless feel compelled, by the medium’s custom of organizing itself into recognizable, theme-based bodies of work, to relegate my pictures to separate / definable bodies of work - 10 bodies of work as presented above.

That written, re: the pictures in this entry, while they are presented as the “best-of” each category, they are not necessarily my favorite pictures of 2023. If I were to discard the limits imposed by adhering to separate theme classification, it is possible that some of these pictures would not make the cut. Case in point, the adirondack scenic picture would be nowhere to been seen.

That’s cuz, to be honest, that genre-“beautiful” scenery pictures-is not something that I pursue with any passion. The simple fact of the matter, picture making passion wise, is that the only dictate that drives my shutter activation finger is the making of pictures of selected segments of quotidian life which prick my eye and sensibilities.

# 6443-50 / bodies of work ~ stumbling down a dead end street #2

February 3, 2023

***Life without the APA*** ~ (embiggenable)

***Adirondack Snapshot Project*** ~ (embiggenable)

ACCORDING TO THE IDIOT QUOTED IN MY LAST entry, I have apparently been “repeating the same basic work, for decades and decades, unaware that I have been stumbling down a dead end street”. That would be because I have been making pictures driven by my very own picture making vision. A vision that does not allow me to go careening around the technique / visual effects / gear-obsessed picture making landscape like a drunken sailor. To wit, I see what I see and that’s how that I see (all credit to Popeye who said, “ I am what I am and that’s all that I am.)

That written, re: careening around like a drunken sailor, I will readily admit to careening around the referent landscape like a drunken picture maker. A picture making condition condition (affliction?) that I call discursive promiscuity. To my eye and sensibilities, any thing and every thing is fair game for a picture making possibility. The result of that discursive promiscuity is that I have accumulated, over the past 25 years, at least 15,000 pictures.

One might think that that glut of pictures would make for a very unruly mess. However, that is not the case cuz, thanks to the guidance of my vision, the overwhelming majority of my pictures exhibit a consistent,-but not formulaic-very particular attention to form, aka: the “arrangement” of the visual elements-line, shape, tone, color and space-within the imposed frame of my pictures.

This “consistency” leads to a very interesting result; while I rarely work with the thought of creating a body of work in mind, nevertheless, I have, over an extended period of time, realized that my eye and sensibilities have been, and still are, drawn to specific referents again and again. The result is that eventually-many times over the course of years-I “discover” that I have, in fact-albeit inadvertently, created many bodies of work.

ASIDE the body of works illustrated above, with a few images each, are some of the bodies of work I have created, most of which were “discovered” in my library (as opposed to deliberately created). The are at least 6 more bodies of work I could display. END OF ASIDE

And, what I find interesting and very surprising is that, once a number of referent related pictures are organized into a body of work, the coherent consistency of vision is, quite frankly, amazing.

Makes me quite happy that I have not tried to “re-invent” my vision. And BTW, I really like the “street” I am on. It is not a “dead end” and, in fact, there is no end in sight as far as I can see.

# 6438-42 / decay • common places • people ~ stumbling down a dead end street

January 31, 2023

“Established artists sometimes find a "comfortable" style that brings them success in the moment .… And they find themselves repeating the same basic work for decades and decades …. They seem unaware that they are stumbling down a dead end street …. Their real impetus going forward should be re-invention and an embrace of their vision of now …. A new format. A new color palette. An unusual angle. But the core of the original vision stays the same …. But art doesn't really work that way for the vast majority of artists.” ~ by an unnamed idiot

AS MENTIONED IN A RECENT ENTRY I WROTE that the plethora of bad advice from “experts”, re: picture making, is akin to all the hay you encounter when looking for a pin in a hay stack. The pin in this case being good advice.

The perpetrator of today’s bad advice example is advancing the idea that an artist’s vision can be sloughed off like yesterday’s clothing and a new suit of clothes-”re-invented” by the dictates of what’s happening now-can be manufactured whole cloth. This notion is so far off the mark, re; vision (which by, BTW, is not a “comfortable” style) that it’s difficult to know where to start. However ….

…. let’s just start with a re-fresher course, re: an artist’s vision. An artist’s vision is the bedrock on which all of his/her art is created. It is deeply personal. ASIDE It can not be “invented” therefore it can not be “re-invented” END ASIDE Rather, it reflects who a person is, what he/she believes, and how he/she sees-literally and figuratively-the world. iMo, it is often innate, waiting to be discovered and, ultimately understood. And, wait for it (this will piss off a lot of people)…it cannot be taught.

“Can photography be taught? If this means the history and techniques of the medium, I think it can…if, however, teaching photography means bringing students to find their own individual vision, I think it is impossible … As for studio courses in ‘seeing’ … I was never tempted to take one … Arrogantly, I believed right from the start that I could see." ~ Robert Adams

Nevertheless, it can be learned. That is, learned from a fair amount of picture making experience. Picture making which centers around just picturing what you see, not what you have been told is a good picture, and beginning to recognize how you see. And, once learned it is my belief that it can not be un-learned anymore than you un-learn how to breathe.

Of course, once one’s vision is identified, one will apparently-according to our idiot expert-be doomed to unknowingly stumbling down a dead end street for decades and decades, all the while repeating the same “basic” work. What shame.

And, here’s a clue for our clueless expert … discovering, understanding, and refining one’s vision and being grounded by it for the duration of one’s art making life is, quite actually, the way art works for a vast majority of artists.

PS bringing one’s bedrock vision to bear on a wide variety of referents is quite different than bringing “A new format. A new color palette. An unusual angle.”, aka: a “comfortable” new style to bear on one’s picture making.