# 7050-61 / stone harbor • landscape • still life • common places-things ~ picture making wise, don't fence me in

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

BACK AND DECOMPRESSED FROM THE JERSEY SHORE where I accepted my self-imposed challenge of picturing the shore wetlands without succumbing to the “pretty picture” affliction. Point of fact, it wasn’t that much of a challenge once I assumed my New Topographics picture making persona.

I came away with 10-12 strong wetlands photographs–a mini body of work–but it was not the only body I created; in that regard, I offer for your consideration my Shore Still Life / Wastebasket work. Although, this work is actually a subset to my yet-to-be-organized wastebasket work–a body of work that has 25-30 photographs.

Next up, Jersey Shore photography wise, are a couple recent trip photographs that have the potential for development into bodies of work; life on the deck and despoiling Stone Harbor • the evolution of the Shore cottage. That written, neither concept undertaking is likely to happen for several reasons not the least of which is that this year may have been my last trip to the Shore–but I say that every year so who knows.

Re: life on the deck - the making of the photographs is a somewhat spontaneous activity. In the house in which we stay, my vantage point is at the kitchen table where I sit for my wake-up routine and where I work on my laptop throughout the day. So, I am somewhat “invisible” inasmuch as no one pays me much attention so life on the deck goes on without any real awareness of my picture making. At the other location I would stick out like a sore thumb inasmuch as everyone would know that my only reason for being there is to make pictures–in particular, at a very specific, narrowly defined location. That’s a spontaneity killer if ever there was one.

Re: despoiling Stone Harbor • the evolution of the Shore cottage - one of my primary dislikes about the Jersey Shore, Stone Harbor in particular, is that what was once a quirky, middle class, beach community with its own unique character (now gone with the wind) has been slowly overrun by the vulgarian, monied class. Ostentatious McMansions–most are 15-20,000 sq.ft. vacation homes–are everywhere and most are virtually hermetically sealed–that is to write, isolated from daily life on the street; although most have postage stamp sized front porches, over the past 20 years I have never, not once, seen a single person on those porches. All of that written, I can not envision any incentive for undertaking a project that illustrates this concept.

ASIDE FYI, needless to write, real estate values have moved into the stratosphere. The quaint bungalow cottage pictured above, were it to come up for sale, would be in the 1.5>2 million dollar range. END ASIDE

Re: Jersey Shore Wetlands - I really like the work. If there were a single reason to return to the Shore next year, spending the week pursuing this referent is it.

All of the above written, I accumulated 25 “keepers” during my Jersey Shore stay. They are good enough and varied enough to warranted a POD photo book. A book I am tempted to title as Jersey Shore Surfaces. And, in addition to a reasonably successful picture making trip, my other main accomplishment last week was the fact that I did not once set foot on the beach.

# 7039-41 /common places-things • still life • adk guide ~ nominal subject matter

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

‍ ‍all photos ~ (embiggenable)

During a multi-day conversation with Bruce MacDonald* at Meyerowitz’s rented beach-front cottage in Provincetown, MacDonald pressed Meyerowitz on many aspects re: the why and the how about the making of his Cape Light photographs. In that discourse, Meyerowitz said:

“John Szarkowski has used the phrase ‘nominal subject matter’. I think that’s perfect for my behavior here. I am not interested in gas stations or anything about gas stations. That’s not my subject! This happens to be an excuse for seeing. …. This gas station isn’t my subject. It’s an excuse for a place to make a photograph …. It gives me a theater to act in for a few moments, to have perceptions in. Why is it that the best poetry comes out of the most ordinary circumstances? …. You don’t have to have grand subject matter. I don’t need the Parthenon. This [gas station] is my Parthenon. It has scale, it has color; it has a presence; it is real: I am not trying to work with grandeur. I am trying to work with ordinariness. I’m trying to learn what spirits me away. Ordinary things.”

I read a tremendous amount of writing about photograph, especially essays in photography books––i..e. photographer monologues––which contain insightful observations from a critic / curator or the photographer him/her-self. I have found it rather surprising and somewhat reassuring that many times I have discovered that my picture M.O. has much in common with many well-known picture makers; the excerpt above is a prime example of that experience. Hell, even Meyerowitz, in that same conversation, admitted to the same experience ….

“But you always look to see if somebody else knew that too [re:…. nominal subjects that have feelings that are large and have a lasting quality to them] …. The thing I loved as I was growing up as a photographer was that I would make pictures out of my own instincts and print them, and then I would be looking through a book, say, of Cartier Bresson, and I would see some work I had never seen before, and there would be a picture made the same way. And I would think, ‘Ah, we responded to the same kind of thing.’”

Now lest you think that I am basking in the self-adulation reflected glory of “great minds think alike”––or in this case, see alike––what I am suggesting here is that it is my firmly held belief that most really good photographers do see and act in a markedly similar picture making manner; relying on instinct and intuition and understanding that anything/place is really an excuse to make a photograph––a photograph that is somehow about more than just the literal subject matter.

*dean of the Museum School and a good friend of Meyerowitz

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

all photos (embiggenable)

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

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

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

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

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

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

(all photos embiggenable) ~ adirondack scenic

landscape

around the house

kitchen sink

people / portrait

travel

picture windows

single women

still life

street photography (in situ)

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.