all photos ~ (embiggenable)
ON MY LAST ENTRY, Marco Venturini Autieri wrote, re: my hometown porches photos:
“They are soooo different from what I would see around me (Tuscany). Another world.”
So Marco, right back atcha; last time I was in Tuscany, the front entrances to homes were soooo different from what I see around me (Au Sable Forks). Another world (and I really liked it).
(embiggenable)
THERE ARE THOSE WHO VIEW MY PHOTOGRAPHS and come to the conclusion that I make pictures of people, places, or things. That’s somewhat understandable inasmuch as there are, in fact, people, places, or things in my photographs. That’s cuz, with the medium’s intrinsic relationship with the real world, it is very difficult to make a picture that does not include people, places, or things, or, evidence thereof.
That written, I rarely make a photograph whereby the making of which was incited by the depicted, literal referent. In fact, in most of my photographs, many viewers are confused, re: what exactly is it that I was making a picture of? That being the case, it is ever my hope that such viewers might experience a momentary revelation which enables them to see what I was actually making a picture of…
…to wit, a literal / actual depiction of how I see the world. And, to be precise, I see segments of the real world in random convergences of line, shape, space, color, and value. Elements that, when isolated from a particular POV and within a photographic frame create form. Form which can be pleasing / disturbing / agitating / confusing (take your pick) but, to my eye and sensibilities, always visually interesting. An interest which derives, not from what is literally depicted but, rather, from how it is depicted. Although, the depicted referent and the depicted form are inexorably joined.
So, all of that written, you might ask what does this have to do with size matters….?
… the size that matters is photographic print size. That is, if a picture maker’s intent is to depict form, a print must be able to be viewed in its entirety all at once. That’s cuz, the form to be seen in a photographic print can not be broken up into individual parts. And that’s cuz, whatever the “parts” of a photograph might be, they must work together as as an integrated whole otherwise the form falls apart.
That being the case, I would suggest that, while there is no one-size-fits-all print size for the viewing of form, there is a you’re-standing-too-close print viewing distance-dependent upon the size of the print-if a viewer wishes to discern the form to be seen in a print. That written, the “right” print size for the viewing of form must be determined by the viewing distance restraints of the viewing venue - a viewer must be able to stand at a distance from a print to allow for viewing its entirety all at once.
RE: nosey people. I hate it, at gallery viewing of my photographs, when viewers get nosey. That is to write, when they get their noses to close to a print to ever discern what my photographs are about. I have often thought about drawing a chalk line on a gallery floor to indicate the “proper” viewing distance. And, to enforce the idea, greet the gallery goers baseball bat in hand and letting them know that stepping over the line gets them kneecapped. Maybe even reinforcing that edict with a medic in attendance and an ambulance parked outside the gallery door.
birthday cannoli ~ (embiggenable)
Brooklyn ~ (embiggenable)
Cooperstown~ (embiggenable)
my kitchen + Brooklyn sink with window ~ (embiggenable)
EVERY YEAR-FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS-THE WIFE and I go to Cooperstown, NY where the wife has an annual conference. While she attends the conference, I play golf and hang out around the very upscale hotel on the lake. The trip also coincides with her birthday so we always go out for a nice meal. This year we also went to NYC / Brooklyn for a couple days before heading to Cooperstown (the home of the Baseball Hall of Fame). All of which brings me to the point of this entry…
….I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANY MORE…
To be precise, the “this” in question that makes me mad as hell is any utterance such as:
“It's fantastic for the things it's meant for and designed to do, but it's mainly a communication device. It can be exasperating as a camera.…they”-iPhone files-“fall far enough short of the best "real" cameras that ultimately they're just not terribly satisfying…”
iMo, those who make such utterances are; a) those who have not made the effort to understand the in and outs of how to use the iPhone photo making capabilities, b) those who are not using the RAW capture capabilities or c) don’t know how to process RAW files for maximum results, d) those who, like the commentator quoted above, are using older generation iPhones, and, e) those who are gearheads who make photos that are tack-sharp with saturated color and high dynamic range but are, nevertheless, rarely worth a second glance.
Now, to be certain, I am not proposing that an iPhone “camera” is ideal or well suited to every picture making task or that it can “satisfy” every picture maker’s aesthetic. However, that written, I am emphatically emphasising that it is perfectly capable of producing photographs that are as good-that is, expressing the intent of the photographer-any other picture making device.
Any one (me, being a prime example) who has used a wide variety of cameras-8x10 / 4x5 view cameras, medium format cameras, 35mm cameras, Polaroid cameras, and the like-knows that every camera has its own distinct peculiarities, both in their use and their rendering results. However, the only thing that matters to the picture making artist is that any given camera helps in producing his/her picture making intent.
All of the above written, just let me declare that, in a “perfect” picture making universe, I wish that picture makers would just pick whatever camera device is best for them and their intent and vision-if they even have one-and then keep their fucking yap shut and concentrate on making pictures that “satisfy” their eye and sensibilities. I might not like their pictures but that sure as hell it won’t be because of the camera they used.
FYI, during the 6 day trip I covered a lot of ground, picture making wise. l returned with 25 “keepers” which spanned multiple photography genres: landscape, street, people, night, and still life. All of the pictures were made with my iPhone 24 PRO Max camera device set to produce RAW files. And, to my eye and sensibilities, the results were very satisfying and, BTW, the “cmaera” served all of my picture making intents very well, thank you very much.
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
SUNDAY DAWNED RAINY AND FOGGY. Plus, the wife was away and I was bored. So it made absolute sense to grab my passport and go to a city in another country to make some pictures.
Visited a church. Walked the length of a street. Ate in a Polish restaurant-beet consommé w sour creme , kielbasa, sauerkraut, potato pancakes. On the placemat there was a bit of wise advice:
Remember, vodka goes good with everything …. especially vodka.
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
A FEW DAYS AGO, WHILE HAVING MY MORNING coffee, I made a picture; the making of which was instigated-very uncharacteristically (for me)-by an idea that the picture could serve well as a metaphor for a topic I have been considering, id est: the meaning(s) to be found in a photograph….
“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening… .A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.” ~ Gary Winogrand
“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy…. Strictly speaking, one never understands anything from a photograph.” ~ Susan Sontag
On that topic I am in basic agreement with Winogrand and Sontag inamuch as I believe that photographs are “mute” and “cannot themselves explain anything”. And, made in a straight photography manner-”A piece of time and space is well described”-a photograph can show “what something looks like”.
That written, I am in total agreement with Sontag’s idea that “photographs…are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy”. Inasmuch as photographs are mute, they nevertheless have the potential to incite feelings and/or emotional responses. However, that written, those responses are most often (or is it always?) the result of what an individual viewer brings to the act of viewing a particular photograph.
Consequently, one viewer’s response to a given photograph may be diametrically opposed to another viewer’s response to the same photograph. And, it is well within the realm of possibilities that neither response is that which the picture maker intended to incite. Or, in other words-and to paraphrase the notion that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”'-I would believe that, re: meaning in a photograph, the meaning is in the mind of the beholder.
Case in point, my “metaphoric” photograph in this entry; if I did not inform the you that the reflection in the glass on the art work-which is rather vague and indistinct-was seen by my eye and sensibilities to be representative of the indistinct and vague meaning that might be found / hidden in the photograph, would you “get” it? And, I can further suggest that the attempt to find meaning in a photograph-or any art-tends to get in the way of seeing the full expression of the picture maker’s vision, id est: what I was trying to show you.
All of the above written, it should be understood that I do indeed have have an intent, aka": what my pictures are “about”, in my picture making. However, that intent is important only to me. It is not important to the viewer of my pictures. It is not my responsibility to tell the viewer what to think feel when viewing my pictures. That’s cuz I want viewers to make of my pictures exactly what they will.
In any event, while doing research for this entry, I came across the following on forum topic re: meaning. I truly believe that most of the medium’s iconic Fine Art (acknowledged) photographers would agree, if they were honest, recognize this idea as integral to their picture making intent:
“What do my photographs mean? Well, I saw something that I thought looked worth recording, for whatever reason at the time. The scene interested my eye, and that's all it means to me. If I show you the picture, it's because I think it may interest you as well.
That's the meaning of my pictures.” ~ barzune (nom de web forum)
(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.
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
my 1st tee practice swing
looking back to 1st tee from 1st green
well protected flag
hummocks, swales, elevation changes everywhere
I was gonna try to fool ya, with the barn and old pickup picture, into thinking this is not a golf entry. But, quite obviously, it is. I apologize.
Yesterday, I played the most brutal golf course-Tot Hill Farm GC-I have ever played. A course designed by Mike Strantz, the enfant terrrible of golf course design. His propensity is to create courses where every thing is “over the top”. Or, in other words, to take standard golf course features to extremes.
In the case of Tot Hill Farm, it’s extreme elevation changes together with exaggerated swales and hummocks that create a multitude of uneven lies. To put it bluntly, in 18 holes of golf I did not have a single level lie. As an example, re; the massive elevation changes: simply put, the uphill elevation changes, tee to green, turn a 495 yard (as indicated on the score card), par 5 to playing like a 600+ yard hole. Add uneven lies on every shot and you have a recipe for brutal.
Lest it read as I am whining, it should be noted the the grandson and I are having fun.
FYI, the old pickup picture was made on the golf course. The scene was behind the clubhouse which is, true the to course name, a restored old farm house.
all photos ~(embiggenable)
THE FIRST 1000+ MILE LEG OF MY GRANDSON / GOLF 2000+ MILE TRIP is in the books.The Penguins shut out the defending Stanley Cup Champs and the drive from Pittsburgh to Pinehurst NC through parts of the Blue Ridge / Appalachian Mountains was quite picturesque. Golf is good.