(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
HIT RATE ZERO, OR SO MICHAEL JOHNSTON TITLED AN ENTRY, wherein he explained / lamented his failure-“I was cold and really didn’t get anything”-to harvest a few situations (aka: picture making opportunities?). After reading Johnston’s entry in its entirety, I was not surprised, for a number of reasons, that he came home with a “hit rate zero”.
item 1 - “…the magic can't happen unless you're out there with the camera” I believe that the idea of looking / waiting for“magic” to rear its head in the making of pictures is a rather bogus pursuit. That’s cuz I believe that if a picture maker has figured out / recognized in a conscious manner how he/she sees the world-literally and figuratively (in a style representing forms that are recognizably derived from life)-the so called (and, iMo, mis-labeled) picture making ”magic” can happen at any time, any where, for any referent.
item 2 - “…any time, any where, for any referent” (my words). The worst possible intent a picture maker can harbor is going out in pursuit of making a “greatest hit” pictures. I mention this in light of the fact of Johnston’s utterly, totally, completely ridiculous / nonsensical / statement that a “…picture works entirely or it doesn't work at all. Everything's a no that isn't a yes.”
iMo, that statement is one of the most destructive-to a picture maker’s “confidence-opinion I have ever heard/ read cuz, over a life time of viewing exhibitions / monographs of “big-name” picture makers’ work, it can be stated / written that not every picture in a given body of work is a “greatest hit” (whatever the hell that is). However, all of the pictures-some more so, some less so-are all working together in a given body of work to reinforce the visual idea the picture maker is striving to create. Think of it as a visual example of strength in numbers.
item 2A - I believe that going out to create pictures of a specific referent (people, places, things) causes most picture makers to miss all the picture making possibilities that surround them. That is, those possibilities that do not conform to what they are pursuing. Case in point, my picture making MO…
I rarely go out with the intention of making pictures. That written, I rarely go out without making pictures. That’s cuz I do not encumber my picture making activities with the inconvenience of carrying a “real” camera. Rather, I always have my picture making device-the iPhone-on my person so that when something-a people, a place, a thing-pricks my eye and sensibilities, I always have the means to make a picture.
The result of that MO is that I have a ginormous library / collection-some might say a grabasstic cluster f**k-of pictures of all kinds of referents-people, places, things. From this seemingly haphazard, random collection there has emerged-I might add, somewhat organically-a number of thematically coherent bodies of work. Bodies of work that I add to, over time, by the mere fact that I continue to make pictures of what I see as opposed to what I have been told-or even tell myself-what is a good picture.
So, the moral of this story is simple. Forget about making the”perfect” picture and realize that some “less-than-perfect”-aka: nearly perfect-pictures are perfectly suited for inclusion in a body of work. And, that bodies of work are what matters most. Plus, if you must concentrate a specific referent / theme in the act of creating a body of work, when you go out to make pictures, take off the blinders that obfuscate the joy of photography. That is, the simple act of just making pictures of any peoples, any places, and any things.
FYI, included in this entry are handfull of some the pictures I made over the past few days. Discursive promiscuity in action.