(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
BEEN MAKING NOTES, MENTAL AND HARD COPY, re: my The Philosophy of Modern Pictures book/project. No rhyme or reason to them yet, just random thoughts on the overall approach and miscellaneous thoughts / words on various topics to include in the book.
One item on which I have been rather fixated is how to describe my picture making M.O. However, as I skitter about the nomenclature landscape, I have realized that my M.O. does not fit neatly into any single genre inasmuch as my work evidences the quality and characteristics of several universally recognized genre - vernacular photography, the snapshot aesthetic, the new topography, to name a few.
That written, I also realize that I may have found the answer years ago when I coined the phrase / descriptor, discursive promiscuity, to explain my propensity to picture any/every thing I see that pricks my eye and sensibilities, aka: what I see. That nomenclature was never intended to describe anything more than my non-discriminatory approach to referent selection. However, I am sorta coming around to thinking that it also works as a descriptor for how I see, aka: a little bit of vernacular, a little bit of snapshot, a little bit of new topography aesthetics all mixed together in my own peculiar, hybred-ish manner of picture making.
FYI, I should point out that I have never been overly concerned with defining the how of my picture making, specific genre wise. That’s cuz the answer to that question, as Paul Strand once opined, “is on the wall”. So, viewers will see what they wanna see. Nevertheless, in the context of my book / project, much of what I will write will spin off of the how (and why) I photograph.