# 6431-33 / stone harbor • common places-things ~ how and what you see is what you get

All photos ~ (embiggenable)

SITTING HERE THIS AM HAVING COFFEE AND FRESH CANTALOUPE STARING at the picture in this entry. A thought, which has guided my picture making since forever but which I never really put into words, emerged into my conscious mind and it occurred to me that I should put it into words.

35 years ago (or more) I read the book Einstein’s Space and Van Gogh’s Sky-co-authored by a physicist and a psychologist in which they try to meld the two domains of knowledge and experience to explain “reality”. FYI, it is NOT an easy read. Nevertheless, near the end of the book, the authors delve into the idea that there are two kinds of art; Fine Art and Decorative Art. I took this to mean-as they wrote-that Fine Art is meant to challenge / agitate the viewer’s visual senses whereas Decorative Art is meant to “entertain” / sooth the viewer’s visual (emotional?) senses.

The authors’ definition pretty much matched my thoughts inasmuch as I divided art into 2 categories as well; Fine Art, grounded on the classic art elements of art-color, value, line, shape, form,, texture and space, and, Calendar Art, grounded on the principle of the “pretty picture”. That written, while I have often adopted a rather dismissive attitude toward Calendar Art, I do, in fact agree with the book’s authors that both types of art serve very valid ends-ya know, ya can’t always be wired. Sometimes ya gotta just relax.

So, all of that written, let me get down to the subject at hand, photography-wise…

… Unique amongst the visual arts is the medium’s intrinsic relationship with the real world. ASIDE I am writing about “straight” photography END OF ASIDE Consequently, most “serious” amateur picture makers concentrate on making pictures-highly detailed / technically “perfect” / by-the-rules-of very specific people, places, things, AKA: referents. Their pictures are always very literal depictions of their chosen referent(s). Although, that written, many will add exaggerations and embellishments-color/saturation/contrast/eye bleeding sharpness-in order to distinguish their pictures from those of non-serious amateurs, AKA: the snapshot crowd.

It is also worth noting that these “serious” amateurs, if not obsessed with a very specific referent, will most often concentrate on making pictures with one specific type of referent as their referent of choice.

iMo, this defines the Decorative Art crowd, Photography Division. Next up is the Fine Art crowd, Photography Division…

…. These straight picture makers also depict highly defined and recognizable people, places, things, although rarely, if ever, employing exaggerations and embellishment in their picture making. And, in my experience, they rarely give a shit about the referent in their pictures other than it’s possible appropriation as a vehicle for creating interesting, engaging, captivating form. Their special skill in creating form is that, unlike standard photographic composition which can be created in situ by following the “rules”, form can not be created in the picture making wild; it can only be seen and then skillfully-or more likely, intuitively-appropriated / captured and then presented on the flat field of a photographic print.

It is worth noting that much Fine Art photography bears a remarkable resemblance to non-serious amateur snapshots (a topic for another entry). Or, at least it appears so to the Decorative Art crowd.

In any event and all of the above written, to my eye and sensibilities, the genius of so many picture makers who are enshrined in the Fine Art level, Photography Division-take your pick; Avedon, Evans, Carier-Bresson, Shore, (Robert) Adams, Frank, Eggelston, et al-what they all have in common, despite their seemingly disparate referential depictions, is their ability to make photographs with interesting, engaging, captivating visual interest / form.

CONCLUSION: Fine Art-wise wise, it’s not about what you photograph, it’s about how you photograph what you see.