# 5920-22 / landscape ~ the observing mind v. the thinking mind

January 31, 2022

IN MY LAST ENTRY I USED THE PHRASE, THE “challenge” of documenting the form. I employed the scare quotes to imply that my use of the word challenge should considered with a high degree of skepticism or doubt. That’s cuz seeing and picturing form is, for me, about as challenging as falling off a log inasmuch as seeing form is how I see.

I could not turn off seeing form even if I wanted to do so. Even though, at times, it seems like a curse, I realize that if I were to turn it off, I would not have had a career as a commercial photographer along with sub-careers in graphic design, art direction and as a creative director. Throw in to the mix my pursuit of fine art picture making and I can write that I would not have known what to do with my life.

In any event, back to picture making, re: the word challenge. I live in a forest preserve / state park to which thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of landscape / natural world picture makers flock like bees to honey, flies to sh*t, or any other metaphor one might like to use. Add Fall foliage to the landscape and the influx of picture makers takes on the aspect of a Pavlovian stampede. Be that as it may, you can bet your bottom dollar that saturation-slider-to-the-max, rule of thirds and other bogus advice about picture making is the order of the day.*

I mention the following cuz I find myself with a real picture making challenge when I come upon a wide-open landscape. The challenge? It’s as if my form-seeing visual apparatus has, just like Elvis, left the building. I don’t see it and I don’t feel it. It is, to put it mildly, very disconcerting. It is almost as if I am afraid to make a picture for fear that it will…pause for a gasp and shutter…look like a picture made by the stampeding masses.

I would consider counseling to get over my fear except for the fact that, if I get over my fear, I would probably start making pictures that look like, well, I don’t want them to look like. I have given thought to bringing along a flask of bourbon or scotch to drink in order to overcome my inhibitions, but the outcome would probably be no better than the counseling outcome and that would just be a waste of some good bourbon or scotch.

But seriously folks, the root picture making problem for me in such circumstances-to include making a picture of a referent I actually care about-is that, if I don’t see “it“ then I can’t feel “it”, and then I have to think about “it”. And, inasmuch as I have studiously, throughout my entire picture making life, avoided thinking about anything when making a picture, the very thought of thinking would just about end it for me.

In a nutshell, what I am writing about here is the difference between the observing mind-which just watches and is simply aware-and the thinking mind which judges, analyzes, reasons, and attempts to make sense out of things. And, my thinking mind tells me that, in pursuit of working in a visual medium, it makes sense to be an observer rather than a thinker.

*I have no problem with this kind of picture making. It’s just not my thing. If it floats your boat, have at it.

PS I have managed over the years to make some pictures of the landscape which avoid the genre’s typical cliches. So far, it has not killed me.

# 5883 / life without the APA ~ That wouldn't make you a shallow person would it?

December 21, 2021

from ***Life Without the APA*** body of work ~ (embiggenable) 8x10 view camera + µ4/3

LET ME BEGIN THIS ENTRY WITH A VERSE FROM LYLE LOVETT’S Here I Am song (it will make sense later):

Given that true intellectual and emotional compatibility
Are at the very least difficult
If not impossible to come by
We could always opt for the more temporal gratification
Of sheer physical attraction
That wouldn't make you a shallow person
Would it?

Add to that a link to a Stephen Shore picture, Holden Street, North Adams, Massachusetts. FYI, the street image in my picture in this entry was created long before I was aware of Shore’s picture. Nor was the composite image made with a single thought of imitating Shore’s picture.

OK then, now I can move onto the point of this entry…

I was skimming through a book of Stephen Shore pictures, interviews and commentary when I came across a commentary, re: the aforementioned linked picture, by Joel Sternfeld. The commentary, which ran to 7 pages in length, started as follows:

Stephen Shore’s photograph of a summer morning setting on Holden Street in North Adams, Massachusetts, appears to be a picture replete with dualities, the most obvious being that of town and countryside. The brick commercial buildings bookend a panel of green hills and blue sky as if the entirety were a early Christian altarpiece. The most sacred panel, the center one, contains an image of a deity , which in the secular case turns out to be a wooden building of pure white. The building stands in front of a mountain, a standard symbol of spiritual elevation.

After this “Christian altarpiece, sacred panel, deity, standard symbol of spiritual elevation” Art Major-ish search for meaning, aka: interpretation, Sternfeld-whose pictures I admire-goes on 7 page literary, cultural, architectural, historic, photo theory laden exposition / academic treatise that, iMo and for me, adds little, if anything, to the pure visual senses enjoyment of just looking at the picture. Which is not to write that, for Sternfeld, it does not matter inasmuch as all his interpretation stuff goes to the cause of justifying his appreciation of the picture cuz, without it, it’s just a picture.

Nor am I suggesting that my Life without the APA picture(s)-and pictures like it made by others-do not contain dualities, symbols, cultural / literary references, et al if it is a viewer’s propensity to “see” such things. However, my intent in the making of those pictures was simply to illustrate how the Adirondack forest preserve might look like-and consequently, feel like-without the protection / oversight of the APA. And, in doing so, create pictures which tell that story without requiring that the viewer have a Phd in Art History or Art Theory to “get it”.

In any event, back to Lyle Lovett and the relevance of his lyrics to this entry.

It seems to me that Joel Sternfeld (and others like him who are given to the nearly compulsive desire to discern meaning and interpretation in pictures) needs to find a feeling of “true intellectual and emotional compatibility” with a photograph-a feeling which is “at the very least difficult If not impossible to come by” (for mere mortals)-in order that he not succumb to the temptation of “the more temporal gratification of sheer physical attraction” to a picture and thus descend into the realm of becoming “a shallow person”.

# 5876-79 / landscape • the new topographic ~ walking with a toothache in my heel

December 15, 2021

WARNING: RANT TO FOLLOW…I just gotta get this monkey off my back…

…a couple days ago, I come across-over on T.O.P.-yet another exquisite example of Landscape Porn adulation. You know what to expect, picture wise, when you read picture descriptions like…

“The photographs are consistently beautiful, running the gamut from stunning vistas in perfect evening light, to dramatic storm-scapes, to telling details. Without exception they are technically immaculate, stunningly detailed, with a beautiful yet restrained color palette.”

Or, perhaps I should write, I know what to expect - puerile, romanticized, schmaltz / dreck. To be certain, uninspired, follow-the-camera-club-landscape-picture-making-rules landscape pictures are rather commonplace and, to be honest, should not be grounds for near apoplectic fits on my part. But the fact is, they most often incite such a reaction to my tender landscape picture sensibilities.

However, it is not the picture’s visual qualities-or lack thereof-that sets me off. Rather, it is the ongoing perpetuation of the big lie. Once again, I quote John Szarkowski (from the Introduction to the Robert Adams book, THE NEW WEST):

“As Americans we are scarred by the dream of innocence. In our hearts we believe that the only truly beautiful lanscape is an unpeople one. Unhappily, much in the record of out tenancy on this continent serves to confirm this view. So to wash our eyes of this depressing evidence we have raced deeper and deeper in the wilderness, pass the last stage-coach stop and the last motel, to see and claim a section of God’s own garden before our fellows arrive to despoil it…[N]ow however we are beginning to realize that there is no wilderness left…[A]s this recognition takes a firmer hold on our consciousness, it may become clear that a generous and accepting attitude toward nature requires we learn to share the earth not only with ice, dust, mosquitoes, starlings, coyotes, and chicken hawks, but even with other people.”

Just in case you don’t get it, let me be clear, pictorially, I am sick unto death of sappy, escapist, god’s own garden sentimentality. Walk as far you will into the so-called untouched-by-humankind wilderness, but the fact remains, there is no such thing as untouched by humankind.

My position on this situation, picture making wise, falls directly in line with the words of Robert Adams in his book, WHAT CAN WE BELIEVE WHERE:

“In common with many photographers, I began making pictures because I wanted to record what supports hope: the untranslatable mystery and beauty of the world. Along the way, however, the camera also caught evidence against hope, and I eventually concluded that this too belonged in pictures if they were to be truthful and useful….[A]s much as I try to stay away from abstactions, I often find myself asking three questions, and I repeat them here as a point of entry into this book: What does our geography compel us to believe? What does it allow us to believe? And what obligations, if any, follow from our beliefs?

So, some might think, shame on me-Adams, Szarkowski, et al-for even suggesting that a picture maker might have, in some situations, obligations in their picture making endeavors. What am I, some kind of a picture making commie, socialist, bleeding-heart, pinko? How dare I even hint that a picture should be truthful and/or somehow actually useful? You know, useful, as in, more meaningful than its use as an object of escapist decoration.

And, please, do not try to rationalize such escapist tripe as playing a part in raising people’s awareness of / appreciation for “nature”. Given that such pictures have been adorning walls, calendars, books, et al for generations, the evidence-the current state of the planet’s environmental state / health-can only support the fact that it ain’t getting that job done.

FYI, if you are wondering why I am so passionate about this issue, it is simply because I live in very unique place, the so-called Adirondack Park (it’s not a park, it is a forest preserve) the largest publicly protected wilderness area-and the largest National Historic Landmark-in the contiguous United States-bigger than Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Glacier, and the Great Smokies National Parks combined.

The place is unique in that Adirondack forest preserve is a combination of public and private lands dedicated to the practice that the public lands are protected-by the NYS Constitution-as forever wild and together with the private lands are under the regulation of the Adirondack Park Agency, created in 1971 by the New York State Legislature to develop long-range land use plans for both public and private lands within the boundary of the Park. To date, this regulated public / private land use has demonstrated that humankind and the natural world can co-exist to the benefit of both. Read more about it here

# 5863-67 / landscape (civilized ku • ku) • around the house ~ working different

December 8, 2021

I SORTA GOT SIDETRACKED BY THE IS-SQUARE-GOOD-FOR-LANDSCAPES thing along with a dose of BW infatuation. Using the work of Robert Adams as markers / aim points for both ideas, as well as rummaging around in my picture library for pictures which were suitable for RA-like (signs of man in the landscape) conversion to BW, I am well satisfied that, for my picturing, square and BW digital BW conversion processing is good. I might even state that it is very good.

Re: digital conversion / processing for color > BW. From time to time I come across, most recently on T.O.P., the idea that digital is not BW picturing friendly. That the only way to achieve the best BW pictures is via the analog, aka: film, picture making process. I disagree….

…That written, I am not here to debate one process against the other. Rather, the position I take is that digital BW images can be created which compare-that is, if comparing is your thing-very favorably with film created BW images. Me, I’m not into “comparing”. Nor am I a life-long devotee of BW picture making.

Sure, sure. Back in the analog days, I had my very own soup-to-nuts “formula” for making BW pictures - preferred film, developer, developing times / agitation, (my own “personal” zone system) + my preferred printing system - condenser enlarger, specific developer, specific graded paper. My formula produced BW prints that I liked very much. Not to mention, I truly enjoyed my private time in the darkrooms (1 for film processing, 1 for printing).

At the same time there were those who took the I idea of creating a personal BW picturing, processing, printing formula to an extreme. Example: I have overheard many a photo club conversation hotly debating the type of bulb to be used in an enlarger head. They loved to tinker with the process to the point where, in some cases, it was the reason they were involved with photography.

In any event, I’ll leave you with a hint-I have mentioned this previously-for making really good BW digital image files. The process is simplicity itself - open an RGB color image file. Convert to LAB Color Space, Discard the a and b channels, leaving only the Lightness channel. Convert to Grayscale. At this point you now have an image file that contains only the lightness values-independent of any color values-extracted from your original color file-THIS NOT THE SAME THING AS DE-SATURATING THE COLORS IN A COLOR FILE-not even close.

Once I have the Grayscale file, I will usually make small tonal adjustments in Photoshop to bring the tonal values in line with the feel of the original color file, therefore in line with the actual scene.

**RGB original** / **LAB conversion Grayscale** ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

# 5778-86 / nocturnal•noir ~ other worldly?

May 21, 2021

WHILE I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY CONCENTRATED UPON the making of pictures of the dark side of life-that is, the low-light side, not the negative, troubled, or antagonistic part of life-I find that, nevertheless, I have a collection of approximately 100+ dark side / low light pictures (thank you, discursive promiscuity).

In any event, I must admit that I am drawn to nocturnal/noir-type pictures in a manner that I do not fully understand. Although, it would not be a stretch to associate my fascination/attraction to/with nocturnal/noir pictures with the "normal" human condition-not a phobia (nyctophobia)-of fear of the dark. An emotional state which conjures up ghosts, monsters, strange noises, apprehension of the unknown, or, even a feeling of detachment from self or feeling "unreal". Or, simply written, other worldly. I would even go so far as to write that, when viewing my dark side pictures (and those made by others), those feelings are amplified relative to what I experience in situ.

That written, to my eye and sensibilities, my nocturnal/noir pictures are quite different fom my "normal" work inasmuch as my "normal" pictures tend to be, on their surface, a rather "cool"(non-emotional), detail-oriented observation of real world referents. Whereas my nocturnal/noir pictures are slim on detailed referents and heavily oriented toward an appeal toward the emotional side of the street. That being the case, what both picture making M.O.s have in common is, iMo, that both approaches to picture making tend to instigate the same reaction, re: what is going on here? / what is this picture "about"?

Dispite instigating a similar question, each body of work tends to direct a viewer's answer to that question in a different direction. My "normal" work is biased toward the recognition and application of the principles of art and the nature of beauty, i.e. a somewhat reasoned appeal to the intellect (albeit not without an emotional aspect). My nocturnal/noir work is biased toward an immediate assualt upon the emotional senses (albeit not without the recognition and application of the principles of art).

Case in point:

Judge for yourself. What is going on in these pictures?

PS I am not afraid of the dark.

# 5736-39 / trees ~ one way or the other

April 22, 2021

WORKING ON A BOOK ABOUT TREES. Might be in BW or, maybe, color. Have not decided yet.

# 5730-32 / the new snapshot (gas stations) ~ making sense

April 18, 2021

A FEW ENTRIES BACK, I WROTE, re: my gas station pictues:

"...I believe that my hesitency to embrace this project is the fact that I do not have a clear-in-my-head project intent. That is to write, that, were I to be pressed to write an artist statement, re: this project, at this point it would be a rather rambling, un-focused statement."

That statement incited a response form Thomas Rink:

"Is an artist statement or a written concept really required? Visual aesthetics does not work on a conceptual (language) level - a picture says more than a thousand words...so, is an artist statement essentially no more than a means to combat our fear not to "make sense" to others?

I have forever been an advocate of/for the artist statement. Whenever I have felt compelled to write / speak in defense of the artist statement, it has usually been as a response the idiotic opinion that a picture that needs words is a failure. That written, let me be a bit more specific about my feelings, re: the artist statement.

First and foremost, iMo, an artist statemnt should be, as the saying goes, short and sweet. And, it should refrain from attempting to "explain" anything about the photo(s) which accompany the statement other than to inform-avoiding pretentious artspeak-a viewer about what instigated the picture maker's desire to make the photo(s). In other words, never, ever put thoughts in a viewer's mind about what the photo(s) "mean".

As an example, an artist statement, re: my gas station pictures, might read something like this...

THERE USED TO BE MEN (AND WOMEN) IN COVERALLS
(WITH GREASY HANDS)

While driving with a friend, I noticed the need to get some petrol. As we approached a "new fangled" gas station cum ~~mini~~ maxi mart, the thought occurred to me that, in my life time, the manner in which I/we got petrol had changed considerably.

As a result of that change, the landscape has, in many places, become littered with relics of the places where we used to get petrol. Many of these relics are abandoned, a few still sell petrol and a few have been repurposed for other business pursuits. In any event, the fact is that most of these "traditional" gas stations have literally disappeared.

While I have pictured some "traditional" gas station remains, I have not been able to picture the men and women in coveralls (with greasy hands) who have completely disappeared from the gas station landscape inasmuch as one no longer needs to interact with a human while getting petrol.

After reading the above artist statement, it is then up to a viewer to "make sense" of what the pictures "mean" to him/her self. To engage in deduction, speculation, and fantasy based upon what he/she brings, life experience and knowledge, to the viewing. Or, as Paul Strand stated:

"Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.

# 5720-25 / flora•around the house ~ inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy

April 14, 2021

PICTURE MAKING WISE, I AM, WITHOUT A DOUBT, A DEVOTEE OF facts clearly described...

"There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described. I like to think of photographing as a two way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing it as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." ~ Garry Winogrand

...but, nevertheless, I believe that a clearly described fact, as described by a photograph, can, in the best of cases, introduce a fair amount of mystery. Even if the intial mystery is simply incited by nothing more than a feeling of, "it is a mystery to me why the picture maker made this photograph." However, once a viewer gets beyond that "mystery" (if she/he can), there remains the idea that...

"Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy... The very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness. ~ Susan Sontag

All of that written and getting back to "facts clearly described", I have always believed that the medium of photography and its apparatus are inexorably and intrintically linked to the real. That idea fits nicely into my concept of the real - I see it, therfore, it is. However, when I make a picture of "it", followed by the making of print of "it", then viewing that "it" in a photograph of "it", I sense a change going on. A change something along the lines of...

"Instead of just recording reality, photographs have become the norm for the way things appear to us, thereby changing the very idea of reality and of realism. ~ Susan Sontag

In any event, I do not want to go too far down this rabbit hole. So, just let me write that, to a certain extent, it is all a mystery to me.