# 6102-04 / roadside attractions ~ helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely what most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.” ~ John Rosenthal

# 6006-22 / a new adirondack vernacular ~ what went before comes around again

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

AFTER A WEEK OR MORE OF AGONIZING / STRESSING OVER THE idea of reinventing my picture making M.O. for the purpose of creating a new body of work about the place where I live, I came to question, having already created a body of work, the adirondack snapshot project, what exactly is the point of reinventing the wheel? My conclusion? Other than slathering some salve on an acute case of artist angst, there really is no valid point at all.

The adirondack snapshot project-which I will repackage under the title of a new adirondack vernacular-is comprised primarily of well over 200 pictures made over the the couple of decades. (although a number of pictures are culled from the late 1970s>2000). To that number, I can add up to 70-80 more pictures made over the past 2-3 years (made after my adirondack snapshot project solo exhibition). That written, I could potentially end up with 500+ new adirondack vernacular “snapshots”.

The new title, a new adirondack vernacular is co-opted from the book (published 20 years ago), Adirondack Vernacular - The photography of Henry M. Beech. A book written-with 250 photographs-by a Syracuse University professor. While the book is not a photography book , per se, inasmuch as the pictures are presented addendums to the text, it is an interesting take on the life, times and photographs of Henry M. Beech (1863-1943).

From the book:

Henry was a local, an insider to the world he photographed, a person intimate with the region’s people and geography.…[I]t was from that position that he photographed the Adirondacks. In addition to shooting as a local, he had little formal education and did not seem to be professionally trained in his craft. He lived far enough away from mainstream society that his work was not dominated by national styles and trends, and was unencumbered by art-world pretense. He was free to focus on different subject matters, add quirky elements to his pictures, experiment with form and composition, and do things with images that other photographers would not. The result is a vernacular documentary style that is unique, engrossing, and significant.

Believe me or not, even though I have had the book for a number of years-I believe I received it as a gift-this morning was the first time I read the previous excerpt. And, at the risk of engaging in self-aggrandisement, I was struck by the idea that I am, Adirondack picture making wise, cut from the same cloth as Beech. Especially so, in that he was in his Adirondack picture making prime for approximately 20 years (1905-1925). A time frame that approximates the period of the bulk of my adirondack snapshot / vernacular picture making.

Are my adirondack snapshot / vernacular unique, engaging, and significant?

Re: unique - I am unaware of any other picture maker who is creating and exhibiting Adirondack “snapshots”. Nor do I know of any picture maker who has a body of diverse work that reflects the everyday life-people, places / sights, and things-of living in the Adirondacks.

Re: engrossing - Judging by the reaction and comments I have received to solo exhibitions (here in the Adirondacks) of my work, viewers of my photo books, and comments from gallery directors, there is at least a better than average interest in the work.

Re: significant - To whom? The Art World? Locals? Adirondack tourists? Not for me to judge. Only time will tell. Although, that written, iMo, it is a significant body of work, if only in size and scope.

# 5987 / reflections on art (book) ~ it is exactly what it was

covers ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

statement ~ (embiggenable)

AFTER 8 YEARS I HAVE FINALLY GOT AROUND TO remaking the photo book, refections on art ~ the eye traffics in feelings. The photo book which was actually stolen. A happening that I consider to be of the highest compliment.

As I felt it necessary to mention in the book, I will write again here that the pictures in the book are straight out of the camera. They are not double exposures or composites.

FYI, I believe it is worth a mention, re: Mike Johnston’s OL/OC/OY notion, that I am not a such a picture making practitioner. I am (in my personal picturing), in fact, a OL/OC/IP - that is one lens / one camera / in perpetuity.

To clarify: in the making of pictures meant to be art / fine art, I have always, through a number of picturing “periods”, used one lens / one camera for a considerable length of time. In the beginning (c.1980) I used an 8x10 view camera and a Ektar (Kodak) 10in. lens for about 3-4 years. Later (c.2000, after a 20 year fine art hiatus), I used an Olympus µ4/3 camera (one iteration or another) with a 20mm lens on one camera and a 17mm lens on another-the 2 lenses were very similar in angle of view. Eventually, about 3 years ago, my “one” camera became the iPhone (one iteration or another) and using the “normal”, aka: semi-wide lens. During the 20 year hiatus I did use one lens / one camera to make a ton of personal snapshots ( and a some Fine Art pictures). That camera and lens combination was-I actually had 5 and still do-the Polaroid SX-70.

I mention this because I truly believe that one lens / one camera is the only way to find one’s vision and move on to making Fine* Art.

* for what it’s worth, in a series of books (mystery books by a single author) I am reading, a re-occurring character defines FINE as, Fucked up, Insecure, Neurotic, and Egotistical.

# 5986 / kitchen sink (book) ~ look, really look, and you shall see

covers ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

statement ~ (embiggenable)

YET ANOTHER PHOTO BOOK, the kitchen sink ~ a rich life of its own, HEADED TO THE PRINTING PRESS. And I must admit that when I began the edit to narrow the pictures down to the top 20, I was a bit intimidated inasmuch as there were over 160 pictures in the kitchen sink folder.

However, after viewing all 160 of the pictures as a group in Adobe Bridge, I was able to surprising easily cull out 50 pictures in my first cut. Then I opened those pictures and arranged them in neat rows on my monitor where, once again viewing them all together, it was rather easy to identify the 20 (actually 22) finalists.

All of that decided, I came to the artist statement challenge, about which Thomas Rink had a few thoughts (thank you Thomas):

I think these pictures do not need an essay at all to go with them - they speak well for themselves. Absolutely no need to rationalize (or justify) why you made them! There is a high risk that an essay will appear contrived, which would rather take away from the series instead of adding to it….

I tend to agree with Rink’s idea to the extent that I have been considering (for a couple years) of simply using a quote from Paul Strand as a stand-in artist statement:

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.

So, you can read my adaptation of Strand’s position, re: the artist statement, above. Although, in the case of a photo book, I may amend it to read, the answer is on the pages of the book

# 5985 / scrub•landscape (book) ~ as few words as possible

from the book ~ (embiggenable)

covers / scrub, weeds, and tangles ~ (embiggenable)

scrub, weeds, and tangles statement ~ (embiggenable)

spreads / scrub, weeds, and tangles ~ (embiggenable)

HERE IS ANOTHER OF THE 3 RECENTLY MADE PHOTO BOOKS , scrub, weeds,and tangles ~ seen but seldom looked at, mentioned in my last entry.

One of the challenges (for me) in the making of a photo book is creating the artist statement inasmuch as I would like to communicate to a viewer the idea of what caused me to make the pictures in a book but not to tell a viewer what or how to think about the pictures. And, at all costs, to avoid the use of artspeak.

However, in writing an artist statement one must realize that you are writing for 2 different audiences, 1.) the general viewing public, and-if one desires to garner gallery / art institution exhibition-2.) the gallery director / art institution curator. A balance must be attained, artist statement wise, for the 2 audiences in order to, 1.) avoid causing the general public viewers to think that you are a know-it-all, snooty artist, yet, on the other hand, 2.) cause the director / curator to think that you are not just a rube with a camera.

FYI, the scrub, weeds,and tangles ~ seen but seldom looked at photo book contains 16 pictures (not including my visual joke on the back cover).

# 5965-74 / detritus & undergrowth ~ only time will tell

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ONE WAY TO GET AN IDEA ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE fine art (or not) is to submit a representative selection of your work (from body of work) to an art gallery in response to a request for submissions for consideration for a solo exhibition.

The pictures in this entry are pictures that I submitted this week to an art gallery in response to a request for work for consideration for a solo exhibition. The title of the body of work is detritus & undergrowth. Now I wait for a month to find out if I make the cut.

FYI, the body of work has been created , with only a casual sense of dedication to making such pictures, over the past 20 years. FYI, my son (the Cinemascapist) referred to the making of the pictures as my Jackson Pollack period.

In any event, while we are on the topic of fine art, I thought I would pass along my thoughts (a Baker’s Dozen of them) for your consideration, re: whether you are capable of making fine art photographs. To wit, you might not be on course for making fine art photographs if…

you think that circle of confusion is feeling you get when you view William Eggleston’s photographs

you think that a focus ring is how a focus group sits

you think that a proof print is what you show the doorman at a discotheque

you think that a darkroom is a room in your house were you draw the shades and take a nap

you think that an enlarger is a device you buy at a sex shop and use in a dark room

you think that museum glass is only found in the doors and windows of a museum

you think that the fixer is a mean-looking mob hitman

you think that fine art is what you say when Art asks you how you’re doing

you think that contact sheets is what you do when you get in bed

you get itchy fingers every time a new camera is introduced cuz…

you still can’t shake the idea that a “better” camera will make you a better picture maker

you don’t have a photo quality printer but you do have 3 or more lens for your camera

you have uttered the word microcontrast more than once in your life

# 5959-5964 / around the house • landscape ~ on the subject of subject matter

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I HAVE A THEORY, THAT I BELIEVE IS BORN OUT BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, that it is nigh unto impossible to make a photograph, one that is considered to be fine art, of a subject that is considered to be one of conventional beauty.

If I had to assemble a body of work (of my pictures) wherein the subjects are considered to be representative of conventional beauty, I would have no trouble doing so. And, I am certain that that body of work would be well received in a camera club presentation and garner plenty of likes on social media sites. I can also write with the same degree of certainty that that body of work, or any picture therein, would never be considered for display in a fine art gallery.

The reason I believe the aforementioned to be true is relatively simple….the Fine Art World believes, iMo rightfully so, that a piece of art-please remember that we are considering photographic prints-in which the Content (meaning) is unambiguously obvious has little capacity for stimulating the intellect. In addition, such a picture incites little curiosity regarding why the picture maker made the photograph cuz, duh, the subject matter makes unambiguously obvious the answer to that question.

Whereas, most fine art art begs the questions, why did the maker create this object (please remember, a photographic print is an physical object in and of itself), and, what is the maker trying to tell me, the viewer?

The answer to those questions (and/or any number of other questions that might arise from the viewing of a photographic print) need not be akin to a PHD dissertation on art theory or the meaning of life. In fact, iMo, the answers are best when they are short and sweet, leaving the viewer to fill in any of the blanks. That’s cuz photography is a visual medium and in many cases too many words spoil the broth.

In any event, all of the above written, whatever the answers, the important thing is that the questions are asked and curiosity is aroused.