civilized ku # 3578 ~ The mystery of the world is the visible

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IN YESTERDAY'S ENTRY GARET MUNGER wrote:

"I would, if I may, disagree with your conclusion and your encouragement to "get on with the act of seeing what you want to see". It may be a fine point but I would be concerned if you go about looking for what you want to see, there is a risk that you will miss an awful lot of what there is to see and react to. One manner of reacting is using a camera to make a selection from all the possibilities in front of you, of just part to make into a picture.

Peter Turnley writes and is quoted in today's (January 1, 2020) TOP blog: "In the midst of all of this—among the daily blessings and joys that offer so much amazing life in the present moment—is the opportunity to go out, and use one's eyes, heart, movement, and presence to not only see, but to feel, and respond by registering with a camera, our very personal now."

my response: First, let me write a grateful thanks to Garet for the comment. Makes me feel like someone's reading this blog. And, as a general rule, my postion on that is the more comments the merrier.

AN ASIDE Garet wrote, "I would, if I may, disagree..." NOTE TO ALL: no permission needed to disagree with my thoughts and opinions. The only requirement is to disagree with civility. Ad hominen comments will be deleted. END OF ASIDE

I agree with Garet, re: about going out and about, when making pictures, with eyes and mind wide open simply because there is so much to see. However, in yesterday's entry I was writing about looking at pictures. That written, when I am looking at pictures, I do so with the same open eyes and mind. We are in complete agreement in either case.

So, perhaps I should have been more definitive, re: my get on with the act of seeing what you want to see statement. I could have been more defintive if I had just wrote, get on with the act of seeing END OF SENTENCE.

Or, in other words, just look at any given picture-I was writing about viewing, not making, pictures-with an open mind and listen to what your gut feeling tells you .... or as I am forever writing / saying, see if a given picture pricks your eye and sensitivities. However, therein is a "problem".

Photographs are a visual art form. A photograph is meant to be seen, aka: a visual experience. And, like all art (at least iMo), good art is meant to be affective-dictionary definition: to touch the feelings of (someone); move emotionally*.

Hence, the problem .... even with a so-called "open mind", not everyone is affected in the same manner when confronted with the same stimulus. They draw / experience their own conclusions. Inasmuch as most art afficionados are drawn to art which stimulates their own personal "tastes"-in my words, that which pricks their own very personal eye and sensibilities-they do, in fact (consciously or sub-consciously), see what they want to see.

ANOTHER ASIDE Perhaps the word "want" is the wrong word. Maybe the words "compelled" or "driven" might be better. As in, what they are compelled / driven to see by their inner voice, aka: vision.END OF ASIDE

That written, it should not be understood to mean that an art afficionado does not seek out new and/or unexpected pleasures. In fact, he/she does. In a very real sense, he/she is always looking for the next big thing. Or, at the very least, the next big thing for him/her-self even if it only pricks his/her eye and sensibilities.

Dn't know if this entry clarifies are muddies my previous entry. Feel free to let me know either way.

*can good art affect the intellect as well as the emotions? My only answer to that question is to suggest that you read Susan Sontag's essay, Against Interpretion and decide for yourself. You might also keep in mind the words of Oscar Wilde:

"The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."

Which I read to mean that, when viewing a picture, the mystery is the visible, aka: the picture itself and how it makes you feel, and not the invisible, aka: the interpretation thereof and what it makes you think the picture is about.

civilized ku # 3577 ~ on blurbing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

HAVING JUST MADE AND "PUBLISHED" MY first blurb book, I have a few thoughts on the subject.

At the top of my thoughts list, let me write that, after receiving the book, it is a good quality product. Is it the best online sourced printed photo book quality I have seen? No, it is not. While the color is spot on correct, the printing is a little bit light with the black ink. Although, only ever so slightly noticeable on pictures with large areas of dark tonal values when viewed under bright light. Nevertheless, overall it is a good quality piece.

CAVEAT: I did not choose blurb's best paper for this book. It is very possible that the paper I chose is the reason that the black ink appears to be a bit on the light side. To find out the answer to that possibity, I will re-order the book using blurb's best paper. It is also worth noting that the covers-printed on a heavy gloss paper (almost a card weight stock) look excellent. END CAVEAT

Even if my next blurb "test" photo book with their best paper turns out to be of excellent quality, blurb will not be my online POD (print on demand) source. That will not be because of quality, it will be based on my opinion that the only reason for me to use blurb is if I want to "publish" a book using their store as my distribution point. Otherwise, I will stick to my tried and true source.

You may have noticed that I put the word published in quotes. That's because so-called publishing in blurb's store is, iMo, bound to be a rather fruitless endevour.

My reasoning for that conclusion is actually quite simple. If you were to go to blurb's bookstore and select the section for photography, you would link to a section with, as of this AM, 114,193 books. Imagine walking into an actual bookstore (devoted to photography) and encountering 114,193 books. Now imagine that the books are displayed on one shelf that is 114,193 books long. And if that is not enough to discourage browsing, imagine that the books are displayed 1 thru 114,193 based on the date published. In effect, that's what the blurb bookstore is.

My book, which was on the first page on the day it was "published", is slowly, but surely, sinking into the abyss. As are all the books "published" on that date. Eventually, they will end up well beyond the browsing endurance range of most users. While you can search for books by the author's name, that's no help at all if one is just wanting to see what's out there with the idea of finding something new.

If I wanted to go all in on the blurb bookstore, I could blurb print and publish photobooks for some of the picture categories on the WORK page on my site. Then post a link to that book on each of my category gallery pages. If I were to do so, I might sell a few books but the real "winner" in that endevour would be blurb inasmuch as to sell a book on blurb you need to print and buy a book on blurb.

Which is exactly how a vanity press operates.

In my next entry, I'll explain why I make photo books and why I think every picture maker should make photo books.

civilized ku # 3576 ~ what's the point?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I CAN NOT HELP BUT CONTINUE TO wonder about the question, what is a photograph? Maybe a better question is why wonder about the question, what is a photograph? And just maybe the answer to both questions is "I don't know."

WIthout a doubt, any given photograph can be anything the maker wants it to be. Just as any given photograph can be anything to any viewer to any given photograph. In either case, any given photograph can be akin to an ink blot. It is exactly what it is and nothing more or it can funtion like a rorschach "test" and instigate a host of intellectual / emotional responses.

All of that seems to suggest that a photograph has no intrinsic point (aka: meaning)-a property that an object or a thing has of itself .... which does not mean that a photograph can not have an extrinsic property-a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. The "thing" being a photograph and the "other things" being the viewer and his/her relationship to and with "real" world.

It would be very easy to go down a pyscho-analytical / Academic Lunatic Fringe rabbit hole on this topic but the fact is that I have closed that trap door a long time ago. I have no interest in getting hopelessly lost in that rat's nest / labyrinth. No, I would rather keep it simple.

Which brings me to the movie The Point* ....

.... if a photograph has no intrinsic point other than myriad possibilities deduced by viewers thereof, the Pointless Man (from the movie) has a point:

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

However, the Rock Man (from the movie) has a point as well:

"Say babe, ain't nuthin' pointless about this gig. The thing is, you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna hear. You dig?"

So, all of that written, I would venture that the point of my answer to my question, what is a photograph?, is that, other than the undeniable fact that a photograph, when printed, is a thing, it would seem to be rather pointless to be concerned about what a photograph is other than recognizing the fact of its tangible existence. And then get on with the act seeing what you want to see.

*hey, wisdom can be found in the most unlikely of places.

civilized ku # 3537 ~ simple is as simple does, which is not so simple

kitchen stool ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

IN MY LAST ENTRY, IN A COMMENT BY JULIAN BEHRISCH ELCE, he wrote:

I wonder if the latest phone still represents simple or minimal equipment, or if it’s actually another form or format of advanced camera now.

my response: I believe, without a doubt, that Apple ( and other smartphone makers) knows its audience quite well. And, in the case of a device's picture making capabilities, they are aiming to make picture making as simple and, ITh(eir)O, "picture-perfect" as it can be. In essence, they seem to be walking in KODAK's footsteps, re: KODAK's first slogan, You push the button, we do the rest."

In my experience with the iPhone camera module (various editions), I find no evidence that Apple is trying to make an "advanced camera". That is, from the user POV. Of course, the camera module is, behind the scenes, a very advanced device inasmuch as its AI is working overtime-almost completely independent of user input-to get things "right". The only picture making control I am aware of is lens selection, turning HDR on or off and tapping the screen to select focus and adjust and lock the exposure.

ASIDE: of course there are a number of camera apps which can give a picture maker a great deal of control-almost "real" camera like-over the camera module, to include the ability to make RAW files. I have a couple of those apps but I rarely use them because I am committed to, with my use of the iPhone for picture making, picture making simplicity. If I want lots of control, I have 19 "real" cameras I can use.END OF ASIDE

All of that written, just because the picture making is "easy", the story, for me, doesn't end there, as I am certain it does for the majority of smartphone picture makers. That is, for me, just as I do after making pictures with a "real" camera, I process my image files. As near to "perfect" as the out-of-the-iPhone files might be, I always do some fine tuning and, on rare occasions, a lot of "fine" tuning on my files.

In most cases, I perform that tuning either on the phone or the iPad (I like the bigger screen), primarily with Snapseed or some other processing app. In some cases, I download a file from iCloud and do the tuning in Photoshop. And, FYI, all file prep (not tuning) for display on this blog are performed in Photoshop. BTW, the picture editing function in the new 11-series iPhones is now quite robust. Not Snapseed robust but good for a number of image adjustment needs.

IN CONCLUSION: Apple sees its picture making audience as easy-peasy snapshooters and has designed the iPhone camera module to appeal / service that market. Consequently, it is not an "advanced" camera in the sense of user control over the picture making process. That written, have no doubt about it, it is fully capable of producing "advanced" image files / pictures.

As mentioned, if one wants to have more picture making control when using the iPhone (or other smartphone), there are camera apps for that. I am somewhat surprised by the fact that Apple does not have an "advanced" camera app of their own making. Although, why bother when the overwhelming number of iPhone-using picture makers would have no interest in such an app, making the market for it so small that, for the Apple Behemoth, it would not worth the development time, effort and money investment.

civilized ku # 3667-75 ~ a weekend haul o' pictures

see them all in one file ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

all pictures ~ (embiggenable)

Picture making gear is rarely mentioned on this blog other than to re-enforce my oft written idea that gear doesn't matter (it's all about the pictures, stupid). However, there is one piece of picture making equipment for which I am a fanatical advocate ... a photo printer.

It is my strongly held belief that, to my eye and sensiblities, you can make as many image files with a camera as you like, but, they are not pictures until they are made into a thing. That is, a physical / tangible object, in and of itself. If ya ain't makin' prints, y'all have left the party before the fat lady sings.

That written, iMo (and I am most definitely not alone), the only manner in which to truly appreciate a photograph is by viewing a photographic print. Every other viewing platform, with the exception of well printed photo books, is merely a comprimised facsimile of the real thing.

This is especially true of viewing images online. No matter how expertly the file may have been prepared for online viewing, a viewer's impression of it is determined by the calibration, or lack thereof, and quality of his/her device's screen. Even if a device is cailbrated to within an inch of its life, it can never convey a sense of or characteristics of the surface of a print ... something to which persnickety picture print makers devote a lot of attention.

Amongst aother differences, perceptually / emotionally a computer / device screen creates a cool viewing experience whereas a print is perceived by most as a warm viewing experience. Whether a viewers consciously feels it or not, cool is off putting, warm is inviting. In the total viewing scheme of things, to my eye and sensibilities, this maters a lot.

While I could brattle on about the, to me, significant differences between screen and print viewing, what really matters most to me is how an image file, which I may have spent considerable time viewing on my monitior (during the editing / processing thereof), figuratively comes alive when it emerges from my printer. The sensation is rather like I am viewing a different image.

It is my belief that the sensation / feeling of an image "coming alive" is due to the fact that I am looking at a real thing. I can hold it, touch it and appreciate the qualities of its surface. My eyes can move over the image on the surface of a print in a manner they can not on a screen. Then there is the perception of an inky richness and depth which no screen presentation can effect.

All of the above written, my love affair with prints has created something of a problem ... I make a lot of prints. Many more prints than I have wall space to accomodate. A problem which has suggested a solution to which I am not immune ... might be time to convert 2/3s of the space in our 2-car garage into a full-fledged gallery space. Or, alternately, rent a store front space and open a gallery.

civilized ku # 3666 ~ it is what is-just deal with that

And now, a bit of irony* ....

Yesterday, after going off on a stupid idea about the medium of photography and its apparatus (conventions and vernacular, not gear), I reflected upon a quote from Bruce Davidson ...

"I am not interested in showing my work to photographers any more, but to people outside the photo-clique."

I found that comtemplative act to be a very calming antidote for yet another attack of stupid-content trumps all-picture making advice agita. Davidson's quote pretty accurately reflects my position on with whom I most enjoy sharing my pictures.

It would be simple, but not accurate, to write that I don't like sharing my pictures with other picture makers. However, I don't discriminate against other picture makers, per se. Rather, I am sick unto death of those who view my pictures (or pictures made by others) and seem to only see the tools of the trade and their technical application.

That written, it is accurate to write that most of those viewers are, in fact, picture makers. And, conversely, those who view my work, first and foremost, simply as a picture are, for the most part, not dedicated / "serious" picture makers. Consciously or not, they tend to be people looking for an aesthetic experience.

That written, there is an interesting 2-sided division / distinction within the picture making ranks. The dividing line between the 2 camps defined by each camps' picture making intentions.

On one side of the dividing line are those whom I would label as "serious" picture makers. A moniker which I use to describe avid amateur picture makers who are somewhat enraptured with gear and technique. Picture makers who are capable of making nice photographs which are much admired by other "serious" picture makers, but, in fine art world, not so much.

On the other side of the line are picture makers who rarely give a rat's ass about gear and technique. Or, only as much as is needed to create what really matters to them. That is, the print as the final expression of their picture making vision. Picture makers, I would tend to label as artists as opposed to calling them photographers.

At exhibitions of my work those viewers in the first group are easily identified by the fact that, inevitably, they get their noses so close to my prints that, if I had expelled gas while making those prints, they would probably be able smell it. And, after the nose inspection, they approach me and, the first words uttered are, "What camera are you using?"

That behavior stands in direct contrast with that of those in the second group who view the work from a respectful distant-taking in its entirety. If they approach me, their comments tend to be along the lines of, "Nice work / good stuff" and the like ... comments which could be taken as lame platitudes but are often accompanied by extended conversions about an opinion / observation, re: aesthetics. Nary word is heard about gear or technique.

IN CONCLUSION let me borrow a quote from Susan Sontag who, in her essay Against Interpretation was imploring art critics (and by extention, the general art viewing public) to get beyond the obsession with content (meaning) and ...

"...learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more." in order to be " experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are.

By extention, I would suggest that "serious" picture makers do the same in order to get beyond the obssession with gear / technique when viewing photographs.

*in case you you didn't get it ... I am displaying my pictures on a photo blog which is followed by picture makers.

civilized ku # 5350-53 / ku # 1414-17 ~ a body in motion tends to stay in motion

All pictures embiggenable

rainy Adirondack Spring day ~ µ4/3

back when all was right with the world ~ iPhone

this morning / reflected light ~ iPhone

This Tuesday past was the start of the better part of a month of travel. It seems that, while I am traveling, I make a lot of pictures and that propensity has held true over the past few days.

Tuesday and Wednesday were local-ish travel days. Tuesday was a 180 mile round trip to Blue Mountain Lake where I meet with Adirondack Lakes Center for the Arts gallery director to discuss the details of my upcoming exhibition. Picture wise, the result of that venture was the landscape pictures above. All of those pictures were made in the rain.

Yesterday, it was another 180 mile round trip to Glens Falls (just outside of the southeast corner of the Adirondack PARK) to transport my grandson Hugo to an endodontist appointment. After that we drove by the Hyde Collection Museum to check out what was on exhibit and, as chance would have it, the featured exhibit was of Kodak Colorama pictures. I had seen a similar exhibit at the Geoge Eastman House, aka: Eastman Museum, but at the Hyde there were quite number of Colorama pictures I had not seen prior.

I must admit that, at this aged perspective point in my life, I found the pictures to be somewhat humorist-as in,if you don't laugh, you might cry-and full on depictions of innocence-lost naivete. They brought to mind the lines from the song Kodachrome:

They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day

In fact, there were quite a few pictures of sunny days but, figuratively writing, all of the pictures implied that every day, indoor or out, was a "sunny" day. Ahhhh, the grand and glorious American '50s when all was right with the world.

Travel wise, next up-this Sunday-Wednesday-is a 4 day visit to Quebec City with Hugo for our annual Grandpa / Grandson Spring Break Trip. The following Sunday, the wife and I depart from NYC on our train-around-part-of-America trip - the Southern Crescent train to New Orleans (30 hours w sleeping compartment and dining car) for 4 days to include the Jazz Festival. Then The City of New Orleans train to Chicago (20 hours w sleeping compartment and dining car) for 4 days to include lots of blues music, "legendary" Chicago steaks and a 2 day car trip to Racine, Wis. to tour the Frank Lloyd Wright designed Johnson Wax complex. After which, it's back on a train, The Lake Shore Limited (20 hours w sleeping compartment and dining car), for the return to NYC.

There will be pictures.

civilized ku # 5335-48 ~ group nourishment

all pictures embiggenable and iPhone made

An article in yesterday's NYTimes caught my attention. The title, Art Is Where the Home Is subtitled, Two gallery shows make a case for the nourishing aspects of objects in artists’ lives. The article began with this:

Artists are picky people. The objects they live with — furniture, artifacts, ceramics, works by other artists — are usually carefully chosen, and they look it. They highlight an artist’s personal or aesthetic connections (or both), and clarify the nourishment objects can give us.

After reading the article I decided it was time to take stock of the objects in my home so I grabbed my iPhone and went to work. My survey, while not completely comprehensive, gives a good/accurate accounting of where my objects interest lie. Which, in a nutshell, could be described as small objects of a somewhat elclectic nature. Some of which have life-meaning for me, some of which are just weirdly cool.

Again, from the article:

The shows ... form a meditation on some of the ways artists sustain themselves and their art.

Re: the above excerpt. I'll be honest, I have never thought that my groupings (as I have now named them) have contributed to the way I sustain myself and my art. However, this article is making me think that I need to think about that idea. Or not.

In the overall scheme of things pyscho-analytical, the objects I have chosen to be part of my daily life undoubtedly have something to say about me. On the other hand, is that someting I need to care about? I mean, I have known for most of my life that I am somewhat of an outlier inasmuch as a part of me is rather mainstream but there is another part of me that is quite the opposite in many ways.

And, suffice it to say, I have always embraced the outlier part of me and it is that part of me which really differentiates me from the crowd. And, the outlier in me most certainly drives what pricks my eye and sensibilities and, consequently, drives the how and the what of my picture making.

my only large grouping

All of the above written, I do like my quirky objects. They do, in fact, bring a certain amount of joy to my daily life. Joy, of course, could accurately be described as an emotional and intellectual nourishment. So, much to the wife's chagrin (she thinks I have too much "stuff"), I will keep, cherish and keep on adding to my groupings.