# 6003-05 / around the house ~ casting about

ON MY LAST ENTRY THOMAS RINK WROTE A COMMENT IN WHICH he describes a picture making project he is working on. A project that bears a working premise that is somewhat similar to the project I wish to undertake.

“I'm currently pursueing a similar project, for about a year now. It's "about" a place where I've grown up….[T]he photographs are not about particular subject matter….but what I try to achieve is to "tell the story" what the place means to me, i.e. how I see it….[I] employ something like a "scatter gun" approach….I'll photograph anything that arouses my interest…”

Thomas’ picture making approach to his project is pretty close to how I will pursue my project. For that matter, his M.O. mirrors my M.O. in today’s making of the 4 pictures in this entry.

# 5998-6002 / around the house•(civilized) landscape ~ going fishing

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Pano Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Pano Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Portrait Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Portrait Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Portrait Mode

OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS I HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT I want to explore the possibility of a new way of picture making. Specifically, to create a new, themed body of work that is different from those bodies of work that have emerged from my discursively promiscuous manner of making pictures.

The big question, re: that desire, is, different in what way? Other than the fact that I would like to create pictures that represent something about the place where I live-in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, aka the Adirondack Park-is a new approach about subject matter? technique? a combination of subject matter and technique together? In any case, in thinking about this, I find that I keep bumping with into the walls of the box into which I have locked myself, picture making wise.

Re: the problem with subject matter - simply written, in my pursuit of making pictures, fine-art wise, I have rarely focused on specific referents. That written, my eye and sensibilities have been pricked by repetitive references-my kitchen sink as one example (of many)-but, not because I seek out those specific referents. Rather, what pricks my eye and sensibilities are sections of the real world which evidence potential as photographs which create interesting visual form.

Consequently, I have a problem with pursuing a specific referent cuz of my fear that placing my emphasis on chasing a specific referent will lead to the loss of my feel for seeing and picturing form.

Re: technique - I have no interest in making any kind of pictures other than straight pictures. I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than to add any thing to my pictures that I consider to be effects or cheap tricks. However, that written…the medium of photography and its apparatus does have a handful of native picture making mechanics with which I have always had an interest.

There is one mechanics in particular that I have tinkered with over the years-that of Depth-Of-Field, aka DOF. My “tinkering” has run the gamut of trying to achieve, in some cases, maximum DOF, or, in other cases, minimal DOF. It all depended-and still does-on what i was intending to achieve, picture making wise.

Virtually all of my discursive promiscuity pictures depend upon maximum DOF to elucidate the form I create. I want the lines, shapes, tones, colors, texture, et al in my pictures to be clearly delineated across the 2D plain of my pictures. However, it has come to my attention in experimenting with the iPhone full-frame format-using the Portrait Mode-that a bit of limited DOF can still accomplish my picture making intentions, form wise.

Literal referent wise, I have always liked limited DOF for its ability to lend a bit of “mystery” to a picture. And, I will readily admit, the contrarian in me wise, that I like it even more considering the current picture making obsession with sharpness and definition to the eye-searing max.

In any event, wherever all of this picture making casting about might end up, I think it will include a bit of limited DOF. And, thank you, thank you to the iPhone for giving me the capability of fine tuning the apparent DOF after the picture making fact.

# 5995-97 / around the house (life without color)•kitchen sink ~ therefore I see

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

STILL MESSIN’ AROUND WITH BW CONVERSION ON SOME OF my pictures. Some of which are converting quite well, by which I mean that they “work” as very good (iMo) photographs. That written, as much as I am pleased with the converted results, the idea of making in-camera monochrome pictures, that is, seeing in monochrome, is, for me, a non-starter.

The primary reason for that consideration is the fact that, in the digital darkroom, the control one can access in the color>bw conversion process is quite formitable-excluding cheesy canned “looks”-especially the capability to accentuate / de-centuate individual colors during the conversion. A capability which mirrors the use of making pictures with bw film using color filters to achieve the same effect. The significant analog/digital difference being that, shooting with film, the use of only 1 filter is possible, whereas in the digital darkroom, one can use as many “filters” during the conversion process as one wants on a single image file.

The other significant reason I do not want to learn to see in monochrome is the fact that I see in color. That is, from an art-making POV, I see color as an individual and integral visual component of the form I wish to create on the 2D plain of a print. From a real-world descriptive POV, the world is full of color. Therefore, picture making wise, I see in color.

All of that written, I do enjoy the visual experience of viewing a rich, well made monochrome print. So, I will be converting to monochrome and printing some of my pictures for display on the soon-to-be constructed, free-standing, 2-sided gallery wall (in my house).

# 5991-94 / life without color ~ it's a whole other thing

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

YESTERDAY, AS I WAS PERUSING A BOOK OF PICTURES MADE BY John Szarkowski-aptly titled, John Szarkowski ~ Photographs-I was struck by the manner in which Szarkowski’s pictures exhibited a rather exqisuite sense of form. A quality which I have rarely felt when viewing bw pictures.

However, that written, I must admit that I have had Szarkowski’s book for 10 years or more, viewed it a number of times since acquiring it and, truth be told, I was not very aware of the sense of form that seems so obvious to me now. I attribute that fact to the other fact, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, which is that I have always liked them cuz they are “quiet”, exquisitely rendered observations of ordinary life. Which is another way of writing that I was seduced and side-tracked by the referents in his pictures.

Shame on me.

In any event, I got to wonderin’ if some of my pictures, made with much awareness of color as an element of the form that I seek to create, could “work” in bw. So, I set about selecting a few pictures and converted them to bw. I even made a couple of large-ish prints-16”x16” / 16”x21”-in order to see how they looked off-screen.

When all was said and done, my conclusion was that some of my pictures “work,” as bw pictures some don’t. I also came to the conclusion that in some pictures, inasmuch as most bw pictures are “abstract” pictures, form is sometimes very apparent due to the fact that a viewer is not”distracted” by color. Lines, shapes, tones and the like seem to assume a very definitive and obvious visual identity as such.

The unexpected result of this monkeyin’ around is that one can, with the use of a high quality inkjet printer with multiple black inks, make some damn nice bw prints. So, I will be making some bw prints for display on the walls of my house. A practice that I have not engaged in for many decades.

In any event, the idea of comparing a color original to its “converted” bw cousin is a fools errand. Each manner of expression has its own visual signature which incites in a viewer a different visual experience.

FYI, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, his images meet my expectations, re: for considering a picture to be a very good picture (dare I write, a Fine Art picture):

“…an image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject manner.” ~ Sally Eauclaire

Or, as I have often written, a picture which illustrates and illuminates.

# 5984 / around the house (book) ~ a certain form of place

(embiggenable)

around the house ~ (embiggenable)

around the house ~ (embiggenable)

OVER THE WEEK PAST I HAVE MADE 3 PHOTO BOOKS. I AM working on a third book with 2 more to follow. Each book will also be accompanied by an 8 print folio. All of this activity is in prep for a major full-on assault on gallery / art institution directors / curators.

One of the things that happened in the creation of the around the house book, which has happened prior, is one day after hitting the order button for the book on the POD site, I made the picture seen on the top of this entry. A picture I most definitely would have included in the book. Needless to write, it will be included in the around the house folio.

BTW, this body of work is yet another body of work that was not planned from the get-go. It is an assembled-after-the-fact, oh-look-what-I-found lurking in my photo library. The amazing thing (to me) about the work is that it is my first body of work that is made using the iPhone full-frame format. A fortuitous picture making happenstance if ever there was one.

FYI, the around the house book contain 20 pictures.

# 5958 / kitchen life ~ navigable space and recognizable subject matter

(embiggenable)

I HAVE RECOVERED FROM MY PISSED OFF AT Squarespace mood swing. So, I am moving on with my greatest challenge to making fine art photographs idea.

Simply written, it is my belief that the medium of photography and its apparatus, when practiced within the “confines” of the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts, present some significant barriers to the creation of photographs that would fall into the world of fine art.

To clarify:

Re: “the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts” - aka: the medium’s intrinsic / ingrained relationship with and to the real. That is, it’s capability of reproducing an accurate and faithful illustration of that at which the picture maker points his/her picture making instrument.

Re: “fine art” - is created and appreciated solely for its aesthetic quality and capacity to stimulate the intellect, aka: art for art’s sake, subject matter be damned. “decorative art”, photography wise, is all about subject matter, aka: the referent, principles of art be damned.

Working within “the ‘confines’ of the medium’s most unique characteristic” most often results in the making of straight photographs. That is, photographs made with the intent of creating an accurate representation-as much as the medium allows-of that at which the picture maker pointed his/her picture making instrument. No art sauce, aka: bullying of the subject matter into exaggerated angles and supersaturated colors, applied during or after the picture making moment.

Working thus presents a number of problems for most “serious” amateur picture makers (those who expend a fair amount of time, money and effort in making pictures) inasmuch as they have been told / taught that the sine non qua of picture making is the subject. The result of that prescriptive is that most serious picture makers set out to find and picture subjects that they are told are suitable-people, places, things representative of “conventional” beauty-for good picture making.

Hence the emergence of too-numerous-to-mention picture making cliches. And, since most “serious” picture makers realize-consciously or otherwise-that they are making pictures that are essentially the same as other “serious” picture makers are making-pick a genre, any genre-the game is on to employ techniques and effects in their picture making in order to stand out from the crowd. Goodbye, straight photography. Hello, decorative photography.

To be certain, most of these “serious” amateurs are making art. However, according to the dictates of the Fine Art World, it is not art that that world considers to be serious art. Setting aside that world’s distain for “artistic” cheap tricks, aka: art sauce, it is also worth considering their embrace of the concept of art fart about art inasmuch as that idea does not give a rat’s ass-even if it’s a picture of a rat’s ass-about the idea of subject matter.

No, iTo, the only things the Fine Art crowd consider worthy considering about a work of art are Content (aka: meaning) and Form. And they have elevated the idea of Concept (meaning) to a fetish, the sine non quo of their art world.

All of that written, one might think that I have no affinity for either art world. While it would be accurate to think that I have little interest in decorative art photography cuz it is just not my thing. On the other hand, much fine art photography is my thing, however…I do subscribe to the tenets of a subset of that world.

The vernacular of that subset does include the idea of art about art but not to the exclusion of subject matter, but not subject matter as the decorative art world considers it. Rather, it is about subject matter and its visual essence as indivisible. Consider this:

Unlike those contemporary artists and critics who denigrate subject matter as an adulteration of the art about art imperative, the most resourceful photographic formalists regard the complexion of the given environment as potentially articulate material…These formalists perceive real objects and interesting spaces as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation….Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is coopted for its visual possibilities, yet delineated with the utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plain on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter. ~ Sally Eauclaire / Color Photographic Formalism

Making pictures which meet the criteria expressed by Eauclaire’s articulate and insightful photographic formalist viewpoint is what I do. And, iMo, her description of Photographic Formalism could be applied to nearly every picture maker’s work that is regarded by the FIne Art World as fine art photography.

All of the above written, I am more than willing to admit that there quite a number of picture makers who do not give a hoot or a holler about whether their work is viewed as fine art or decorative art. On the other hand, many of those same picture makers do harbor a desire to make pictures which transcend the merely decorative, pretty picture modality. Many have tried the How To Master -(insert genre here)- book or workshop route only to find that those materials and prescriptives offer nothing more than gussied up reiterations of glib, decorative art picture making formulas.

In the quest for inspiration, I would suggest a few things….read The Art Spirit (published 1923) by Robert Henri (easily and inexpensively found at many sources), read the first 2 chapter intros-The Problematic Presedents / Color Photographic Formalism in Sally Eauclaire’s The New Color Photography (long out of print but copies can be found at a reasonable cost). And, as a general rule, avoid any book / workshop that promises to make you a “Master” of anything.

Neither book has any “how-to” gibberish. Eauclaire’s book spends deal of effort describing what good photographic art looks and feels like. Henri’s book spends an equal effort describing the mindset. aka: spirit, one might develop and foster in the cause of making good art.

#5945-47 / around the house • civilizedku ~ twitchyness

the place to be on a sub-0 degree (F) day ~ (embiggenable)

the red truck ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I find it strangely beautiful that the camera with its inherent clarity of object and detail can produce images that in spite of themselves offer possibilities to be more than they are ... a photograph of nothing very important at all, nothing but an intuition, a response, a twitch from the photographer’s experience.“ - Joel Meyerowitz