#6900--02 / common things • around the house ~ old dog new tricks

all photos (embigenable)

IN HIS BOOK, Why People Photograph, Robert Adams wrote:

“…photographers must also face the threat that their vision may one day be denied them. Their capacity to find their way to art-to see things whole-may fail for an hour or a month or forever because of fatigue or misjudgement or some shift in spirit… For every Atget, Stieglitz, Weston, or Brandt who remain visionary to the end, there is an Ansel Adams who, after a period of extraordinary creativity, lapse into formula… when photographers get beyond copying the achievements of others, or just repeating their own accidental first successes, they learn that they do not know where in the world they will find pictures …”

FOR SOME TIME I HAVE BEEN RUMINATING ON the idea of “repeating my own first successes” inasmuch as, when began to make pictures, I did so with what I eventually came to recognize as my own personal vision. A vision that continues to dictate the manner in which I make pictures; id est, I photograph what I see in the manner of how I see it. Throw in the fact that, in my “serious” work, I tend make only square pictures, one could state that I am continually repeating myself, picture making wise.

On the other hand, I can rationalize myself out of that (square) box simply by noting the fact that what, referent wise, I picture is spread out all over the map of life and living, a picture making habit that label as discursive promiscuity. And BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, I also have an accepting and comfortable relationship with complexity.

Be all of that as it may, my vision remains firmly intact. However, I have acquired an itch that requires at least a bit of scratching. That is, the nagging desire to make pictures that do not conform to my “standard” deep depth-of-field, shades of the old-timey f 64 look. FYI, that desire is a long-standing one, for me, that has been exacerbated by the inherent quality of small(ish) sensor* digital photography wherein, typically, pictures tend to have deep depth of field, aka: everything in focus, nice and sharp. One might suggest that I am suffering from a (very) mild case of sharpness fatigue.

So, enter the iPhone and its PORTRAIT setting. Apple has continued to improve its functionality and I have been playing with it for a while now. And yes, the results are not exactly the same as making pictures with a large sensor, so called full-frame, camera coupled with a wide open, large aperture (aka, fast) lens. Plus, its function is limited to subjects within a 2-8ft range.

Nevertheless, to my eye and sensibilities, it does satisfy my desire for narrow DOF looking photographs. And, I do really appreciate the fact that I can modify the DOF effect to a greater or lesser degree-as many times as I wish after the picture is made.without permanently adjusting the original file.

All of that written, here’s the surprising thing that has appeared, seemingly out of nowhere; a significant number of these PORTRAIT setting pictures have been seen and made as “full frame” photographs. Who would / could have thought?

In any event, the one trait that I like most about these narrow DOF photographs is that, to my eye and sensibilities, they look just like photographs. And I do want my pictures to look like photographs.

*The magnification of a lens means how large (or small) a subject can be reproduced on the image plane (e.g., film and image sensor). As one increases magnification, the depth of field decreases. Conversely, as one decreases magnification, the depth of field increases.

# 6895-98 / common things • around the house ~

signs of life ~ all photos (embiggenable)

IN MY LAST ENTRY I WROTE ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A righteous photo blog. It was mentioned that blogs which feature only photographs are #1 in my book. Although, a few well written words about the medium and/or the vision which drove the creation of those photographs can add a bit of context to the pictures. Given those druthers, I find that are quite a few of the former but precious few of the latter.

iMo, backed up by my experience, the primary reason there are only a precious few photo blogs with well written words about artist’s vision (or the medium in general) is that writing about photography-driven vision is not a topic that those who have it are inclined to make an attempt to explain it. As Robert Adams wrote:

“Photographers are like other artists too in being reticent because they are afraid that self-analysis will get in the way of making more art. They never fully know how they got the good pictures that they have, but they suspect that a certain innocence may have been necessary…The main reason that artists don’t willingly describe or explain what they produce is...that the minute they do so they’ve admitted that failure. Words are proof that the vision that they had is not…fully there in the picture. Characterizing in words what they thought they had shown is an acknowledgement that the photograph is unclear-that it is not art.” from Why People Photograph

ASIDE It should go without saying writing, that one of my favorite righteous photo blogs is lifesquared.squarespace.com. I really appreciate the manner in which the author writes about photography in general without writing specifically about his pictures. Although some might suggest that that is just a sneaky cheat to imply that what he writes is actually about what he is attempting to do in his personal picture making. I guess the same could be suggested about the many quotes he presents from from photographers and photo critics; that those quotes tend to have the same end-aka: pov about the medium-as his. Be that as it may, at the very least he never tries to explain his pictures. END OF ASIDE

I believe that a perfect example of “admitting failure” can be found in the writing that accompanies every photo body of work created by the Academic Lunatic Fringe crowd. I have yet to view a single ALF picture which visually coveys the meaning ascribed to it by the psycho-social-scientific balloon bread writing that accompanies it.

While there is, some might say, an excessively staggering “wealth” of writing about photography out there, it is my experience that there is very little of it that does not end up making the picture(s) smaller, less complex, less resonant, depleted, and impoverished. In fact, it seems that it is quite difficult to write something about photography that does not get in the way of the pictures.

In any event, the key to good writing about photography, especially by photographers themselves, could be explained in words by the poet X. J. Kennedy:

The goose that laid the golden egg

Died looking up its crotch

To find out how its sphincter worked

Would you lay well? Don’t watch

#6893-94 / common things • around the house ~ what's in a name?

all photos (embiggenable)

photography noun pho•to•gra•phy /fəˈtäɡrəfē/ : the art, application, and practice of creating images by recording radiant energy, especially light, on a light-sensitive surface.

IN AN ENTRY-The future of photo blogs-ON A “PHOTO” BLOG (as so labeled by the author), it was stated that:

“…it's almost like the joy of discussing new gear and new techniques has been wholly replaced on most of our photo blogs by personal observations about day-to-day routines, life's struggles, diets, and photo walks….”

Now I could go on a 5,000 word rant about the “joy of discussing new gear” but I won’t. Instead, I will attempt to discuss, with a modicum of intelligence, what, iMo, qualifies-and does not-as a photo(graphy) blog.

A simple / concise description of my idea of what constitutes a righteous photo(graphy) blog is one that features photographs. Blogs that feature photographs + thought-provoking words regarding the medium and its apparatus (aka: its conventions, applications, practices) are a bonus.

Or, in other words, I like blogs that, first and foremost, feature photographs that poke, prod, tickle, and challenge my visual senses. Toss in a few words / a little brain stimulation along the lines of what-the-hell-is-a-photograph-(any photograph)-anyways? and I’m hooked and the site is earmarked.

If one takes the time to find and follow some good leads, aka: links, I find that there are a surprising number of blogs / sites out there that satisfy my aforementioned wants. Rarely does a week go by during which I do not discover something new and interesting. There is a surprising amount of really good work out there being made by no-name photographers.

As for the “joy” to be had by discussing new gear, new tricks, how to-s, et al, I have to write that, for me, the “joy” eludes me. And, quite frankly, it annoys me to a certain extent that blogs which traffic in such subjects call themselves photo blogs. Whereas, at best, they might legitimately considered to be photo related blogs. Although, for example, gear related blogs most often fall into a category more accurately described as object fetishication related. AND, don’t get me started, re: “photo” bogs that constantly veer off into what the author’s eating, drinking, driving, exercising, recreating, et al habits and preferences are.

All that written, I do have an interest in reading about what an accomplished artist-big name or no name-might have to express about their vision as an integral part of what drives him/her to make pictures. However, that written, my interest in the medium of photography and its apparatus has always been about the pictures.

# 6879-82 / kitchen life ~ who could have imagined?

All photos (embiggenable)

IN MY LAST ENTRY I WROTE ABOUT THE MATURATION of the medium, c.1970s, a key element of which included the realization of its unique and intrinsic relationship with, and as a cohort of, the real world wherein any thing and every thing was color-ed and considered to be referent acceptable. Or, as Szarkowski wrote…

“… [an] encompassing motif [that] is itself so broad and hopelessly unformed, with so many aspects, angles, details, sotto voce asides, picturesque subplots, and constantly shifting patterns-and none of this clearly labeled…”

This casting aside-by the fine-art picture making crowd-of the then conventional what-is-appropriate-subject-matter wisdom was, iMo, a very belated-case in point, re: hidebound, insular thinking-recognition / realization of the picture making practice employed by the ubiquitous, next door snapshot-ers ever since the advent of the earliest amateur, handheld film cameras. Snapshooters who-as an English writer observed in 1893-

“… run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? … They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera focused, the shot is taken! There is no pause … To them, composition, light, shade, form, and texture are so many catch phrases…”

As photographers, Fine-Art Division, pursued / explored this expansive picture making possibility landscape, the pictures they produced tended to have-to the casual viewer-the look of amateur-ish color snapshots. And, in an almost humorous, historic recurrence, the response-from “serious” amateurs and photo critics alike-to this sea see change was a nearly word-for-word repetition of the aforementioned 1893 “run rampant” observation. Case in point, Szarkowski’s introduction of the William Eggelston’s Guide exhibition / book was greeted by the then “traditional photo world with outright derision and scorn: “must be a joke”, “a put-on”, “can’t be serious”, etc., etc. Quite obviously, Szarkowski had a different opinion:

“… such pictures often bear a clear resemblance to the Kodachrome slides of the ubiquitous neighbor next door … it should not be surprising if the best photography of today is related in iconography and technique to the contemporary standard of vernacular camera work, which in fact, is often rich and surprising. The difference between the two is a matter of intelligence, imagination*, intensity, precision and coherence.”

Szarkowski recognized that what was happening at the time; a significant group of phorographers where striving to break free of conventional picture making “wisdom”, all the while in pursuit of creating a distinct art form with a unique visual syntax.

an ode ~ (embiggenable)

*I never imagined that my kitchen would be such fertile ground for picture making. On the other hand, once I began to make pictures therein, I continued to do so cuz I could, if I kept my eye and sensibilities open, imagine that a world of unknown picture making possibilities might just be lurking therein.

I believe that what one is drawn to-or chooses-to photograph is a creative act-innate or conscious-of one’s own unfettered imagination.

# 6870-71 / common things • around the house • decay ~ recuperating

HAVEN’T BEEN AT MY COMPUTER FOR A FEW DAYS while recovering from a very nasty icy sidewalk fall. However, Also haven’t been inclined to make any pictures but I did spend some time making Lego flower arrangements. And while I was wiling away the time, I did receive a notice that one of my photographs was accepted into a REMAINS-themed exhibition.

# 6859-63 / common places / things ~ a day in the life

woke up. looked out the front door. made a picture. ~ All photos (embiggenable)

drank coffee, had a donut. went upstairs to get dressed. made a picture.

after a doctor appointment went to grocery store. made a picture.

went back home. went upstairs to warm up the cocktail hour porch. made a picture.

late night just before retiring noted part of an 8 year old arrangement on the fireplace mantel. made a picture.

SO ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY HAS ME thinking, re: forget about defining what may or may not constitute a good color photograph and/or photographer. Instead, how about defining what constitutes a good photograph independent of categorization- i..e., bw / color, street / still life / landscape / et al.

CAVEAT there can never be a universal definition cuz, as Julian’s grandmother said, “For every pot there’s a lid.” Itaque, the definition found herein is decidedly influenced by my bias(es).

It would be easy, and a cop-out, to just quote Ansel Adams and be done with it:

“There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs.”

On one level that makes some sorta sense. Although, yes, he was most likely offering an opinion about rules, as in, you don’t need no stinkin’ rules to make a good photograph. However, the fact of the matter is that, if there are good photographs there must also be not-so-good (bad?) photographs-plenty of which were made by the rules. In any event….

My photographs-and those which give me viewing pleasure made by others-tend to be driven by an openness to every picture making possibility the world offers. An openness-sorta like making photographs “to find out what something will look like photographed” (Garry Winogrand)-which is akin to curiosity. That is, a curiosity which recognizes that any thing in life, if accurately and profoundly penetrated by “seeing…observation full and felt” (Walker Evans) is interesting and always strange.

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-most often present interweaving repetitive visual elements of line, shape and color. Nevertheless, the recognizable individuality of any motif is superseded by its role in the pictorial whole. It is the resultant pictorial effect, not the technique, that predominates. The whole is indeed is greater than the sum of its parts. And, I might add, the whole is most often greater than that which is literally depicted.

I am not interested in technique beyond having enough to get the job done. And, the last thing I would want to be evident in my photographs is how they were made. To wit, Robert Adams said it best:

“…if the goal of art is to be reached, only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.”

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-always dwell in the two dimensional world. That’s cuz there ain’t no 3D in the world of photography. It’s flat as pancake, paper (substrate) thin and best viewed-and pictured-in that perspective. Apologies to stereoscopic practitioners.

All of the above written, I suppose I could have just written that my photography pursuits have the goal of suggesting that the commonplace is a never-ending, ever-changing world of visual patterns / forms which present the opportunity for the making of interesting, strange, and therefore, to eye my and sensibilities, beautiful pictures. I also like pictures made by other like minded picture makers. Although, I am always open to surprises.

# 6858 / common things • around the house ~ get real

my new camera ~ (embiggenable)

AS THE IDEA OF COLOR TRUNDLES AND BLUNDERS DOWN THE winding interweb road of foggy thought, this concept popped up:

“In a lot of cases, color is an essential part of the information being conveyed….There are lots of times you need color just to accurately describe what you're depicting. Of course, looked at the other way around, this might be just an aspect of photography's humdrum role as a tool in commerce and so many other quotidian purposes….it's simply workmanlike.”

Yikes. Bear with me as I write this about that…

In the so called straight photography world of fragmentation and contingency, I would argue that color photography-i.e. pictures which exhibit color as seen in the real world (as much as the medium allows)-is, in fact and in practice, the only legitimate / truthful / reasonably accurate manner in which to represent the real world. That simply is cuz, to the healthy human eye, the real world is seen and perceive in color. Period. End of sentence.

iMo, monochrome, aka BW, photography is a massive fakery-deceit, deception, dissimulation-in that regard. I believe that to be so for many reasons but never more so than when I hear / read the idiotic idea that monochrome photography gets to the “essence” of things cuz it eliminates the “distraction” of color…ya know, like, say, if apples were grey then we would be able to get to their essence more directly. iMo, that is quite simply pure poppycock.

Don’t try to convince me of that idea by citing Weston’s pepper. That’s a very nice picture, some would say, a very sensuous picture and I would agree, however…a significant part of a pepper’s essence is the fact that it is green (or red). That written, I would agree that Weston’s pepper photography is an exquisite example of pictures made in the genre / medium of abstract photography. And, have no doubt about it, I have no reservations, re: monochrome / BW photography as a legitimate art form.

That written, I stand by my belief that color is, well, the color of life. Therefore, since I am living life, I make color photographs.

# 6854-57 / common things ~ perfect color (no such thing)

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

AS THE IDEA / CONCEPT OF COLOR IS BEING BATTED AROUND on TOP, the topic, as is most often the case, devolves into the malarky and flapdoodle world wherein the need for understanding the interaction of color, both a practical and a theoretical understanding, is consider to be de rigueur for the making of a “perfect” color photograph. Ya know, so you can use color as a colorist, rather than as an incidentalist.

In the entry, examples of good ‘great color photographers are given by many. Amongst the names, Saul Leiter is mentioned repeatedly. iMo, very good example but….I doubt that Leiter ever gave much of a tinker'‘s damn about understanding the interaction of color, both as a practical and a theoretical matter. Consider Leiter’s own words:

“I think that mysterious things happen in familiar places…I like it when one is not certain of what one sees. When we do not know why the photographer has taken a picture, and when we do not know why we are looking at it, all of a sudden, we discover something that we start seeing. I like this confusion…I think that I learned to see what h see and do not see. One of the things photography has allowed me is to take pleasure in looking. I see this world simply. It is a source of endless delight.”

iMo, the nano-second that you starting thinking about color when making a photograph, that is the moment that you screw up the process, i.e., you lose the delight of simply looking and begin making a photograph according to the rules. iMo, ya gotta just look and feel it.

ASIDE While I consider Leiter’s work a forerunner of fine-art color photography-inasmuch as he did use color film in his picture making-nevertheless, my thinking is rather conflicted, re: the idea that he was as color photographer. It seems, based upon the fact that he was an experimental-ist when it came to what color film to use. He regularly “explored” the color distortions of expired films and the unpredictable color renditions found in the emulsions of small-manufacturer’s films.

To my way of thinking, Lieter was not utilizing the actual colors of the actual world in the making of his pictures. Rather, he was sorta playing around with the color renditions of one of the tools of the medium, aka: film. So, does that make him something other than a color photographers? A color distortion-ist photographer, perhaps?

That written, his color work-whatever one wishes to call it-is a delight at which to look.