# 6901-03 / common things-places • around the house ~ one of these things is kinda like the other thing

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

NOW THAT I AM A DAY AWAY FROM ALL of the aftermath-anesthetic hangover, carrying around a bag of urine on my calf for 5 days, et al-of my hand enlargement / prostrate reduction event, I feel capable of addressing the idea of…

an art of expressing much and suggesting more….evoking a definite, though unstated, emotional response….work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm

…as expressed in my pre-op entry wherein I wondered if any one might come up with the word linked to that definition.

Reader Thomas Rink nailed it - the word is poetry. That written, he seems to be curious as to why I might suggest that the medium and its apparatus has a relationship to poetry. Good question which I will try to answer…

CAVEAT I have never been a fan of comparing one form of art with another / different form of art. Especially so when I hear / read the idea that a photograph resembles a painting by xxxxxx. So, fyi, I approach this poetry / photography relationship with a great amount of hesitancy and confliction. END CAVEAT

As best as I can determine, my reason for pursuing this idea derives from my ongoing desire to unravel what I feel when I view a photograph that I consider to be a good photograph (mine or made by others). That’s cuz, when I view a photograph that I consider to be a good photograph I am almost immediately struck by 2 nearly simultaneous sensations; 1) an engaging visual stimulation, and 2) a feeling, aka: an emotional response; akin to Sontag’s “an erotics of art”.

Thoughts rarely enter my mind at that point and I most definitely do not start searching for meaning or the picture maker’s intent. That’s cuz, re: intent, I am looking at the picture maker’s intent-it’s called a picture-which I assume was made with the intention to show the viewer something from the the real world as he /see sees it. Ya know, the vision thing.

How, you might ask, does my very personal way of viewing and experiencing a good photograph relate to poetry?

To be honest I don’t have much interest in poetry with one notable exception, haiku. A form of poetry which, for me, that is an art of expressing much and suggesting more….evoking a definite, though unstated, emotional response…work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm.

Haiku also hits me with 2 nearly simultaneous sensations: 1) a cognitive recognition of the words which creates an emotional state of mind, and 2) visual stimulation; the pictures that emerge in my head.

I would suggest, emphatically so, that that definition / description of poetry is, to my sensibilities, a very fitting description of a good photograph. For photography purposes, one might wish to replace “distinctive style and rhythm” with “personal vision and form” but, either way, it still points in the same direction.

All of that written (and I could go on and on), I believe that good photographs and good haiku are both emotionally rich and, surprisingly, visually rich mediums. Does that mean that I believe that my photographs are a form of poetry / haiku. No, I do not. But, that written, I do believe that good photographs are capable, with the skillful use of the medium’s lyrical and descriptive power, of expressing a picture maker's emotions in an imaginative and beautiful way, making them, in a manner of writing, kinda /sorta poetic.

# 6882-90 / common places-things ~ I don't need no stinkin' sequences

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT MOMA CURATORS OF PHOTOGRAPHY, it was written that:

“…Szarkowski’s innovative approach to exhibition design focused on the interplay between individual images and their collective impact as a series … He emphasised the importance of sequencing and presentation in the way that photographs are displayed, which shaped the way we think about photography today.”

Re: “interplay between individual images” / “impact as a series” / “sequencing and presentation” …

… I have viewed-in person-a pretty fair number of photography exhibitions (100+?) and I have a decent collection of photo books. The majority of those books and exhibitions-in galleries, museums, art centers, et al-have been solo exhibitions or monographs. That is, featuring the work of a single photographer and nearly always presented as a singular photographic “style” / genre, or, themed by referent. And, to be more precise, I tend to view only exhibits that would be classified (by most) as fine art photography; i.e. artistic expression, rather than documentary or journalistic representation.

Suffice it to write that most of those exhibitions / books have emphasized the collective impact of a series of like-minded photographs. I can not attest to how much effort was put into the sequencing of the photographs in those exhibitions / books inasmuch as, to my eye and sensibilities, much fine art photography-non document / journalistic-is not trying to tell a story but rather to create a feeling.

All of that written, I am working on putting together a book of my photographs which is based / organized under banner of good photographs. In this case “good” is defined as photographs that are visually engaging and interesting to view; the engagement and interest created, not by what is pictured (a real-world referent) but rather by how it is pictured (how I see it, aka: my vision). Needless to write, as a result of my discursive promiscuity manner of making photographs, I do not limit my picture making to a single given referent.

Which is not to write that narrowly focused referent themed bodies of work do not, over time, emerge from my cumulative body of work. I have, at last count, a dozen or so bodies of work based upon singular referents; my kitchen sink work as an example. And, I have individual photo books that illustrate each body of work. But…

… here’s the interesting thing I have come to realize - while viewers like-in a book or on a gallery wall-those various bodies of work, the books that viewers seem to like the best are the couple year-in-review photo books I have made. That is, books that are a collection of what I consider to be good photographs, regardless of the depicted real world referents, made during a given calendar year.

The photographs in those books are not trying to tell a story. Nor are they presented in referent-related sequences or chronological order. Most photographs are in color but a BW photograph might pop up here and there. And, while I am known for making square format pictures, suffice it to write, don’t try to pin me down on that.

If there is a unifying aspect to these year-in-review photographs, it is simply that they are all straight photographs. That is to write that there is no technical wizardry, special equipment, or art sauce applied. I just make pictures of what I see.

I am delighted that so many viewers of my discursive promiscuity photographs, as presented in my year-in-review photo books, do experience a collective, although often indescribable, impact from their viewing of my work. This reaction, despite the fact that I am disregarding, flaunting if you will, the conventional / traditional wisdom(s) of interplay between individual images, the importance of sequencing in the way photographs are displayed / presented, and the emphasis upon single subject bodies of work. Attributes to which I pay scant, if any, attention.

Apparently, or, at least to me, it seems that some people are capable of moving from one seemingly unrelated picture to another-in a book or exhibition-and, nevertheless, come away at the end of it all feeling that they have experienced a unified whole.

# 6816-22 / common places•things • kitchen sink • around the house • 1 very un-common thing ~

view from my back yard ~ all photos (embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS I HAVE BEEN clicking away making pictures created with the iPhone ultra-wide lens, AKA: linear convergence pictures. The results suggest to me and my eye and sensibilities that that picture making technique is a valid concept for making a linear convergence body of work. Although…

… as can be seen when comparing 2 pictures made of the same scene (desktop workspace) but with different camera orientations-1 camera held vertical, 1 camera held at a downward angle-the results are quite different inasmuch as 1 view emphasizes the so-called wide-angle lens distortion, there other not so much. Which begs the question, “Should I limit my linear convergence picture making to one look or the other?”

My initial answer is that I do not want to mix and match the looks. So, it must be one way or the other. However, it may be that there is another option; a much less downward angle that more subtly exhibits the lens distortion. I’ll give that a go over the next few days.

FYI, over the past few days, I tried to resist being a 1-trick (linear convergence) picture making pony by making a few telephoto so-called compressed perspective pictures. Ya know, even more photos about photography.

cityside

countryside

# 6903-06 / common places / things ~ it is what it is and that's all that it is

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

A FEW DAYS AGO, WHILE HAVING MY MORNING coffee, I made a picture; the making of which was instigated-very uncharacteristically (for me)-by an idea that the picture could serve well as a metaphor for a topic I have been considering, id est: the meaning(s) to be found in a photograph….

“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening… .A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.” ~ Gary Winogrand

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy…. Strictly speaking, one never understands anything from a photograph.” ~ Susan Sontag

On that topic I am in basic agreement with Winogrand and Sontag inamuch as I believe that photographs are “mute” and “cannot themselves explain anything”. And, made in a straight photography manner-”A piece of time and space is well described”-a photograph can show “what something looks like”.

That written, I am in total agreement with Sontag’s idea that “photographs…are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy”. Inasmuch as photographs are mute, they nevertheless have the potential to incite feelings and/or emotional responses. However, that written, those responses are most often (or is it always?) the result of what an individual viewer brings to the act of viewing a particular photograph.

Consequently, one viewer’s response to a given photograph may be diametrically opposed to another viewer’s response to the same photograph. And, it is well within the realm of possibilities that neither response is that which the picture maker intended to incite. Or, in other words-and to paraphrase the notion that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”'-I would believe that, re: meaning in a photograph, the meaning is in the mind of the beholder.

Case in point, my “metaphoric” photograph in this entry; if I did not inform the you that the reflection in the glass on the art work-which is rather vague and indistinct-was seen by my eye and sensibilities to be representative of the indistinct and vague meaning that might be found / hidden in the photograph, would you “get” it? And, I can further suggest that the attempt to find meaning in a photograph-or any art-tends to get in the way of seeing the full expression of the picture maker’s vision, id est: what I was trying to show you.

All of the above written, it should be understood that I do indeed have have an intent, aka": what my pictures are “about”, in my picture making. However, that intent is important only to me. It is not important to the viewer of my pictures. It is not my responsibility to tell the viewer what to think feel when viewing my pictures. That’s cuz I want viewers to make of my pictures exactly what they will.

In any event, while doing research for this entry, I came across the following on forum topic re: meaning. I truly believe that most of the medium’s iconic Fine Art (acknowledged) photographers would agree, if they were honest, recognize this idea as integral to their picture making intent:

“What do my photographs mean? Well, I saw something that I thought looked worth recording, for whatever reason at the time. The scene interested my eye, and that's all it means to me. If I show you the picture, it's because I think it may interest you as well.
That's the meaning of my pictures.” ~ barzune (nom de web forum)

#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.