# 6514-19 / common places • common things ~ free your mind instead

all photos (embiggenable)

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” ~ Paul Simon from the song Kodachrome

THIS SONG LYRIC HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH me when I think about the idea of going to school-college / university level-for the purpose of learning about how to make good pictures. An idea that, iMo. I believe to be the complete antithesis of how to achieve the goal of making good pictures. That’s cuz, hold onto your hats, I am certain, beyond any doubt, that, in fact, making good pictures cannot be taught. FULL STOP.

For me, this is not a recent conclusion; back in the early-ish day of my commercial photography career, a professor-the same one who brought John Pfahl to my studio for a visit- from RIT’s School of American Crafts / College of Art & Design would bring students from RIT’s School of Photographic Arts and Sciences to my studio on day trips. During those visits I considered it my civic duty to inform those students that, within 5 years of graduation, only 7% of grads would be making a living making photographs. And, to understand that, after learning how to operate a camera, their way around a darkroom (no computers in the photo world at that time), and how not to kill themselves setting up high-powered strobe banks, they would be better served, financially and aesthetically, to get out of school, get a job in some facet of the photography industry, buy ton of film, make a zillion pictures, and, consequently, learn how they see the world.

I am certain that those students were very impressed with my work and studio: nationally-known client work on the walls and in my portfolio. I am also certain that they most likely were more than a little perplexed by the fact, which I drove home quite emphatically, that I had not spent a day, not an hour, not a minute learning anything about photography in a school, workshop, or any other learning institution. Don’t know if anyone ever heeded my advice. But, the simple fact was/is that I figured it all out on my own initiative.

FYI, the only thing I learned from someone else was how to spool 35mm film onto a processing reel; that took all of 5 minutes although it did require quite a bit of practice to consistently get it right.

That written, I did read nearly anything I could get my hands on, photography wise. Primarily, that included popular photo magazines which, sooner than later, I moved away from to read mags that featured photographs, not gear. One notable exception to the magazine focus was a subscription to the Time Life Library of Photography. I ended the subscription after receiving 4 books: The Camera, The Print, Light and Film, and Color. The books were hardbound, beautifully printed, and fairly informative, and, mercifully free from any advice from “experts”.

All of that written, Paul Simon sings that his lack of education didn’t hurt him none. I would suggest that a lack of education ain’t hurt a lot of folks none (to include myself). Like, say, as a notable example, Frank Lloyd Wright: with just a little bit of civil engineering education-no degree-under his belt, he went on to be declared by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time". In 2000, one of his projects, Fallingwater (I’ve visited many times), was named "The Building of the 20th century" in a "Top-Ten" poll taken by members attending the AIA annual convention in Philadelphia.

In any event, I ain’t agin readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, per se, as long as that educatin’ teaches one how to think. Ya know, so’s yinz can read the writtin’ on the wall.

# 6504-08 / common places • common things ~ in the eye of the beholder

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED A VERMONT based gallery-PhotoPlace [GALLERY] (link)-that conducts, per their website, “monthly, juried photographic exhibitions to photographers worldwide, each with a new topic and internationally recognized juror”. Their current juried exhibition’s theme is The Poetry of the Ordinary; a theme that is right up my alley.

Over the years I have submitted photos for many of their monthly exhibitions and am pleased to report that on 12-15 occasions (I have not kept count) my work has been accepted for the gallery exhibitions. Considering that there are usually 3-4K worldwide submissions per exhibtion, that is a reasonable accomplishment. In any event, I will be submitting work for the current call for entries which states:

As photographers, we have developed skill in seeing beneath the surface of our subjects, and often find in them the beauty, poignancy, and poetry that exist in ordinary moments. For this exhibition, we seek the simple poetic elegance of the ordinary.

As I wrote, that statement seems to be right up my alley. However….depending upon the juror, he/she might have a very different understanding on the word “ordinary”. For instance, in the 3 example photos on call for entries page, is the spreader in the mist/fog ordinary, or, is the runner with the broom in the smoke(?) ordinary? ….

…..to my and sensibilities, I think not. Inasmuch as the runner himself and the spreader itself are rather ordinary, the circumstances in which they are pictured is seems to be very much out of the ordinary. Of course, what I think doesn’t matter but someone-the juror? the gallery director?-thinks otherwise. And that situation- a differing definitions of what constitutes the ordinary-makes me think my pictures of the ordinary might not be what fits the bill.

Then there is, for me, the idea of “seeing beneath the surface”-an adage / concept that has been bandied about the medium seemingly forever. And, it is a concept about which I am very uncertain, re: what the hell does that mean? I am fairly certain it does not mean that one should elevate / pick up one’s subject to see what’s underneath it. Nor do I believe that it implies that one is making pictures with an x-ray device.

Wise comments aside, the phrase when used as a proposition means: aspects of it-one’s nominal photographic subject-which are hidden or not obvious. That is a meaning which I can embrace-with caveats-cuz in my photographs I try to capture and express something about what I picture that is not obvious to the casual observer-the “hidden”, aka: unseen in situ, but can be made “obvious” in a photograph, aka: form.

The primary caveat I have about making a photograph that is about something hidden or not obvious is that, in my case, I am not photographing something, the referent, which I or most anyone would consider to be, in and of itself, beautiful, poignant, or poetic. Rather, my intent to is to make a object, i.e. a photograph, that, in and of itself, may be considered to beautiful, poignant, or poetic.

Consider the referent in the photos in this entry. No one I can think of believes that, as an example, my kitchen trash can, stove, and floor are beautiful, poignant, or poetic in and of themselves. However, I do believe-please forgive my self-aggrandizing opinion of my work-that the photograph thereof and the form it presents is a beautiful photograph, in and of itself. Or, at the very least, visually interesting. Of course, I am also comfortable with the fact that other viewers may not agree.

All of that written, I can only hope that the juror of the exhibition will agree that one of pictures fits the bill.

# 6455-58 / decay • landscape • around the house • people ~ it's a better world

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

MORE NEGATIVE NATTERING FROM THE Doomsday crowd, Photography Division:

Doomsayer # 1: It's clear to me that we're in the sad twilight of the era of photography as a serious hobby.

Doomsayer # 2: I'm interested in what stuff looks like now. And I'm much more interested in the popular media for viewing images now. The web. The monitor. The screen….I've been to too many galleries that cater to customers my age.….Mewing over the "wonderful tonality" of a print with content as boring as a tax audit. While all the good stuff is floating around in the ether….. It's like art stuck in amber…. I haven't shown a print or made a print in at least ten years.

Re: “the sad twilight” - pure BS. I live in a small town (p.600) in a rural area. Every once n a while, aka: when I get the itch, I post a notice on an local online newsletter that I am conducting a improve your Phone picture making class. It regularly draws 6-8 people. People who are what I would call the new “serious” picture making hobbyist inasmuch as they are “serious” about making better pictures and they spent a fair amount of time and creative energy making those pictures. And, I might add, it it just delightful be around picture makers who are not gearheads, who just go out and make pictures.

And, while it constitutes just anecdotal evidence, I also have 2 baseball-style caps that I wear which display photo related messages; one simply has the KODAK logo, the other simply says 18% Gray. Both hats are frequent conversation starters with complete strangers who are, not surprisingly, amateur picture makers. The KODAK hat draws out a surprising number of film picture makers. Not surprisingly, the 18% Gray hat draws out the true cognoscenti. However, in either case, it is interesting to discover how many picture makers are out there hiding-unadorned with cameras-amongst the populous .

Now if your picture making (dimwitted) prejudices dictate that you can’t be serious unless you have “serious” gear (or wear a “photo” hat), then I guess the millions of such picture makers as described above are just flotsam and jetsam that have been thrown off the true-believer (photography) ship of state. Which, iMo, is a good thing inasmuch as all the killer sharks are actually on the ship.

Re: “I haven’t shown or made a print in at least 10 years” MORONIC - I am a true believer in the adage that it’s not a photograph until you make a print. That’s cuz it seems very obvious to me that a photograph is a thing - a physical / tangible object. You know, an actual thing that one can find in a shoe box after the person who made the thing is dead and gone.

In the visual arts world the thing is the thing. Sure, sure; in some quarters digitally created and digitally viewed images qualify as a visual art but ya can’t go the gallery gift shop and buy a postcard of it that you can place on your refrigerator door. Or…

Consider this…since we are discussing photography, it is safe to assume that, if one is creating art that is a reflection of one’s unique vision, then it also safe to assume that one tries to express that vision on the surface of one’s prints. That is, a print which exhibits / presents to a viewer one’s vision is a precise-fixed size, specific surface texture, color /tonal balance-and permanent manner. Qualities and characteristics that, quite simply and truthfully, can not be had in the digital domain on a display screen.

Forget the idea of making art and just consider the making of pictures of family, friends, travels, events, et al. The best way of sharing these pictures is in print form. I make both photo books and prints of our travels and events which, of course, include family and friends. The prints are on walls and in piles of small prints all over our house. They are constant, ever-present reminders of our life experiences and are a constant source of curiosity for friends and visitors.

(embiggenable)

All of that written, I believe we are in a happy decline of the traditionally embraced ideas of what constitutes a “serious” picture maker. The result of which is a freer / looser picture making attitude that is slowly but surely producing more diverse and interesting photographs.

I also believe, as demonstrated by the growth and popularity of online print making services- prints and books-and the emergence of combined print making + framing services, the walls of homes will be adorned with more framed photographs than ever before.

# 6452-54 / kitchen life-sink • around the house ~ some facts of life

all photos (embiggenable)

part of death in the ER sequence from Day In The Life of An Urban Hospital book

The photographer’s bias is for straight photography. For a photograph to be called a “photograph” it should first and foremost be a fact. Insofar as it is not, it is something else. ~ K.B.Dixon

Some facts are crueler than others.

# 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