# 6499-6501 / common places • common things ~ It's true. Really, I swear it is.

March 7, 2023

***it’s true to life*** ~ (embiggenable)

ON A RECENT TOP ENTRY THE IDEA OF A PHOTOGRAPH being true / truthful was raised. A subject which always brings out those who like to dance on the head of pin. Consequently, I very rarely pay much attention to such commentary on the subject. That said, I’ll throw caution to the winds and wade into the subject.

First things first; I believe the words true / truthful are misnomers, re: a photograph. That’s cuz a photograph, a thing in and of itself, is, quite obviously (or should be) not the thing that it depicts. Rather, it is depiction of something. And, to my way of seeing / thinking, in the so-called straight photography world I look for depictions that are reasonably accurate representations, inasmuch as the medium and its apparatus is capable, of the thing depicted. And I leave it at that cuz I know…

“…. most serious photographers understand that there's this large gap between the world and how the world looks through a photograph. ~ Stephen Shore

Despite the “large gap between the world and how the world looks through a photograph”, straight photographs, made by both serious photographers and amateur snapshooters, all illustrate recognizable subject matter. Simply put, the depicted referent is recognizable cuz the depiction thereof-the visual essence-is reasonably accurate.

Does that make a given photograph truthful? Well, according to the dictionary-(of artistic or literary representation) characterized by accuracy or realism; true to life-the answer is “Yes, it is truthful.” However, I would write that the visual essence of a straight photograph can be accurate, realistic, or, if you prefer, true to life.

Which leads to this conclusion:

There's something essentially fictive about a photograph. That doesn't mean that if you understand that, and you understand how the world is transformed by the camera, that you can't use the limitations or the transformation to have an observation that is a very subtle perception of the world.” ~ Stephen Shore

All of the above written, there is a catch / fly in the truthy ointment of any given photograph; a photograph is capable of having two different attributes - the literally depicted referent, and, the content, aka: the picture maker’s concept-driven intent (often labeled as the meaning to be had in a photograph). These are two very different things.

Although, to the eye and sensibilities of the picture maker these two attributes-the visual essence and concept (which the picture maker believes to be true)-are inexorably / intrinsically linked. However, to the eye and sensibilities of a viewer of any given photograph, as Susan Sontag has noted….

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy.”

….a picture maker’s conceptual truth is, at best, illusive. And, even if discerned, it could be-re: in the sensibilities, if not the eye, of a viewer-to be un-truthful.

So, getting down to brass tacks, re: can a photograph be truthful? The answer, iMo, is both “Yes.” and “No.” That is, “Yes.”, re: visual essence, and “No.”-or maybe better put as “Anyone’s guess.”-re: the implied concept.

In any event, I am not much concerned about the truth in photography thing cuz, like Garry Winogrand…

“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.”

#6490-92 / single women • common places • common things ~ ennui

February 27, 2023

***this weekend past in Jersey City, NJ*** ~ (embiggenable)

IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE TO ME TO READ a blog entry-from a dedicated gear head-that expresses a sense of (non-commercial) photo making ennui. It would seem that an equipment fetish is not particularly conducive to the making of good photographs.

While it would me very easy for me to heap a bunch of no-shit-Sherlock on the author, I thought that I would instead-for instructive purposes only-intersperse a few Brooks Jensen quotes-from his Things I’ve Learned About Photography-together with a few excerpts from the blog entry in question:

excerpt: All I can manage to say for the photographic process now is that it gets one out of the house…But without a spark behind the process all the trappings of the craft are mostly rendered meaningless and banal….old duffers like me wandering around with wonderful gear in a vain attempt to re-capture the magic we felt when taking photographs in our youth….

The more gear you carry the less likely you are to make a good photograph. ~ BJ

excerpt:…Almost as though we've all concluded that with the endless torrent of images being constantly shared everywhere that no individual shot or selection of shots matters anymore….I felt a certain sense of futility…Another futile attempt to carve out some sort of alternate viewpoint.

…every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit. ~ BJ

Now I am not suggesting that the author is about to give up making non-commercial pictures but, if he were to do so, it would not be much of loss to fine art photo world cuz one should…

Never ask a person who collects cameras if you can see his photographs. ~ BJ

You would never know it by looking at the photographic press [ed. gear focused blogs], but there are an amazing number of creative people engaged in photography who couldn’t care less about equipment but who love photographs. ~ BJ

# 6482-88 / roadside attractions • flora • common places ~ drive by shooting

February 22, 2023

“Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” ~ Edward Weston

DURING THE PAST COUPLE DECADES I HAVE amassed in the neighborhood of 150+ pictures that were made within 20 yards of my car; my car which was pulled over to the side of the road. And, in almost all cases the pictures were made with my feet firmly planted on the edge of the road. Hence, from that picture making M.O. comes the title, roadside attractions.

This practice is the not result of my being lazy or lame. Point of fact, I have ventured far from the road-10-20 miles into the forest / wilderness on foot or in a canoe-spending up to 4-5 nights in the backcountry. Needless to write, I make lots of pictures on those treks.

That written, what pricks my eye and sensibilities along the roadside is the abundance of intimate landscapes brimming with the potential for the making of photographs with a high content of visual energy /complexity. Tangles, thickets, and clusters of bio-diverse, indigenous flora / detritus present a riotously complex visual symphony of color, line, shape, and texture that, when isolated and “organized” within my imposed frame, conspires to give the eye no place to rest.

FYI, years ago, when I began this M.O., my son, the cinemascapist, had labeled this picture making practice my Jackson Pollock picture making state of mind (and eye).

In any event, I am assembling a couple roadside attractions print portfolios, together with a photo book, for submission to galleries. See more roadside attractions pictures in the new gallery on my WORK page.

# 6479-81 / picture windows • common places • common things ~ a window of opportunity

February 21, 2023

THERE IS A WINDOW IN A TINY WINE STORE (350 sq ft?) in a tiny Adirondack hamlet (pop. 690) that the wife and I visit once a month-it’s a 90 minute drive from our house-to pickup our monthly wine club selections. I have recently begun making pictures featuring the window and its view.

The view out the window ain’t much special, except..….iMo, I think it is rather extraordinary inasmuch as, depending upon the time of day, season, quality of light, weather, et al, it presents an ever changing tableau for picture making opportunities. Opportunities that I would love to more fully explore if I can just figure out the logistics.

I would need to make at least 12 pictures in order to consider it as a body of work. Although, who knows? At that point it might not seem worth exploring any further.

# 6460-64 / scrub • scraggle • tangles ~ creativity & imagination

February 8, 2023

“If you have a magic camera that can take a sharp, clear, well-exposed, well-focused, and color-correct picture of most anything, what are you going to photograph? And, at a deeper level, how are you going to express yourself using photography in a way that is individualized or idiosyncratic to you specifically…?…that personal expressiveness and a stylistic identity…” ~ Mike Johnston

FOR THE BETTER PART OF A WEEK I HAVE been struggling with the subject of this entry, i.e., creativity and the imagination in the making of photographs. Specifically so, in the cause of making fine art photographs. I wrestle with the concept of creativity / imagination, re: fine art photography, cuz, to be honest, I do not think it plays a part in the making of such photographs…

…Huh? Say what?

Isn’t creativity/ imagination the answer to Mike Johnston’s question, “…how are you going to express yourself using photography in a way that is individualized or idiosyncratic to you specifically…?…that personal expressiveness and a stylistic identity…” that sets one apart from the maddening crowd.

iMo, the answer to that question is quite simply, “No, it-creativity / imagination-is not the answer.”

To clarify my opinion, let me emphasize the fact that I am addressing the making of fine art photographs as opposed to the making of decorative photographs. That’s cuz, in the referent-centric, decorative photography arena, the repertoire of creativity / imagination most often, if not always, consists of the application of art sauce, aka: flashy technique, “unique” picture making POV (body position), special gear (lenses and the like), and the selection of traditional, spectacular / dramatic-so called “picture-worthy”-referents.

Whereas, in the idiocentric, fine art picture making world, the only application of what might be labeled as creativity / imagination is the use of the picture maker’s innate-not something you can buy at B&H Photo-“individualized or idiosyncratic” vision in the making of his/her photographs; the vision which directs-one might even write, “demands”-what and how a picture maker photographs. More often than not, he/she considers the referent and its visual essence as inseparable with no need to tart it up with any art sauce.

While there are many differences, re: fine art v. decorative photography, one primary difference is that decorative picture makers tend to employ creativity / imagination in the cause of making pictures that scream. “Look at me and let there be no doubt about what my pictures are about.”

Whereas, fine art picture makers have more respect for the viewer inasmuch as they see no need for cheap tricks in order to garner and hold a viewer’s attention and interest. And, in the brave and simple act of presenting to a viewer the unvarnished true-to-the-actuality-of-the-real-world that which has pricked his/her eye and sensibilities, he/she lets the viewer discern what their pictures are about.

“I think about photographs as being full, or empty. You picture something in a frame and it's got lots of accounting going on in it--stones and buildings and trees and air--but that's not what fills up a frame. You fill up the frame with feelings, energy, discovery, and risk, and leave room enough for someone else to get in there.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

Moral of the story: if you need to think about your picture making, spend more time thinking and getting in touch with (aka: feeling) discovering, understanding, and nurturing your vison than you do about being more “creative”.

# 6443-50 / bodies of work ~ stumbling down a dead end street #2

February 3, 2023

***Life without the APA*** ~ (embiggenable)

***Adirondack Snapshot Project*** ~ (embiggenable)

ACCORDING TO THE IDIOT QUOTED IN MY LAST entry, I have apparently been “repeating the same basic work, for decades and decades, unaware that I have been stumbling down a dead end street”. That would be because I have been making pictures driven by my very own picture making vision. A vision that does not allow me to go careening around the technique / visual effects / gear-obsessed picture making landscape like a drunken sailor. To wit, I see what I see and that’s how that I see (all credit to Popeye who said, “ I am what I am and that’s all that I am.)

That written, re: careening around like a drunken sailor, I will readily admit to careening around the referent landscape like a drunken picture maker. A picture making condition condition (affliction?) that I call discursive promiscuity. To my eye and sensibilities, any thing and every thing is fair game for a picture making possibility. The result of that discursive promiscuity is that I have accumulated, over the past 25 years, at least 15,000 pictures.

One might think that that glut of pictures would make for a very unruly mess. However, that is not the case cuz, thanks to the guidance of my vision, the overwhelming majority of my pictures exhibit a consistent,-but not formulaic-very particular attention to form, aka: the “arrangement” of the visual elements-line, shape, tone, color and space-within the imposed frame of my pictures.

This “consistency” leads to a very interesting result; while I rarely work with the thought of creating a body of work in mind, nevertheless, I have, over an extended period of time, realized that my eye and sensibilities have been, and still are, drawn to specific referents again and again. The result is that eventually-many times over the course of years-I “discover” that I have, in fact-albeit inadvertently, created many bodies of work.

ASIDE the body of works illustrated above, with a few images each, are some of the bodies of work I have created, most of which were “discovered” in my library (as opposed to deliberately created). The are at least 6 more bodies of work I could display. END OF ASIDE

And, what I find interesting and very surprising is that, once a number of referent related pictures are organized into a body of work, the coherent consistency of vision is, quite frankly, amazing.

Makes me quite happy that I have not tried to “re-invent” my vision. And BTW, I really like the “street” I am on. It is not a “dead end” and, in fact, there is no end in sight as far as I can see.

# 6427-31 / nocturnal • common places ~ the night is filled with shadows

January 27, 2023

***fiddling*** ***while house burns*** ~ fireman taking a picture (embiggenable)

SPOILER ALERT: well, not really. However, this entry will divulge a key part of my intro for the Philosophy of Modern Pictures book/project. To wit….after a lot of thought and research, I have come to the conclusion that the more things change, the more they remain the same, or, as David Byrne sang, same as it ever was.

Ever since the introduction of the digital picture making age, there has been considerable caterwauling and lamentation-don’t get me started with the monochrome crowd who can tell you the day the music BW died-re: the landmark, tradition changing, revolution about how picture making has change. To which I call, BS.

A far as I can see, sure, sure, light sensitive picture making substrates has changed from film to digital, print making has changed from the wet darkroom to the desktop / software ”darkroom”, and making good pictures, technically wise, has gotten easier BUT, paraphrasing Robert Adams…"

“…the only thing that is new in art [insert “photography’ here] is the example: the message [insert “photographs” here] is are, broadly speaking, the same-coherence, form, meaning.”

In other words, the medium and its apparatus are still inexorably / intrinsically a cohort of the real. That is, we all continue to make pictures of real-world referents-you know, people, places, things. Sure, sure, the tools have changed, but the “message” remains the same.

Of course, one could argue, what about all that special effects / filters / digital constructions stuff? Answer: one of the earliest “movements” in photography was Pictorialism and continued through the ages with Jerry Uelsmann as one of many prime examples. However, virtually all of their works, aka: acts-of-the-imagination pictures, start with pictures of referents snatched from the real world.

iMo, and that of many others, those making acts-of-the-imagination pictures are not photographers. In point of fact, they are artists-often referred to as photo artists-who employ the tools of the medium and it apparatus to create images, not photographs. And, there ain’t nothin’ new ’bout that activity.

So, from my point of view (literally-how I see the world-figuratively-my picture making vision), everything is the same as it ever was.

# 6422-26 / common places • common things • civilized ku ~ what am I spota do master?

January 26, 2023

“I really didn’t have much to teach. I didn’t really believe in it. I felt so strongly that everybody had to find their own way. And nobody can teach you your own way…. in terms of art, the only real answer that I know of is to do it. If you don’t do it, you don’t know what might happen.” ~ Harry Callahan

IN MY SEARCH FOR A NEW BOOK WHICH IS built around a large number of digital photographers’ work-to date an unsuccessful search-my search query yielded up a seemingly endless number of landfill-worthy how-to digital photography books and workshops. Many with an emphasis on how to make so-called “fine art” digital photographs.

Needless to write, none-and I repeat, NONE-of the self-proclaimed “experts” were making pictures that had any resemblance to fine art. You can take that assessment to the bank based upon the absolute fact that, to my extensive knowledge, there is not a single bona fide fine art photographer on the planet who would even consider the idea of making a how-to book. That’s cuz they understand well the verse of 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.

Or consider this from Robert Adams:

“Photographers are like other artist too in being reticent because they are afraid that self-analysis will get in the way of making 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.”

iMo, how to operate camera or use editing software-or, for that matter, process film and make prints in a wet darkroom-can be taught. In any case, it ain’t rocket science but hooking up with someone who can show you ropes can speed things along. But, while anyone can figure out how to make a picture, getting to the point where one’s pictures are considered to be fine art is not so easy.

The hard work arrives in the form of identifying and then understanding how one sees the world. That is, both literally and figuratively. No one can do that but you. For some it comes easy, for some its much more difficult, and, dare I write it, for some it is impossible. ASIDE Re: impossible; that’s where the “rules” of photography come in handy for those can’t figure it out for themselves. END ASIDE

The danger involved in looking for “expert” solutions to the hard work issue is that, upon choosing an “expert” from whom to get advice on how to make “great” pictures, one is more apt to become a photo groupy of sorts-aka: follow the leader-than one who is apt to free one’s mind from the boundaries of conventional picture making. As Brian Cohen says in the film Life of Brian:

You’ve got it wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals. You’re all different. You’ve got to figure it out for yourselves.

Of course, as Brian exhorts the crowd to be individuals-”yes, we are all individuals” they respond collectively-they repeat all he has to say as dogma / doctrine. I guess that explains why all the “experts” are so successful at finding recruits for following their picture making “wisdom”.