# 6507-09 / kitchen sink • common places • common things ~ putting it all together

at someone’s house-NOT MINE-on St. Patrick Day ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

a few samples from my An Adirondack Survey work ~ (embiggenable)

I HAVE NOT BEEN THINKING ABOUT BLOG WISE THINGS over the past week or so. Rather, my time has been occupied with editing out from my photo library approximately 120 pictures for my emergent body of work, An Adirondack Survey ~ as seen in pictures.

The body of work is comprised of pictures-in and of the Adirondacks-that were made over the past 22 years-the length of my Adirondack residency-of my picture making life. Many of these pictures were exhibited as converted-into-snapshot pictures in my solo gallery exhibition, Adirondack Snapshot Project (there are a few samples on my WORK page). In the case of this iteration, the pictures are presented as simple, straight photographic color prints.

In any event, the kick-in-the-butt instigation for assembling this body of work was the re-reading of a 1976 press release from MOMA-announcing the opening of the Color Photographs by William Eggleston exhibition-in which John Szarkowski was quoted as expressing the idea that:

…these photographs are perfect: irreducible surrogates for the experience they pretend to record, visual analogues for the quality of one life, collectively a paradigm of a private view….Eggleston, who lives in Memphis, Tennessee, finds his private, even insular subject matter in the commonplace realities of that city and its environs….While his photographs comprise a remarkable and surprising commentary on contemporary American life, his work is more the engagement of a personal vision than a social document.

My reading of the press release, taken in its entirety, caused me to look at my Adirondack pictures in a new light inasmuch as:

my photographs are visual analogues for the quality of my life, a private view of subject matter found in the commonplace realities of the Adironacks where I live. My photographs-an engagement of personal vision rather than a social documentary-comprise a somewhat surprising-as in rarely seen before-commentary on contemporary Adirondack life.

In order to circulate this work, I am in the process of making a 20 print portfolio and a 50 picture hardbound book for submission to a number of galleries / art institutions. And, I must admit to a degree of fear and trepidation inasmuch as I am laying it all on the line-my personal vision wise-with the submission-to important regional galleries / arts organizations- of this significant collection of my picture making life’s work.

# 6506 / common places • common thing • winter ~ I don't want / need no stinkin' metaphors

(embiggenable)

IT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE somewhere (or so wrote Stephen Shore):

Chinese poetry rarely trespasses beyond the bounds of actuality… the great Chinese poets accept the world exactly as they find it in all its terms and with profound simplicity… they seldom talk about one thing in terms of another; but are able enough and sure enough as artists to make the ultimately exact terms become the beautiful terms.

If there were to be a credo for making straight photographs-bits lifted from the visceral world with such tact and cunning that they seem true-iMo, this would be it.

# 6502-04 / seeing red • common places • common things ~ united diversity

OVER THE COURSE OF MY PICTURE MAKING YEARS I have been accused, or at least it has been “suggested”, of being obsessed with the color red. The actual fact of the matter is that I do use the color red-when I see it-as visual element in many of my pictures. However, yet another fact of the matter is that I have never sought out or specifically look for the color red.

I don’t have to have a single point of emphasis in the picture. It can be complex, because it’s so detailed that the viewer can take time and read it, and look at something here, and look at something there, and they can pay attention to a lot more.” ~ Stephen Shore

Like Shore, I make visually complex pictures for the same reason he seems to do so; pictures that are “so detailed that the viewer can take time and read it, and look at something here, and look at something there, and they can pay attention to a lot more.” In my own words, my pictures tend to evince, as a result of their complexity, a high degree of visual energy as seen across the field of a print. iMo, there is very little better than a splash of some repetitive visual element or another in a picture to get a viewer’s eye moving around that picture.

The screenshot included in this entry is used to illustrate another aspect of my use of the color red. That is, to my eye and sensibilities, I find it is quite interesting and somewhat surprising how the same visual element, when shared across a referent-diverse group of pictures can hold that seemingly disparate group together as a coherent body of work.

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

it’s true to life ~ (embiggenable)

it’s true to life ~ (embiggenable)

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

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

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

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

PS

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

book covers

all pictures ~ (embiggenable)

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

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

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

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

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”.