things • people ~ on the subject of magic

February 21, 2024

WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED TO WILLIAM EGGLESTON THAT the design of most of his pictures seemed to radiate from a central, circular core, he responded that this was true, since the pictures were based compositionally on the Confederate flag. This response, in the opinion of John Szarkowki, was…

“…presumably improvised and unresponsive, of interest only as an illustration of the lengths to which artists sometimes go to frustrate rational analysis of their work, as though they fear it might prove antidote to their magic.”

Re: rational analysis - it is the provenance of art critics and academics to delve into the rational analysis-the techniques-and the art theories-the aesthetics-employed in the making of any given piece of art. In most cases the rational analysis is intended to assist a viewer of any given piece of art in more fully understanding, aka: the ability to “interpret” and discover meaning (aka: content”)-and appreciating it. Or, in some cases, to assist a viewer in recognizing that a piece of art is actually a piece of crap.

In any event, whatever the merit(s) of rational analysis might be to some, one prevalent demerit, iMo, is the constant ascription to artists-PhotographyDivision-of consciously / deliberately using techniques and aesthetic devices in the making of their pictures. An assertion that is based upon the ignorance of critics and academics who, for the most part, are not practicing and/or accomplished artists themselves. That is to write, that based upon their voluminous technique and art theory expertise, they are predisposed to miss the forest for the trees.

Re: magic - To continue with the “forest” metaphor - the most interesting picture forests-in this discussion Photography, Fine Art Division-are germinated and fostered by picture makers who tend, on the whole, to understand that art theory and technique-other than what they need to make their vision visible-are nothing more than a hill of beans in their world.

iMo long-considered opinion, their “magic” springs fully formed and, seemingly, unbidden from their innate, personal vision-literally and figuratively how they see the world. Simply written, it’s all about the pictures…

“Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.” ~ Paul Strand

All of the above written, and getting back to the idea of fearing that rational analysis “might prove antidote to their magic”… I get it. Breaking down one’s vision-in this case, so called “magic”-into its individual components might, like Humpty Dumpty after the fall, be never able to be put back together again.

That’s cuz true vision is not formulaic. It is not a collection of parts glued together to create a operations manual. Rather, vision, like a photograph itself, it is an organically synthesized whole that is somewhat akin to magic-i.e. possessing the power of apparently influencing the course of (picture making) events by use of mysterious forces.

So, iMo, it is best to embrace the magic and go with its flow.

PS 2 new galleries - POLES and EYES DOWNCAST - on my WORK page.

# 6864-67 / common things • still life ~ good is as good does

January 22, 2024

WITH ALL OF THE ATTENTION GIVEN TO COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY, most notably on TOP, I must admit to being rather flummoxed, aka: confounded, or, simply confused, re: the idea of what is color photography and/or who is a color photographer?

It would be simplistic to write that / everyone who makes photographs with a device or materials capable of rendering reasonably accurate colors of the real world-as seen by a healthy human eye-is; a) making color photographs, and, by reasonable extension, 2) a “color” photographer. However, it would seem that in some quarters, just making color photographs is not enough to qualify one as a “color” photographer.

Apparently there is some other criteria that must be meet in order to be consider as a color photographer”. And, therein is where my confusion resides.

iMo, making color photographs makes one a color photographer. To my way of thinking, it is as simple as that. However…..

….I believe it to be indisputable that there are good color photographs and…gasp…not-so-good color photographs. iMo, the difference between the two is very easy to identify. A good color photograph is, quite simply, first and foremost, a good photograph.

My definition-influenced by my bias(es)-of a good photograph is summarized by this Cartier-Bresson quote:

“To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition in a fraction of a second the significance of an event, as well as the precise organization the forms that give that event its proper expression. And this organization, this precision, will always escape you, if you do not appreciate what a picture is, if you do not understand that the composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.”

I would substitute the phrase moment in time for the word event (a moment in time could include an “event”). However, that written, to my eye and sensibilities, the overall form seen in a photograph derives from the organization of the visual elements-line, shape, space, color and value-as framed and presented in the photograph. That organization is, in essence, balancing act. All of the visual elements must conspire to create a congruous whole-congruity determined by what the photographer wishes to express.

And, when it comes to color, I think it important to understand that the colors as presented in a photograph are just one visual element of any number of other visual elements that might be found in a good photograph. In my experience, I have found that color photographs that are saturated with color-or color(s) that has been over saturated-for color’s sake tend to slide over into the category of kitsch and dreck.

ASIDE Nevertheless, kitsch and dreck rarely fail to elicit fawning praise from the unwashed masses. cuz, ya know, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. END OF ASIDE

All of the above written, I would guess that therein could be found my definition of what constitutes a good color photograph and that a photographer who makes good color photographs is a good photographer. Although…

…I’ll stick with the idea that there is no such thing as a good color photographer, or for that matter, a good monochrome photographer. iMo, there are only good photographers as defined by their making of good photographs of any variety.

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

January 20, 2024

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.

#6848-53 / landscape • urban landscape ~ return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear

January 10, 2024

SO, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED…

“Why would a film photographer shoot color?…”

Especially when - according to Mr. Johnston:

Digital color soars way, way past film color… [although] some serious big-city art galleries are still very attracted to large-format (mainly 4x5") color negative film as a medium” ~ Mike Johnston

As a long time picture maker-c.1979-1987-with the use of an 8x10 view camera together with 8x10 color negative sheet film, I believe I am qualified to answer that question….

…in a nutshell, the answer is short and sweet: it is an aesthetic consideration. That is, an aesthetic based upon the look and subsequent “feel “ of prints made with large format color negative film.

To wit, photographs made with large format color negative film are characterized by prints which exhibit soft, subtle tonal transitions, easy on the eye contrast, a “creamy” highlight and shadow presentation, and a very pleasing amount of sharpness and detail. Characteristics which, taken all altogether, yield up, to my eye and sensibilities, what I think of a as very “liquid” visual sensation. For those who are sensitive to such things, this look and feel offers a very attractive alternative to the all too common “hardness / coolness” of most digital-produced work - excessive eye-bleeding sharpness and comparatively rather too-vibrant color properties.

But, here’s the thing…unless you have viewed (I am willing to bet that very few youngins have) as an example, a Meyerowitz print on a gallery wall, my attempt to explain this aesthetic might read as a bit far fetched. Nevertheless, it is a real thing.

And, writing of Meyerowitz, I had a one-on-one conversation with him where we both spent a significant amount of time waxing poetic about our experience with the scanning of our respective 8x10 color negatives and subsequent making of digital prints. The scanning of those original color negatives revealed a significant amount of subtle color, highlight / shadow detail, and resolution that was “hidden” in the enlarger / C print world but was revealed in the digital print making world. That written, the work still exhibited the “classic” look and feel of a C print made from and large format color negative. Meyerowitz exclaimed that he felt as if he was experiencing his work in a somewhat dramatically different manner.

All that written, while I would love to return to making photographs with 8x10 color negative film, it ain’t gonna happen inasmuch as a single sheet of KODAK 8x10 color negative film costs $30US. Add in processing with a 1200dpi scan at $24US a pop and it becomes a very expensive undertaking. Maybe I can apply for a grant.

CAVEAT the scans in this entry of a few of my 8x10 color negatives may or may not, depending on quite a few device viewing variables, get across my point.

# 6835-45 / all things considered ~ life squared-a year in the making

January 3, 2024

(all photos embiggenable) ~ ***adirondack scenic***

***quite possibly my favorite picture from 2023***

AT THE END OF THE OLD / START OF THE NEW year, it customary in some quarters to do a year-in-review thing. In many cases it is a a “best-of” kinda thing. In any event, here is my take on it…

Inasmuch as, in an overall scheme of picture making things, I toil in the discursive promiscuity garden of picture making, I nevertheless feel compelled, by the medium’s custom of organizing itself into recognizable, theme-based bodies of work, to relegate my pictures to separate / definable bodies of work - 10 bodies of work as presented above.

That written, re: the pictures in this entry, while they are presented as the “best-of” each category, they are not necessarily my favorite pictures of 2023. If I were to discard the limits imposed by adhering to separate theme classification, it is possible that some of these pictures would not make the cut. Case in point, the adirondack scenic picture would be nowhere to been seen.

That’s cuz, to be honest, that genre-“beautiful” scenery pictures-is not something that I pursue with any passion. The simple fact of the matter, picture making passion wise, is that the only dictate that drives my shutter activation finger is the making of pictures of selected segments of quotidian life which prick my eye and sensibilities.

# 6831-33 / common places • common things ~ surreal density and visual energy

December 20, 2023

OVER THE YEARS ON THIS BLOG I HAVE repeatedly mentioned my sought after picture-making concept of visual energy. That is, my seemingly preternatural disposition to make photographs chock full of visual information, and, I might add, to appreciate such photographs made by others. Best as I can tell, that’s cuz I enjoy it when my eye and sensibilities are invigorated / agitated / stimulated by the dance-instigated by a surfeit of visual information-required to navigate across the 2D surface of a visually complex print.

Coinciding with this disposition is the fact that I find this arousal of my visual apparatus’ erogenous zones to be heightened by the viewing of smallish-sized prints-as an example, my 8x10 color negative work was always printed as contact prints. And, it explains why I am so enamored of small INSTAX prints.

Stephen Shore has a related concept which he labels as “surreal density”:

“…what I found attractive about the contact print was the almost surreal density of information. That here’s this thing that you can take in, in a couple of seconds. But, to actually stand on that spot, and look at every branch on this tree, and every shadow on this building, and the pebbles on the road—this could take minutes of attention. It was, like, maybe fifteen minutes of attention had been compressed into this thing you can take in, in a few seconds. That’s what I mean by “surreal density” of information.”

iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, a photograph with “surreal density” quite obviously invites-especially to those who are naturally curious-the eye to roam around the surface of the 2D print. As Shore also wrote:

“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.”

All of that written, I strive to make complex pictures with “surreal density” which, when taken in, in a couple of seconds (easier to do viewing small prints), read as a meaningfully organized whole-the idea that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Nevertheless, cuz the surreal density of the photographs tend to invite a dive into the discrete parts of the whole, the viewer can “pay attention to a lot more”, all the while enjoying the visual pleasures of engaging with visual energy.

At least, that is how I see it.

# 6826 / common places • common things ~ a gripe with the photo critic crowd, pt. 1

December 6, 2023

IN YESTERDAY’S ENTRY I MENTIONED THAT I HAD BEEN reading a chapter in the new color photography book. Not that I did not look at a bunch of pictures in that chapter but, in fact, there is a whole lot to read in the book.

That written, re: “a whole lot to read"; it ain’t the easiest read in the world cuz there is an extraordinary amount of highfalutin art-speak verbosity to slog through and decipher. Of course, that is to be expected inasmuch as so much of art criticism, especially so in the photograph world, reads in much the same way. It is as if the author / critic is engaged more in flaunting and burnishing his/her art creds than they are in getting at the experience of viewing and appreciating a photograph without having to tick off a litany of art theory, art technique, and art history boxes to justify why a picture is worth looking at.

To wit, it is rarely, if ever, enough for that crowd that a picture is an interesting, visually stimulating artifact that is simply a delight just look at. A treat for the visual senses.

Case in point; I have mentioned that my favorite response from a viewer of my photographs is some variant on the oft heard, “I don’t know why I like it but I do.” My response is most often simply, “Thank you very much. I’m glad you like it.” However….

…. I could lapse into regaling them with a discussion of my frequent propensity to incorporate visually unifying strategies that include color-field wefting or fugue-like repetitions, inversions and transformations of particular motifs. And, because forms unfold gradually but ineluctably, while colors shift into delicately nuanced and often improbable variations, such melifluous features prolong the pleasurable act of seeing, caressing imagination while reviving subconscious yearnings for paradisiacal worlds of milk and honey.

Truth be told, I have never responded with that “explanation” cuz all it would get me from the commenter would be for him/her to slowly back away and look at me like had lobsters crawling out of my ears.

# 6823-25 / common places • common things ~ observation full and felt.

December 4, 2023

WRITING ABOUT WILLIAM CHRISTENBERRY’S KODAK BROWNIE snapshots, Walker Evans wrote:

I need not proclaim the distinction in these unpretentious pictures. They will be spotted by the many experts who now follow photography in all its turns-and they will probably be mishandled in one way or another, as usual. I want, though, to indulge myself in the truly sensual pleasure of these things in their quiet honesty, subtlety, and restrained strength and their refreshing purity. There is something enlightening about them, they seem to write a new little social and architectural history about one regional America (the Deep South). In addition to that, each one is a poem.

ASIDE Christenberry-who later became close friends with Walker Evans-made his Kodak Brownie camera pictures in the 1970s, getting his prints done at drugstore photo counters as he toured and pictured Hale County, Ala., where his family is from. Hale County is the local where Evans made many of his acclaimed photographs.END ASIDE

I stumbled upon Christenberry’s little color snapshots-and the above quote-earlier today while I was (re)reading the DOCUMENTATION chapter in the new color photography book. That reading was instigated by a desire to find some insight into the art world thinking, re: documentation, that I might pass along with the posting of the pictures presented in this entry. Pictures that some might think to be mere documents, or, some might think to be fine art, or, yet again, some might think to be casual snapshots.

In any event, it would seem that at least one influential author / critic-Sally Eauclaire-along with Walker Evans believes that a photograph made in a documentary style that exhibits honesty, subtlety, and restrained strength and their refreshing purity also can possess artistic merit. And, as more investigation, as written in 2010 in the Washington Post revealed:

“The drugstore prints barely even seem to count as art. That's what makes them so wonderful and so important. They feel like they provide the most direct, intense, unmediated encounter with the reality that matters to Christenberry, without any artifying filter getting in the way.”

So, all of that written, what I come away with is that I can at least feel good about the M.O. with which I approach my picture making; striving to make pictures that are quiet, direct, unmediated, honest, and art sauce free. Whether that M.O. translates into pictures that viewers perceive to possess those same qualities is out of my control.