# 6879-81 / commonplaces-things • kitchen life ~ uncommon beauty

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

I WAS SEARCHING FOR A SPECIFIC STEPHEN SHORE QUOTE. Didn’t find it. However, in my search I came across this (an excerpt), written by Christy Lange, from a section-Nothing Overlooked-in the book STEPHEN SHORE:

This was a new conception of the landscape picture….Each image is so sharp and detailed that it seems to have infinite centers of attention, or none at all. ‘If I saw something interesting, I didn’t have to make a picture about it. I could let it be somewhere in the picture, and have something else happening as well. So this changes the function of the picture-it’s not like pointing at something and saying, “Take a look at this”. It’s saying, “Take a look at this object I am making”. It’s asking you to not savor something in the world, but savor the image itself .”….Shore saw how the photograph imposes order on the scene or simplifies the jumble by giving it structure’.”

At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, this description of one of Shore’s pictures, Beverly Boulevard and La Brea Avenue, could easily have been written about most of my photographs inasmuch as, as mentioned in my last entry, I rarely make pictures that ask a viewer to “take a look at this”-aka: the literally depicted referent(s). Rather, I ask viewers to “take a look at this object I am making”-aka: the print in and of itself and the form depicted there upon.

Ya know, like in this entry’s pictures; for instance, I am not asking any one to “savor” the, as the wife calls it, clutter in a corner of my work room. Rather, my hope is that a viewer might “savor”, or at least appreciate / recognize, the form (Shore’s “structure”) I have attempted to illustrate as depicted on the surface of a print.

That is to write that I do not see so-called traditional beauty in the quotidian world around me but that I do believe that I make “beautiful”, visually interesting photographs thereof.

# 6878 / travel • common places ~ size matters - why I dislike nosey people

(embiggenable)

THERE ARE THOSE WHO VIEW MY PHOTOGRAPHS and come to the conclusion that I make pictures of people, places, or things. That’s somewhat understandable inasmuch as there are, in fact, people, places, or things in my photographs. That’s cuz, with the medium’s intrinsic relationship with the real world, it is very difficult to make a picture that does not include people, places, or things, or, evidence thereof.

That written, I rarely make a photograph whereby the making of which was incited by the depicted, literal referent. In fact, in most of my photographs, many viewers are confused, re: what exactly is it that I was making a picture of? That being the case, it is ever my hope that such viewers might experience a momentary revelation which enables them to see what I was actually making a picture of…

…to wit, a literal / actual depiction of how I see the world. And, to be precise, I see segments of the real world in random convergences of line, shape, space, color, and value. Elements that, when isolated from a particular POV and within a photographic frame create form. Form which can be pleasing / disturbing / agitating / confusing (take your pick) but, to my eye and sensibilities, always visually interesting. An interest which derives, not from what is literally depicted but, rather, from how it is depicted. Although, the depicted referent and the depicted form are inexorably joined.

So, all of that written, you might ask what does this have to do with size matters….?

… the size that matters is photographic print size. That is, if a picture maker’s intent is to depict form, a print must be able to be viewed in its entirety all at once. That’s cuz, the form to be seen in a photographic print can not be broken up into individual parts. And that’s cuz, whatever the “parts” of a photograph might be, they must work together as as an integrated whole otherwise the form falls apart.

That being the case, I would suggest that, while there is no one-size-fits-all print size for the viewing of form, there is a you’re-standing-too-close print viewing distance-dependent upon the size of the print-if a viewer wishes to discern the form to be seen in a print. That written, the “right” print size for the viewing of form must be determined by the viewing distance restraints of the viewing venue - a viewer must be able to stand at a distance from a print to allow for viewing its entirety all at once.

RE: nosey people. I hate it, at gallery viewing of my photographs, when viewers get nosey. That is to write, when they get their noses to close to a print to ever discern what my photographs are about. I have often thought about drawing a chalk line on a gallery floor to indicate the “proper” viewing distance. And, to enforce the idea, greet the gallery goers baseball bat in hand and letting them know that stepping over the line gets them kneecapped. Maybe even reinforcing that edict with a medic in attendance and an ambulance parked outside the gallery door.

@ 6868-77 / travel ~ excelsior, you fathead

birthday cannoli ~ (embiggenable)

Brooklyn ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown~ (embiggenable)

my kitchen + Brooklyn sink with window ~ (embiggenable)

EVERY YEAR-FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS-THE WIFE and I go to Cooperstown, NY where the wife has an annual conference. While she attends the conference, I play golf and hang out around the very upscale hotel on the lake. The trip also coincides with her birthday so we always go out for a nice meal. This year we also went to NYC / Brooklyn for a couple days before heading to Cooperstown (the home of the Baseball Hall of Fame). All of which brings me to the point of this entry…

….I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANY MORE

To be precise, the “this” in question that makes me mad as hell is any utterance such as:

It's fantastic for the things it's meant for and designed to do, but it's mainly a communication device. It can be exasperating as a camera.…they”-iPhone files-“fall far enough short of the best "real" cameras that ultimately they're just not terribly satisfying…”

iMo, those who make such utterances are; a) those who have not made the effort to understand the in and outs of how to use the iPhone photo making capabilities, b) those who are not using the RAW capture capabilities or c) don’t know how to process RAW files for maximum results, d) those who, like the commentator quoted above, are using older generation iPhones, and, e) those who are gearheads who make photos that are tack-sharp with saturated color and high dynamic range but are, nevertheless, rarely worth a second glance.

Now, to be certain, I am not proposing that an iPhone “camera” is ideal or well suited to every picture making task or that it can “satisfy” every picture maker’s aesthetic. However, that written, I am emphatically emphasising that it is perfectly capable of producing photographs that are as good-that is, expressing the intent of the photographer-any other picture making device.

Any one (me, being a prime example) who has used a wide variety of cameras-8x10 / 4x5 view cameras, medium format cameras, 35mm cameras, Polaroid cameras, and the like-knows that every camera has its own distinct peculiarities, both in their use and their rendering results. However, the only thing that matters to the picture making artist is that any given camera helps in producing his/her picture making intent.

All of the above written, just let me declare that, in a “perfect” picture making universe, I wish that picture makers would just pick whatever camera device is best for them and their intent and vision-if they even have one-and then keep their fucking yap shut and concentrate on making pictures that “satisfy” their eye and sensibilities. I might not like their pictures but that sure as hell it won’t be because of the camera they used.

FYI, during the 6 day trip I covered a lot of ground, picture making wise. l returned with 25 “keepers” which spanned multiple photography genres: landscape, street, people, night, and still life. All of the pictures were made with my iPhone 24 PRO Max camera device set to produce RAW files. And, to my eye and sensibilities, the results were very satisfying and, BTW, the “cmaera” served all of my picture making intents very well, thank you very much.

# 6857-62 / common things • common places • discursive promiscuity ~ A Milk Cow Is Not a Black Helicopter

pages / spreads from my upcoming book, The Ravings of a Mad Diarist ~ all photos (embiggenable)

Inso far as photography is (or should be) about the world, the photographer counts for little, but insofar as it is the instrument of intrepid, questioning subjectivity, the photographer is all.” ~ Susan Sontag

I INTRODUCE THE SONTAG QUOTE AS ENTRY INTO the idea of visual vs. verbal thinking as it relates to the…well, dare I write…concept of conceptual photography.

Re: visual vs verbal thinking, the ultra simple definition: verbal thinkers do most of their thinking through inner dialogue whereas visual thinkers think in pictures and spatial relationships. While people aren’t exclusively one or the other, most tend toward one or the other.

That written, I can write that I am decidedly a visual thinker; my head is, and always has been, filled to the brim with visual images. As an example, when asked for walking/driving directions I can not remember the names of streets but I can give a very detailed description of the suggested route’s landscape. Ya know, like, take the 2nd right turn past the picket fence at the yellow corner house and proceed up the rise to…and so on.

Consequently-and I think, logically-the fact that I think in pictures, call them images, and spatial relationships, it is no surprise that I was drawn, from a very early age, to the practice of making pictures, aka: art. So, that established, moving on to conceptual photography…

During my high school-all boys Jesuit institution-days, we were assigned summer reading. The books were almost exclusively of the “classic” literature variety with a few notable current works thrown in - I guess they wanted to make sure we did not spend the entire summer on the beach with a horde of sweet sixteen-ers.

In any event, I skimmed and CliffsNotes-ed my way through the assignment, barely surviving the fall semester writing assignments about the assigned books. My “problem” with the books was due to the fact that the subsequent writing assignments were intended to be a deep dive into meanings, metaphors, allegories, and the like to be found, discovered, revealed in the books. And, no matter how I tried, I could simply not find such things, aka: concepts. Or, perhaps I just did not perceive any advantage to recognizing those things. To my visually constructed thinking, they were all just stories.

That written, I have the same “problem” with conceptual photography. To my visually constructed thinking, photographs are “just” pictures. When I look at a photograph, the very first thing I see is a picture. Cuz, ya know, pictures are a visual construct. And, in order to make a photograph you do not use a typewriter, you use a light recording device that produces an actual thing that is meant to be seen, not read.

Which this suggests to me is that, if you want to say something about something, then talk or write about it. Use words. Write a book, write an essay. Hell, write a post-it note. Any of which would be better at communicating / conveying a concept-most often psychological / academic in nature-than using a medium which is intrinsically suited to show us something about something.

ASIDE am I alone in thinking that making a picture of an actual real world thing as a metaphor for something else is kinda oxymoronic? Kinda like the title of an essay, re: conceptual photography, I read long ago - A Milk Cow Is Not a Black Helicopter And That’s a Fact. END ASIDE

My Conclusion: Photography is a visual medium. Photographs are meant to be seen cuz, in the best of cases, a photographer’s questioning subjectivity about the world is primarily directed in the cause of showing us how he/she sees the world. And, for me / my eye and sensibilities, my pleasure and joy. re: viewing of photographs, is in seeing how the world looks when photographed, not only by me but also when photographed by the (unique) vision of other photographers*.

*iMo, re: Sontag’s “the photographer is all”; I agree with that sentiment inasmuch as the most interesting / engaging photographs are made by photographers who bring their unique, personal vision to bear in the making of their photographs. However, for my eye and sensibilities, it is, and always will be, the tangible results of that vision, aka: a photograph, that is the “all”.

# 6856 / ~ something about something

(embiggenable)

THIS PAST WEEK I PAID A VISIT TO the George Eastman House, aka: the George Eastman Museum, in Rochester, NY - the home of Eastman Kodak Co. which still exists in a somewhat ghost-like form of its former self. And, FYI, they still make film.

While at the museum, as I moseyed through one of the galleries-the Collection Gallery-I experienced a modified semblance of awe and distinct appreciation as I viewed original prints of photographs made by Stieglitz, Stiechen, Atget, Adams, Arbus, Negly, amongst other notables. Then I moved on to the New Directions: Recent Acquisitions exhibition in the Project Gallery wherein I tried, really tried, to get some kinda grasp on some photographs…

…acquired by the museum over the past five years and showcase significant developments in photographic practice….Throughout New Directions, the photographic image figures as a tool to fortify—but also unsettle—ideas about history and identity…While some of the artists embrace photography as a documentary medium, others develop strategies to destabilize the authority of the image. Some work to explicitly make visible the myriad ways that the past shapes the present. As instruments of power, archives become platforms to be challenged, subject to reinterpretation and reconfiguration. Found and appropriated materials offer practical, but also critical, approaches to reflecting on contemporary life and the status of images in the digital era.

…however, try as I might, a grasp of any kind was, at best, elusive, at worst, not possible. That’s cuz the pictures were; a) visually un-engaging, and, b) so “conceptually” driven in their making that, ironically, the concept was virtually indecipherable without a zillion word art-speak “explanations” which, mercifully, were not included with the exhibition. FYI, I write “mercifully” cuz I most emphatically do not go to an exhibition of visual art to read what are essentially an academic thesis about “concepts” that are of interest to academics or, even worse, interesting to psychologists.

Being, at times, a glutton for punishment, in the museum gift shop I purchased an expensive hardbound book, A MATTER OF MEMORY : PHOTOGRAPHY AS OBJECT IN THE DIGITAL AGE. I did so knowing full well, forewarned as it were, that it was a “scholarly” work.

However, the book is illustrated with a large number of photographs by 35 picture makers, each accompanied with a short essay about the picture maker’s conceptual intent. My hope was that with another attempt to get a grasp on “significant developments in photographic practice” I might be able to get at least a scintilla of insight into the academic world’s fascination with conceptual picture making.

Despite my earnest attempt, I yet again was left in the dark and dealing with a nasty bruise from repeatedly banging my head against a stone wall. Best as I can tell, some people get a kick outa dancing on the head of a pin.

# 6830-32 / common places • common things • sink ~ it is what it is and that's all what it is

from Terry Falke’s book, OBSERVATIONS IN AN OCCUPIED WILDERNESS

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

In photographing dwarfs, you don’t get majesty and beauty. You get dwarfs. ~ Susan Sontag

Continuing with my thoughts on photography’s inability to convey meaning(s) or a true sense of place (amongst other such considerations), I offer for your consideration the Sontag quote about photographing dwarfs.

I agree with that concept but would also add that in photographing dwarfs, you “get” not only dwarfs, you also get a photograph of a dwarf(s). Ya know, a picture which illustrates what a specific dwarf looks like when photographed by a photographer at a specific point in time and from a particular POV-both literally and figuratively.

And, sure, sure…a photographer can employ the tools of the trade, his/her unique manner of seeing, and prop and posing, aka: theatrics sensibilities, to create a photograph of a dwarf who appears to project air of majesty and/or beauty, but, any intended (by the picture maker) meaning(s) to be gleaned from the picture is as Sontag suggests:

[an] “inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy

Be that as it may, or, make of it what you will, forgive me if you feel that I am flogging a dead horse. But, in my defense, re: my curiosity, can a photograph have narrowly defined, unambiguous embedded meaning?, I have been revisiting a number of my photo books-individual photographer monographs-in a effort to discover what,if any, meaning I can glean from the viewing of a wide variety-personal vision wise-of numerous bodies of work.

What I have discovered is that my native and initial reaction to the viewing of a photograph is to see it as a photograph. That is, to consider it it as an object, in and of itself. An object which presents-in good photographs-interesting / intriguing / engrossing visual form and energy that pricks my eye-not my intellect-and my visual sensibilities. After that initial, spontaneous reaction, then and only then, do I take in what is literally been photographed, aka: the illustrated referent(s) as captured by the picture maker’s gaze.

iMo, if a photographer has extracted engrossing form from the “mere” quotidian world, then he/she has created a really good photograph. That is to write, a visual image that stands on its own as only a photograph can. It don’t need no stinkin’ meaning. Nor, I might add, it don’t need no 1,000 words. Ya just gotta see it and feel it.

FYI, writing of “1,000” words, it is customary (and predictable) that every photo monograph contain at least 1,000 words (or many more). Forwards, introductions, and essays give a viewer much run-at-the-mouth ideas about the work; historic and medium references, purported meaning(s), and suppositions about the photographer’s methodology and intent, ad nauseam.

In the case of Terry Fake’s book / photographs (as is the case in every photo book I view), I looked at the pictures before I read the commentary. That’s cuz I also agree with Sontags’s idea that….

Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.

…. and sliding down the rabbit hole of interpretation, more often than not, sucks the life out of a photograph (or any work of Art). Although, to be fair, I do on rare occasion find a kernel or 2 of insight that might add a smidgen of additional appreciation to body of work.

BTW, one of my favorite monographs is Mark Wise 18 Landscapes. That’s cuz: a) I like the work, and, b) the only words in the book are Mark Wise 18 Landscapes, as seen on the title page. That’s it. No words, not even a title or artist name on the front or back cover. One picture per spread on the right page, left page blank. No picture titles or captions. Last page has copyright info printed in minuscule 6pt type centered on an otherwise blank page.

My kinda book. Figure it out / experience / enjoy it for yourself and let the art commentariat go pound salt.

# 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

# 6914-18 / convergence • common places-things ~ a different point of view

DURING MY DECADES OF VOLUMINOUS READING, re: photography and its apparatus, I have on numerous occasions come across the expressed idea of “photographs about photography”. That is, pictures that were made intentionally employing one (or more) of the medium’s unique characteristics / attributes in order to create pictures-albeit more commonly an entire body of work-that are uniquely photographic; characteristics / attributes such as, say, the camera’s capability to stop time / isolate a precise real-world moment from the flow of time, or, techniques such as limited / narrow depth of field.

Photograph made in that manner-independent of referent-are often considered, especially by art critics / academics, to be photographs about photography. And I mention the concept cuz it seems that I have started to create a body of work-tentatively titled linear convergence ~ a different perspective-that might be considered to be photographs about photography. Although the referents in these photographs and my picture making intent are typical of all of my previous work, the photographs are a departure from my previous work inasmuch as the format is rectangular and all the photos are made using the ultra-wide angle lens on the iPhone.

That written, I have yet to noodle together an artist statement for this work. That written, I do know what led me to this endeavor - for quite a while I have been futzing around with making pictures using the iPhone PORTRAIT mode. Not so much for making portraits as for making pictures with a narrow DOF. In any event, the PORTRAIT mode produces pictures in the 3x4 format which was I cropping to my preferred square format. However, along the way I started to identify-so to write-with the somewhat strange to me (over the last 3 decades) rectangular format.

ASIDE Which is not to write that I am a stranger to that format cuz I have made a zillion and a half rectangular format pictures over the years using 35mm, 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. Hell, even my medium format camera had a native 6x4.5 rectangular format cuz 90% of my commercial work was made to appear on the “standard” 8.5x11 printed page. So why use a medium format camera with a native square format (Hasselblad) that produces a square picture which needs to be cropped to fit on the printed page? Not to mention the fact that I have always framed and configured my photographs in camera on the ground glass / viewing screen. There is no after-the-picture-making fact cropping in my picture making world. END ASIDE

So it was only a matter of time for me to make a rectangular format picture using the ultra-wide lens on the the iPhone. And, having done so, my eye and sensibilities were pricked by the result cuz I had “discovered” a different kind of form than I had been previously making. However….

…. I am acutely aware that these pictures might be-in fact most likely will be-considered to be rather gimmicky. Ya know, cheap tricks / effects and all. But, in fact, these pictures are an honest / authentic visual expression of the optical characteristics of one of the medium’s tools which, when used to make pictures, create images that are uniquely photography-centric; that is to write, images that can be made only by the means provided by photographic medium.

So, while that provenance qualifies these pictures as being photographs about photography, they will, nevertheless, most likely instigate the question (justifiably so), “What’s the point?” A question to which my response, at this conjuncture, is, quite simply, I like the way the pictures look.

I am also rather delighted by the play on the word perspective as used in the titled to describe the photographs, 1. the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other, and, 2. a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

In any event, I will keep on exploring this particular point of view for a bit. Who knows where it will go.