# 6898-6904 / travel • (un)common places-things • people ~ rules for the visually incompetent

Santa FE, New Mexico ~ all photos (embiggenable)

Chicago, Illinois

Denver, Colorado

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Jemez, New Mexico

Trinidad, Colorado

Trinidad, Colorado

“Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk. / Composition is the strongest way of seeing.” / Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial clichés.”~ Edward Weston

IF I WERE TO BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO eradicate a word from the photography lexicon, that word would “composition”. If I were asked to give a rationale for that act, I would quote Ansel Adams’ idea that:

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”

As an adjunct to my Composition Eradication Decree, I would also create a special space in the fiery after/underworld for anyone who would try to reintroduce the composition concept with the visual aid of a photographic print with lines / arrows, aka: diagrams, drawn all over the surface of the print in an attempt to demonstrate how “good” composition “works.”

Or, maybe it would just be easier to give them all Red Rider BB guns and hope they will shoot their eye out. That’d fix ‘em up plenty good.

ASIDE if ya wanna get fixed up plenty good, Trinidad, Colorado is a good place to get a “fix”. Right there on Main Street––easy off, easy on, Interstate 25––is a well stocked liquor store and a cannabis dispensary right next to each other. Both were open early Sunday morning––serving your intoxicant needs on the lord’s day of rest––when we stopped in Trinidad looking for a grocery store during our drive to Jemez, New Mexico. END ASIDE

# 6893-97 / travel • trees • landscape ~ I'm a pointer, you're a pointer, evryone can be a pointer too

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THIS ENTRY HAS 2 PHOTOGRAPHS MADE IN NEW MEXICO––2 in Santa Fe and 3 photographs made in and around Hemez. The common item–– the cottonwood tree. If one were attempting, by making photographs, to capture / present a sense of place, and that place was in the area of New Mexico I was in, then one would have to include the cottonwood tree in most photographs. And that written, “BINGO” might be declared if a photo also includes an adobe structure.

RE: a sense of place - attempting to convey a sense of pace in a photograph is, iMo, a bit of a questionable endeavor. That’s cuz reducing the representation of a place to; a) a flat-as-a-pancake 2D plane, aka: minus a sense of depth, b) minus a sense of sound, and c) minus a sense of smell is similar to attempting to experience a sense of bourbon by licking the outside of a glass––fine Irish Waterford crystal, of course––of bourbon with a stuffed up nose.

iMo, in point of fact, what you get when you photograph a place is what that place looks like when photographed.

That written, an adroitly produced photograph of a place (or thing / person) can incite in a viewer notions of curiosity / interest and even a desire to experience, in person, that place. A viewer might actually experience a vicarious sensation of some kind––in his/her imagination––from such a photograph. However, I would suggest that the imagined experience is instigated more from the photograph itself rather than from the literally depicted referent* CAVEAT: in the Fine Art world. As John Szarkowski wrote:

“ A photograph produced [ED] … with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain … how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer.”

To wit, the photographs, made by others, that I like and the photographs I strive to make tend to come down on the pleasure and sense of enlargement that comes from a pattern created by the pointer side of Szarkowski’s ledger. Or, in other words, I like to make or view a photograph(s) that is a beautiful object(s), in and of itself; photographs of a referent selected from the quotidian world that is not customarily considered to be beautiful in of itself.

To my eye and sensibilities, that is the magic and the beauty of the medium of photography and its apparatus.

* that written, nevertheless, the form––aka: pattern––and the literally depicted referent are inexorably linked.

# 6886-92 / (un)common palces-things • people ~ being there

all photos (embiggenable) ancient Pueblo cliff cave dwelling

“Of all the world’s photographers, the lowliest and least honored is the simple householder…. His knowledge of photography is about that of your average chipmunk. …. Emulsion speeds, f-stops, meter readings, shutter speeds have absolutely no meaning to him, except as a language he hears spoken when, by mistake, he wanders into a real camera store to buy film instead of his usual drugstore …. He lugs his primitive equipment with him on vacation trips …. His product is almost always people- or possession-oriented. It rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.” ~ Jean Shepherd

PURSUANT TO MY LAST ENTRY (re: nix on touristy pictures) I CAN ATTEST THAT when making photographs while traveling that include the presence of the wife, I have successfully avoided making pictures that the lowliest and least honored simple householder might make while making a picture of his/her loved one standing in front of something and smiling into the lens.

My intent when making such photographs of the wife during our travels is to simply capture a slice of life––her doing her thing while I am doing mine. The photographs are not about her, per se, but rather about her being there, engaged in the moment.

On the flip side, when the wife takes a picture of me, it is usually at my request. That request is most always accompanied by “instructions” from me that she just picture me doing what I am doing and to include something that gives context to where we are. That written, she usually gets it “right”.

That success just might be due to the fact that, by living with me, she does know more about photography than the average chipmunk.

# 6981-85 / landscape • (un)common things • places ~ along for the ride

all photos (embiggenable)

FLIGHT TO DENVER, RENT A CAR, DRIVE 6.5 Hours TO Hemez, New Mexico. Knowing that there would be some spectacular scenery along the way, I let the wife drive so I could make pictures from the passenger seat. A good decision as it turned out cuz I made enough from-the-car photographs to make a small book. Not that I did not get out of the car to make a photograph or two (or more)––the mural in the middle of nowhere as an example.

That written, I am always somewhat conflicted when making photographs during our travels. That’s cuz, when traveling it is inevitable that one sees something new / never seen before. The temptation, picture making wise, is to focus on those things but, as previously written, I really don’t like to feature things in my photographs. In other words, I do not want to return from a trip with a bunch of typical touristy pictures.

That written, the tool I employ to avoid making touristy pictures is quite simple––I remain true to my vision, aka: the way I see the world. That is, I see something and I photograph it the way I encounter / see it. Works almost every time.

More photographs to come.

# 6969-73 / common places-things • landscape • in situ ~ nominal subject matter

“John Szarkowski has used the expression “nominal subject matter”. I think that’s perfect for my behavior here. I am not interest in gas stations or anything about gas stations. This happens to be an excuse for seeing.… I don’t care if it was about a gas station or if this is a rubber raft or if this is a crappy little house. That’s not my subject! The gas station isn’t my subject. It’s an excuse for a place to make a photograph”….

…. “I take a picture of the subject and its context––the subject as it stands with everything else…. I’m trying to make an atonal photograph where everything is as important as everything else…. I think it’s possible to make a photograph in which the photographer lays back enough so the viewer comes into the photograph and has a chance to perceive the thing on his own terms, instead of only seeing what the photographer has hooked him to see. I think one of the reasons I’m using the 8x10 camera is that I felt I could work with the large camera and make photographs in which the subject was everything in the frame.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

I RECENTLY WROTE THAT I DO NOT TITLE MY photographs onaccounta I do not wish to call attention to the literally depicted referent in my pictures cuz my pictures are rarely “about” the literally pictured referent. As an adjunct to that practice, at an exhibit of my photographs I have always wished for red velvet ropes strung 3-4 feet in front the gallery walls to prevent viewers from sticking their noses where they don’t belong––that is, so close to a picture that they can not see the print in its entirety. That’s cuz seeing the print in the all together is the only way in which a viewer can actually see what my pictures are about.

My “excuse” for making a photograph is the potential I see in isolated––by means of framing––sections of the quotidian world to create visually interesting form; form that results from the fact that everything within my frame is as important as everything else within the frame. In other words, creating visually interesting form is my subject, aka: what my photographs are about. It is not about the literally depicted things in my photographs.

FYI, if I were to title any of the above photographs, the titles might be something like; my son wearing a new hat, or, my grandson eating lunch at the Statue of Liberty, or, my daughter and her cousins reading on the beach. However, for the life on me, I just can not imagine how those titles would improve, in any manner, a viewer’s reaction to / appreciation of / understanding of the pictures. In fact, iMo, the titles might very well lead a viewer to think that that information had something to do with why I made the pictures which, in fact, had absolutely nothing––nada, zero, zip––to do with why I made the pictures.

# 6984-89 / landscape • roadside • (un)common thing ~ Spring sweetness

On the boil in the sugar house ~ It takes 40 gallons of maple sap to make 1 gallon of maple syrup. all photos (embiggenable)

“I've worked out of a series of no's. No to exquisite light, no to apparent compositions, no to the seduction of poses or narrative.” ~ Richard Avedon

THE THING ABOUT SPRING HERE IN THE ADIRONDACKS is mist, fog, and raging water.

Of added Spring time interest is the very short weather window for maple syrup making. There are quite a number of so-called sugar houses doting the landscape. FYI, a sugar house is a small shack-like structure where maple sap is boiled down to produce the correct density for maple syrup. Standing in a sugar house during the boil feels / smells like you have coated the inside of your nose with, well… maple syrup. And, tasting the syrup straight out of the boil is a taste sensation that is simply amazing.

ASIDE Don’t know what will happen with the price of maple syrup this year cuz, thanks t-RUMP, most of the maple syrup in the US of A that originates in Canada will be hit with tariffs. The current price for pure maple syrup here in our neck of the maple tree woods is $34.95 / quart (32oz.) END SIDE

# 6973-75 / landscape • roadside detritus • kitchen sink ~ more than meets the eye

all photos (enmbiggenable)

wonder: 1. n. a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.

“I had a teacher who said there were three ways in which art functions: one, as decor, an augment to interior design; then there is art as a statement, a tool to support a particular argument; and then there is the idea that it evokes wonder. When I heard that, the idea of pursuing the sense of wonder stood out.” ~ Edward Burtynsky

I NEVER HAD A TEACHER WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT art or photography. And, I can write with authority that my lack of that kind of education hasn’t hurt me none.

That written, I do have a quibble with the statement made by Burtynsky’s teacher; I believe that fine art can function as decor, make a statement, and evoke wonder simultaneously. In fact, as an example, I would be delighted to hang a Burtynsky Quarries photograph––saw the NYC gallery exhibition––on a wall in my house (if I could afford one) and I am certain that it would function as a decor-like object, make a statement (albeit not a strident one), and most certainly evoke a sense of visual wonder.

In any event, many might wonder why I would choose to put a picture of a quarry on my wall. Most likely, my answer––”I did not hang a picture of a quarry on the wall. Rather, I put a photograph on the wall that expresses what a quarry looks like when photographed.”–– would only further add to their confusion. To take my answer a step further, I would add that, when looking at the photograph, I do not see a quarry; what I see is an image with an amazing amount of visual energy / interest––an organization of lines, shapes, color, tone, form––that pricks my eye and sensibilities.

And, that visual quality in a photograph––a photograph of any thing––is what I most prize in a photograph. That visual quality which, to my eye and sensibilities, is an act of transmutation that is capable of changing an image into a beautiful object, i.e., a beautiful print––in and of itself as an object––which transcends the literally depicted referent.

To be certain, a photograph’s form is intrinsically linked to what is literally depicted. However, that written, my advice #3 is-if you wish to dig deeper into a photograph, do not be distracted / misled by what is literally depicted. A really good photograph is most often about more than that.

# 6967-69 / common places • common things ~ little rectangular worlds

all photos (embiggenable)

“Because of the resolution of working with an 8X10 camera, I found that I did not have to thrust the viewer’s face into something. If I saw something interesting, it could be part of a larger picture that has a number of points of interest. It changes the viewer’s relationship with an image. It is not framing one thing but creating a little rectangular world that the viewer can move their attention around and explore.” ~ STEPHEN SHORE

TO MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, THE IDEA THAT, WHEN making pictures, a photographer should “simplify”––that is, in framing a segment of the real world, one should eliminate all “distractions” which might direct attention away from “something interesting”––is simple minded. iMo, that edict, taken directly from the traditional canon of photography, can be accurately interpreted to simply (kinda a pun) mean to, dumb it down. Ya know, cuz simpletons need simple ideas cuz they have simple minds…

… to which I call balderdash!!! In my experience, say, when interacting with viewers of my photographs––which no one would consider to be shining examples of “framing one thing”––that they seem to be eminently capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. And, if my memory serves, I can recall only one instance of a viewer having to be revived from an attack of complexity derangement after viewing one of my pictures––fortunately, the gallery had a medic standing by for just such an emergency cuz, apparently, every now and then a simpleton did manage to sneak in the door.

All that written, I am totally down with Stephen Shore’s idea of making little rectangular worlds––albeit, in my case, (primarily) little square worlds. But, that stated, I am also sympathetic to the idea suggested by the Irish poet Peter Kavanagh:

“There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman*.”

*don’t know what Kavanagh had against policemen.