# 6500-03 / common places-things ~ simulacrum , relativism, and dinkum oil

all photos (embiggenable)

THERE WAS A TIME MANY YEARS AGO, DECADES in fact, that, on my several iterations ago blog, I was a stanch defender of truth-def: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality-in photos. What was tiring about discussing that idea was the never-ending, dancing on the head of pin contrarian advocates who wanted wanted to take a deep dive into the philosophical meaning of “truth”. And, as an adjunct position, they also threw in the questioning of the idea of “real”. All of which I found rather unproductive inasmuch as I was interested in discussing the characteristics / conventions / apparatus of the medium, not the meaning of life.

Inasmuch as we photographers are going thru the motions of making simulacrum-def: something that replaces reality with its representation-I believe that the idea of so-called “truth” in a photograph might better be described as representational / visual veracity. That is to write that, if a casual viewer-aka: a non-“serious” amateur picture maker, were to view a straight photograph of some thing-people, place, thing, event, et al-made from the real world and see the same thing in situ, he/she would have no problem recognizing it as being related, reasonably accurately, to that thing as it was depicted in the previously viewed photograph.

That written, if one accepts the idea that photography is unique amongst the visual arts in its unique / intrinsic ability to accurately / convincingly / truthfully (there’s that word again) visually depict a segment of the real, why not employ that characteristic of the medium to create art?

Easy answer; iMo, the most difficult challenge in making art, Photography Division, is doing so without relying on art sauce / cheap tricks to garnish the real with a false pretense. Ya know, like making a “fake” photograph. Say, consider a picture of fall foliage so screamingly over-saturated, color wise, as to be a complete distortion of the real.

Some might ask if it is possible for a photograph to be able to convey a moral / cultural / emotional truth. The answer to that question is simply, “Maybe.” or, most probably, “No.” That is, at least not a clearly unambiguous, universal truth. That’s cuz the question legitimately opens the door to the idea of relativism-the doctrine that truth and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. For instance, there are those who saw horror and tragedy in the photo of people plunging to their death from the two towers while there were others who, viewing the same photo, saw a scene that incited great joy /celebration and a sense of the fulfillment of their dreams.

In any event, in my picture making I try to stick to the facts of life on this planet. Call it what you will but I currently think of it as the real dinkum oil.

# 6496-99 / common places-things ~ the treadmill keeps on moving

all photos (embiggenable)

BEEN BACK FROM RIST CAMP FOR A WEEK and it’s amazing how much catching up there is to do after being away from home for 5 weeks. Actually it was 6 weeks cuz there was a week at the Jersey Shore the week before Rist Camp.

In any event, there was one significant and unexpected catching up that arose last week; the message that popped up on my screen that said YOUR CURRENT VERSION OF PHOTOSHOP IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED. No big surprise cuz I knew it was coming sooner or later-I was hoping for later.

That written, I was also hoping there would be a version of PS-compatible with my OS-to which I could upgrade. But, no such luck cuz I can not upgrade the OS on my late-2012 MAC mini. So…it’s a new mini for me along with all the attendant set-up rigmarole. Ugh.

On the other hand, hardware wise, I am awaiting the delivery of my PRO MAX iPhone 16. I was not planning on an upgrade from my PRO MAX iPhone 14 but, while I was at our cell service provider store with the wife’s new PRO iPhone 15-she ordered the phone (at no cost with her trade in), which came with a free iPad, online (from our cell service provider) to set up activation, data/file transfer, add screen savers, et al, getting a new iPhone just seemed like the right thing to do. FYI, the $900USD trade in value on my PRO MAX 14 was an significant inducement to upgrade now instead of later.

That written, there are a few improvements / changes to the camera and its operation on the new iPhone. In particular, I appreciate the new 48mp RAW capability on the ultra wide lens cuz I shoot in the RAW mode whenever possible. Other than that improvement, most of the other “improvements” are, for the manner in which I use the iPhone, relatively minor. Although, there is the new Apple AI…..

# 6469-74 / rist camp • flora • folliage (autumn) common places-things ~ small is beautiful

all photos (embiggenable)

IN MY REGION OF THE ADIRONDACKS PEEK (pun) leaf peeper season is about a week away. While I am not immune to the sight of the forest swathed in a red / yellow rainbow of color, I am adverse to the making of pictures thereof. To wit, the making of “standard”, color saturated, landscape calendar art.

On the contrary, bogs and swamps are my favored autumnal picture making venues. That’s cuz the biodiversity found in these wetlands creates a much expanded color palette than is commonly found in the red and yellow dominated forest palette. Throw in a wide variety of shapes and textures and, to my eye and sensibilities, there are picture making opportunities aplenty.

Often times, on my way to a bog / swamp, along the roadside I encounter scenes of pre-peek color. That is, a bit of autumnal color mingled in a greater scene of late summer, green-dominated, color. To my eye and sensibilities, these scenes have a great degree of visual energy; ya know what I mean….the opportunity to make one of those exhausting-to-read (sarcasm alert) photographs wherein the eye tends to dance-instead of falling asleep-across the 2D surface of the print.

All of that written, I would encourage the pursuit of shunning the grand autumnal landscape scenes in order to find those much more intimate tableaux of autumnal splendor.

# 6457-62 / rist camp • common places-things ~ simple is as simple does

all photos (embiggenable)

ON MY AM CRUISE OF THE WEB, PHOTO SITES WISE, I came across a site with an entry that, on my first glance, caused me to think, this guy is yet another how-to-make-better-photographs guru doling out exceptionally idiotic advice. But, then I took breath, dialed down my over-reactive boiling point and decided it would be best to address his advice from a more even tempered point of view….

…. the advice which got my knickers in a twist was that picture makers should show less in order to show more. Essentially a take on the well worn adage of “simplify”. Ya know, cuz, in his words, “the more you put in the frame (or fail to exclude), the less impact any one element has, and soon it’s a photograph that isn’t really about anything specific…. because busy photographs are exhausting to read…. because what we do not exclude dilutes the power of what we include…. I need you to simplify.”

So, to be unremittingly uncharitable, it sounds to me that this guy is a rather simple-minded twit. Ya know, maybe he can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. But wait, here’s where I get a bit charitable….

…. it is quite obvious that, upon viewing his photographs in the entry, he is, like the preponderance of most “serious” amateur picture makers, literal referent oriented / biased. That is to write that people-places-things is their raison d'etre for making a photograph. Consequently (and to be kinda kind), I guess his advice is on-the-money for the room.

That written, this advice reminds me of an idea I have mentioned before; there are 2 kinds of art, Fine Art and Decorative Art. And, according to the authors of Einsein’s Space and Van Gogh’s Sky (from where this idea originates) Fine Art turns on the brain whereas Decorative Art turns off the brain. Or, to put it another way, Fine Art is meant invigorate / challenge the senses, whereas Decorative Art is meant to relax / sooth the senses. Or, yet another way to explain it, Fine Art can instigate a multi-dimentional experience where as Decorative Art promotes a singular experience, aka: a simple experience.

Therefore, iMo, whether he realizes it or not, this “guru” is advocating for his followers to make pictures which are decorative rather than fine. So, as I often say, whatever floats your boat.

# 6441-44 / kitchen sink •rist camp • common places ~ behind and beyond

all photos (embiggenable)

in Bolton Landing

yes, there is sink in Rist Camp

TOOK A 50 MILE DRIVE FOR DINNER WITH SOME NEAR-to-Rist-Camp friends. Dinner was at a husband and wife owner-built home in trendy Bolton Landing on Lake George. A good time was had by all.

Lake George, a summer tourist hot spot, is the place where Alfred Stieglitz and his paramour Georgia O’Keeffe spent summers on Stieglitz’s father’s large estate-staying not in the lakeside villa but rather in a modest farmhouse on the estate. It is where Stieglitz made his famous Equivalents photographs. In case you are not familiar with the photographs, they are photographs of the sky / clouds,

In the making of his Equivalents photographs Stieglitz maintained that these works were a culmination of everything he had learned about photography; he “wanted to put down my philosophy of life—to show that my photographs were not due to subject matter—not to special trees, or faces, or interiors, to special privleges—clouds were there for everyone.”

As photography historian Sarah Greenough wrote:

The Equivalents are photographs of shapes that have ceded their identity, in which Stieglitz obliterated all references to reality normally found in a photograph”…by doing so ”Stieglitz was destabilizing your [the viewer’s] relationship with nature in order for you to think about nature, not to deny that it’s a photograph of a cloud, but to think more about the >feeling< that the cloud formation evokes.

Additionally, art critic Andy Grundberg wrote:

Equivalents remain photography’s most radical demonstration of faith in the existence of a reality behind and beyond that offered by the world of appearances. They are intended to function evocatively, like music...[E]motion resides solely in form, they assert, not in the specifics of time and place.”

Now, to be truthful, I present this entry not only as a history lesson, re: the medium and its apparatus, but also to reiterate my picture making M.O.—that is, my photographs are meant to suggest something behind and beyond the visual appearance of the quotidian world-not only the surprising visual form that can be extracted from the ordinary but also a hint of my philosophy of life.

That written, have no doubt about it, the making of my photographs is not concept (aka: content) driven. It is driven my my desire to create interesting visual form as manifested in, ya, know, a picture.

However…on the other hand, some might consider form as a rather ethereal / intangible apparition rarely perceived or experienced whole cloth in situ. And, iMo, it is only on the surface of the photographic print that form becomes something “real”. But, even then, for many the perception of it is most often a rather elusive idea, aka: concept.

So, inasmuch as the point of my photographs is not about the their literal referents but, rather about something behind and beyond that offered by quotidian world appearances, I especially like and appreciate this exchange by Stieglitz and a viewer of one of his Equivalents photographs…

Viewer: Is this a photograph of water? Stieglitz: What difference does it make of what it is a photograph? Viewer: But is it a photograph of water? Stieglitz: I tell you it does not matter. Viewer: Well, then, is it a picture of the sky? Stieglitz: It happens to be a photograph of the sky. But I cannot understand why that is of any importance.

# 6434-36 / common places ~ from that to this

Rist Camp

Jersey Shore porch

Adirondack porch

I SURVIVED ANOTHER 6.5 HOUR / 420 MILE THRU THE NIGHT drive-Jersey Shore to home-on Saturday. Next up today is a very pleasurable 1.25 hour drive thru stretches of Adirondack wilderness to Rist Camp where I will spend the next 5 weeks.

The difference between the 2 vacation spots-although I actually reside in one of these vacation spots-could not be more dissimilar. One, iMo, is an urban / suburban megalopolis custerfuck-otherwise known as New Jersey-the other is the largest wilderness preserve, AKA. the Adirondack Park-which, in fact is larger than the state of New Jersey-east of the Mississippi River.

In any event, let there be no doubt, re: on which porch I would rather “vacation”.

# 6455-58 / decay • landscape • around the house • people ~ it's a better world

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

MORE NEGATIVE NATTERING FROM THE Doomsday crowd, Photography Division:

Doomsayer # 1: It's clear to me that we're in the sad twilight of the era of photography as a serious hobby.

Doomsayer # 2: I'm interested in what stuff looks like now. And I'm much more interested in the popular media for viewing images now. The web. The monitor. The screen….I've been to too many galleries that cater to customers my age.….Mewing over the "wonderful tonality" of a print with content as boring as a tax audit. While all the good stuff is floating around in the ether….. It's like art stuck in amber…. I haven't shown a print or made a print in at least ten years.

Re: “the sad twilight” - pure BS. I live in a small town (p.600) in a rural area. Every once n a while, aka: when I get the itch, I post a notice on an local online newsletter that I am conducting a improve your Phone picture making class. It regularly draws 6-8 people. People who are what I would call the new “serious” picture making hobbyist inasmuch as they are “serious” about making better pictures and they spent a fair amount of time and creative energy making those pictures. And, I might add, it it just delightful be around picture makers who are not gearheads, who just go out and make pictures.

And, while it constitutes just anecdotal evidence, I also have 2 baseball-style caps that I wear which display photo related messages; one simply has the KODAK logo, the other simply says 18% Gray. Both hats are frequent conversation starters with complete strangers who are, not surprisingly, amateur picture makers. The KODAK hat draws out a surprising number of film picture makers. Not surprisingly, the 18% Gray hat draws out the true cognoscenti. However, in either case, it is interesting to discover how many picture makers are out there hiding-unadorned with cameras-amongst the populous .

Now if your picture making (dimwitted) prejudices dictate that you can’t be serious unless you have “serious” gear (or wear a “photo” hat), then I guess the millions of such picture makers as described above are just flotsam and jetsam that have been thrown off the true-believer (photography) ship of state. Which, iMo, is a good thing inasmuch as all the killer sharks are actually on the ship.

Re: “I haven’t shown or made a print in at least 10 years” MORONIC - I am a true believer in the adage that it’s not a photograph until you make a print. That’s cuz it seems very obvious to me that a photograph is a thing - a physical / tangible object. You know, an actual thing that one can find in a shoe box after the person who made the thing is dead and gone.

In the visual arts world the thing is the thing. Sure, sure; in some quarters digitally created and digitally viewed images qualify as a visual art but ya can’t go the gallery gift shop and buy a postcard of it that you can place on your refrigerator door. Or…

Consider this…since we are discussing photography, it is safe to assume that, if one is creating art that is a reflection of one’s unique vision, then it also safe to assume that one tries to express that vision on the surface of one’s prints. That is, a print which exhibits / presents to a viewer one’s vision is a precise-fixed size, specific surface texture, color /tonal balance-and permanent manner. Qualities and characteristics that, quite simply and truthfully, can not be had in the digital domain on a display screen.

Forget the idea of making art and just consider the making of pictures of family, friends, travels, events, et al. The best way of sharing these pictures is in print form. I make both photo books and prints of our travels and events which, of course, include family and friends. The prints are on walls and in piles of small prints all over our house. They are constant, ever-present reminders of our life experiences and are a constant source of curiosity for friends and visitors.

(embiggenable)

All of that written, I believe we are in a happy decline of the traditionally embraced ideas of what constitutes a “serious” picture maker. The result of which is a freer / looser picture making attitude that is slowly but surely producing more diverse and interesting photographs.

I also believe, as demonstrated by the growth and popularity of online print making services- prints and books-and the emergence of combined print making + framing services, the walls of homes will be adorned with more framed photographs than ever before.

# 6449-51 / common things • porches ~ what does a porch say about the person(s) who live beyond the door?

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THE PORCHES BODY OF WORK IS REACHING A respectable number of photographs. After a reasonably thorough traverse of town, I believe there are about 5-6 more porches suitable for this body of work. I will be out and about once again tomorrow and try to wrap it up.

That written, I can attest to somewhat disconcerting feeling, re: the making of photographs for this project. That stems from the fact that I rarely head out for the purpose of making specific photographs of a specific referent. And, to be completely honest, it is fair to write that I rarely head out for purpose of making photographs.

That written, it is rare for me to head out and not make a photograph or 2, or 20 or so. However, it can be accurately written that I never know what I might photograph. That is, until something pricks my eye and sensibilities. Hence my picture making M.O. can be described as discursively promiscuous, i.e. I will photograph any thing, at any time, any where.

All of that written, I feel fairly sure that, after tomorrow’s outing, I won’t be making any photographs of porches in my home town. Although, seasons come and go and things can change. So, please note that I did not write “never”.