# 6256-58 / kitchen sink • common place • common things • civilized ku ~ what something will look like photographed

September 26, 2022

AS MIGHT SEEM OBVIOUS FROM THE PICTURES IN this entry, I am back home after our 1 month + at Rist Camp. Got some work to do sorting through the 141 finished pictures I made while at Rist. Shutterfly is having an unlimited free pages offer. Maybe it’s time for a really big book.

A recent entry contained a quote from Alfred Stieglitz…

“My aim is increasingly to make my photographs look so much like photographs…”

…which brings to (my) mind a quote from Garry Winogrand:

“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.”

Both of these quotes, iMo together with the way that I read them, suggest to me that a photograph is something different from what has been photographed. That is a concept that is not news to me inasmuch as I have writing / saying for years that ”a printed photograph is a thing in and of itself, independent of what is depicted.” You can quote me on that.

Re: the Stieglitz quote: I do not think that Stieglitz was suggesting that there is a specific manner in which a photograph should look other than it should not look like a painting, aka: in the manner of the Pictorialism school of picture making. A school from which Stieglitz had previously graduated and subsequently disparaged. In other words, to utilize, in an unadulterated manner, the inherent / intrinsic characteristics of the medium.

Re: the Winogrand quote: I do not think that Winogrand was suggesting that a referent would, in and of itself, look any different in a photograph than it does to the naked eye. Rather, that a referent, when photographed with judicious framing and attention to the “arrangement” of color, form, line, shape, space, texture, and value, might be perceived in a manner different from that of the unaided viewing of it in situ.

iMo, to understand these 2 quotes is to understand the “genius” of photography. That the camera, in the hands of photographer who can truly see, does not need “tricks”, flashy techniques, bigger sensors, lots of gear in order to supplant the inclination to indulge in habitual seeing. Habitual seeing, a manner of seeing that may illustrate much but illuminate little.

# 6246-55 / landscape • rist camp • common places • common things ~ hit rate much higher than zero

September 22, 2022

HIT RATE ZERO, OR SO MICHAEL JOHNSTON TITLED AN ENTRY, wherein he explained / lamented his failure-“I was cold and really didn’t get anything”-to harvest a few situations (aka: picture making opportunities?). After reading Johnston’s entry in its entirety, I was not surprised, for a number of reasons, that he came home with a “hit rate zero”.

item 1 - “…the magic can't happen unless you're out there with the camera” I believe that the idea of looking / waiting for“magic” to rear its head in the making of pictures is a rather bogus pursuit. That’s cuz I believe that if a picture maker has figured out / recognized in a conscious manner how he/she sees the world-literally and figuratively (in a style representing forms that are recognizably derived from life)-the so called (and, iMo, mis-labeled) picture making ”magic” can happen at any time, any where, for any referent.

item 2 - “…any time, any where, for any referent” (my words). The worst possible intent a picture maker can harbor is going out in pursuit of making a “greatest hit” pictures. I mention this in light of the fact of Johnston’s utterly, totally, completely ridiculous / nonsensical / statement that a “…picture works entirely or it doesn't work at all. Everything's a no that isn't a yes.”

iMo, that statement is one of the most destructive-to a picture maker’s “confidence-opinion I have ever heard/ read cuz, over a life time of viewing exhibitions / monographs of “big-name” picture makers’ work, it can be stated / written that not every picture in a given body of work is a “greatest hit” (whatever the hell that is). However, all of the pictures-some more so, some less so-are all working together in a given body of work to reinforce the visual idea the picture maker is striving to create. Think of it as a visual example of strength in numbers.

item 2A - I believe that going out to create pictures of a specific referent (people, places, things) causes most picture makers to miss all the picture making possibilities that surround them. That is, those possibilities that do not conform to what they are pursuing. Case in point, my picture making MO…

I rarely go out with the intention of making pictures. That written, I rarely go out without making pictures. That’s cuz I do not encumber my picture making activities with the inconvenience of carrying a “real” camera. Rather, I always have my picture making device-the iPhone-on my person so that when something-a people, a place, a thing-pricks my eye and sensibilities, I always have the means to make a picture.

The result of that MO is that I have a ginormous library / collection-some might say a grabasstic cluster f**k-of pictures of all kinds of referents-people, places, things. From this seemingly haphazard, random collection there has emerged-I might add, somewhat organically-a number of thematically coherent bodies of work. Bodies of work that I add to, over time, by the mere fact that I continue to make pictures of what I see as opposed to what I have been told-or even tell myself-what is a good picture.

So, the moral of this story is simple. Forget about making the”perfect” picture and realize that some “less-than-perfect”-aka: nearly perfect-pictures are perfectly suited for inclusion in a body of work. And, that bodies of work are what matters most. Plus, if you must concentrate a specific referent / theme in the act of creating a body of work, when you go out to make pictures, take off the blinders that obfuscate the joy of photography. That is, the simple act of just making pictures of any peoples, any places, and any things.

FYI, included in this entry are handfull of some the pictures I made over the past few days. Discursive promiscuity in action.

# 6243-45 / common places • common things • rist camp ~ defamiliarization and disorientation

September 17, 2022

“…By unhinging our customary perceptions of the world, the visual artist forces viewers to experience what has become habitual with renewed attention.” ~ Daniell Cornell

“Photography is a contest between a photographer and the presumptions of approximate and habitual seeing. The contest can be held anywhere.” ~ John Szarkowski

THE ABOVE EXCERPT WAS LIFTED FROM AN ESSAY which was written to accompany the 1999 Yale University Art Gallery exhibition, Alfred Stieglitz and the Equivalent, Reinventing the Nature of Photography. In the essay the author, Daniell Cornell, introduced an early-tewentieth-century linguistic theory in which a Russian university professor proposed that the function of poetic language was…

“…not to reflect reality but to make it strange…Russian Formalists called the disorientation created by such an estrangement from one’s usual perceptions defamiliarization, identifying it as the central characteristic shared by all artistic representations.”

While I have never spent much time over-thinking the idea of defamiliarization-or, to be honest, ever recognizing it as such-I can certainly write that one of the most common and oft-heard comments, re: my pictures, which i really appreciate is, “I don’t know why I like these pictures but, I do like them.” It now seems obvious, to me, that comment-or a variation thereof-is the result of my picturing making act of employing the concept of defamiliarization. That is, making pictures of referents which are not perceived as subjects for the making of what the great unwashed masses of the picture making world think is a suitable referent.

Most of those viewers of my pictures, when they realize that they like a picture(s), seem to become disoriented, aka: “I don’t know why it like it.” Of course, what they most often fail to realize* is that their liking is not incited by what is depicted but rather by the visual impression, the form, created by how it is depicted-my version of unhinging of customary perceptions of the world-aka: my vision thing…the vision thing which, seemingly, is the by-product of how I see.

*“My aim is increasingly to make my photographs look so much like photographs that unless one has eyes and sees, they won’t be seen.” ~ Alfred Stieglitz

# 6241-42 / landscape • common things ~ more important than sex

September 9, 2022

”Don't knock rationalization; where would we be without it? I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.” ~ from the movie, The Big Chill

BACK IN THE DAY WHEN I WAS BUYING “REAL” (DIGITAL) CAMERAS, I always acquired “last year’s” model . That is, soon after the introduction of the latest-and-greatest updated camera model variant, the market was usually flooded with the prior latest-and-greatest version. At that point, I would acquire a new-to-me “upgraded” camera.

I pursued this approach to camera buying for 2 reasons:

While I could afford the latest-and-greatest camera model upgrade, I thought it better to let the must-have-the-latest-and-greatest suckers-it’s an addiction-take the inevitable depreciation hit that would come soon enough with the next camera model upgrade.
To be honest, since my ability to create photographs that end up on gallery walls is not dependent upon the particular tools I use to make my photographs, I probably could still today be using my first -acquired digital camera with the same gallery wall quality success rate.

RE: back in the day when I was buying “real” cameras - “back in the day” ended about 7 years ago when I last purchased a new-to-me “real” camera. I believe I can write that that purchase will be my last “real” camera-actually 2 cameras-purchase. That’s cuz those cameras still work, on those increasing rare occasions when I feel the need to use them. A need dictated by the need to use my 50-200mm lens (my now “real”camera “normal” lens).

An additional reason, perhaps the most important reason, that I believes drives my never-again “real” camera buying is, quite obviously, the iPhone. Simply written, it meets, and most often exceeds, most of my picture making needs. And, to date, I have had a number of my iPhone made pictures-printed to 20x20 inches-on gallery walls (in juried) exhibitions. There is also the possibility of a solo exhibition of pictures made exclusively with the iPhone-although the gallery committee is unaware of that fact, which is a testament to the quality of the prints.

All of the above written, I must confess to the fact that I have become a victim of the latest-and-greatest camera upgrade affliction…enter the iPhone 14 Pro. While I did skip the iPhone 13 Pro upgrade, there are just enough improvements-most notably (but not exclusively), low light picture making-in the 14 to justify (see the above quote) the upgrade. And, I am reasonably certain, since it just another iPhone, that the wife will never notice the difference.

6222-26 / common places-things • kitchen sink • rist camp ~ deception

August 28, 2022

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary 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.” ~ Robert Adams

This Robert Adams quote has always held my attention inasmuch as it kinda, sorta skirts around the edges of my picture making intentions. My eye and sensibilities are unquestionably pricked by the commonplace and the avoidance of the grand geste (picture making wise) but, I can not write that I fully embrace the idea that “beauty is commonplace”.

To put a finer point on that idea, iMo, there is not a lot in the commonplace world that is visually beautiful in and of itself. However, within the domain of picture making, much of the commonplace world contains visual fodder for the making of beautiful things, “things” being photographic prints which give to evidence to finely seen and pictured form.

That written, while there are some who can see an actual blade of grass and perceive / feel / experience the every-thing-is-connected beauty underlying the universe, it is probable that they might not experience the same thing while gazing at a rather mundane picture of that same blade of grass.

By the same token, I also believe that many viewers, looking at a picture of that same blade of grass which-in its totality across its visual plane-evidences a depiction of a finely seen sense of form, might be incited to exclaim, “That is beautiful.” However, is the viewer remarking on the blade of grass itself or the depiction thereof? I wonder cuz, without a doubt, the blade of grass and the depiction of it are most definitely not the same “thing.”

All of that written, I am still faced with the is-beauty-commonplace question. And, the best answer I have been able to come up with is that, no, within the context of the real world, beauty is not commonplace. However, within the context of picture making, the commonplace is rife possibilities for coaxing beauty from the seeming rubble of the mundane.

# 6210-13 / common places • common things • kitchen sink ~ qoutidian ubiquity

August 19, 2022

FORTUNATELY, RE; MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, IT SEEMS that no matter where I go are there is always a kitchen sink and kitchen garbage.

On a different topic, I have been avoiding getting caught up in the monochrome sensor GAS” discussion”. That’s primarily cuz I do not think that my thoughts on the matter would be all that well considered.

First and foremost, I admit to not being much of a BW-oops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making guy. That’s cuz, for the most part, I believe that BW picture making is a curse on the medium and its apparatus.

Think of it this way…with the exception of cave dwellers, virtually all painting was created using color...ASIDE Sure, sure. With the advent of the printing press, illustrations were presented with the use of just black ink, BUT, even then some illustrators were given to hand coloring the printed illustrations. And, BTW, for the purpose this discussion, etchings and woodcuts are not paintings. END OF ASIDE…So when color dyes / paint became available, painters took to it like ducks to water. Without too much assumption, one could surmise that they adopted color materials cuz they were exceedingly more expressive and representative of the real world. And, fortuitously, they were never burdened by the need to break out of or revert to a BW painting legacy.

The medium of photography and its apparatus were born and wedded to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures and continued to be so bound until the 1936 introduction of Kodachrome film. ASIDE Sure, sure. Prior to 1936, there were a number attempts to create the means for making color photographs but they came and went in fairly short order. END OF ASIDE However, even with the advent of commercially available color film, “serious” photographers remained committed to using BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-film and, of course, making BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-prints.

Re: the curse - that BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-legacy has attached itself to the medium and its apparatus like fleas on a mangy dog. Consequently, those picture makers who cling to it today, in a manner similar to a deeply held religious belief, are given to uttering, in defense of their precious process, such ludicrous nonsense as it is easier to see and capture form or a person’s inner essence without the “distraction” of color. Nonsense.

ASIDE To be certain, if BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making is your thing, have at it unto your heart’s content. While, I appreciate much of the classic BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-work of the picture making masters, I just do not see the need for it any more. END OF ASIDE

Re: my second thought on BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making…the current practitioners of that genre seem to be hung up on the idea the only good BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures are those made the analog way, aka: using film or some digital facsimile thereof. In their quest for such a facsimile, they have landed on the idea of monochrome sensors as if those sensors create are more “pure” BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-files than converting a color image file to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome.

That notion is something that I can not wrap my head around inasmuch as, in the digital color>BW conversion domain, there is such a variety of conversion techniques / options that the picture maker has the capability to create any “look” imaginable for his/her pictures. Apparently, the current crop of BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures makers do not like the digital conversion process cuz-here’s the curse again-that’s not the way it was always done.

And, please stop already with the ridiculously absurd idea that “seeing” in BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-is easier / better when the image on the camera screen / viewfinder is BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome. That’s akin to saying Evans, Adams (both), Weston, Frank, and all the others who came before the advent of a digital BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome sensor would have somehow had an easier time of making pictures-perhaps even “better” pictures-if only they had a Leica Q2 Monochrom (or whatever the current fan boy monochrome-there, I got it right-sensor camera may be)? Once again, nonsense.

PS the BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture in this entry was converted from a color image file by first converting it to LAB Color Space then isolating the Lightness Channel by discarding the A and B Channels. At that point, I convert the file to RGB Color Space and then make minor adjustments, global and local, to taste using the Curves tool in PS.

# 6203 / kitchen life • common things ~ writing about photography as art

August 14, 2022

Consider this, re: good field strategy:

THE VISUAL TEXTURE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH derives from an optical mix of steadfastly articulate, recorded facts that have been presented in a manner calculated to emphasize the subject matter’s cumulative rather than individual visual appearance.

FYI, I consider the subject and its visual essence to be indivisible and the complexity of any given environment as potentially articulate aesthetic material.

The preceding is a slightly modified-by me-excerpt from Chapter 2: COLOR PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMALISM in the book the new color photography by Sally Eauclaire (a friend for whom I was a consultant on the book). I have co-opted it to make 2 points:

Eauclaire’s idea, re: Field Strategy, pretty much describes the (my) picture which accompanies this entry.
writing about art, subset photography as art, can get pretty “academic” / art-speak wordy at times. Some might even suggest that it can get rather obtuse.

So, my answer to the question raised in the preceding entry - why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography instead of going over lots of gear and technical work?- is that if one wishes to write or read about the “art of photography”, one needs to write or read about art in a more general sense. That is, if one aspires to making pictures that are considered to be Fine Art (as opposed to Decorative Art), one had better read up on what the FIne Art World considers to be Art. And, there is precious little written about Art in general, photography in particular, on the interweb.

Much of what has been written about Art, in book form, has been written by academics who, seemingly by natural inclination, are devoted to shunning simple English….

…formalists perceive real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation. They test every edge, tone, color, and texture for its expressive potential and structural function. Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is co-opted for its visual capabilities. yet delineated with utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter.

My point: if I, or anyone, were to write about the art of photography in any manner resembling the preceding excerpts-which I firmly believe are actually quite on point, photography as art wise-I believe the “average” reader of just about any blog would stop dead, eyes glazed over, at “real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments”, not to mention “expressive potential and structural function”, “delicately adjusted equilibrium”, and “co-opted for its visual capabilities”. I mean, how many of you out there have a “field strategy”?

So, why bother going down that road? The audience would be minuscule.

All of the above written, I must admit that I have read quite a lot about Art and the subset of photography as ART and it hasn’t hurt me none. Some of that reading has even helped me discover and understand what the hell I am doing-acting more intuitively (recognizing and expressing my “inner” self) rather than acting out a conscious intellectual strategy-in my picture making endeavors. And, I would highly recommend to those wishing to discover and understand what the hell they are doing, picture making wise, to read as much as they can stand about Art with the objective of cultivating a “feel” for the making of Art.

However, writing about the art of photography is not something I pursue on this blog. What I have written about photography on this blog has been more concerned with the idea of what exactly is a photograph? or, what are the medium’s intrinsic characteristics / strengths? And that is what I will continue to do.

# 6200-02 / common places • common things ~ stupid is as stupid does

August 13, 2022

***it’s raining outside*** ~ (embiggenable)

ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERWEB, IT HAS BE POSTULATED, AS AN answer to the question of “…why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography here on the blog instead of going over lots of gear and technical work…”, that:

“…a viewer using a phone or small iPad to view will see none of the technical "features" that might make the image worth looking at.”

“…when we do try to talk about the work we end up with so many different avenues for viewing, each of which is a diminished and poor replica of the original, that it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.”

At first blush, I would tend to suggest, first and foremost, that the author of the blog in question does not talk about the art of photography cuz that author has a very dim understanding of what it is that constitutes photography as Art. Consequently, the author would be best served by sticking to what he knows, aka: gear. My opinion is offered in light of the fact-one of many-of the author’s suggestion that “technical features” might make an image worth looking at (don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that cringe-worthy idiocy) - a statement in full-blown support of why Bruce Davidson is “not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore…”

Re: with so many different avenues for viewing… it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.” when trying to writing about on a blog. BS. While the author’s point, re: the diminished image quality-for any number of reasons-of images on the interweb, is true enough, unless a device’s viewing parameters are highly compromised, I believe that there is more than enough visual information in most cases to make a reasonable assessment of a picture’s aesthetic / ”artistic” worth. Enough, so that, you know, you can determine whether or not a picture is “worth looking at”.

I would even go far as to suggest that, under ideal screen viewing conditions-there is a long list of items under the concept of “ideal”-one could even undertake a critical, informed review of a picture.

Is viewing an image on the interweb-under ideal conditions-the same as viewing that image as a print? Short answer, “No.” Slightly longer answer, a qualified “Yes.” inasmuch as most of the visual qualities which distinguish a photograph as Art, especially the idea of form, are easily perceivable on even a less than ideal viewing screen. And, an on-screen viewing of a good photograph can stir virtually all of the feeling, emotion, and thought that a print of the same image can incite.

iMo and experience, I can write that, in the Fine Art World, Photography Division, there are very few who are interested in the technical features of a photograph. That’s cuz they know and have viewed countless number of photographs which display very little in the way of technical features but which, nevertheless, are some of the greatest photographs ever made.