# 6296-6304 / discurcive promiscuity ~ setting Henri Cartier-Bresson a-spinning like a high-speed drill press in his grave

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

A FEW DAYS AGO I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MY ADOPTION of the iPhone as my primary picture making device has changed my picture making habits. To be certain it has not changed or altered my vision in any manner but it has changed the promiscuity quotient in my discursive promiscuity manner of making pictures inasmuch as I am now more promiscuous* than ever. Add to that, an extra dollop-or is it a cherry on top?-to my joy of photography.

Fast forward to this morning when I came across a New Yorker article, Candid Camera ~ The cult of Leica, written in 2007. The article is a good read. It even added a few new words to my vocabulary-a. “Leicaweenies”. A word used by Leica user Ralph Gibson to describe Leica addicts who are prone to writing scholarly papers on certain discrepancies in the serial numbers of Leica lens caps, and, b. “Visualus interruptus,” the brief viewfinder black-out caused by the flap of the mirror in a (D)SLR, a “malady” with which the Leica is not afflicted.

In any event, the article chord-struck me with a number of topics:

[Leica is] “a machine constructed with such skill that it renders every user—from the pro to the banana-fingered fumbler—more skillful as a result. We need it to refine and lubricate, rather than block or coarsen, our means of engagement with the world: we want to look not just at it, however admiringly, but through it. In that case, we need a Leica”…

…”the simplicity of the design made the Leica an infinitely more friendly proposition, for the novice, than one of the digital monsters from Nikon and Canon. Those need an instruction manual only slightly smaller than the Old Testament, whereas the Leica II sat in my palms like a puppy, begging to be taken out on the streets.

You could tuck it into a jacket pocket, wander around the Thuringer woods all weekend, and never gasp for breath.

If you were to substitute iPhone for Leica, Fuji / Sony for Nikon / Canon, and Adirondack for Thuringer in these excerpts, it would, iMo, pretty well describe the iPhone as a picture making device. Which leads me directly to the question (ludicrous for some):

Is the iPhone the new Leica?”

Answer:

let the caterwauling commence.

I would try to answer the question but my puppy [is] begging to be taken out on the streets.

*the pictures in this entry are but a mere handful culled from those that I have made over the past couple weeks.

# 6290-92 / common places • common things • kitchen sink ~ I'm a the-earth-is-flat kinda guy

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

THERE IS A NEW BODY OF WORK, a wider view of things, on my HOME page, aka: WORK page.

All of the photos in the a wider view of things body of work are made with the use of the 0.5 lens (14mm equivalent) setting on the iPhone. I find that that lens, with its inherent optical “distortion”, lends a visually interesting emphasis on the visual elements of line, shape, and space as seen across the 2D plane (aka: a flat plane) of a photographic print.

To my eye and sensibilities, that visual emphasis creates images which, while true to my vision (an emphasis on form), are somewhat different from my “standard” picture making fare. Hence, these pictures are organized in a new body of work.

Unlike the oft written / spoken conventional “wisdom” of the photo world wherein the use of a wide or very wide field of view lens is suggested as a way to create depth in a photograph, I simply do not believe that a photograph can have any actual depth. Therefore, iMo, the idea of trying to create '“depth” in a photograph is a pursuit reserved for rank, camera-club amateurs cuz, the fact of the matter is, when viewed on a photographic print, the earth and everything on it is flat as a pancake.

iMo, accepting that fact is the key to making and viewing-and understanding-photographs that are about more than the actual thing depicted in a photograph.

# 6285-89 / common places • common things • ordinary life ~ my ode to autumn

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

LAST FRIDAY PAST THE WIFE AND I WERE IN THE very tony town of Saratoga Springs, sitting at a bar in an upscale restaurant having drinks while waiting for the wife’s brother and family to arrive in town for our dinner at a different restaurant. When the text came, signaling the family’s arrival, I motioned to the young-ish, hipster, female bartender-with whom I had shared a few eye contact glances-to bring our check. A few minutes later she arrived, check in hand, leaned across the bar toward me and said, “Do you shoot?”

As the woman-not the wife-sitting next to me moved slightly away from me, I hesitated for a moment trying to figure out what she meant…was she offering me a shot of bourbon to ”shoot”? did look like I was packin’ heat? Whereupon, noting my hesitancy, she said, “I noticed your hat.” Ah yes, my hat. That would be my hat with the KODAK logo on it.

So, of course, my slightly delayed answer was, “Yes. I shoot.”, which instigated a response of…”Just thought you might like to know that film is coming back with us younger crowd.” As she walked away, I turned to the the woman next to me and told her I was not going to shoot her. She smiled and said, “I appreciate that very much.”

# 6282-84 / common places • common things ~ that is not what I mean

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy.” ~ Susan Sontag

“Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the eye traffics in feelings, not thoughts.” ~ Walker Evans.

THE IDEA OF MEANING, RE: AS AN INTRINSIC CONSTRUCT TO BE found in a photograph, has been kicking about the photo sphere of late. So I thought I would contribute my 4 cents (inflation) to the conversation.

Simply written, I do not believe that most photographs have any meaning(s). Hence, my use of the 2 quotes found on the top of this entry. To wit, “photographs…cannot themselves explain anything”, and, …”the eye traffics in feelings, not thoughts.”

Consider this from Susan Sontag:

The fact is, all Western consciousness of and reflection upon art have remained within the confines staked out by the Greek theory of art as mimesis or representation. It is through this theory that art…becomes problematic, in need of defense. And it is the defense of art which gives birth to the odd vision by which something we have learned to call “form” is separated off from something we have learned to call “content,” and to the well-intentioned move which makes content essential and form accessory…it is still assumed that a work of art is its content. Or, as it's usually put today, that a work of art by definition says something.

To be perfectly clear, I am a joyous sensualist and proud of it. My photographs are meant to display / celebrate the the joy / pleasure of seeing. That’s cuz photography is a visual art. Consequently, I have devoted my picture making to the Art of Observation…

”…the matter of art in photography may come down to this: it is the capture and projection of the delights of seeing; it is the defining of observation full and felt.” ~ Walker Evans

While there are a zillion essays, treatises, and dissertations regarding “content”, aka: what a piece of art says, the cynic in me-or is it the realist in me….I get the 2 confused at times-thinks that it all comes down to one thing; the idea of imbuing art with meaning came about cuz artists want the populous to believe that making art is difficult, all in the cause of covering up the fact that making art is a fun / pleasurable undertaking.

I mean, ya know, how can anyone take art seriously if it comes about from artists just having fun?

Me. I just try to keep it simple and always remember the words of Yogi Berra:

You can observe a lot by just watching.”

# 6276-78 / common places • common things • autumn color ~ whispering, not shouting

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely that most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.” ~ John Rosenthal

# 6267-74 / autumn color • flora • decay ~ 15 minutes in the back yard

all pictures ~ (embiggenable)

If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image formed by a lens, I see no reason why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the contrary, we should take hold of that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest.” ~ Berenice Abbott

THE LEAF-PEEPER RUSH IS ON. THIS YEAR AUTUMN COLOR is late, rather subdued, and of short duration. Blame a dry Spring and early Summer. Consequently, the happy leaf snappers will have to resort to saturation-to-the-max in order to illustrate what they wish Autumn color is suppose to be. Cuz, you know, reality just isn’t good enough.

# 6262-66 / ordinary life • common places • common things ~ a funy thing happened on the way to the forum

(embiggemable)

(embiggemable)

RE; THE TITLE OF THIS ENTRY: I WAS NOT ACTUALLY on my way to a forum. But the name of that movie popped in my head when I was thinking about how a funny thing happened while I was working my way through my photo library folder looking for a few pictures for submission to a juried exhibition titled, The Poetry of the Ordinary.

It is also worth noting that what happened was not really “funny” but it was arguably laughable that, once again, I discovered a body of work lurking / hiding in my photo library. A body of work that I am titling, Ordinary Life.

Background: As I have previously noted, I have been “experimenting"“ with the concept of making full-frame pictures with the iPhone PORTRAIT setting. About a month ago, I put together 12 such pictures and made a POD photo book titled, A Random Sense of Form, in which is this Statement:

Every day after arising, I move about my house engaging in daily activities which some might consider to be the humdrum of an ordinary life. In doing so, my eye and sensibilities are often pricked by intimate tableaux which evince the potential, when isolated within the frame I impose upon it with my picture making device, for the making of a photograph with interesting visual form.

Even though these pictures are anchored by a truthfully rendered referent, they are rarely about the thing so depicted. Rather, it is the perceived form-the coming together of color, line, shape, space, texture, and value-that I see and photograph which, for me, emerges in my photographs as interesting visual energy and form. Energy and form as found in the, seemingly, most unlikely of places in the everyday world.

When the book arrived from POD source, I showed it to a few interested parties who liked it very much. However, it was not until a few days ago that I picked the book up on my way to bed, settled into bed, and spent some time looking through it. As self-important / egotistical as it might sound, I was both impressed and surprised by the impression it made upon my eye and sensibilities when the pictures were viewed as images on paper, aka: prints, as opposed to viewing them, as I had been doing, on-screen. That experience caused me to think that I was onto something, picture making wise, and that I should concentrate on making a conscious effort-as opposed to my “normal” picture making MO of discursive promiscuity-to create a body of work of such pictures.

That written, it was the next day that a funny thing happened on my way to the forum (sorry, yet another metaphor) during which I “discovered” 40 full-frame pictures in my library made utilizing the iPhone PORTRAIT setting. A happening which made realize how utterly clueless I can be, every now and again, of the fact that I have been creating a body of work without the knowledge that I have been doing so.

In any event, it should be noted there were 2 things saved my picture making ass, unified seeing wise, in the “making” of this body of work. First and foremost, I remained true to my vision. That is, I pictured what I see (form) how I see it. And, second (completely as a result of using the iPhone PORTRAIT setting), the fact that the iPhone PORTRAIT setting requires, a requirement that I sometimes find annoying, that the focused upon referent be within 8 feet of the iPhone. This demand results in the fact that the plane of focus in my pictures all fall within a fairly uniform distance from my picture making position. And, of course, the use of the PORTRAIT setting results in an (apparent) visually similar limited DOF (the visual point of this exercise).

In conclusion, I can write with a firm conviction-and my tongue firmly embedded in my cheek-that I am sure glad that I had the right camera with me when I made these pictures.

# 6259-61 / common places • common things ~ on shooting up the place

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

THE TOPIC OF “WORKING THE SCENE” HAS COME UP ON TOP. My immediate inclination is to call BS. That’s cuz the idea of working a scene brings to (my) mind the notion of aimlessly firing a machine gun at a target in the hope that one of those bullets will hit the bullseye. Whereas I believe the best way to hit the bullseye is carefully considered aim, the bullseye firmly fixed in one’s sighting device, and a relaxed squeeze of the trigger.

OK. I apologize. Those last 2 sentences are a bit heavy on the metaphor scale but I think that, most likely, you get my point.

That written, I am not declaring BS on the idea of working the scene inasmuch as a little bit-a very little bit-of working the scene can be useful every now and then. FYI, by a very little bit of working the scene I mean a matter of inches as opposed to firing off shots while break-dancing around a scene. I can write, without reservation, that I have never utilized the making of pictures as part of my calisthenics routine.

All 3 of the pictures in this entry were made over the last 24 hours with but a single pull of the trigger (sorry, yet another metaphor). One shot wonders, all. That written, I did employ my idea of working the scene inasmuch as, before I pulled the trigger (sorry), I did move the camera (sorry, the iPhone) a little bit-inches-while viewing the scene on the iPhone screen in order to get the framing and placement of visual elements where I wanted in order to manage a direct hit on the bullseye with just 1 shot (sorry, sorry, sorry).

The reason that this picture making process works for me, most of time, is that I see with soft eyes which, when a referent pricks my eye and sensibilities, I am able to identify, in my peripheral vision (no eye movement), surrounding visual elements and subsequently (and quickly) recognize how I might use them to create an interesting visual form, the true “subject” that I am always trying to create. Consequently, I am able to get right to the “right” POV with very little wasted effort, cuz I am ”just” photographing what I see.

And, FYI, writing of picture making calisthenics, if I were to be using a tripod-which I no longer do-it would need only 2 head-height positions. 1 set to my standing eye level and the other to my sitting eye level. That’s cuz 99 of 100-or some very close number-pictures I make are made from my eye level. In the case of tripod use, the head might be tilted up or down to one degree or another but, cuz I photograph what I see and, literally, how I saw what I see, it’s all a eye level POV for me.

In any event, re: working the scene, my manner of working a scene works for me. It may not work for many others. Although, it is most likely how those who work with a view camera work. That written, I probably average 2 pulls of the trigger per picture. I do some exposure bracketing and, every once and a while, I move the iPhone an inch or so in order to get an ever so slightly different POV. That’s cuz I wanna be sure I hit the bullseye (sorry).