# 6858 / common things • around the house ~ get real

January 16, 2024

AS THE IDEA OF COLOR TRUNDLES AND BLUNDERS DOWN THE winding interweb road of foggy thought, this concept popped up:

“In a lot of cases, color is an essential part of the information being conveyed….There are lots of times you need color just to accurately describe what you're depicting. Of course, looked at the other way around, this might be just an aspect of photography's humdrum role as a tool in commerce and so many other quotidian purposes….it's simply workmanlike.”

Yikes. Bear with me as I write this about that…

In the so called straight photography world of fragmentation and contingency, I would argue that color photography-i.e. pictures which exhibit color as seen in the real world (as much as the medium allows)-is, in fact and in practice, the only legitimate / truthful / reasonably accurate manner in which to represent the real world. That simply is cuz, to the healthy human eye, the real world is seen and perceive in color. Period. End of sentence.

iMo, monochrome, aka BW, photography is a massive fakery-deceit, deception, dissimulation-in that regard. I believe that to be so for many reasons but never more so than when I hear / read the idiotic idea that monochrome photography gets to the “essence” of things cuz it eliminates the “distraction” of color…ya know, like, say, if apples were grey then we would be able to get to their essence more directly. iMo, that is quite simply pure poppycock.

Don’t try to convince me of that idea by citing Weston’s pepper. That’s a very nice picture, some would say, a very sensuous picture and I would agree, however…a significant part of a pepper’s essence is the fact that it is green (or red). That written, I would agree that Weston’s pepper photography is an exquisite example of pictures made in the genre / medium of abstract photography. And, have no doubt about it, I have no reservations, re: monochrome / BW photography as a legitimate art form.

That written, I stand by my belief that color is, well, the color of life. Therefore, since I am living life, I make color photographs.

# 6854-57 / common things ~ perfect color (no such thing)

January 13, 2024

AS THE IDEA / CONCEPT OF COLOR IS BEING BATTED AROUND on TOP, the topic, as is most often the case, devolves into the malarky and flapdoodle world wherein the need for understanding the interaction of color, both a practical and a theoretical understanding, is consider to be de rigueur for the making of a “perfect” color photograph. Ya know, so you can use color as a colorist, rather than as an incidentalist.

In the entry, examples of good ‘great color photographers are given by many. Amongst the names, Saul Leiter is mentioned repeatedly. iMo, very good example but….I doubt that Leiter ever gave much of a tinker'‘s damn about understanding the interaction of color, both as a practical and a theoretical matter. Consider Leiter’s own words:

“I think that mysterious things happen in familiar places…I like it when one is not certain of what one sees. When we do not know why the photographer has taken a picture, and when we do not know why we are looking at it, all of a sudden, we discover something that we start seeing. I like this confusion…I think that I learned to see what h see and do not see. One of the things photography has allowed me is to take pleasure in looking. I see this world simply. It is a source of endless delight.”

iMo, the nano-second that you starting thinking about color when making a photograph, that is the moment that you screw up the process, i.e., you lose the delight of simply looking and begin making a photograph according to the rules. iMo, ya gotta just look and feel it.

ASIDE While I consider Leiter’s work a forerunner of fine-art color photography-inasmuch as he did use color film in his picture making-nevertheless, my thinking is rather conflicted, re: the idea that he was as color photographer. It seems, based upon the fact that he was an experimental-ist when it came to what color film to use. He regularly “explored” the color distortions of expired films and the unpredictable color renditions found in the emulsions of small-manufacturer’s films.

To my way of thinking, Lieter was not utilizing the actual colors of the actual world in the making of his pictures. Rather, he was sorta playing around with the color renditions of one of the tools of the medium, aka: film. So, does that make him something other than a color photographers? A color distortion-ist photographer, perhaps?

That written, his color work-whatever one wishes to call it-is a delight at which to look.

#6848-53 / landscape • urban landscape ~ return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear

January 10, 2024

SO, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED…

“Why would a film photographer shoot color?…”

Especially when - according to Mr. Johnston:

Digital color soars way, way past film color… [although] some serious big-city art galleries are still very attracted to large-format (mainly 4x5") color negative film as a medium” ~ Mike Johnston

As a long time picture maker-c.1979-1987-with the use of an 8x10 view camera together with 8x10 color negative sheet film, I believe I am qualified to answer that question….

…in a nutshell, the answer is short and sweet: it is an aesthetic consideration. That is, an aesthetic based upon the look and subsequent “feel “ of prints made with large format color negative film.

To wit, photographs made with large format color negative film are characterized by prints which exhibit soft, subtle tonal transitions, easy on the eye contrast, a “creamy” highlight and shadow presentation, and a very pleasing amount of sharpness and detail. Characteristics which, taken all altogether, yield up, to my eye and sensibilities, what I think of a as very “liquid” visual sensation. For those who are sensitive to such things, this look and feel offers a very attractive alternative to the all too common “hardness / coolness” of most digital-produced work - excessive eye-bleeding sharpness and comparatively rather too-vibrant color properties.

But, here’s the thing…unless you have viewed (I am willing to bet that very few youngins have) as an example, a Meyerowitz print on a gallery wall, my attempt to explain this aesthetic might read as a bit far fetched. Nevertheless, it is a real thing.

And, writing of Meyerowitz, I had a one-on-one conversation with him where we both spent a significant amount of time waxing poetic about our experience with the scanning of our respective 8x10 color negatives and subsequent making of digital prints. The scanning of those original color negatives revealed a significant amount of subtle color, highlight / shadow detail, and resolution that was “hidden” in the enlarger / C print world but was revealed in the digital print making world. That written, the work still exhibited the “classic” look and feel of a C print made from and large format color negative. Meyerowitz exclaimed that he felt as if he was experiencing his work in a somewhat dramatically different manner.

All that written, while I would love to return to making photographs with 8x10 color negative film, it ain’t gonna happen inasmuch as a single sheet of KODAK 8x10 color negative film costs $30US. Add in processing with a 1200dpi scan at $24US a pop and it becomes a very expensive undertaking. Maybe I can apply for a grant.

CAVEAT the scans in this entry of a few of my 8x10 color negatives may or may not, depending on quite a few device viewing variables, get across my point.

# 6835-45 / all things considered ~ life squared-a year in the making

January 3, 2024

(all photos embiggenable) ~ ***adirondack scenic***

***quite possibly my favorite picture from 2023***

AT THE END OF THE OLD / START OF THE NEW year, it customary in some quarters to do a year-in-review thing. In many cases it is a a “best-of” kinda thing. In any event, here is my take on it…

Inasmuch as, in an overall scheme of picture making things, I toil in the discursive promiscuity garden of picture making, I nevertheless feel compelled, by the medium’s custom of organizing itself into recognizable, theme-based bodies of work, to relegate my pictures to separate / definable bodies of work - 10 bodies of work as presented above.

That written, re: the pictures in this entry, while they are presented as the “best-of” each category, they are not necessarily my favorite pictures of 2023. If I were to discard the limits imposed by adhering to separate theme classification, it is possible that some of these pictures would not make the cut. Case in point, the adirondack scenic picture would be nowhere to been seen.

That’s cuz, to be honest, that genre-“beautiful” scenery pictures-is not something that I pursue with any passion. The simple fact of the matter, picture making passion wise, is that the only dictate that drives my shutter activation finger is the making of pictures of selected segments of quotidian life which prick my eye and sensibilities.

# 6831-33 / common places • common things ~ surreal density and visual energy

December 20, 2023

OVER THE YEARS ON THIS BLOG I HAVE repeatedly mentioned my sought after picture-making concept of visual energy. That is, my seemingly preternatural disposition to make photographs chock full of visual information, and, I might add, to appreciate such photographs made by others. Best as I can tell, that’s cuz I enjoy it when my eye and sensibilities are invigorated / agitated / stimulated by the dance-instigated by a surfeit of visual information-required to navigate across the 2D surface of a visually complex print.

Coinciding with this disposition is the fact that I find this arousal of my visual apparatus’ erogenous zones to be heightened by the viewing of smallish-sized prints-as an example, my 8x10 color negative work was always printed as contact prints. And, it explains why I am so enamored of small INSTAX prints.

Stephen Shore has a related concept which he labels as “surreal density”:

“…what I found attractive about the contact print was the almost surreal density of information. That here’s this thing that you can take in, in a couple of seconds. But, to actually stand on that spot, and look at every branch on this tree, and every shadow on this building, and the pebbles on the road—this could take minutes of attention. It was, like, maybe fifteen minutes of attention had been compressed into this thing you can take in, in a few seconds. That’s what I mean by “surreal density” of information.”

iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, a photograph with “surreal density” quite obviously invites-especially to those who are naturally curious-the eye to roam around the surface of the 2D print. As Shore also wrote:

“I don’t have to have a single point of emphasis in the picture. It can be complex, because it’s so detailed that the viewer can take time and read it, and look at something here, and look at something there, and they can pay attention to a lot more.”

All of that written, I strive to make complex pictures with “surreal density” which, when taken in, in a couple of seconds (easier to do viewing small prints), read as a meaningfully organized whole-the idea that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Nevertheless, cuz the surreal density of the photographs tend to invite a dive into the discrete parts of the whole, the viewer can “pay attention to a lot more”, all the while enjoying the visual pleasures of engaging with visual energy.

At least, that is how I see it.

# 6830 / common things ~ I yam what I yam...

December 14, 2023

POPEYE THE SAILOR MAN REPEATABLY DECLARED TO THE WORLD, “I yam what I yam and that’s all what I am. I’m Popeye the sailor man.”

Were I to be a teacher of things photography, Popeye’s words would be printed large and mounted on the wall at the head of the classroom. That’s cuz, iMo and iMpersonal experience, if you desire to be a unique actor in the world of Art, plain and simple, ya gotta be what ya yam.

To wit, ya gotta discover and recognize the innate manner-the one ya came equipped with when ya slid down the chute-with which ya see the world. That is, a way of seeing which, in the Art World, is labeled as one’s personal vision.

Re: vision: in a purely “mechanical” sense, seeing begins when light falls on the eyes, initiating the process of transduction (the action or process of converting something, especially energy or a message into another form). Once this literal visual information reaches the visual cortex, it is processed by a variety of neurons that detect colours, shapes, and motion which creates meaningful perceptions-a mental image-out of the incoming visual stimuli.

Think of that like this: the “mechanical” apparatus of human vision records literal visual information. However, because we are sentient beings, we are able to use our mental acuity to create perceptions-responses to the sensations-about the literal visual information that we see. Or, as Edward Weston suggested:

...[the] “strongest way of seeing…means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible….so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing.

All of that written, finding one’s vision-putting your own imprimatur on your work-all comes down to a concept expressed by Robert Henri in his 1923 book, The Art Spirit*:

“An artist has to get acquainted with himself as much as he can. [cuz] The technique of a little individuality will be a little technique. However long studied it still will be a little technique, the measure of the man. The greatness of art depends absolutely on the greatness of the artist’s individuality…”

Bottom line:

“Know thyself ” ~ Socrates, and, “To thine own self be true” ~ William Shakespeare

*In addition to Popeye’s words in my things photography classroom, there is only a single mandatory read - The Art Spirit by Robert Henri.

# 6826 / common places • common things ~ a gripe with the photo critic crowd, pt. 1

December 6, 2023

IN YESTERDAY’S ENTRY I MENTIONED THAT I HAD BEEN reading a chapter in the new color photography book. Not that I did not look at a bunch of pictures in that chapter but, in fact, there is a whole lot to read in the book.

That written, re: “a whole lot to read"; it ain’t the easiest read in the world cuz there is an extraordinary amount of highfalutin art-speak verbosity to slog through and decipher. Of course, that is to be expected inasmuch as so much of art criticism, especially so in the photograph world, reads in much the same way. It is as if the author / critic is engaged more in flaunting and burnishing his/her art creds than they are in getting at the experience of viewing and appreciating a photograph without having to tick off a litany of art theory, art technique, and art history boxes to justify why a picture is worth looking at.

To wit, it is rarely, if ever, enough for that crowd that a picture is an interesting, visually stimulating artifact that is simply a delight just look at. A treat for the visual senses.

Case in point; I have mentioned that my favorite response from a viewer of my photographs is some variant on the oft heard, “I don’t know why I like it but I do.” My response is most often simply, “Thank you very much. I’m glad you like it.” However….

…. I could lapse into regaling them with a discussion of my frequent propensity to incorporate visually unifying strategies that include color-field wefting or fugue-like repetitions, inversions and transformations of particular motifs. And, because forms unfold gradually but ineluctably, while colors shift into delicately nuanced and often improbable variations, such melifluous features prolong the pleasurable act of seeing, caressing imagination while reviving subconscious yearnings for paradisiacal worlds of milk and honey.

Truth be told, I have never responded with that “explanation” cuz all it would get me from the commenter would be for him/her to slowly back away and look at me like had lobsters crawling out of my ears.

# 6823-25 / common places • common things ~ observation full and felt.

December 4, 2023

WRITING ABOUT WILLIAM CHRISTENBERRY’S KODAK BROWNIE snapshots, Walker Evans wrote:

I need not proclaim the distinction in these unpretentious pictures. They will be spotted by the many experts who now follow photography in all its turns-and they will probably be mishandled in one way or another, as usual. I want, though, to indulge myself in the truly sensual pleasure of these things in their quiet honesty, subtlety, and restrained strength and their refreshing purity. There is something enlightening about them, they seem to write a new little social and architectural history about one regional America (the Deep South). In addition to that, each one is a poem.

ASIDE Christenberry-who later became close friends with Walker Evans-made his Kodak Brownie camera pictures in the 1970s, getting his prints done at drugstore photo counters as he toured and pictured Hale County, Ala., where his family is from. Hale County is the local where Evans made many of his acclaimed photographs.END ASIDE

I stumbled upon Christenberry’s little color snapshots-and the above quote-earlier today while I was (re)reading the DOCUMENTATION chapter in the new color photography book. That reading was instigated by a desire to find some insight into the art world thinking, re: documentation, that I might pass along with the posting of the pictures presented in this entry. Pictures that some might think to be mere documents, or, some might think to be fine art, or, yet again, some might think to be casual snapshots.

In any event, it would seem that at least one influential author / critic-Sally Eauclaire-along with Walker Evans believes that a photograph made in a documentary style that exhibits honesty, subtlety, and restrained strength and their refreshing purity also can possess artistic merit. And, as more investigation, as written in 2010 in the Washington Post revealed:

“The drugstore prints barely even seem to count as art. That's what makes them so wonderful and so important. They feel like they provide the most direct, intense, unmediated encounter with the reality that matters to Christenberry, without any artifying filter getting in the way.”

So, all of that written, what I come away with is that I can at least feel good about the M.O. with which I approach my picture making; striving to make pictures that are quiet, direct, unmediated, honest, and art sauce free. Whether that M.O. translates into pictures that viewers perceive to possess those same qualities is out of my control.