OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS I HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT I want to explore the possibility of a new way of picture making. Specifically, to create a new, themed body of work that is different from those bodies of work that have emerged from my discursively promiscuous manner of making pictures.
The big question, re: that desire, is, different in what way? Other than the fact that I would like to create pictures that represent something about the place where I live-in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, aka the Adirondack Park-is a new approach about subject matter? technique? a combination of subject matter and technique together? In any case, in thinking about this, I find that I keep bumping with into the walls of the box into which I have locked myself, picture making wise.
Re: the problem with subject matter - simply written, in my pursuit of making pictures, fine-art wise, I have rarely focused on specific referents. That written, my eye and sensibilities have been pricked by repetitive references-my kitchen sink as one example (of many)-but, not because I seek out those specific referents. Rather, what pricks my eye and sensibilities are sections of the real world which evidence potential as photographs which create interesting visual form.
Consequently, I have a problem with pursuing a specific referent cuz of my fear that placing my emphasis on chasing a specific referent will lead to the loss of my feel for seeing and picturing form.
Re: technique - I have no interest in making any kind of pictures other than straight pictures. I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than to add any thing to my pictures that I consider to be effects or cheap tricks. However, that written…the medium of photography and its apparatus does have a handful of native picture making mechanics with which I have always had an interest.
There is one mechanics in particular that I have tinkered with over the years-that of Depth-Of-Field, aka DOF. My “tinkering” has run the gamut of trying to achieve, in some cases, maximum DOF, or, in other cases, minimal DOF. It all depended-and still does-on what i was intending to achieve, picture making wise.
Virtually all of my discursive promiscuity pictures depend upon maximum DOF to elucidate the form I create. I want the lines, shapes, tones, colors, texture, et al in my pictures to be clearly delineated across the 2D plain of my pictures. However, it has come to my attention in experimenting with the iPhone full-frame format-using the Portrait Mode-that a bit of limited DOF can still accomplish my picture making intentions, form wise.
Literal referent wise, I have always liked limited DOF for its ability to lend a bit of “mystery” to a picture. And, I will readily admit, the contrarian in me wise, that I like it even more considering the current picture making obsession with sharpness and definition to the eye-searing max.
In any event, wherever all of this picture making casting about might end up, I think it will include a bit of limited DOF. And, thank you, thank you to the iPhone for giving me the capability of fine tuning the apparent DOF after the picture making fact.
