# 6321-23 / common things • common places • flora ~ knickers in a twist

November 6, 2022

OK. LET ME GET RIGHT TO THE POINT, re: my tit in a wringer wise - as I was engaged in this morning’s cumbobulation routine-coffee, morning sweet, newspaper, and cruising my regular rota of websites-I came across this:

“…the iPhone makes decent photographs for the Web and for texting to friends. It doesn't even do too badly for small prints…” ~ Mike Johnston

Johnston is a long-time diss-er of the iPhone as a picture making device. He believes it to be a device for “note-taking, immediate sharing, pretty colors”. “Serious” photography, not so much, if at all. OK. Fine. To each his own kettle of bias.

Re: Johnston’s bias: Johnston comes from the Camera Club School of Photography. That is, the critical mass of picture makers who believe that a picture is all about the depicted referent (re: the “right” kind of referent), with an occasional nod to “composition”, and, in the current picture making zeitgeist, that picture must be eye-bleedingly sharp, color saturated, with dynamic range to the max and made with a very “nice” gear.

While the preceding paragraph describes a top-tier characteristic of the CCSoP crowd, in this paragraph, is the characteristic that I believe to be the most defining propensity of the typical CCSoP picture viewer. As strange as it may sound / read, it is all about what your feet do when viewing a picture on a wall…it has been my experience, during gallery exhibitions of my pictures and that of others, that picture viewers fall into 2 categories - those whose feet propel them closer to a picture and those whose feet propel them backward from a picture.

The forward movers get closer in order to inspect a picture for its technical qualities, while the backward movers are more likely to be wanting a more complete overview of a picture in order to get a feel for what the picture is about. That is, That “something” that is beyond the depicted referent.

iMo, as simple as it might be, therein is the difference between the CCSoP crowd and the FASoP (Fine Art School of Photography) crowd. It illustrates the difference in what each crowd seeks / looks for in determining what is, iTo, a good photograph. Once, again let me write, to each their own. However…

…what gets my knickers in a twist, is the fact that Johnston, acting in his role as President of his camera club-preaching to the CCSoP faithful-actively dismisses the iPhone as a “serious” picture making device> a practice which, no matter how you choose to read it, must have the effect of discouraging those who are exploring the iPhone capabilities as a picture making device useful for more than just “note-taking, immediate sharing, pretty colors”.

Hint for those whose intention is to be part of, or be hovering around the edges of the FASoP. ANY picture making device that suits one’s vision is 100% perfect for the making of one’s pictures.

And, re: the iPhone and the absolute and misleading nonsense of “It doesn't even do too badly for small prints”. I print my iPhone made files at 24”x24”. Quite a number of those prints have hung on gallery walls-photo and Fine Art galleries-and homes. And, especially so in FA galleries, nobody gives / gave a crap about what device was used in their making. And, on few occasions when it was known that the pictures were made with an iPhone, the viewer thereof was quite simply amazed.

# 6318-20 / common places • common things ~ assuaging my guilt

November 2, 2022

SINCE MY ACQUISITION OF THE FIRST iPHONE WITH THE 0.5 lens setting-14mm equivalent-I have been, making pictures with that setting with no conscious directive of creating body of work focused upon the optical characteristics of that lens. As a matter of fact, when using that lens, I continually experience a guilt-driven suspicion that I am employing the lens to create a photographic cheap trick / effect.

Nevertheless, I plunged ahead cuz, as stated in the a wider view of things gallery on my WORK page, I use this lens, not for its extended field of view, but rather for the emphasis it creates on the visual elements of line, shape, and space as seen across the 2D plane of a photographic print. And, cuz I boldly went where no one has gone before (ha), I find myself with yet another uninitentionally made “found” body of work comprised of 55 pictures made with the 0.5 / 1.5 (14mm-e) lens.

And, much to my relief, cheap trick guilt wise, I have validation that I was making these pictures for all the “right”reasons / intentions (ok, ok, albeit unconsciously):

“Clement Greenberg’s dictate that each art ought to “determine through the operations peculiar to itself, the effects peculiar and exclusive to itself.”…Numerous photographers have made photographs about photography-enlisting, even embracing, the visual peculiarities of the medium that capable professionals once avoided or indirectly acknowledged….[they] purposely court and coax the perceptual ambiguities and accident visual excesses typically found in unselfconscious amateur snapshots. When imaginatively enlisted to achieve fastidiously formal and/or provocatively narrative images, such effects become crucial elements in a vivid and vital vernacular.” ~ Sally Eauclaire / the new color photography

FYI, one of the photographers Eauclaire calls out in chapter 3: THE VIVID VERNACULAR is Harry Callahan, about whose work she writes:

“While color photographs produced with relatively conventional lenses feature flattened spaces, Callahan/s extreme wide-angle lens imposes the reverse, so exaggerating near/far disparities that buildings lean away diagonally, gesturing anthropomorphically…Because the disorienting diagonals obviate stability and tranquility, Callahan has devised a spatial choreography in which rollicking voids and solids are equal, counteractive compositional partners. The result: photographs that burst into view, the color-dense sections discharging energy as they collide, giving the images a peculiarly photographic verve and pizazz.”

So, given all of the above, here’s the deal - Does it matter, re: making (Fine) Art wise, that all of the aforementioned pictures were made in a manner sans the conscious intent of what might be labeled as the above artsy-fartsy speak? No. Cuz it is not the intent that matters, it is the pictures that matter.* However, it is worth noting that as I continue to make pictures in this 0.5/1.5(14mm-e) manner, with confidence buoyed by artsy-fartsy speak, I will shed my “cheap trick” guilt and strive to, in fact, maximize this specific peculiar visual effect of the medium thus turning the traditional and derisive visual effect proscriptive, re: wide angle “distortion, on its head.

PS another the medium’s visual “peculiarity” that I am mining is lens+aperture based effect of limited DOF - see my AROUND THE HOUSE work / gallery on my WORK page.

* rationalization is more important than sex. Just try getting through a day without a juicy rationalization.

6313-17 / people ~ some people I know about whom you may care less

November 1, 2022

**medium format camera** - (embiggenable)

**µ4/3 camera** **with pinhole “lens”**- (embiggenable)

THE PICTURE MAKING IDEA OF PORTRAITS HAS been on my mind cuz there is a gallery group exhibition requesting submissions for consideration. Consequently, I have been rooting around in my photo iibrary for pictures which would be construed as portraits. That is, considered to be so per the submission guide lines:

A great portrait reveals something of the depth, history, and emotional state of the subject, at least as captured in a single moment in time. Although many portraits zero in on the face, many fine images don't show the face at all, instead using light, gesture, context, and other nuances of expression to create an informative portrait.

For this exhibit we seek portraits, self- or otherwise, that go beyond the surface to explore a deeper vision of the subject and, hopefully, draw an emotional response from the viewer.

To be certain, I have a number of issues with the idea that a portrait can reveal “something of the depth, history, and emotional state of the subject”, or that a portrait can “go beyond the surface to explore a deeper vision of the subject”. That’s cuz I am a firm believer in the idea the medium of photography has a problem with imbuing a photograph with definitive meaning, i.e. Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy~ Susan Sontag.

That written, a photograph which illustrates a reasonably accurate likeness of a person, when viewed by someone who possesses experiential knowledge and interaction with the depicted subject, may prick memories of and associations with that subject-Barthes’ punctum. But, iMo and experience, a viewer with no immediate connection to the depicted subject, not so much.

Re: the emotional state of the subject / an emotional response from the viewer. Without a doubt, photograph, in many examples, can convey a general sense of the emotional state of the subject. However, without some supporting evidence, visual or otherwise, that general sense will have little or no “depth”, the why? factor. And, also without a doubt, a photograph which conveys a sense of the subject’s emotional state may incite a simpatico response in the viewer thereof.

All of the above written, in my commercial picture making life, I was considered to be a top-tier people picture maker. My people pictures were on countless magazine covers and in magazine feature articles, in annual reports, and accent-on-people-like my Ray-Ban on models work-advertising / marketing campaigns.

I studiously avoided traditional studio portrait work other than for family and a few friends. The “portrait” pictures I enjoyed the making of the most were-and still is-my spontaneous, casual pictures of family, friends, and acquaintances. Usually made with no specific intent other than just fooling around in all kinds of situations while using all kinds of cameras and techniques.

In any event, I have yet to decide if I will be submitting work for the aforementioned exhibition. My time might be better spent putting together a nicely printed folio of my personal portrait work for submission to galleries in pursuit of a solo exhibition.

# 6311-12 / commonplaces • people ~ all hallows' eve

October 31, 2022

TOP: A HOUSE IN DOLGEVILLE, NY AS STUMBLED UPON during a self-impused detour drive just outside of the southern foothills of the Adirondacks along the Mohawk River Valley, aka: The Leatherstocking Region.

Bottom: Me in my Halloween costume-the porn photographer-c.1980.

Happy All Hallow’s Eve to one and all.

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

October 27, 2022

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.

# 6293-95 / landscape ~ the role of God's art director

October 24, 2022

“….Color photography’s poor reputation derives…from a school of slick, sensationalized, “creative” photography that has saturated the public (and artist’s) consciousness of the medium for the past quarter century…many photographers consider visual and/or sentimental excesses as key to expressivity…their lust for effect is everywhere apparent. Technical wizardry amplifies rather than re-creates on-site observations. Playing to the multitude of viewers who salivate at the sight of nature (in the belief that good and God are immanent)…such photographers burden it with ever coarser effects. Rather than humbly seek out the “spirit of facts”, they assume the role of God’s art director making His immanence unequivocal and protrusive” ~ Sally Eauclaire / The New Color Photography

THE EXCERPT ABOVE WAS WRITTEN 42 YEARS PAST but it still rings true today. I worked as a consultant on the book-my name is in the Acknowledgments. It is especially true at this time of the year, re: fall color, when photographers are busy taking saturation to the max in manner way beyond what was possible in the analog, aka: film, days.

In my neck of the woods, the Adirondack Forest Preserve (larger than the state of Vermont), the landscape is awash in Autumn color. It is a big tourist season wherein the leaf peepers descend upon us in droves. One can hardly drive down a road without passing a zillion stopped cars on the side of the road where the peepers, cameras, or phones in hand, are out snapping pictures. And soon enough, Facebook is loaded with “spectacular” pictures which bear no resemblance to the real thing.

Each leaf peeping season I feel good when I manage to avoid making landscape pictures of the cliched Autumn color genre. Which is not to write that I do not appreciate the Autumn Spectacular. The wife and I will regularly take a drive in Abarth with the top folded back and enjoy the experience. However, that written, I prefer to make pictures that whisper rather than scream. To each is own.

FYI, there is a new body of work on my WORK page, early landsccape (ku), which bear witness to my Autumn color picturing style.

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

October 18, 2022

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

October 12, 2022

“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.”