HAVEN’T BEEN AT MY COMPUTER FOR A FEW DAYS while recovering from a very nasty icy sidewalk fall. However, Also haven’t been inclined to make any pictures but I did spend some time making Lego flower arrangements. And while I was wiling away the time, I did receive a notice that one of my photographs was accepted into a REMAINS-themed exhibition.
# 6864-67 / common things • still life ~ good is as good does
WITH ALL OF THE ATTENTION GIVEN TO COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY, most notably on TOP, I must admit to being rather flummoxed, aka: confounded, or, simply confused, re: the idea of what is color photography and/or who is a color photographer?
It would be simplistic to write that / everyone who makes photographs with a device or materials capable of rendering reasonably accurate colors of the real world-as seen by a healthy human eye-is; a) making color photographs, and, by reasonable extension, 2) a “color” photographer. However, it would seem that in some quarters, just making color photographs is not enough to qualify one as a “color” photographer.
Apparently there is some other criteria that must be meet in order to be consider as a color photographer”. And, therein is where my confusion resides.
iMo, making color photographs makes one a color photographer. To my way of thinking, it is as simple as that. However…..
….I believe it to be indisputable that there are good color photographs and…gasp…not-so-good color photographs. iMo, the difference between the two is very easy to identify. A good color photograph is, quite simply, first and foremost, a good photograph.
My definition-influenced by my bias(es)-of a good photograph is summarized by this Cartier-Bresson quote:
“To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition in a fraction of a second the significance of an event, as well as the precise organization the forms that give that event its proper expression. And this organization, this precision, will always escape you, if you do not appreciate what a picture is, if you do not understand that the composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.”
I would substitute the phrase moment in time for the word event (a moment in time could include an “event”). However, that written, to my eye and sensibilities, the overall form seen in a photograph derives from the organization of the visual elements-line, shape, space, color and value-as framed and presented in the photograph. That organization is, in essence, balancing act. All of the visual elements must conspire to create a congruous whole-congruity determined by what the photographer wishes to express.
And, when it comes to color, I think it important to understand that the colors as presented in a photograph are just one visual element of any number of other visual elements that might be found in a good photograph. In my experience, I have found that color photographs that are saturated with color-or color(s) that has been over saturated-for color’s sake tend to slide over into the category of kitsch and dreck.
ASIDE Nevertheless, kitsch and dreck rarely fail to elicit fawning praise from the unwashed masses. cuz, ya know, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. END OF ASIDE
All of the above written, I would guess that therein could be found my definition of what constitutes a good color photograph and that a photographer who makes good color photographs is a good photographer. Although…
…I’ll stick with the idea that there is no such thing as a good color photographer, or for that matter, a good monochrome photographer. iMo, there are only good photographers as defined by their making of good photographs of any variety.
# 6858 / common things • around the house ~ get real
my new camera ~ (embiggenable)
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)
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
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
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
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
(all photos embiggenable) ~ adirondack scenic
landscape
around the house
kitchen sink
people / portrait
travel
picture windows
single women
still life
street photography (in situ)
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
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
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...
(embiggenable)
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.