things • travel ~ five days

February 26, 2024

**late Sunday afternoon** ~ all photos ~ (embiggenable)

BETWEEN THURSDAY EVENING AND SATURDAY EVENING I ate in 4 different restaurants that were spread apart by 300 miles; a local restaurant (mile zero), a Rochester, NY restaurant (mile 300), a Rochester hotel restaurant, and a Utica, NY restaurant (mile midpoint on the return drive). The drive was instigated in order to attend the wake of a HS classmate / teammate and to visit a bedridden classmate / friend who is in a long-term care facility. Both activities were in Rochester. Managed to squeeze in a lunch with the ex and a long time friend while in Rochester.

Needless to write, the trip-to include 11 hours of driving within 24 hours-was a bit of an emotional roller coaster ride. So on Sunday I decompressed by processing photos, watching a hockey game, and ending with a sit on the upstairs porch with a cup of coffee watching the sun go down.

True to form, of course I made some pictures along the way. Could have made more but for on reason or another I did not make any at the wake or the care facility. In any event, inasmuch as I always have a picture making device at hand, I do tend to make lot of pictures. Although, I often wonder if my picture making habit is due the fact that I always have a picture making device at hand, or, whether I always have a picture making device at hand because I have a picture making habit.

That written, I tend to go with the habit idea cuz I do have what some might consider to be a near obsession with picture making. I don’t believe I could stop making pictures even if I wanted to. In a very real sense, my eyes will not / can not stop seeing pictures everywhere. And, to be accurate, this is a life-long “condition” inasmuch as I was drawing pictures at a very early single digit age. I made money during high school making drawings that were considered to be “illustrations”. All of which evolved into my “discovery” of making pictures, photography wise, at age 19. That was when I began a life long working life in the photo making world.

# 6883-86 / common places / things • people ~ on the subject of magic

February 21, 2024

WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED TO WILLIAM EGGLESTON THAT the design of most of his pictures seemed to radiate from a central, circular core, he responded that this was true, since the pictures were based compositionally on the Confederate flag. This response, in the opinion of John Szarkowki, was…

“…presumably improvised and unresponsive, of interest only as an illustration of the lengths to which artists sometimes go to frustrate rational analysis of their work, as though they fear it might prove antidote to their magic.”

Re: rational analysis - it is the provenance of art critics and academics to delve into the rational analysis-the techniques-and the art theories-the aesthetics-employed in the making of any given piece of art. In most cases the rational analysis is intended to assist a viewer of any given piece of art in more fully understanding, aka: the ability to “interpret” and discover meaning (aka: content”)-and appreciating it. Or, in some cases, to assist a viewer in recognizing that a piece of art is actually a piece of crap.

In any event, whatever the merit(s) of rational analysis might be to some, one prevalent demerit, iMo, is the constant ascription to artists-PhotographyDivision-of consciously / deliberately using techniques and aesthetic devices in the making of their pictures. An assertion that is based upon the ignorance of critics and academics who, for the most part, are not practicing and/or accomplished artists themselves. That is to write, that based upon their voluminous technique and art theory expertise, they are predisposed to miss the forest for the trees.

Re: magic - To continue with the “forest” metaphor - the most interesting picture forests-in this discussion Photography, Fine Art Division-are germinated and fostered by picture makers who tend, on the whole, to understand that art theory and technique-other than what they need to make their vision visible-are nothing more than a hill of beans in their world.

iMo long-considered opinion, their “magic” springs fully formed and, seemingly, unbidden from their innate, personal vision-literally and figuratively how they see the world. Simply written, it’s all about the pictures…

“Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.” ~ Paul Strand

All of the above written, and getting back to the idea of fearing that rational analysis “might prove antidote to their magic”… I get it. Breaking down one’s vision-in this case, so called “magic”-into its individual components might, like Humpty Dumpty after the fall, be never able to be put back together again.

That’s cuz true vision is not formulaic. It is not a collection of parts glued together to create a operations manual. Rather, vision, like a photograph itself, it is an organically synthesized whole that is somewhat akin to magic-i.e. possessing the power of apparently influencing the course of (picture making) events by use of mysterious forces.

So, iMo, it is best to embrace the magic and go with its flow.

PS 2 new galleries - POLES and EYES DOWNCAST - on my WORK page.

# 6873-75 / picture windows • still life • fashion ~ it's a window, as I see it

February 5, 2024

IT IS MY FIRM AND CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, in the straight photography world, a picture can be viewed as “a window through which one may better know the world” (Szarkowski). Although, Winogrand might state that a picture can be viewed as a window through which one may better know “what something will look like photographed”. Szarkowski most likely would not have disagreed with Winogrand inasmuch as he also stated that … “the factuality of a picture, no matter how convincing and unarguable, is a different thing than the reality itself. Much of the reality is filtered out in the static…image, and some of it is exhibited with an unusual clarity, an exaggerated importance. The subject and the picture are not the same thing”.

All of that written, one could be led to the question of what exactly is a photograph? There are many possible answers to that question but most “serious” photographers-according to Szarkowski-tend to cluster around one of two possibilities; a photograph is either “a window through which to better know the world (an exploration)”, or, a photograph is “a mirror reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it (a self expression)”. However….

…iMo, the very best photographs are both a window and a mirror. That’s cuz a photograph that exhibits a high degree of convincing and unarguable factulality is able to help us better know the world when the captured image is the result of a picture maker’s unique manner of seeing, aka-his / her vision (literally and figuratively). That written, and to clarify my thoughts on the matter, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, The best photographs-as described above-are those that stand on their own two visual feet, AKA-their appeal to the visual senses.

Too many picture makers try way too hard to imbue their photographs with meaning. “Artistic” techniques / effects and accompanying artspeak are the primary evidence thereof. A picture never be just a picture. I.E. a thing that gives pleasure to the eye, what Sontag called the erotics of art.

In order to be “understood”, the purveyors of such pictures seem to insist that their pictures must be viewed as stand-ins for something else; a symbol, a metaphor, or a sign that reveals a hidden and invariably “deep” meaning. Ya know, like an apple for instance…is it a symbol for love, ecstasy, fertility and abundance, or, if your mind is of a certain bent, an apple core sliced in half represents the vulva. Take your pick. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that an art theorist / historian / MFA / critic and the like will have a zillion other possibilities.

In any event, all that decipher- the-meaning stuff requires thinking. And, just as the advice goes, re: don’t think when making a photograph, I apply the don’t-think idea when viewing photographs. That’s simply cuz I want to see and feel what a photograph has to offer, aka: what the photographer saw as he / she sees it. Inasmuch as photography is a visual medium, I want my eyes to do the investigating, not my intellect.

Call me simple-minded, but that’s how I see it.

# 6870-71 / common things • around the house • decay ~ recuperating

January 29, 2024

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

January 22, 2024

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

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.