# 6527-32 / common places • common things ~ I don't miss dust, scratches, or chemicals

November 1, 2024

SO, IT APPEARS THAT M. JOHNSTON WILL BE writing about “film photography”, over time with multiple installments. As far as my visits to TOP go, it will just be more stuff that I barely glance at-way too much O(ff)T(opic) as it already is.

But, then again, I never really considered TOP to be a site about photography. That is, about the medium itself and its and apparatus (practices, conventions, aka: the functional processes by means of which a systematized activity is carried out ). And FYI, to be clear, I do not consider entries about gear-cameras, lenses, computers, and other hardware-to be about photography. That’s cuz I’m sorta like Paul Strand, who, when asked about the importance / significance of his work, answered:

“My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.”

In other words, it is all about the photographs, aka: picture(s). It is not about how the picture was made or what gear was used to make it; that’s all just “serious” amateur hobbyist claptrap. And, to sound a bit snarky, photographs are in very short supply on TOP.

But I digress; if M. Johnston is serious about reaching the “youngsters” who are messing around with making images on film, he’s not gonna make it unless he stops writing and starts talking. Ya know, Vlogging, cuz the photo pipsqueaks out there, according to those in the know, do not read anymore.

That written, I also question the idea of how much-aside from nostalgia-is there out there to be written about the making of photographs with the use of film. I ask that question even though I come from over 40 years of making photographs (with the use of film) and making color and BW prints (in the wet darkroom). And, it’s also worth noting that, to this very day, I continue to believe that the pinnacle of color print making is a C print made from an 8x10 color negative; I made plenty of those and I can identify such a print from a mile away.

And while I’m at it, let me pick another nit; I do not believe that there is such a thing as “film photography”. That’s cuz, in my mind and to my way of thinking, there is only photography, aka: the act of making a photograph. Simply put for simple minds, one may make a photograph using any kind of equipment or light sensitive receptor but the end result is still, simply stated, a photograph….like, ya know, I do not make iPhone photographs; I do make photographs using an iPhone but, that written, the result is a photograph.

All of that written, I wish M. Johnston well in his “film photography” blogging endeavor.

BONUS PICTURE FROM LAST EVENING

My iPhone was turned off, sitting on the arm of my Westport Adirondack chair; I picked it up, hit the Camera Control button, which instantly turned on the camera app, and the I hit the button again-click (shutter release noise)…. and there you have it. Maybe 3 seconds from start to finish. Amazing. Apple got that control right.

FYI, no flash, just my porch light.

# 6523-26 / landscape • autumn ~ change is a-comin'

October 28, 2024

JUST SOME PICTURES FROM my neighborhood. Stick season is coming and some white stuff has been comin’ and goin’ at higher elevations. Gotta get my winter backpacking gear together cuz I promised myself that I would- while I still can-spend a few days and nights in the back country this winter.

# 6520-22 / common places/things • autumn ~ take some Extra Strength Tylenol and call me in the morning

October 22, 2024

A COMMENT FROM DENNIS ON my last entry:

“…what set you off this time? Just because it worked for you don't mean jack for anyone else. Falling Water is lovely but falling down…”

Cannot imagine what, in my last entry, caused Dennis to experience a “migraine inducing eyeroll”. That written, let me pass on my condolence. Hope you feel better. In any event, I thought I should respond to his “riptose” on 2 counts; re: Fallingwater (1 word, not 2), and, re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else”.

re: Fallingwater - fun fact, Fallingwater is not falling down. Nor was it in eminent danger of falling down. In 1995 it was determined that the concrete cantilevered balconies were insufficiently reinforced. What a surprise (sarcasm alert). Who could have guessed that a structure-an untested, never-before attempted, never-imagined construction technique, using materials available at that time-built 60 years prior might just need a bit of additional reinforcement? In any event, in 2002 additional reinforcement was installed leaving Fallingwater's interior and exterior appearance unchanged and the original construction engineering intact.

re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else” - I have no idea if the topics and/or ideas and opinions expressed on this blog have any meaning, applicability, or value to anyone else (other than M). And, I most emphatically make it known that, with my liberal and continued use of the acronym, “iMo”-note that M is both bold and italicized-I am not writing ex cathedra. So, Dennis, please accept my thanks for pointing out the obvious.

And, speaking of the obvious, I would never suggest that what works for me would necessarily work for anyone else cuz, ya know, statistically, half the population is below average.

# 6514-19 / common places • common things ~ free your mind instead

October 21, 2024

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” ~ Paul Simon from the song Kodachrome

THIS SONG LYRIC HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH me when I think about the idea of going to school-college / university level-for the purpose of learning about how to make good pictures. An idea that, iMo. I believe to be the complete antithesis of how to achieve the goal of making good pictures. That’s cuz, hold onto your hats, I am certain, beyond any doubt, that, in fact, making good pictures cannot be taught. FULL STOP.

For me, this is not a recent conclusion; back in the early-ish day of my commercial photography career, a professor-the same one who brought John Pfahl to my studio for a visit- from RIT’s School of American Crafts / College of Art & Design would bring students from RIT’s School of Photographic Arts and Sciences to my studio on day trips. During those visits I considered it my civic duty to inform those students that, within 5 years of graduation, only 7% of grads would be making a living making photographs. And, to understand that, after learning how to operate a camera, their way around a darkroom (no computers in the photo world at that time), and how not to kill themselves setting up high-powered strobe banks, they would be better served, financially and aesthetically, to get out of school, get a job in some facet of the photography industry, buy ton of film, make a zillion pictures, and, consequently, learn how they see the world.

I am certain that those students were very impressed with my work and studio: nationally-known client work on the walls and in my portfolio. I am also certain that they most likely were more than a little perplexed by the fact, which I drove home quite emphatically, that I had not spent a day, not an hour, not a minute learning anything about photography in a school, workshop, or any other learning institution. Don’t know if anyone ever heeded my advice. But, the simple fact was/is that I figured it all out on my own initiative.

FYI, the only thing I learned from someone else was how to spool 35mm film onto a processing reel; that took all of 5 minutes although it did require quite a bit of practice to consistently get it right.

That written, I did read nearly anything I could get my hands on, photography wise. Primarily, that included popular photo magazines which, sooner than later, I moved away from to read mags that featured photographs, not gear. One notable exception to the magazine focus was a subscription to the Time Life Library of Photography. I ended the subscription after receiving 4 books: The Camera, The Print, Light and Film, and Color. The books were hardbound, beautifully printed, and fairly informative, and, mercifully free from any advice from “experts”.

All of that written, Paul Simon sings that his lack of education didn’t hurt him none. I would suggest that a lack of education ain’t hurt a lot of folks none (to include myself). Like, say, as a notable example, Frank Lloyd Wright: with just a little bit of civil engineering education-no degree-under his belt, he went on to be declared by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time". In 2000, one of his projects, Fallingwater (I’ve visited many times), was named "The Building of the 20th century" in a "Top-Ten" poll taken by members attending the AIA annual convention in Philadelphia.

In any event, I ain’t agin readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, per se, as long as that educatin’ teaches one how to think. Ya know, so’s yinz can read the writtin’ on the wall.

# 6504-08 / common places • common things ~ in the eye of the beholder

October 6, 2024

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED A VERMONT based gallery-PhotoPlace [GALLERY] (link)-that conducts, per their website, “monthly, juried photographic exhibitions to photographers worldwide, each with a new topic and internationally recognized juror”. Their current juried exhibition’s theme is The Poetry of the Ordinary; a theme that is right up my alley.

Over the years I have submitted photos for many of their monthly exhibitions and am pleased to report that on 12-15 occasions (I have not kept count) my work has been accepted for the gallery exhibitions. Considering that there are usually 3-4K worldwide submissions per exhibtion, that is a reasonable accomplishment. In any event, I will be submitting work for the current call for entries which states:

As photographers, we have developed skill in seeing beneath the surface of our subjects, and often find in them the beauty, poignancy, and poetry that exist in ordinary moments. For this exhibition, we seek the simple poetic elegance of the ordinary.

As I wrote, that statement seems to be right up my alley. However….depending upon the juror, he/she might have a very different understanding on the word “ordinary”. For instance, in the 3 example photos on call for entries page, is the spreader in the mist/fog ordinary, or, is the runner with the broom in the smoke(?) ordinary? ….

…..to my and sensibilities, I think not. Inasmuch as the runner himself and the spreader itself are rather ordinary, the circumstances in which they are pictured is seems to be very much out of the ordinary. Of course, what I think doesn’t matter but someone-the juror? the gallery director?-thinks otherwise. And that situation- a differing definitions of what constitutes the ordinary-makes me think my pictures of the ordinary might not be what fits the bill.

Then there is, for me, the idea of “seeing beneath the surface”-an adage / concept that has been bandied about the medium seemingly forever. And, it is a concept about which I am very uncertain, re: what the hell does that mean? I am fairly certain it does not mean that one should elevate / pick up one’s subject to see what’s underneath it. Nor do I believe that it implies that one is making pictures with an x-ray device.

Wise comments aside, the phrase when used as a proposition means: aspects of it-one’s nominal photographic subject-which are hidden or not obvious. That is a meaning which I can embrace-with caveats-cuz in my photographs I try to capture and express something about what I picture that is not obvious to the casual observer-the “hidden”, aka: unseen in situ, but can be made “obvious” in a photograph, aka: form.

The primary caveat I have about making a photograph that is about something hidden or not obvious is that, in my case, I am not photographing something, the referent, which I or most anyone would consider to be, in and of itself, beautiful, poignant, or poetic. Rather, my intent to is to make a object, i.e. a photograph, that, in and of itself, may be considered to beautiful, poignant, or poetic.

Consider the referent in the photos in this entry. No one I can think of believes that, as an example, my kitchen trash can, stove, and floor are beautiful, poignant, or poetic in and of themselves. However, I do believe-please forgive my self-aggrandizing opinion of my work-that the photograph thereof and the form it presents is a beautiful photograph, in and of itself. Or, at the very least, visually interesting. Of course, I am also comfortable with the fact that other viewers may not agree.

All of that written, I can only hope that the juror of the exhibition will agree that one of pictures fits the bill.

# 6469-74 / rist camp • flora • folliage (autumn) common places-things ~ small is beautiful

September 14, 2024

IN MY REGION OF THE ADIRONDACKS PEEK (pun) leaf peeper season is about a week away. While I am not immune to the sight of the forest swathed in a red / yellow rainbow of color, I am adverse to the making of pictures thereof. To wit, the making of “standard”, color saturated, landscape calendar art.

On the contrary, bogs and swamps are my favored autumnal picture making venues. That’s cuz the biodiversity found in these wetlands creates a much expanded color palette than is commonly found in the red and yellow dominated forest palette. Throw in a wide variety of shapes and textures and, to my eye and sensibilities, there are picture making opportunities aplenty.

Often times, on my way to a bog / swamp, along the roadside I encounter scenes of pre-peek color. That is, a bit of autumnal color mingled in a greater scene of late summer, green-dominated, color. To my eye and sensibilities, these scenes have a great degree of visual energy; ya know what I mean….the opportunity to make one of those exhausting-to-read (sarcasm alert) photographs wherein the eye tends to dance-instead of falling asleep-across the 2D surface of the print.

All of that written, I would encourage the pursuit of shunning the grand autumnal landscape scenes in order to find those much more intimate tableaux of autumnal splendor.

# 6457-62 / rist camp • common places-things ~ simple is as simple does

September 7, 2024

ON MY AM CRUISE OF THE WEB, PHOTO SITES WISE, I came across a site with an entry that, on my first glance, caused me to think, this guy is yet another how-to-make-better-photographs guru doling out exceptionally idiotic advice. But, then I took breath, dialed down my over-reactive boiling point and decided it would be best to address his advice from a more even tempered point of view….

…. the advice which got my knickers in a twist was that picture makers should show less in order to show more. Essentially a take on the well worn adage of “simplify”. Ya know, cuz, in his words, “the more you put in the frame (or fail to exclude), the less impact any one element has, and soon it’s a photograph that isn’t really about anything specific…. because busy photographs are exhausting to read…. because what we do not exclude dilutes the power of what we include…. I need you to simplify.”

So, to be unremittingly uncharitable, it sounds to me that this guy is a rather simple-minded twit. Ya know, maybe he can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. But wait, here’s where I get a bit charitable….

…. it is quite obvious that, upon viewing his photographs in the entry, he is, like the preponderance of most “serious” amateur picture makers, literal referent oriented / biased. That is to write that people-places-things is their raison d'etre for making a photograph. Consequently (and to be kinda kind), I guess his advice is on-the-money for the room.

That written, this advice reminds me of an idea I have mentioned before; there are 2 kinds of art, Fine Art and Decorative Art. And, according to the authors of Einsein’s Space and Van Gogh’s Sky (from where this idea originates) Fine Art turns on the brain whereas Decorative Art turns off the brain. Or, to put it another way, Fine Art is meant invigorate / challenge the senses, whereas Decorative Art is meant to relax / sooth the senses. Or, yet another way to explain it, Fine Art can instigate a multi-dimentional experience where as Decorative Art promotes a singular experience, aka: a simple experience.

Therefore, iMo, whether he realizes it or not, this “guru” is advocating for his followers to make pictures which are decorative rather than fine. So, as I often say, whatever floats your boat.

# 6441-44 / kitchen sink •rist camp • common places ~ behind and beyond

August 26, 2024

TOOK A 50 MILE DRIVE FOR DINNER WITH SOME NEAR-to-Rist-Camp friends. Dinner was at a husband and wife owner-built home in trendy Bolton Landing on Lake George. A good time was had by all.

Lake George, a summer tourist hot spot, is the place where Alfred Stieglitz and his paramour Georgia O’Keeffe spent summers on Stieglitz’s father’s large estate-staying not in the lakeside villa but rather in a modest farmhouse on the estate. It is where Stieglitz made his famous Equivalents photographs. In case you are not familiar with the photographs, they are photographs of the sky / clouds,

In the making of his Equivalents photographs Stieglitz maintained that these works were a culmination of everything he had learned about photography; he “wanted to put down my philosophy of life—to show that my photographs were not due to subject matter—not to special trees, or faces, or interiors, to special privleges—clouds were there for everyone.”

As photography historian Sarah Greenough wrote:

“The Equivalents are photographs of shapes that have ceded their identity, in which Stieglitz obliterated all references to reality normally found in a photograph”…by doing so ”Stieglitz was destabilizing your [the viewer’s] relationship with nature in order for you to think about nature, not to deny that it’s a photograph of a cloud, but to think more about the >feeling< that the cloud formation evokes.”

Additionally, art critic Andy Grundberg wrote:

“Equivalents remain photography’s most radical demonstration of faith in the existence of a reality behind and beyond that offered by the world of appearances. They are intended to function evocatively, like music...[E]motion resides solely in form, they assert, not in the specifics of time and place.”

Now, to be truthful, I present this entry not only as a history lesson, re: the medium and its apparatus, but also to reiterate my picture making M.O.—that is, my photographs are meant to suggest something behind and beyond the visual appearance of the quotidian world-not only the surprising visual form that can be extracted from the ordinary but also a hint of my philosophy of life.

That written, have no doubt about it, the making of my photographs is not concept (aka: content) driven. It is driven my my desire to create interesting visual form as manifested in, ya, know, a picture.

However…on the other hand, some might consider form as a rather ethereal / intangible apparition rarely perceived or experienced whole cloth in situ. And, iMo, it is only on the surface of the photographic print that form becomes something “real”. But, even then, for many the perception of it is most often a rather elusive idea, aka: concept.

So, inasmuch as the point of my photographs is not about the their literal referents but, rather about something behind and beyond that offered by quotidian world appearances, I especially like and appreciate this exchange by Stieglitz and a viewer of one of his Equivalents photographs…

Viewer: Is this a photograph of water? Stieglitz: What difference does it make of what it is a photograph? Viewer: But is it a photograph of water? Stieglitz: I tell you it does not matter. Viewer: Well, then, is it a picture of the sky? Stieglitz: It happens to be a photograph of the sky. But I cannot understand why that is of any importance.