new book ~ the most basic and the richest artistic category

(embiggenable) • iPhone

book pages + covers ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone + µ4/3 pictures

OVER THE PAST WEEK OR SO I have not been "seeing it", picture making wise. Then, yesterday, the arrangement in my kitchen sink caught my eye.

After making the picture-as presented above-I decided it was time to start updating my various bodies of work by sorting through the last 12 months of made pictures and placing pictures in the appropriate body-of-work folders. I started with my kitchen sink pictures and realized that, after 5 years, it was time to make an updated kitchen sink book.

Most of my photo books usually have a quote culled primarily from the world of photography but now and again from the world of art. The quote in the kitchen sink book is from Jeff Wall:

Maybe the "trivial" is just a failed version of the "everyday." The everyday, or the commonplace, is the most basic and the richest artistic category. Although it seems familiar, it is always surprising and new. But at the same time, there is an openness that permits people to recognize what is there in the picture, because they have already seen something like it somewhere. So the everyday is a space in which meanings accumulate, but it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable.

I really like this quote. It could be used in almost every body-of-work photo book I make inasmuch as it could be applied to nearly every picture I make.

FYI, in the photo book there is an approximate 50/50 split of pictures made with the iPhone and those made with various Olympus µ4/3 cameras. I believe it would be impossible for anyone to identify which is which.

cvivilized ku # 3593 ~ a blessing and a curse

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IN A RECENTY ENTRY I WROTE THAT I thought that the medium and its appparatus' most distinguishing characteristic, which separates it from other visual arts, is its inherent / intrinsic relationship to / the real. I also opined that the relationship is both, if you will, a blessing and a curse.

The medium and its apparatus is a blessing inasmuch as its allows a picture maker to find, at the very least, visually interesting picturing opportunities of the real and capture and present them in a very authentic manner. The possibilities are endless as well as everywhere. The medium and its apparatus also allows a picture maker to express a very broad range of picture making intents, all manner of genres from creating memories, creating art and story telling to a myriad of other possibilities.

The curse is to be found in the "public"'s belief that the medium and its apparatus are best used to create literal representations. That is, a "good" picture is, and should be, always about the thing depicted, aka: the referent. The idea that a picture can be a "good" picture in and of itself, regardless / independent of the thing depicted, is not an option on the picture viewing menu.

This is a belief that many a picture maker-with the intent of creating art-has worked tirelessly, since the inception of the medium and its apparatus, to overcome. It has also been the primary roadblock to the medium and it aparatus acceptance as an art rather than a "mere" mechanical craft.

Re: a "mere" mechanical craft. Lest anyone think that only the "public" is to blame for subscribing to the idea that "good" pictures are those with "good" referents, iMio, there are many (most?) "serious" picture makers who believe the same thing and reinforce that idea with the beief that better mechanicals-cameras, sensors, lenses, et al-will create better pictures. They are, indeed, mechanical craftsmen/women and their pictures are rarely the better for it.

civilized ku # 3583-85 ~ let it be what it is

all pictures ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT THE PRIMARY CHARACTERISTIC of the Medium of Photography and Its Apparatus which most distinguishes it from the other visual arts is its intrinsic relationship with the real. Or in simple terms, its ability to record the real world in a manner which is a very accurate representation of that world (emphasis on the word "representation"). That written, because of that belief, I make pictures of the real world-using the medium and its apparatus-with the intent of those pictures being as accurate a representation of the real world as the medium and its apparatus are capable of achieving .... a picture making practice which is often labeled as straight photography.

While I believe that unique charateristic is the medium and its apparatus' greatest asset / strength, I believe that it is also its greatest impediment / weakness, re: the medium and its appparatus' accceptance as an art (as opposed to a craft). Consider the oft heard comment, anyone can take a picture, or, the ever popular, it's "just" a picture of (insert referent discription here).

I certainly believe there is a difference between taking a picture and making a picture. However, I do believe that a picture is, indeed, just a picture ....

.... that is to write, to my eye and sensibilities, a picture is not a document to be read, a picture is not an interpretation to be deciphered, and (amongst many other things it is not), a picture is not-other than pure propaganda-capable of having a fixed / singular meaning.

I understand that a picture-and the making thereof-can be / mean anything anyone wants it to be / mean. I believe that to be true of all of the visual arts. However, to my eye and sensibilities, a picture and/or any other visual arts object is a thing to be enjoyed in and of itself. A thing which tempts and teases my visual sensory apparatus. A thing which I want to feel as opposed to a thing I want to think about. A thing I want to look at and feel something.

Or, when looking at pictures (or any art), I want to experience, as Susan Sontag wrote: ....

.... the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are.

All of that written, the thing that caused me to write this entry can be found here. And, I swear to you, if I had to follow this prescription to look at pictures, I would never make or look at a picture again.

civilized ku # 3580 / art reflects ~ book 'em Dan-o

(embiggenable) • iPhone

all book spreads~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

I HAVE MADE A NEW PHOTO BOOK, ART REFLECTS, on blurb (see it here). There are several reasons for making this book ... 1) my only copy of this book was stolen (high flattery), 2) as previously mentioned, I want to test a different blurb paper.

AN ASIDE: The pictures for ART REFLECTS were made on a single street in Old Montreal. They are single exposures, not double exposures, of art in gallery window displays made with a single click of the shutter release. The reflections are of the buildings on opposite side of the street. HINT - works best on a narrow street on an overcast day. END OF ASIDE

WHY I MAKE PHOTO BOOKS AND why you should too.

Best as I can tell, there are 55 photo books-of my pictures-in bookcases and on table tops in my house. They are divided into 2 main categories. Most are photo books of my separate bodies of fine art pictures. The balance are photo books of our travels / vactions.

In my pursuit of exhibitions of my fine art work, the fine art photo books can be used as porfolio-like (the printed quality is that good) submissions to galleries and art centers. For some exhibitions, I print 5 "special editions", signed and numbered, of the exhibition pictures and offer them as exhibition "catalogs". And, on occasion, I pick up one the books just to re-acquaint myself with my work.

The vacation / travels photo books function just like a family photo album. As such, for the wife and I, they preserve fond memories and experiences. And, in the case of travels with my grandson (primarily our annual grandpa / grandson Spring break trips), a duplicate book is made for him.

While these photo books serve many functions and provide much pleasure during my lifetime, one of the most significant reasons for their making is for posterity. That is, after I am dead and gone. I think of these books as an undertaking to save my family the daunting effort of sorting through my thousands of pictures in order to assemble a legacy of my picture making activities.

All of that written, the other significant reason for the making of these books is that, plain and simple, I like looking at my pictures in printed form. In fact, I like looking at any pictures in printed form. That's why I have at least an equal number of photo books of other picture maker's work. iMo, if it ain't in print form, it ain't a photograph.

So, my question to you is this .... why don't you make photo books? Or, do you?

I would love to read the answer to either of those questions if you would be so kind as to leave a comment on this entry.

civilized ku # 3577 ~ on blurbing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

HAVING JUST MADE AND "PUBLISHED" MY first blurb book, I have a few thoughts on the subject.

At the top of my thoughts list, let me write that, after receiving the book, it is a good quality product. Is it the best online sourced printed photo book quality I have seen? No, it is not. While the color is spot on correct, the printing is a little bit light with the black ink. Although, only ever so slightly noticeable on pictures with large areas of dark tonal values when viewed under bright light. Nevertheless, overall it is a good quality piece.

CAVEAT: I did not choose blurb's best paper for this book. It is very possible that the paper I chose is the reason that the black ink appears to be a bit on the light side. To find out the answer to that possibity, I will re-order the book using blurb's best paper. It is also worth noting that the covers-printed on a heavy gloss paper (almost a card weight stock) look excellent. END CAVEAT

Even if my next blurb "test" photo book with their best paper turns out to be of excellent quality, blurb will not be my online POD (print on demand) source. That will not be because of quality, it will be based on my opinion that the only reason for me to use blurb is if I want to "publish" a book using their store as my distribution point. Otherwise, I will stick to my tried and true source.

You may have noticed that I put the word published in quotes. That's because so-called publishing in blurb's store is, iMo, bound to be a rather fruitless endevour.

My reasoning for that conclusion is actually quite simple. If you were to go to blurb's bookstore and select the section for photography, you would link to a section with, as of this AM, 114,193 books. Imagine walking into an actual bookstore (devoted to photography) and encountering 114,193 books. Now imagine that the books are displayed on one shelf that is 114,193 books long. And if that is not enough to discourage browsing, imagine that the books are displayed 1 thru 114,193 based on the date published. In effect, that's what the blurb bookstore is.

My book, which was on the first page on the day it was "published", is slowly, but surely, sinking into the abyss. As are all the books "published" on that date. Eventually, they will end up well beyond the browsing endurance range of most users. While you can search for books by the author's name, that's no help at all if one is just wanting to see what's out there with the idea of finding something new.

If I wanted to go all in on the blurb bookstore, I could blurb print and publish photobooks for some of the picture categories on the WORK page on my site. Then post a link to that book on each of my category gallery pages. If I were to do so, I might sell a few books but the real "winner" in that endevour would be blurb inasmuch as to sell a book on blurb you need to print and buy a book on blurb.

Which is exactly how a vanity press operates.

In my next entry, I'll explain why I make photo books and why I think every picture maker should make photo books.

civilized ku # 3565-68 ~ does size matter?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IN THE ENDLESS BANTER, re: the medium and its apparatus, FLOATING AROUND webscape, the idea of size is a reoccuring topic. More often than not, those discussions are focused on the size of a sensor / camera / lens / et al .... too big? too little? just the right size? and so on. But, when it comes to does size matter?, re: the medium and it apparatus, I am more interested in that question regarding the size of prints.

At the start of this topic, let me write that I do not believe that there is one right size for a photographic print. Over the years, I have viewed, in galleries and museums, prints both large and small ... from Jeff Wall's enormous "prints" (actually transparencies), the largest of which are 17'x46', to Walker Evans' Polaroid prints. Not to forget KODAK's Grand Central Station Colorama, 18'x60'.

Then there's my house. The largest prints, of which there are only a few, on the walls of my house are 24"x24" inches (1 print is 1.5'x3'). Most are 16"x16" with an assortment of 10"x10" prints. Quite a few are 5"x5" (my snapshot prints)

All that written, here's my point. In all of the aforementioned cases, the prints are/were the "right" size inasmuch as the sizes were appropriate for the venue in which they were hung. That is, each venue was/is big enough to allow a viewer to stand at distance from which the picture could/can be viewed in its entirety. And, iMo, that is how a picture should be viewed.

To wit, when a picture maker makes a picture, he/she imposes a frame around the edges of the scene. Most of the real world is excluded and a "slice" of it is selected / isolated and recorded. iMo, in this process of selection, good picture makers impose a frame in order to capture and "arrange" (by their literal POV, aka: where they stand) a visually interesting placement (within the frame) of visual elements-line, shape, tone, color, et al-which, independent of the picture's referent(s) and to my eye and sensibilities, make a picture a joy / pleasure to look at.

A large part of that joy / pleasure for me is a quality found in a picture that I call visual energy. I like my eye to "dance" around the surface of a print and "bang" into the frame's edges only to be sent skittering back into the heart of the matter. To be accurate, that is, quite literally, the first thing I see when viewing a picture. And, I can only see it when I can view a print in its entirety.

So, for me, there is no "right" size in terms of physical dimensions. The only right size, for me, is a size that fits the place in which a picture is hung, which allows me to see the whole thing.

PS All of the above written, I must also write that I do believe that smallish prints-18'x18' or less?-do possess a sense of intimacy and "preciousness" that larger prints lack.

civilized ku # 3547-50 ~ free association

1980 Miracle On Ice Olympic Arena cafe / high peaks view ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone - normal lens/Portrait setting

the wife ~ night mode (embigenable) • iPhone

A FEW ENTRIES BACK I WROTE about editing, from my "finished" photo library of 25k pictures, a new body of work category titled DISCURSIVE PROMISCUITY. That is, a body of work not defined by a specific theme or referent. Pictures of any thing and every thing, as is my "normal" picture making wont.

In that entry I posited a question that might have come to your mind ... how would a body of work hang together without a common theme or referent? The answer to that question is to be found in one of my portfolio showing experiences ....

20 years ago, I was driving by an art center with my "fine art" picture portfolio on the passenger seat. Inasmuch as I have always fully embraced the adage you never get what you don't ask for, I took a chance that the gallery director was therein and that he/she might take the time to look at my work. Which, as it happened, is exactly how it worked out.

After the gallery director had viewed my work, which at that time was most definitely not organized by theme or referent, the director asked, "Are you a graphic designer?". FYI, my answer was a simple "Yes." (in fact, a multi award-winning graphic designer). At which point the gallery director went on to explain that the reason for the question was that, even though there was no theme / referent organization to the work, my work was very identifiable to him as a coherent body of work by the sense of design, independent of the depicted referent, he saw in my work ....

.... to be precise, by "design" he meant the manner in which I organize* the visual elements-line, shape, color, tone, et al-on the 2D surface of the print within my chosen frame(ing).

This was not an aha moment for me inasmuch as I was very conscious of bringing a sense of design to my picture making. For the most part, that's what my pictures are "about". However, if there was an ellemnt of aha moment-ness lurking in there, it was the fact that someone "got it". Or, saw it, if you will.

So, the idea of an organizational theme / referent free body of work is not a fraught with doubt concept for me. The real challenge is editing 25K pictures down to a manageable 25-30 picture body of work.

*I could have written, how I "compose" my pictures but I didn't. Deliberately. I really dislike the word "composition", especially when it is used as a descriptor in the medium of photography and its apparatus, because it is most often used in the phrase "the rules of compostion". I believe that there are no "rules" of composition. Or, as Ansel Adams was reputed to have said:

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

civilized ku # 3535 ~ the object is not important

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

An interesting idea, written 102 years ago, about Art (think about it)....

Art exists that one may recover the sensation of life; it exists to make one feel things, to make the stone stony. The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art is to make objects "unfamiliar," to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object: the object is not important. ~ Viktor Shklovsky: 'Art as Technique'

A FEW QUESTIONS HAVE ENERGED FROM MY last entry's declaration of my intent to open a photo gallery dedicated to cell phone device picture making. Although, not in answer to a question, it should be noted that this endevour will require a few months of work to get up and running....

.... finding the right space and negotiating a favorable lease
.... renovations to the space (gallery lights, white paint, signage, etc.)
.... partnering with sources to get the word out
.... build website with picture file submission upload capabilities / online galleries
.... gallery name / logo (this is a tough one)

.... this list does not address the task, perhaps the most important one, of developing a MISSION STATEMENT. That is, the why and the how, re: the manner in which this thing exists and works. It is my desire / intent to create an entity which is unique in the gallery world. I do have some interesting preliminary ideas on that score but, of course, I can't tell you about them at this time because, as the saying goes, I'd have to kill you... don't want to let the cat out of the bag and all that.