# 6108 / kitchen sink ~ perception

June 6, 2022

OVER THE YEARS I HAVE HUNG MY PICTURES, BOTH at home and in galleries, indifferent presentation styles. Early on, I framed and matted my pictures under glass. Then I moved on to prints mounted on board with no frames (prints with a narrow white border). Lately, I have been making prints with wide white borders which are then framed (classic gunmetal gallery frames) without glass.

The reason for giving up the use of glass is two-fold: 1) to my eye and sensibilities, the look and “feel” of the surface of my prints is important to me and glass, at best, obfuscates the print surface and, at worst, completely obliviates it, 2) other than museum glass-which is way too expensive-regular glass has too much reflectivity which also has a tendency to increase apparent print contrast.

Re: frames - after a period of not using frames, I have returned to using them, albeit with very wide white bordered prints, for one primary reason. A framed print, with the image surrounded by a wide white border tends to signal to a viewer that the picture is not to be considered lightly. That is, a signal that a good picture demands an expansive neutral white field in order to separate it from any visual distractions that might interfere with a viewer’s contemplation and consequent appreciation of the picture.

And, you know, ya gotta let a viewer know that it is important stuff -not just some crummy snapshot that a clueless relative took-that they are looking at.

# 6072-76 / everyday • common places • common things ~ on being creative

May 17, 2022

“For the first several years one struggles with the technical challenges…a learning curve and growth process that is rewarding, stimulating and self-renewing. But, eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit.” ~ Brooks Jensen

ON MY LAST ENTRY, RE: THE STUPID IDEA OF ADDING GEAR TO MAKE PHOTOGRAPHY MORE INTERESTING, Thomas Rink left a link to a site that, along similar lines, suggested “a photographer’s kit for getting out of a creative rut.”

The writer of that, iMo, cliche-d camera-club advice article wrote that “creativity is the difference between a nice photo and a NICE photo.” That statement was then followed by a description of his “photographer’s creative kit”:

“…using accessories, taking advantage of my camera’s unique menu options, trying different exposure techniques…or simply something I remember another photographer doing well.”

iMo, the conflated idea that “creativity” + the application of craft / technique as a means to becoming “creative” is a thoroughly ignorant misunderstanding of the idea of true creativity as it pertains to the making of pictures. While a learned application of craft / technique employed in the making of a photograph can certainly be a significant element of a finely realized picture making vision, it is the vision itself-the manner in which a picture maker sees the world-that imparts the idea of creativity on the part of the picture maker.

iMo, in other words, a finely realized picture making vision don’t need no indiscriminately applied art sauce-employed under the rubric of “being creative”-to make it “NICE”.

iMo, true creativity in the making of pictures is simply about being creative-thinking outside the box of conventional picture making “wisdom”-about what is suitable as a subject for the making of a photograph and then going about picturing it in the unique / singular manner in which you see it.

“To see something spectacular and recognize it as a photographic possibility is not making a very big leap. But to see something ordinary, something you’d see every day, and recognize it as a photographic possibility, that’s what I am interested in.” ~ Stephen Shore

# 6041-43 / around the house•kitchen sink ~ the small and the unexpected

April 15, 2022

“If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely that most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.“ ~ John Rosenthal

# 5998-6002 / around the house•(civilized) landscape ~ going fishing

April 4, 2022

OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS I HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT I want to explore the possibility of a new way of picture making. Specifically, to create a new, themed body of work that is different from those bodies of work that have emerged from my discursively promiscuous manner of making pictures.

The big question, re: that desire, is, different in what way? Other than the fact that I would like to create pictures that represent something about the place where I live-in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, aka the Adirondack Park-is a new approach about subject matter? technique? a combination of subject matter and technique together? In any case, in thinking about this, I find that I keep bumping with into the walls of the box into which I have locked myself, picture making wise.

Re: the problem with subject matter - simply written, in my pursuit of making pictures, fine-art wise, I have rarely focused on specific referents. That written, my eye and sensibilities have been pricked by repetitive references-my kitchen sink as one example (of many)-but, not because I seek out those specific referents. Rather, what pricks my eye and sensibilities are sections of the real world which evidence potential as photographs which create interesting visual form.

Consequently, I have a problem with pursuing a specific referent cuz of my fear that placing my emphasis on chasing a specific referent will lead to the loss of my feel for seeing and picturing form.

Re: technique - I have no interest in making any kind of pictures other than straight pictures. I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than to add any thing to my pictures that I consider to be effects or cheap tricks. However, that written…the medium of photography and its apparatus does have a handful of native picture making mechanics with which I have always had an interest.

There is one mechanics in particular that I have tinkered with over the years-that of Depth-Of-Field, aka DOF. My “tinkering” has run the gamut of trying to achieve, in some cases, maximum DOF, or, in other cases, minimal DOF. It all depended-and still does-on what i was intending to achieve, picture making wise.

Virtually all of my discursive promiscuity pictures depend upon maximum DOF to elucidate the form I create. I want the lines, shapes, tones, colors, texture, et al in my pictures to be clearly delineated across the 2D plain of my pictures. However, it has come to my attention in experimenting with the iPhone full-frame format-using the Portrait Mode-that a bit of limited DOF can still accomplish my picture making intentions, form wise.

Literal referent wise, I have always liked limited DOF for its ability to lend a bit of “mystery” to a picture. And, I will readily admit, the contrarian in me wise, that I like it even more considering the current picture making obsession with sharpness and definition to the eye-searing max.

In any event, wherever all of this picture making casting about might end up, I think it will include a bit of limited DOF. And, thank you, thank you to the iPhone for giving me the capability of fine tuning the apparent DOF after the picture making fact.

# 5991-94 / life without color ~ it's a whole other thing

March 30, 2022

YESTERDAY, AS I WAS PERUSING A BOOK OF PICTURES MADE BY John Szarkowski-aptly titled, John Szarkowski ~ Photographs-I was struck by the manner in which Szarkowski’s pictures exhibited a rather exqisuite sense of form. A quality which I have rarely felt when viewing bw pictures.

However, that written, I must admit that I have had Szarkowski’s book for 10 years or more, viewed it a number of times since acquiring it and, truth be told, I was not very aware of the sense of form that seems so obvious to me now. I attribute that fact to the other fact, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, which is that I have always liked them cuz they are “quiet”, exquisitely rendered observations of ordinary life. Which is another way of writing that I was seduced and side-tracked by the referents in his pictures.

Shame on me.

In any event, I got to wonderin’ if some of my pictures, made with much awareness of color as an element of the form that I seek to create, could “work” in bw. So, I set about selecting a few pictures and converted them to bw. I even made a couple of large-ish prints-16”x16” / 16”x21”-in order to see how they looked off-screen.

When all was said and done, my conclusion was that some of my pictures “work,” as bw pictures some don’t. I also came to the conclusion that in some pictures, inasmuch as most bw pictures are “abstract” pictures, form is sometimes very apparent due to the fact that a viewer is not”distracted” by color. Lines, shapes, tones and the like seem to assume a very definitive and obvious visual identity as such.

The unexpected result of this monkeyin’ around is that one can, with the use of a high quality inkjet printer with multiple black inks, make some damn nice bw prints. So, I will be making some bw prints for display on the walls of my house. A practice that I have not engaged in for many decades.

In any event, the idea of comparing a color original to its “converted” bw cousin is a fools errand. Each manner of expression has its own visual signature which incites in a viewer a different visual experience.

FYI, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, his images meet my expectations, re: for considering a picture to be a very good picture (dare I write, a Fine Art picture):

“…an image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject manner.” ~ Sally Eauclaire

Or, as I have often written, a picture which illustrates and illuminates.

# 5986 / kitchen sink (book) ~ look, really look, and you shall see

March 22, 2022

YET ANOTHER PHOTO BOOK, the kitchen sink ~ a rich life of its own, HEADED TO THE PRINTING PRESS. And I must admit that when I began the edit to narrow the pictures down to the top 20, I was a bit intimidated inasmuch as there were over 160 pictures in the kitchen sink folder.

However, after viewing all 160 of the pictures as a group in Adobe Bridge, I was able to surprising easily cull out 50 pictures in my first cut. Then I opened those pictures and arranged them in neat rows on my monitor where, once again viewing them all together, it was rather easy to identify the 20 (actually 22) finalists.

All of that decided, I came to the artist statement challenge, about which Thomas Rink had a few thoughts (thank you Thomas):

…I think these pictures do not need an essay at all to go with them - they speak well for themselves. Absolutely no need to rationalize (or justify) why you made them! There is a high risk that an essay will appear contrived, which would rather take away from the series instead of adding to it….

I tend to agree with Rink’s idea to the extent that I have been considering (for a couple years) of simply using a quote from Paul Strand as a stand-in artist statement:

“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.”

So, you can read my adaptation of Strand’s position, re: the artist statement, above. Although, in the case of a photo book, I may amend it to read, the answer is on the pages of the book

# 5978-80 / still life (kitchen sink • kitchen life • decay & disgust) ~ what's in a name?

March 8, 2022

(embiggenable) - a *straight* photograph of a segment of the real world.

IT HAS BEEN A WHILE-A COUPLE YEARS?-SINCE I HAVE MADE a decay & disgust picture. I attribute that situation to the fact that the wife has been exceedingly diligent in making sure there is a deficit of decaying referents for my picture making fodder. However, since she is over 2,000 miles distant, suffice it to write that when the cat’s away the mice will play. In any event, I have a few thoughts about the picture label still life.

The decay & disgust and kitchen sink pictures were made 2 hours apart. Judging from my experience in the photo world, both pictures would be considered to be still life pictures. That is so even though the making of those 2 pictures could not be more different. To wit, call me a dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist cuz, iMo, the decay & disgust picture is the only of the 2 that is worthy to be called a still life picture and that is due to the fact of the difference in their making.

I’m guessing that 40-50% of my commercial picture making was comprised of still life photography. That is, pictures that were made with total control, much like a painter, over the creation of the image. Starting with a blank canvas-some sort of background-and, piece by piece, add elements to create a pleasing arrangement and then add lighting to taste. There were times when this process happened over a couple of days-involving a couple people-cuz props had be acquired, a set constructed and lighting tests run.

While the decay & disgust picture was put together in a hour or so, every item in the picture was chosen and arranged by me. Even the lighting was chosen by me inasmuch as all of my decay & disgust pictures are made in the same setting on cloudy days.

On the other hand, the kitchen sink picture-like all of my kitchen sink pictures-is a found picture. I had no hand in selecting the pictured items nor in their arrangement (really, I never touch a thing in the sink prior to picturing it. Really. Honest Injun.) And the lighting is the light that was falling on the scene at the time that I noticed the arrangement.

Consequently, I do not consider the kitchen sink to be a still life picture. To my way of thinking, it is, more accurately, a straight photograph of a segment of the real world.

# 5928-39 / kitchen sink • civilized ku ~ yakkity yak

February 10, 2022

HAVE NOT POSTED IN A WHILE FOR A COUPLE OF reasons. Even though I have been making quite a few pictures over the last week or so. I have not had any significant thoughts / ideas, re: the medium and its apparatus, during that time. Since I like to include something about the medium and its apparatus along with my pictures, I just have not had the inclination to post an entry.

One of the things that can incite me to post is convoluted / loopy posts found on the interweb. But even that fodder for posting an entry has gone dry inasmuch as there is a lot of sameo-sameo out there. I mean, how many times can one comment on the fact that a certain gearhead illustrates, on a daily basis, that picture makers who are obessed with gear are intrinsically incapable of making a picture worth viewing? And, who really gives a crap about ice dams on pool shed?

In all fairness, in my case, how many times can I write about how much I appreciate making (and viewing) straight pictures or the idea of form as expressed in my pictures? Hell, even I am getting tired of it - that is, tired of writing about it but not about making pictures wherein form is important?