6222-26 / common places-things • kitchen sink • rist camp ~ deception

August 28, 2022

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.” ~ Robert Adams

This Robert Adams quote has always held my attention inasmuch as it kinda, sorta skirts around the edges of my picture making intentions. My eye and sensibilities are unquestionably pricked by the commonplace and the avoidance of the grand geste (picture making wise) but, I can not write that I fully embrace the idea that “beauty is commonplace”.

To put a finer point on that idea, iMo, there is not a lot in the commonplace world that is visually beautiful in and of itself. However, within the domain of picture making, much of the commonplace world contains visual fodder for the making of beautiful things, “things” being photographic prints which give to evidence to finely seen and pictured form.

That written, while there are some who can see an actual blade of grass and perceive / feel / experience the every-thing-is-connected beauty underlying the universe, it is probable that they might not experience the same thing while gazing at a rather mundane picture of that same blade of grass.

By the same token, I also believe that many viewers, looking at a picture of that same blade of grass which-in its totality across its visual plane-evidences a depiction of a finely seen sense of form, might be incited to exclaim, “That is beautiful.” However, is the viewer remarking on the blade of grass itself or the depiction thereof? I wonder cuz, without a doubt, the blade of grass and the depiction of it are most definitely not the same “thing.”

All of that written, I am still faced with the is-beauty-commonplace question. And, the best answer I have been able to come up with is that, no, within the context of the real world, beauty is not commonplace. However, within the context of picture making, the commonplace is rife possibilities for coaxing beauty from the seeming rubble of the mundane.

# 6210-13 / common places • common things • kitchen sink ~ qoutidian ubiquity

August 19, 2022

FORTUNATELY, RE; MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, IT SEEMS that no matter where I go are there is always a kitchen sink and kitchen garbage.

On a different topic, I have been avoiding getting caught up in the monochrome sensor GAS” discussion”. That’s primarily cuz I do not think that my thoughts on the matter would be all that well considered.

First and foremost, I admit to not being much of a BW-oops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making guy. That’s cuz, for the most part, I believe that BW picture making is a curse on the medium and its apparatus.

Think of it this way…with the exception of cave dwellers, virtually all painting was created using color...ASIDE Sure, sure. With the advent of the printing press, illustrations were presented with the use of just black ink, BUT, even then some illustrators were given to hand coloring the printed illustrations. And, BTW, for the purpose this discussion, etchings and woodcuts are not paintings. END OF ASIDE…So when color dyes / paint became available, painters took to it like ducks to water. Without too much assumption, one could surmise that they adopted color materials cuz they were exceedingly more expressive and representative of the real world. And, fortuitously, they were never burdened by the need to break out of or revert to a BW painting legacy.

The medium of photography and its apparatus were born and wedded to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures and continued to be so bound until the 1936 introduction of Kodachrome film. ASIDE Sure, sure. Prior to 1936, there were a number attempts to create the means for making color photographs but they came and went in fairly short order. END OF ASIDE However, even with the advent of commercially available color film, “serious” photographers remained committed to using BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-film and, of course, making BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-prints.

Re: the curse - that BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-legacy has attached itself to the medium and its apparatus like fleas on a mangy dog. Consequently, those picture makers who cling to it today, in a manner similar to a deeply held religious belief, are given to uttering, in defense of their precious process, such ludicrous nonsense as it is easier to see and capture form or a person’s inner essence without the “distraction” of color. Nonsense.

ASIDE To be certain, if BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making is your thing, have at it unto your heart’s content. While, I appreciate much of the classic BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-work of the picture making masters, I just do not see the need for it any more. END OF ASIDE

Re: my second thought on BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making…the current practitioners of that genre seem to be hung up on the idea the only good BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures are those made the analog way, aka: using film or some digital facsimile thereof. In their quest for such a facsimile, they have landed on the idea of monochrome sensors as if those sensors create are more “pure” BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-files than converting a color image file to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome.

That notion is something that I can not wrap my head around inasmuch as, in the digital color>BW conversion domain, there is such a variety of conversion techniques / options that the picture maker has the capability to create any “look” imaginable for his/her pictures. Apparently, the current crop of BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures makers do not like the digital conversion process cuz-here’s the curse again-that’s not the way it was always done.

And, please stop already with the ridiculously absurd idea that “seeing” in BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-is easier / better when the image on the camera screen / viewfinder is BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome. That’s akin to saying Evans, Adams (both), Weston, Frank, and all the others who came before the advent of a digital BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome sensor would have somehow had an easier time of making pictures-perhaps even “better” pictures-if only they had a Leica Q2 Monochrom (or whatever the current fan boy monochrome-there, I got it right-sensor camera may be)? Once again, nonsense.

PS the BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture in this entry was converted from a color image file by first converting it to LAB Color Space then isolating the Lightness Channel by discarding the A and B Channels. At that point, I convert the file to RGB Color Space and then make minor adjustments, global and local, to taste using the Curves tool in PS.

# 6178-84 / kitchen sink ~ let function and meaning float free

July 29, 2022

**from the *kitchen sink* series** ~ (embiggenable)

“Bernd and Hilla Becher were sometimes more interested in aesthetic form than in what industry actually does…its goal was art, which means it was always bound to let function and meaning float free.”~ from the NY Times article

THERE IS AN ARTICLE IN TODAY’S NY TIMES, re: an exhibit, Bernd & Hilla Becher, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. The article is a good read, especially so as it does not jam the reader up with a load of art-speak.

That written, what really grabbed my attention was the manner in which the photographs were presented (in the article). That is, primarily grouped by subject matter-blast furnaces, water towers, and frame houses. This pricked my eye and sensibilities inasmuch as, up until this point, I have been rather lukewarm in my assessment of the Becher’s work. A situation which I now attribute to the fact that I have never viewed their work presented as coherent bodies of work. Seeing the Becher’s work presented as bodies of work has changed my assessment of their work. So much so that I will be, in the near future, boarding a train to NYC to see the exhibit.

The fact that seeing a coherent body of the Becher’s work so opened my eyes to their work comes as no surprise in that I have always understood that a good body of work can be a collective staggering visual force which illustrates and elucidates an artist’s vision. Such is the case with the Becher’s work. I can now attest that I have much greater understanding about what the Becher’s were up to with their picture making.

Re: the quote from the article - “Bernd and Hilla Becher were sometimes more interested in aesthetic form than in what industry actually does…” In regarding my kitchen sink pictures, I hope it is obvious that I am more interested in the aesthetic form to be found in the “life” that goes on in the sink than I am in the actual depicted referents to be seen in the photographs.

# 6163-65 / commmon place • common things • kitchen sink ~ commentoria ignoramicus

July 19, 2022

AS IS TO BE EXPECTED, RECENT TOP POSTS MENTIONING THE IPHONE, as a picture making device, has instigated the regular chorus of “(merely) adequate” / not adequate / deficient / note-taking only,” et al comments. iMo, these commentoria ignoramicus are completely unqualified to have an opinion worth considering-on the topic of iPhone picture making quality-inasmuch as it seems, by their own admission, that have not used the device enough to discover and understand its capabilities.

In fact, I believe that the real problem is that these know-nothings have little or no idea what makes a good photograph good. They are all hung-up on the technical aspects of photography that can be seen / deciphered on a photographic print, especially those prints made with the use of their beloved camera brand. That fact is what caused Magnum photographer Bruce Davidson to say”

“I am not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore, but to people outside the photoclique.”

At exhibitions of my work, I can recognize a know-nothing from a mile away. He/she will be adorned with an “impressive”-looking DSLR, often sporting a large lens. Or, alternately, he/she will be looking at my prints with their nose within 6 inches of the prints. If one or both of these markers is missing, the other give away comes when they approach me and the first thing out of the mouth is, “What camera do you use?”

When mounting a defense for his/her choice and use of a particular picture making device, it is most often suggested-you may have to read between the lines-that he/she is a “perfection-ist”. To which I would respond-but never have because I am such a sensitive and polite kinda guy-”No you’re not. What you are is constipated tight ass and you might be better qualified to pursue, as a hobby, certified chartered accountancy.”

Any doubts about how I feel on the subject?

# 6145 / kitchen sink ~ can't help myself

July 5, 2022

ON THE PREVIOUS ENTRY, RE: TAKING MY GOOD FRIEND UP TO THE POINT WHERE HE might pee his pants, Geoff (thanks for the comment) asked:

“How do you know when your friend has (almost) reached that point - going beyond it could mean a difficult 'deep clean' of the upholstery?”

I know at the point when my friend starts making unintelligible noises that sound like a screeching barnyard animal. Then I know that it is time to dial back the speed and lateral g-forces. In any case, I don’t worry about having to deep clean the upholstery cuz he’s an old guy-mid-70s-and I just assume he wears “adult” underwear. But, enough of that, back to photography stuff…

There are times when the voice in my head says, “Enough already with the kitchen sink pictures.” Although, it is possible that the voice might just be repeating what I sometimes think that the wife is whispering in my ear when I’m asleep.

Regardless, in either case, I sometimes think that the voice might just have a point. That is, right up until the point I am standing in front of the sink and, once again, there is something going on in there that my eye and sensibilities will not let me ignore. And, despite the voice in my head, I have come to believe that ending my kitchen sink picture making ain’t gonna happen.

In fact, I am at peace with the idea that, if the gods of photography forced me to only make kitchen sink pictures for the rest of my picture making-days, I would be very OK with that restriction. Fortunately for me, there has been no such decree. But if there were to be, I could rest easy knowing that every day there will be a new arrangement-not all are picture worthy-in the sink.

Of course, there is a fly in the ointment, called the wife. Cuz, no matter what the photography gods might decree, if the wife ever decides to make sure the kitchen sink were to be kept spotless, I’d be screwed.

# 6143 / kitchen sink ~ different is as different does

June 29, 2022

“For the first several years one struggles with the technical challenges, making sure and steady progress ….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

AS I AM CONSIDERING MY THOUGHTS AND FEELING, RE: blogging and this blog in particular, I have been contemplating the idea of what exactly is / has been my intent for doing this blog. The easy answer is that I simply wished to exhibit my work to the world. There is some truth to that answer but, digging a bit deeper, there is much more to it that that.

A few decades past, as I was moving away from commercial photography, my picture making activity gravitated to the making of pictures as Art rather than for commerce. While I had garnered some significant bona fides*, re: photography as Art, as is my wont, I was driven to explore the grand and messy world of photography as Art in more detail. Specifically, what exactly is it that makes a photograph a work of Art as opposed to being just a mere picture.

In the course of that exploration, I started a blog wherein I thought out loud, re: my ideas and ruminations on the subject of photography as Art, in hopes of encouraging input from others who read the blog. For quite a number of years, that hope was realized and there was plenty of lively conversation.

The net result of all that activity was there was no easy answer to the question of what makes a photograph be considered as Art. My take on it came down to the notion of, stop thinking / worrying about it, find my vision, get on with it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Re: It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit - I never had much toil and struggle with the technical challenges of making a technically good picture. My picture making “challenge” derived from my intrinsic, preternatural drive to be an individual who did not “follow the crowd”. So, there was no way, from the moment I first picked up a camera, that I was going to make pictures that conformed to the prevailing idea of what makes a “good” picture.

FYI, to be very clear on that subject, I did not consciously adopt an attitude to be “different”. As I later came to realize, I just flat out see the world in a manner that differs from how others typically see it. Consequently, my “challenge” was to plunge ahead and do what came naturally, essentially ignoring any internal conflicts / doubts about being “different”. If I had given in to any doubts, it would have been at that point at which I most likely would have quit photography.

All of the above written, call it vanity if you must, but I like to think that all of my blathering on-which, BTW, is likely to continue-about the medium and its apparatus might just possibly help, or has helped, some followers of this blog to-paraphrasing Brook Jensen-let go of what they have been told is a good photograph and start photographing what they see.

*acceptance of work in prestigious, juried group exhibitions, a jurist for many exhibitions / competitions (such as the final round of The Kodak International Newspaper Snapshot Competition), many solo exhibitions in art galleries / institutions, working with the author of the seminal book The New Color Photography, a stint as a photo critic for the New Art Examiner, et al.

# 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