ku # 1399-1400 ~ form / content • canard / feint

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Some definitions:

FORM - the visible shape or configuration of something … bring together parts or combine to create (something) … make or fashion into a certain shape or form.
CONTENT - The material dealt with in a speech, literary work, etc. as distinct from its form or style ... significance or profundity; meaning ... substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its actual or potential manner of presentation

In her essay, Against Interpretation, Susan Sontag opined that "In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art". She advanced the idea that approaching a work of art as that which contains meaning / content which needs to be intrepreted (hermeneutics) intrinsically gets in the way of an unmediated or aesthetically pure experience (erotics) of the form of a work of art. All of which led her to the conclusion / postulation that "... interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art".

Sontag believed that a work of art should be experienced and appreciated based on its form. To see the art object for what it is, not for what it might or might not mean. That art should be appreciated for its sensual appeal rather than its appeal to the intellect. Fyi, I couldn't agree more.

For years I struggled with the idea of meaning to be had in a work of art, specifically in a photograph and even more specifically in my pictures. I was troubled, to a certain extent, that, try as I might, I really couldn't find any deep meaning in my pictures.

Why was I troubled? As I came to realize - thank you Susan Sontag (and others) - my troubled state was the result of an an art world canard, a feint which benefited both the academician and critic alike in their "esteemed" roles as interpretors extraordinaire. That is, that art must have meaning to be considered as valuable. Eventually, it dawned on me that in the making of my pictures there was not a single shread of intent to try to put any meaning in my pictures. That what my pictures were "about" was their form.

Consequently, I became very comfortable with the idea that, if a viewer of my pictures wanted to "understand" and/or appreciate them, they would have to come to deal with the luminousness of the thing itself (the print), of that thing being what it is, that it is what it is. If a viewer came looking for meaning, deep or otherwise, in my pictures, he/she would most likely be disappointed.

Nevertheless, I do believe that my pictures do, by means of my intent, have some content / meaning however faint. Content that falls within the idea advanced by William De Kooning:

Content is a glimpse of something, an encounter like a flash. It's very tiny - very tiny, content.

I have a very simple content objective with my pictures - the idea that beauty and coherence can be found in the most innocuous everyday things and events.

Tiny content, indeed.

ku # 1398 / civilized ku # 5054-56 ~ a pre-intellectual, intuitive mode of encounter

roadside drainage ditch ~ (embiggenable)

drink it your way ~ (embiggenable)

hotel room corner ~ (embiggenable)

Rodman Ice Arena ~ (embiggenable)

One of my former assistants introduced me to one of his grandmother's pearls of wisdom ... "For every pot there's a lid". That pithy expression - coming from a time when a woman's place was in the home (more often than not, in the kitchen) - is essentially a re-working of the adage that there is something for everyone.

That written, there can be no question, pots & lids / something for everyone wise, that truer words were never spoken / written about the medium of photography and its apparatus.

Some are in it for the love of gear - lenses, cameras, sensors, et al, some for the love of technique - shooting, processing, printing, and other minutia (resolution, dynamic range, sharpness, bokeh, et al). Some live by the picture making "rules", some make pictures using an inuituve seat-of-the-pants methodology. Some never saw a referent they couldn't make better than real life, some just picture it like it is. I could go on and on citing a nearly endless examples of what the medium and its apparatus means to many other personal proclivities. But, I think you get the point so why go on beating a dead horse.

iMo, here's the thing about the pot & lid adage ... I have written about it before but I will write it again, picture makers most often are the absolute worse audience on the planet, re: looking at pictures. As Bruce Davidson once proclaimed:

I am not interested in showing my work to photographers any more, but to people outside the photo-clique.

What would cause Davidson to state such a thing? iMo,it's the same reasoning that drives my belief, re: picture makers looking pictures .... most picture makers' first glance at a picture - their own and those made by others - with their own picture making proclivities at the fore. An act which throws up a barrier to experiencing a picture in an intuitive manner. That is, perceiving directly by intuition without rational thought.

iMo, the best manner in which to experience a piece of art is to bring to the viewing a Zen/empty mind-like state - which, btw, is also, iMo, best way to make art. To repeat a quote from a recent entry:

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~ Albert Einstein

or, as Susan Sontag wrote:

"Picture-taking has been interpreted in two entirely different ways: either as a lucid and precise act of knowing, of conscious intelligence, or as a pre-intellectual, intuitive mode of encounter."

For me, I am all in with the "pre-intellectual, intuitive mode of encounter", whether it be in the act of picture making or the act of picture viewing. Why? Because I don't want "conscious intelligence" of tools, technique, gear et al, or, as Sontag wrote: "the hypertrophy of the intellect" to get in the way of the "energy and sensual capability" to be experienced in the expression of an artist's work.

In other words, when it comes to picture making and viewing, feel it, don't think it.

trees ~ for juried exhibition

autumn / cherries ~ instagram filter

spring saplings / bog ~(embiggenable)

city evening / full moon ~ (embiggenable)

Picture submissions for juried exhibition. The exhibition title is Honoring Trees and I have submitted 6 pictures - presented here as diptychs but submitted as individual pictures.

iMo, I don't believe that, in making photographs, one "honors" trees by using them as fodder for applied effects. For my eye and sensibilities, doing so denigrates trees - I mean, what? ... trees as they appear in the natural world aren't good enough to be honored? They need to be tarted up in order to be considered worthy of "honor"?

That wriiten, I have hedged my bet with my submissions by submitting 2 straight color pictures, 2 straight B&W pictures and 2 pictures proceeded with my proprietary instagram filter.

I have submitted the "instagram-ed" pictures for 2 reasons; 1) as previously mentioned, I want to test the juried waters, re: pictures with applied effects, which seems to be currently all the rage for jurors, and, 2) the single picture displayed in the call for entries for this exhibition was, you guessed it, a picture of a tree with effects applied.

I have done so by conveniently ignoring the wife's opnion that I am "selling out". That I am "pandering to the juror's (apparent) picture making prejudice". Points taken, but what the hell? .... every once in a while a little rationalization helps gone get through the day.

ku # 1396-97 ~ sunset / sunrise

sunset fog rolling in ~ from Castle Rock / Blue Mountain Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)

Blue Mountain sunrise fog ~ from Castle Rock / Blue Mountain Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)

After making yesterday's entry I got to thinking about one of the times I hauled 60lbs of gear - sleeping bag, food, 8x10 view camera, film holders, heavy duty tripod - up a hill to make a picture. Although, truth be told, I did have an assistant with me.

civilized ku # 4086 • 4088 / civilized ku # 4087 (ku-ish) ~ it's swampy outside

W9th / Avenue of the Americas ~ Geenwich ViIlage / NYC, NY (click to embiggen)

snowy Saturday ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)

warm Sunday ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the ADiorndack PARK (click to embiggen)

Do what you're told to do. Believe what you're told to believe. Buy what you're told to buy and be happy in the swamp.

civilized ku # 4069 / ku # 1393-94 ~ late autumn remains

roadside things ~ Ore Bed Rd / Redford, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)

late autumn scrub ~ Westville, NY (click to embiggen)

late autumn apples ~ Bellmont Center, NY (click to embiggen)

Apropos of just looking and seeing ...

"...with most of my photographs, the subject appears as a found object, something discovered, not arranged by me. I usually have an immediate recognition of the potential image, and I have found that too much concern about matters such as conventional composition may take the edge off the first inclusive reaction." - Ansel Adams

"Now to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk." - Edward Weston

If one were to google around the web searching for quotes from picture makers, Photography Division, the idea at the root of the Adams' and Weston's quotes - see and react, don't think about it - can be found to originate from a wide swath of picture makers. For a spatio-visual thinker - one who thinks in pictures - that root idea makes a lot of sense. For verbal thinkers - one who thinks in words - not so much.

Without a doubt, I am predominately a visual thinker - obviously everybody can do both. People in the middle of the scale use both equally. Those lying towards the either extremity of the scale tend to favour one over the other most of the time. As a personal example, a math problem has always been a picture in my head. It is also why I have never consulted the rules of composition when making a picture.

To wit (as found on the web):
… fundamentals in visual thinking lay the ground work for many design disciplines such as art ... [where] ... Two of the most influential aspects of visual composition in these disciplines are patterns and color. Patterns are ... prevalent in many different aspects of everyday life ...

When asked how I "compose" my pictures, my answer is always the same; I picture what I see. I suspect that if a predominately verbal thinker were to be asked the same question, their answer would be formulated by the recitation of some aspect of the rules of composition.

Since most people think both ways, can a predominately verbal thinker "train" their brains to think more visually?

I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps that question is the topic for another google around the web.

civilized ku # 4055 / ku # 1392 ~ night and day / a horse lying down in the street

evening mirror lake ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)

next morning / Monument Falls ~ Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)

As anyone one who has followed my blog knows that I have often ragged on what I call the academic lunatic fringe. That would be the crowd who follows the dictum that concept is everything and the picture itself is, well, whatever. Most often the pictures which are the result of applying that idea are, at best, visually bland.

Recently I came across the following quote from the artist / critic Davis Salle which expresses my thoughts on the the subject quite well ...

...“A visit to any of today’s leading art schools would reveal one thing in common: The artist’s intent is given far greater importance than is his or her realization, than the work itself. Theory abounds, but concrete visual perception is at a low ebb. In my view, intentionality is not just overrated; it puts the cart so far out in front that the horse, sensing futility, gives up and lies down in the street.”

iMo, well written.