# 5589-5602 / civilized ku•the new snapshot ~ the better part of 2 weeks worth

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

BEEN KINDA DISTRACTED, BLOG WISE OVER, the past 2 weeks or so. Making and buying stuff for Xmas gift giving, working at staying emotionally connected to a Covid Xmas, making pictures, Xmas day itself and, amongst other things, buying a new car.

Interesting thing about the car...inasmuch as I have been working on my seeing red body of work, we acquired a red (not just any old red but rather an extra-cost option crystal metalic soul red) car - the first non-black car we have owned in over 15 years. However, the choice of red was not due to my recent seeing red work. The choice was dictated by the idea that, if we were to buy a car made by this particular maker, the car color would have to be that maker's signature color.

In any event, lest I slide down a pool-table, shed-building, diet-story rabbit hole, what follows is a bit about photography...

At some point over the past couple weeks I came across a guy writing about a photograph and whether it might be, theoretically, a picture he would hang on his wall. One consideration was based upon the idea that the picture had a lot of depth. An idea that has always set off a clamor of wrong-answer buzzers in my head because...

surprise, surprise (to many)... A PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINT HAS NO DEPTH. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS A FLAT AS A PANCAKE, PAPER THIN 2-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT.

Why does the idea of "depth" in a photographic print get me so riled up?, you might wonder. Consider this...

"Photographs that transcend but do not deny their literal situation appeal to me…..You know you are seeing such a photograph if you say to yourself, "I could have taken that picture. I've seen such a scene before, but never like that." It is the kind of photography that relies for its strengths not on special equipment or effects but on the intensity of the photographer's seeing. It is the kind of photography in which the raw materials-light, space, and shape-are arranged in a meaningful and even universal way that gives grace to ordinary objects." ~ Sam Abell

So here's the rub. Most "serious" amateur picture makers, especially those who claim to be making "fine art", have no concept of what the bold-highlighted sentence in the Abell quote means. As a concept, they are, most likely, unaware that such a concept exists. That is, other than the conventional so-called "rules of composition". Consequently, their "concept" of a good picture revolves around the idea that the depicted referent is "the thing" - an idea which drives then to pursue and picture referents which are culturally proscribed as beautiful referents in and of themselves.

To be fair, if that is what floats their boat, good for them. However, what really gets under my skin is their nearly absolute distain for pictures-pictures which excell in the "light, space, and shape" 2D arena-which depict quotidian / "everyday" referents. iMo, the reason for this distain is, quite simply, due to the fact that thay can not see such a picture for what it is - that is, again quite simply, a 2D object which displays "light, space, and shape arranged in a meaningful and even universal way that gives grace to ordinary objects."

Quite literally, they can not and do not see the arrangement of light, space and shape-most often independent of the the thing depicted-because they have been taught, one way or another, that "the thing" that a picture is about is the straight forward, literally depicted referent. Consequently, that is all they see.

To my way of thinking (and seeing), mores the pity for these lost in the dark picture making souls cuz the truly liberating thing about getting beyond the grasp of culturally proscribed beauty is the fact everything in the world is the raw material for the making of good pictures.

# 5581 / around the house•seeing red (1-5) ~ why are all our cars black?

there is nothing on tv ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

FYI, I HAVE UNDERTAKEN A PROJECT TO UPDATE, REORGANIZE and SLIM DOWN my site's WORK page. While I have begun to update a few bodies of work, I have yet to settle on a manner of presentation and, just as important, to decide which bodies of work I might eliminate.

In any event, today's entry contains a few pictures from my seeing red work. Pictures which have not been previously displayed as part of that body of work. And, in culling through my picture library I have been surprised by the number of new candidates for inclusion in the seeing red body of work. I have also been surprised by the number of different picture making situations-urban / natural world landscapes, kitchen sink, people, still life-in which I have seen and made pictures of "red". And, I do find it a bit strange that there is no other color around which I could build a similar body of work.

# 5570-77 / civilized ku•ku (landscape) ~ brain locked

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

"I often find photos in the most ordinary places. Many of the subjects are nothing special either. They are just the beautiful things all around us that we don't make the effort to see truly … I believe that a spectacular photo of something ordinary is more interesting than an ordinary photo of something spectacular. The latter is about something else, the former is something else." ~ Jim Coe

THE WIFE AND I GOT WAY FOR A BIT to a little cottage on Blue Mountain Lake in the central Adirondacks. Since it is well into the off-season, we had the lake and village all to ourselves. Which was just how we had hoped it would be.

I realize I have beena bit of a slacker, posting wise, over the past little while. While I have been making lots of pictures, I seem to have developed a sorta brain lock, re: posting pictures without words. Which is what I have done-pictures with words-for the last 12-15 years.

Over those years I have offered for consideration a heap of thoughts, re: the medium and its appartatus. Lately, it seems there is little or nothing left for me to write about. And the last thing I want to do is to start repeating myself. So, I have been thinking about ways to get around this brain lock.

One idea is to start adding selected quotes from photographers from my huge "library" of found quotes. Most of those quotes were copied and pasted into my "library" cuz they tend to relect my ideas about the medium and its apparatus. And, interesting enough, quite often when I select a quote to use in an entry, that quote causes me to reflect upon it and, in doing so, I come with something to add to the expressed idea. So I'll probably give it a try.

# 5557-59 / odes to ~ you are what you eat

The Desert Seen-ish ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

Osbow Archive-ish ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

Wald-ish ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

"As great a picture can be made as one's mental capacity--no greater. Art cannot be taught; it must be self-inspiration, though the imagination may be fired and the ambition and work directed by the advice and example of others." - Edward Weston

ON YESTERDAY'S ENTRY, A COMMENT WAS LEFT BY Thomas Rink:

"As you already pointed out, there is neither "good" nor "bad" light. Each kind of light has its own particular quality, and will reveal different kinds of pictures. For example, consider "Oxbow Archive" by Joel Sternfeld, "The Desert Seen" by Lee Friedlander, and "Wald" by Michael Lange. All made under totally different lighting conditions. Mr. Sternfeld used decidedly picturesque lighting conditions to depict the New England landscape as a stage for Thomas Cole's pictures. "The Desert Seen" was made under very harsh light, and the washed out highlights and grayish shadows create an atmosphere which I would associate with scorching heat and aridity. "Wald", on the other hand, has been photographed in German forests at dusk, often in pouring rain. Mr. Lange told me that these conditions arose a certain mood within him that he considered quintessential for what a forest represents to him. I'm pretty sure that in all three cases the choice of light has been a conscious decision; Mr. Sternfeld didn't use this light since the peers in his camera club told him to do so, Mr Friedlander certainly hadn't just been too lazy to get up in time for the blue hour, and Mr. Lange didn't venture into the forest under ungodly conditions in order not to have to spend the evening in front of the TV together with his wife.

I believe that next to the choice of what should be in the frame, a kind of light suitable to convey the pictorial intent (for a lack of better words) is important to create a subjective, expressive picture. It is only "artistic sauce" if a certain kind of light is used in a mindless way - for example, the camera club buff who only goes out during the blue hour, or the MFA student who goes for the deadpan look just because Robert Adams did so. Understanding what light does, and how to employ this knowledge for my pictures, is what I try to learn.

my response: Thanks for the great comment. Much appreciated inasmuch as, while I am very familar with Sternfeld (I have 2 of his books) and Friedlander (I have 2 of his books), I knew nothing of Michael Lange.

In his comment, Thomas mentioned the work of Sternfeld, Friedlander and Lange as examples of his point. That caused me to dig into my photo library to see if I could find examples of my own work that bear more than a passing resemblance to their work in order to make a kinda Ode to ______ entry.

Then I dug out the Weston quote-from my quotes library-cuz it seems appropriate for this entry which references the work of others as learning examples of one kind or another.

re: the imagination may be fired and the ambition and work directed by the advice and example of others. I have a large collection of photo books. They are all mongraphs of individual picture makers. In additionto that resource, I have spent a lot time in my adult life visiting stand-alone and institutional photo galleries where in I have viewed the work of many of the big name picture makers and was lucky enough to have chatted with some ... such as Meyerowitz, Shore and Pfahl. So, it is fair to write that my overview of the medium is broad, deep and diverse.

FYI: that written, the single benefit-in addition to the pleasure of viewing the work-of such activity, for me, is not firing up my imagination but rather firing up my ambition / drive for making pictures. Not for making pictures which mimic work that I have viewed but rather for making pictures in the manner that my imagination guides me.

I was somewhat surprised to find the pictures displayed in this entry cuz, believe it or not, I was not familiar with Sternfeld's Oxbow Archive nor Friedlander's The Desert Seen. And, as mentioned, I was not familar with Lange's work at all. So, I found it interesting that I was able to find a few pictures which displayed a similar feel and look to that of the aforementioned picture makers.

In light of my viewing consumption of so much work, I guess the old adage is true...you are what you eat.

# 5505-07 / rist camp•still life•around the house ~ I confess

(embiggenable) • iPhone - 2x Portrait setting

(embiggenable) • µ4/3 - needed a longer tele lens

(embiggenable) • iPhone - ultra wideangle setting

NOW THAT I AM BACK HOME, FIRST THINGS FIRST....on my BW OLDIES ~ LONG AGO / FAR AWAY entry, Thomas Rink asked:

"Did you make the picture with a square aspect ratio camera, or has it been cropped to a square later?"

Interestingly, or strangely enough, dispite my near exclusive adherence to the square format, I have never owned a square format camera. With the exception of a 3-4 year period of personal picture making-as opposed to professional-during which I used an 8x10 view camera (and made prints to that format), I have always cropped to square from various camera's "full-frame" files / negatives. The lone exception to that practice is my iPhone image files which are made using the square format setting.

When using my µ4/3 cameras, the viewing screen (LCD) is set to square. Consequently, when processing RAW files-I always make RAW files with my µ4/3 cameras-my conversion software only displays the cropped image (which I had viewed on my camera's viewing screen). Inasmuch as I NEVER crop the square image file which came out of the camera / iPhone, I consider my pictures to be "full frame" / un-cropped square images.

And, on a directly connected noted, I have always printed-analog and digital-my pictures with a thin black border. In the analog days that meant including part of the film edge. In the digital "darkroom" that means introducing a "manufactured" edge. In either case, the use of a black edge was/is traditionally most often intended to indicate that the picture was un-cropped.

In my case, the use of a black border is two-fold: a.) it does indeed indicate that the picture is uncropped. i.e., exactly as the I saw it on/in my camera / iPhone viewfinder/screen. b.) to reinforce that the picture is, in fact, "cropped" / consciously selected from the surrounding world.

# 5493-96 / landscape ~ now much fried chicken can you eat?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

AS OUR 5 WEEK SOJOURN AT RIST CAMP WINDS DOWN, my picture count hovers around the 150-60 mark. No doubt, with Autumn color near its peak-Leaf Peeper Season-there will be another 40-50 pictures added over the next 4 days.

Not a single picture has been made, during this time at camp, with my Olympus µ4/3 cameras. Never felt the need for it inasmuch as the iPhone continues to deliver the goods. Looking forward to getting home and firing up the printer cuz I think I've got some good ones.

FYI, in answer to the question in my last entry, I can now write with a high degree of certainty that I am not a cow.