#5768-70 / (ku) landscape•kitchen life ~ on discursive promiscuity

(

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE, picture making wise:

"Photography is a contest between a photographer and the presumptions of approximate and habitual seeing. The contest can be held anywhere...One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others." ~ John Szarkowski

Which is why I am a practitioner of what I call discursive promiscuity. Consequently, my picture making contest, as Szarkowski suggests, can be held anywhere. And, it can be the focus of any given referent. That is cuz my eye and sensibilities can be pricked by, seemingly, the most unconventionable referents. That is, referents outside of the box of what is considered to be referents appropriate for the making of a picture. However, no matter the referent, my pictures are most always about form. In a way, kinda like Robert Adams:

"By Interstate 70: a dog skeleton, a vacuum cleaner, TV dinners, a doll, a pie, rolls of carpet....Later, next to the South Platte River: algae, broken concrete, jet contrails, the smell of crude oil.... What I hope to document, though not at the expense of surface detail, is the form that underlies this apparent chaos."~ Robert Adams

All of the above written, coming back to Scarkowski's idea of "more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations", it took a comment from a gallery director who said, upon the viewing of my porfolio-which at the time was not divided into separate bodies of work-that no matter the diverse subject matter seen in my work, he would have no trouble identifying any of the pictures (when viewed as a stand-alone picture) as a product of my vision, which caused me to understand that the manner in which I pictured the world-that is, the identifiable configuration seen in all of my pictures-was the link which held all of the diverse referents together as a unified body of work. (My thanks to Hemingway for introducing the idea of run-on sentences as a writing divice)

That realization caused me to understand that promiscuous picture making was the way to go. After all, it would always be possible, long after the picture making fact, to harvest like-minded referent pictures from my total body of work and organize them, by specific referents, into separate bodies of work.

I recognize that this manner of picture making flies in the face of the conventional wisdom about picking a single subject / referent and concentrate on it, and it alone, for a protracted period of time in order to create a unified body of work. However, for me, when attempted, that mode of picturing leads me to a kind of picture making boredom which leads to a premature end of what I might have wanted to accomplish. What I have found from pursuing discursive promiscuity picture making is that I can add pictures, ad infinitum, to any number of separate bodies of work over a very long period of time.

In any event, I guess what I am suggesting in this entry is for giving it a try for a couple of months. Just picture anything and every thing and see what happens.

# 5740-41 / landscape•people ~Rockwell Kent-ish

(embiggenable) • iPhone

kentassgardmntssq.jpg

(embiggenable) • µ43

kentdonegalbetsy.jpg

WHILE DRIVING-TOP DOWN IN THE ABARTH-THIS PAST SATURDAY-I drove around a bend over a knoll and was confronted with a Rockwell Kent painting, Adirondack scene wise, apparition.

Rockwell Kent was a prominent 20th century painter, print maker, illustrator who spent most of his adult life on his farm (with studio), Asgaard*, 3 miles up the road from my home in Au Sable Forks (pop.541), NY in the Adirondack Mountains / Forest Preserve. FYI, that's his farm with barn in the above hay bale painting.

*named after a location associated with gods. It is depicted in a multitude of Old Norse sagas and mythological texts.

When I moved to the Adirondacks, 21 years ago, Kent had died 30 years prior. His farm was still in operation (new owners) and is where we still get most of our beef, poultry, pork and aclaimed-around-the-world goat cheese. We are friends with the owners of the farm so on occasion I am able to go up to the farm and hang out in Kent's empty stand-alone studio.

In any event, every once in a while I do come across a Kent-like looking landscape. I never have pictured one. However, the mountain landscape pictured here was so much like that found in many a Kent Adirondack painting that, I swear, the Abarth came to stop on its own and seemed to indicate that it was not going anywhere until I made a picture.

While thinking about making this entry, I recalled that I had made a picture, in the exact same location (and I do mean exact!) where Rockwell Kent had made a painting-in Co Donegal, Ireland near the location of the so-called "Ghost" fishing town, aka: Port. At the time I made the picture, I was not aware of Kent's very well known painting, "Annie McGinley" (presented in this entry). It was not until I returned from Ireland that I discovered the painting while researching Kent's time painting in Ireland.

Upon viewing the painting (online), I will admit to having a freaky spine-tingling moment as I realized, not only had I trod in Kent's near-exact footprints, but I had also made a picture with a similar motif ... a lone woman in a dramatic location. In my case, my wife. In Kent's case, most likely his Irish Lassie inamorata inasmuch as he was a well known seeker of many women's "affection".

PS I was very lucky to come across a very nice signed, first edition copy of Kent's 1940 book, This Is My Own. An interesting illustrated telling of his life and times in Au Sable Forks.

(embiggenable)

# 5637-42 / ku•landscape•natural world ~ some of these pictures are just like the others

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT EVERYTHING THAT CAN be pictured has been pictured. While that idea is not exactly true, it is close enough to be considered to be generally true. Case in point ....

In my last entry, wherein I wrote that I was rumaging around in my picture library looking for pictures for my next entry, this entry is the "next" entry to which I was referring. I was looking for pictures like the ones seen in this entry in response to my discovery of an announcement of an exhibit / book / limited edition folio of new pictures, NATURAL ORDER, from Edward Burtynsky

I admit that, when I viewed Burtynsky's NATURAL ORDER pictures, my first thought was that he had hacked into my picture library and "borrowed" some of my pictures for his project. A project which he undertook during the recent pandemic and which I have been pursuing for the last 20 years.

My second thought was that being a well known, "big name" picture maker sure makes it easy to get an exhibition along with all the attendant add-ons. I have yet to have an exhibit of my thickets & tangles work which could be due to the fact that, to date, I have not submited a porfolio of that work to any galleries...a prime example of you never get what you don't ask for.

All of that written, re: everything that can be pictured has been pictured - if a crow were to fly due west from where I live (and make pctures), in about 200 miles the crow would fly directly over the location where Burtynsky made his NATURAL ORDER pictures. So, given the nesrly identical flora-zones, it really is no surprise that our pictures are so similar-not exactly the same, but similar. Similar enough that Burtynsky could slip a few my pictures into his exhibit-and I could do likewise with a few of his pictures into my body of work-and no one would be the wiser.

As similar as our pictres might be, here's where I part ways with Burtynsky...in his Artist Statement, Burtynsky writes that his pictures are "from a place in [his] mind that aspires to wrest order out of chaos and to act as a salve in these uncertain times." He also asserts that "these images are an affirmation of ... the natural order in all things."

Unlike Burtynsky, I am not striving to wrest order out of chaos. Rather, my pictures are an attempt to illustrate and revel in-for its own sake-the visual beauty and energy to be found / seen in the disorderly / chaotic / seemingly serendipitous entanglements of selective parts of the natural world. And, my pictures are not intended to be a "salve" but rather, at least at first glance, a visual irritant.

That written, I do believe it is quite possible to be drawn into a protractive, quiet contemplation of the complex field of visual energy to be seen in both of our pictures. However, where that comtemplation might lead to is up to the viewer.

# 5631-33 / kitchen sink•around the house•landscape ~ oh, my aching back

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

PHOTOGRAPHERS, UNLIKE PAINTERS, ARE, SEEMINGLY (AS EVIDENCED BY THE SHEER VOLUME OF WRITTEN WORDS), obsessed with attempting to come up with answer to the question, what is a photograph? Or, perhaps, more accurately, an answer to the question, what is it that makes a good-better-best photograph?. Pianters, on the other hand, do not seem to concerned with the question, what is a painting?

iMo, while there are many interesting tidbits to be found here and there amongst the writings, re: photography, in the end it is all very subjective idle chatter. I believe that to be true cuz I believe that each and every photograph is, quite literally, a Rorschach test-like image from which a nearly endless number of deductions / conclusions / meanings / feelings can be had. Not to mention the fact that one person's adjudged great photograph may be headed for another person's junk pile.

That written, my experience, taken from the millions of written words-books and selected quotes written by photographers-I have read on the topic, leads me to conclude that are 2 main camps involved in this ongoing idle chatter; on the one side there is the simpledminded crowd, and on the other side, there is heavylifter crowd. FYI, I tend to come down on the side of the simplminded crowd.

Re: the simplemided crowd - is not stupid. iMo, they just try to keep it simple / pure (as "constrained" by the limits and capabililities of the medium and its apparatus). Think Gary Winogrand:

"I don't have anything to say in any picture. My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph....For me the true business of photography is to capture a bit of reality (whatever that is) on film...if, later, the reality means something to someone else, so much the better.

In a sense, the simpledmided crowd acts upon the idea that a picture is "just" a picture. A thing to be looked at. A "simple" visual experience which, nevertheless, can lead / incite a viewer to go wherever he/she might want to go, limited only by an individual viewer's knowledge and life experience.

Re: the heavylifter crowd - has, seemingly, never viewed a photograph upon which they can heap too much of a burden which does not break a pictures back. Think Robert Adams:

"If the proper goal of art is, as I now believe, Beauty, the Beauty that concerns me is that of Form...Beauty is, in my view, a synonym for the coherence and structure underlying life...that is, the order in art that mirrors the order in Creation itself...Why is Form beautiful? Because, I think, it helps us meet our worst fear, the suspicion that life may be chaos and therefore our suffering is without meaning."

In his writings, re: "important" pictures Adams states that most "important" pictures "reveal Form"...."show us coherence in its deepest sense" and "contain the full Truth, the full and final truth." ASIDE All of the preceding is from Robert Adams is from his book, BEAUTY IN PHOTOGRPAHY. END OF ASIDE

Try as I might, and I have read and re-read Adams' essay, Beauty in Photography over and over and over again over the past few days, I just cannot get to where Adams wants me to go. The metaphysical burden is just too heavy for me to lift. I suppose it is possible a little weed might help me get somewhere in the Adams neighborhood when contemplating a specific picture. However...

....I have no real interest in turning my picture viewing (or, more emphatically, my picture making) into a quest for pictures which contain the full and final truth, the coherence and structure underlying life in its deepest sense and the Form / Beauty in art that mirrors the order in Creation itself. I just sounds too much like religion to me.

# 5619-30 / ku•landscape•natural world ~ "calendar" work v. art work

from my big landscape work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

from my intimate landscape work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

from my tangles and thickets work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

from my on the gound work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

MORIBUND-def. (of a thing) in terminal decline; lacking vitality or vigor. A word which, iMo, could justifiably be used in conjunction with the phrase / nomenclature of Landscape Photography.

To be clear, it should be noted that the genre of Landscape picture making is not an single organized picture making movement which adhers to a single, uniform picture making aesthetic / norms. I would not even try to count and/or describe the number of sub-genres taking refuge under the umbrella of Landscape picture making.

That written, I do believe that here is one undeniable fracture in Landscape picture making spectrum. That is, the picture making divide between the ANSEL Adams crowd and the ROBERT Adams crowd (feel free to choose your own particular examples).

iMo, the diference between the crowds is that the A. Adams crowd-by far the largest of the 2 crowds-focuses their attention and lenses on the grand, the majestic, the dramatic landscape. Most often with the intent of capturing sentimental / romanticized depictions of the natural world with the use of art sauce-to-the-max visual "hyperbole, theatrical gestures, moral postures and expresivo effects" (quote thanks to John Szarowski). And, it is well worth noting, there is, almost (but not quite) exclusively so, never any evidence of human kind in their pictures.

On the other side of that coin, there is the R. Adams crowd. A picture making crowd for whom "the shrill rodomontade of conventional conservation dialectics has lost its persuasive power" (again, a Swarkowski quote). A crowd which pictures the entire landscape to include, most definitely, evidence of humankind as well as the more quiet / ubiquitous (everyday) natural world. A crowd wihich has discovered that beautiful pictures can made by picturing referents which are not made up what are considered to be the trappings of iconical / conventional beauty.

A quote from Robert Adams, taken from his Introduction in his book The New West kinda somes up, for me, the difference between the A. Adams and the R. Adams crowds:

"...we also need to see the whole geography, natural and man-made, to experience a peace; all land, no matter what has happened to it, has over it a grace, an absolutely persistent beauty....Even subdivisions, which we hate for the obcenity of the speculator's greed, are at certain times of day transformed to a dry, cold brilliance."

All of the above written and re: MORIBUND, iMo, it is the A. Adams crowd that is cononically moribund inasmuch as, for better or for worse, there practitioners aplenty which insures that the genre ain't dying. However, in the case of the R. Adams crowd, I have a sense of moribunity inasmuch as there has been little new activity and/or work from that crowd of late. At least, little that I am aware of.

It is possible that the paucity of such activity / work is a condition dictated, temporally, by COVID restrictions. It is also quite possible that my sense of real or imagined paucity is the result of my lack of concentrated effort in searching for such work.

That written, any recommendations of where to find such work will be well apppreciated.

# 5607-09 / people•ku•natural world•landscape ~ I look, I see, I picture, therfore I am

man with Sanshin ~ Naha, Okinawa / Japan - c.1967 (embiggenable)

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

"The process of photographing is a pleasure: eyes open, receptive, sensing, and at some point, connecting. It's thrilling to be outside your mind, your eyes far ahead of your thoughts....Part of it has to do with the discipline of being actively receptive. At the core of this receptivity is a process that might be called soft eyes. It is a physical sensation. You are not looking for something. You are open, receptive. At some point you are in front of something that you cannot ignore." ~ Henry Wessel

I CAN ONLY ASSUME-WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ASSURANCE- that just about everyone gets pleasure (of one sort or another) from the process of photographing. I mean, why even bother if there ain't no pleasure / joy / satisfaction / positive vibe involved in the activity?

That written, I am also certain that whatever sense of pleasure may be derived from the act of photographing, any specific pleasure is dependent upon the motivations of the picture maker him/herself. After all, the medium and its apparatus provide a broad landscape for satisfying a wide range of pleasure seeking....there are those who revel in the "pleasure" of acquiring / using and "mastering" gear and/or, likewise, technique. Then there are those who seek to "express" themselves or elucidate the viewer, re: the "meaning" of various referents.

And then there are those, much like me, who indulge in the act of photographing simply to see what something-any thing and/or every thing-looks like when photographed (as presented / expressed on the 2D surface of a photographic print).

That is, the making of a fairly stict visual thing. No expression of my "innner self", no "meaning" or "message", no technical / technique driven tour de force. Nope, none of that stuff. I just want to make prints that are visually interesting, capitivating and involving to view. Not cuz of what is depicted but, rather, how it is depicted.

For me, the idea of receptivity, aka: soft eyes, is paramount to my way of seeing. I rarely go out and about "looking for something" but, that written, I am forever-I am convinced that propensity is preternatural-looking and, seemingly, my thinking does not get in the way of my seeing. My eyes are ahead of my thoughts.

Consequently, throughout my entire life, I have consistently found myself "in front of something I cannot ignore".

# 5606 / ku•landscape•natural world ~ the act of pointing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

"One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. [...] The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." ~ John Szarkowski

IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT JOHN SZARKOWSKI SUGGESTS THAT a work of art, in this case a photograph, is comprised of 2 primary ingredients...a thing pointed to and a pattern created by a pointer. He also suggests that the viewing of such a photograph could be comparable to an "adventure of a tour" accompanied by "pleasure and a sense of enlargment". And, the way I read it, Szarkowski implies that a really good photograph-with a thing pointed to and a pattern created by the pointer-can capture a viewer's attention / interest but, in a very real sense, leave a viewer wondering about why he/she is attracted to that photograph...is it the thing depicted or the manner in which the thing is depicted that has drawn the viewer in?

I can write with authority-based upon my actual experiences-that I have encountered quite a number of viewers of my pictures-at a gallery openings of my pictures or showing someone one of my photo books-who have run smack dab into such a dilemma. Simply written, they are confronted with a picture of a thing, a thing which they can not begin to fathom why I (or anyone) would make a picture thereof. That written, what really confuses them is the fact that they feel unexplainedly attracted to the picture.

Most often heard at such a juncture is, "I don't know why I like this picture(s) but I do." A statement which I consider to be a very high compliment indeed cuz I truly believe that I have zapped them with my "secret weapon", the "hidden"-to their eyes and sensibilities-pattern I have created on the 2D surface of my print. That is, a concept of which the average viewer has no conscious knowledge or perception.

And, have no doubt about it, it is at this point in such an encounter that I make absolutely no attemp to try to explain the concept of a "hidden" pattern on a 2D surface to the viewer. The reason for that is simple, the viewer has "felt" something in the picture in addition to what he/she has "seen" and I have no desire to practice confuse-a-cat psychology. Not to mention the fact that I am not about to tell a viewer-who is confused as to why he/she likes the picture-why he/she likes the picture cuz that's for the viewer to figure out.