# 5831-34 / landscape (ku) ~ being forever in the moment,

November 12, 2021

I’VE HEARD IT SAID, READ IT WRITTEN A ZILLION TIMES, “ Be in the moment.” The directive is most often expressed when the person to whom it is uttered has allowed their attention to drift away from what is happening around him/her at any given moment in time. The “what is happening”-sights, sounds, activities, persons, et al-at any specific moment in time has been determined, by the admonitioner, to be worthy / demanding of undivided attention by one and all. And…

…iMo, one of the unique characteristics of the medium of photography and its apparatus is its ability to record, present and preserve select and discrete moments in time. Every picture (aka: photograph) ever made is an invitation for a viewer to see and vicariously experience, in his/her imagination, the “what was happening” in a past, fleeting moment in time. To wit, a picture issues an invitation to “be in the moment”. That is, to be vicariously in the preserved moment as presented in the picture and actively in the moment of viewing the picture.

Consider this from John Swarkowski:

“…immobilizing this thin slice of time has been a source of continuing fascination for the photographer. And while pursuing this experiment he discovered something else: he discovered that there was a pleasure and beauty in this fragmenting of time that had little to do with what was happening. It had to do rather with seeing the momentary patterning of lines and shapes that had been previously concealed within the flux of movement.”

Re: “the momentary patterning of lines and shapes” - as I have previously written, I tend to see segments of the world as lines and shapes-as suggested by physical objects, light / shadow, color, et al-which are perceived from only a very specific POV. While the perceived lines and shapes are not concealed within the flow of their movement, how I perceive them is most definitely dependent upon my (and my picture making device) lack of movement - that is movement away from my very specific POV.

Consequently, I am unable, unless I remain nearly absolutely motionless, to “be in the moment”, re: the perceived relationship of lines and shapes-which for me, in most cases is “what is happening”-for any length of time. The pleasure of seeing is very short lived.

However, in some ways, a significant part of why I make pictures is cuz I can preserve and extend indefinitely that short lived pleasure of seeing, aka: being in the moment. And, in the best of cases, my pictures can present to viewers thereof a tangible and palatable perception of the “being in the moment” (and what it entailed) of a picture’s making.

# 5828-30 / landscape (ku + civilized ku) • nocturnal ~ drawing with light

November 11, 2021

RE: SQUARESPACE SCREWED UP MY BLOG - late yesterday afternoon, all of the issues with my blog suddenly (and unbidden) self-corrected. That is, in exactly the same manner-seemingly out of the blue-in which the issues suddenly appeared a couple weeks ago. In any event, only time will tell if the issues are gone for good. Moving on …

OVER ON TOP IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT “I would never have transferred the word ‘photography’ to digital imaging. They [film and/or digital picture making] are enough different that they each deserve their own name.”

iMo, that idea don’t mean diddly squat to me inasmuch as, over the years on this blog, I have used the phrase picture making to describe what I do with a picture making device (of any kind). If one prefers, one might label the use of that nomenclature an affectation of sorts, but I use it cuz it describes the idea that I make pictures. Although, if one prefers, what I make-by means of the medium of photography and its apparatus-could be labeled also as photographs.

FYI, Meriam-Webster defines photography as the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor).

However, my point is rather simple…that is, who f**king cares what you call it? I mean, are we not all just drawing with light?

# 5813-16 / a book - sample spreads ~ character not caricature

October 30, 2021

MADE A COUPLE BOOKS, BOTH titled, AUTUMN 2021 character not caricature. One copy is 10x10, the other is 8x8. Both are hardcover. Each book is being printed at different POD sources. I am eager to see if there is much difference in printed quality.

The STATEMENT page reads as follows:

Character not Caricature

"There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described I like to think of photographing as a two way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing it as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both.</i>" ~ Garry Winogrand

"If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image formed by a lens, I see no reason why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the contrary, we should take hold of that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest." ~ Berenice Abbott

# 5802-06 / landscape • kitchen life • kitchen sink • around the house ~ a more subtle look at things Autumnal

October 25, 2021

YOU MAY HAVE READ / HEARD THE DESCRIPTIVE MONIKER about one picture or another that it is a photograph about photography. Most would think that descriptor to be rather tautological cuz, duh, of course a photograph is about photography, right?

<p>Answer: Wrong. In the Fine-Art World, Photography Division, that phraseology is used to describe a picture that was made utilizing / emphasizing one (or more) of the medium's unique characteristics. For example, its inherent relationship to/with the real world. Or, the medium's ability to capture / "freeze" a precise moment (or a tiny fraction thereof) in time.

The aforementioned characteristics are well known , in one degree or another, to just about everyone who makes pictures. That written, there is one characteristic of the medium that few picture makers, especially many who are engaged (and should know better) in the pursuit of making fine-art, are aware of...that the work product-a photographic print-is a flat-as-a-pancake thing that lives in a 2D world.

Sure, sure. Everyone knows that a print-or a screen on a digital device-is as flat as a pancake. However, very few picture makers think of a print as a 2-dimensional thing. As a matter of fact, most "serious" picture makers attempt to create (think so-called leading lines) something that a 2D print does not have - the missing 3rd dimension, aka: depth. In other words, instead of utilizing one of the medium's characteristics, they strive to contravene it.

To be certain, I am not suggesting that the "illusion" of depth is not possible on a photographic print. However, my point is that, iMo (and I am not alone in this), one of the primary differences that distinguish art from fine-art, Photography Division, are those pictures in which the medium's 2D characteristics are made readily apparent-to those who can see it-by the picture maker's intuitive ability / skill / creativity to see the literal referents in his/her select section of the real world-imposed by his/her framing-as non-literal 2D visual properties which can be arranged / organized on and across the flat field of a photographic print....

"This recognition, in real life, of a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values is for me the essence of photography; composition should be a constant of preoccupation, being a simultaneous coalition – an organic coordination of visual elements." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

I also believe that, in order to recognize and appreciate Fine-Art photography, a viewer must learn / know how to look at a photographic print by seeing beyond its literal representation. That is, seeking to see and feel a sense of balance created by a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values, aka: an organic coordination of visual elements. And, FYI, in my experience, when making or viewing a picture, I almost always feel it before I see it. When I feel it, I know that what I am seeing is something else.

"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

ADDENDUM I believe the key to being able to see / feel a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values, aka: an organic coordination of visual elements, is the idea of "soft eyes.", the effortless combination of both peripheral and foveal vision. With soft eyes, you let your eyes physically relax. Instead of focusing on one thing (your "featured" referent), you allow that thing to be at the center of your gaze, while simultaneously taking in the largest possible expanse within your full field of vision in order to increase your awareness of everything going on around your selected referent.

# 5788-5801 / landscape ~ it all depends on how you look at it

October 22, 2021

OVER MY YEARS OF ENGAGING WITH THE MEDIUM OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND its apparatus, I have come to several conclusions. In no particular order, some of them are:

1. I prefer pictures wherein the picture maker is showing me something as opposed to the pictures of those picture makers who are "expressing" themselves.
2. There are no "rules" for making good pictures...(as Sir Ansel said)..."There are only good pictures."
3.It ain't what you picture, it's how you picture it.
4. Re: technicals / mechcanics, it ain't rocket science.
AND
5. Re: aesthetics; notice (observe), select (frame) + organize (visual elements within the frame).

Re: # 5...notice, select+organize is not rocket science or, for that matter, any kind of science (aka: rules) at all. Rather, this is where Art is made and, iMo, the best Art, Photography Division, is made with the harnessing of intuition, experimentation and feel(ings) in the cause of making pictures that just look "right"*. ASIDE note the emphasis on the word "look". That's cuz photography is one of the visual arts, the product of which is meant to be viewed (looked at). END OF ASIDE

*Re: the elephant in the room...what the hell does "just looks right" actually mean? Answer: whatever the hell any given picture maker or picture viewer decides / wants it to mean. That's called subjectivity - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. So, in a sense, anyting goes.

That written, some people's feelings, tastes, or opinions are more influential than that of others. Gallery directors, museum curators, photo editors, and the like have the power to determine which pictures are exhibited / seen / collected / sold. Hell, many is the time that my feelings, tastes, or opinions, when acting as a photo competition judge / juror, have been the great determinator. While it is true that in many cases, there can a general consensus , good or bad, regarding specific art work, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will also be a significant number of those who disagree with the consensus.

In any event, when it comes down to an individual's work, the only feelings, taste, or opinion that matter are those of that individual, re: his/her own work. If that work meets his/her intention(s), then that work must just look right.

# 5794-97 / landscapse (ku) ~ a simple walk in the woods

October 19, 2021

ONE OF MY FAVORITE AUTHORS-HE WAS ALSO A radio / tv personaity and a performing humorist / raconteur-had something to say, re: photography / photographers:

"Of all the world’s photographers, the lowliest and least honored is the simple householder who desires only to 'have a camera around the house' and to 'get a picture of Dolores in her graduation gown.' He lugs his primitive equipment with him on vacation trips, picnics, and family outings of all sorts. His knowledge of photography is about that of your average chipmunk. He often has trouble loading his camera, even after owning it for twenty years. Emulsion speeds, f-stops, meter readings, shutter speeds have absolutely no meaning to him, except as a language he hears spoken when, by mistake, he wanders into a real camera store to buy film instead of his usual drugstore. His product is almost always people- or possession-oriented. It rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens. What artistic results he obtains are almost inevitably accidental and totally without self-consciousness. Perhaps because of his very artlessness, and his very numbers, the nameless picture maker may in the end be the truest and most valuable recorder of our times. He never edits; he never editorializes; he just snaps away and sends the film off to be developed, all the while innocently freezing forever the plain people of his time in all their lumpishness, their humanity, and their universality." ~ Jean Shepherd

iMo, this observation could be, perhaps should be, the cornerstone/ foundation of understanding what it takes to become a "truest and most valuable recorder of our times".

Think about it.

# 5790-93 / still life • civilized ku • landscape • flora ~ fairy-tale pictures

October 17, 2021

YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF REALLY BAD ADVICE / IDEA, re: making pictures:

"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it...If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better."

This quote comes from a well known natural world / landscape picture maker (now departed) who made pictures with heaping doses of art suace. That should come as no surprise given the impoverished sentiment expressed in his quote which might be summed up as "reality bites". A sentiment which drove him to make pictures, not in pursuit of illustrating and illuminating the true character of the natural world, but rather, that were caricatures-a comically or grotesquely exaggerated representation of (someone or something)-of that world.

That written, if one were to search in the right places, one could find many examples of good advice / ideas which stand in direct contradiction to the preceeding quote:

"Some people are still unaware that reality contains unparalleled beauties. The fantastic and unexpected, the ever-changing and renewing is nowhere so exemplified as in real life itself." - Berenice Abbott

"Photography makes one conscious of beauty everywhere, even in the simplest things, even in what is often considered commonplace or ugly. Yet nothing is really 'ordinary’, for every fragment of the world is crowned with wonder and mystery, and a great and surprising beauty." - Alvin Langdon Coburn

It should be obvious-to those who have followed this blog for any length of time-on which side of this dichotomy I come down on. However, for those who land on the same side as I do, there is another cautionary quote to consider:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." ~ H.L. Mencken

I have uttered this quote-changing the word "intelligence" to the word "taste"-many times to explain the salivating admiration of the majority of the public for art-sauced pictures of the natural world. Mencken's quote is well worth heeding if one wishes to engage in the sale of pictures of the natural world cuz it's a fact that cheesey, over-wrought, art sauce laden pictures of the natural world are what sells.

# 5783-87 / landscape (ku)•civilized ku ~ imitation is the sincerest form of missing imagination

October 12, 2021

Sunday afternoon on a porch ~ (embiggenable) iPhone — ***Sunday afternoon on a porch*** ~ (embiggenable) iPhone

along a country road ~ (embiggenable) iPhone — ***along a country road*** ~ (embiggenable) iPhone

THERE HAS LATELY BEEN SOME CHATTER AND NATTER, re: cliche, bouncing around on the interweb. Things like, what is a cliche?, how to avoid making cliche pictures, and the like. And, as is the usual case, the answer to such conversation provides a wealth of fodder for the idea of my Top insert number here Pieces of Photography Bad Advice and Sayings project. A prime example:

Photography is fundamentally a craft...[which] still requires learnin’.'Making pictures that look like' pictures that you admire is a landmark in that process for many, perhaps most, people. So I’d encourage newbies to make many such pictures and study them....Once you’re able to intentionally make that trite image of the Grand Canyon, the Eiffel Tower, or the Brooklyn Bridge you’ve achieved competence with the gadget. Now for the fun part.

To that nonsense I say, "Balderdash". The last thing one should do, for the purpose of making fine-art, learning to use a "gadget", or, finding one's vision, is to make "pictures that look like pictures that you admire". Rather, one might consider, as Brook Jensen suggested, to stop making pictures that "look like what you have been told is a good picture and start making pictures of what you see".

That written, re: "craft" - everyone who aspires to making good pictures, fine-art wise, needs to learn how to use a "gadget". iMo, the best manner in which to do so is to stand on the street in front of where you live-same spot again and again-and make pictures in the sun, in the rain, in the snow, in the fog, in the dark to include people walking, cars driving by, dogs chasing cats, garbage cans, discarded soda straws, or whatever else you might find / see in front of you.

And, most importantly, keep it simple...one camera, one lens, and adjust only fstop, shutter speed, focus, and ISO (as might be needed). DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, engage in any menu diving cuz the aforementioned gadget functions are all you need to "master" in order to start looking for one's own vision. iMo, menu diving is for "serious" amateurs who don't have, and quite probably will never have, their own unique vision.

In any event, the "learin'" process should only require a few weeks of one's time, 2-3 weeks at most. If it takes more than that amount of time, maybe consider selling your gadget and taking up The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

FYI, in my next entry I will address how, within 6 months of picking up a camera, I was making my living as a photo journalist. HINT It did not happen cuz I was making pictures that looked like what I was told was a good picture.