# 6374-76 / common places • common things ~ things that do work

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

RE: The Philosophy of Modern Pictures PROJECT / BOOK: now that the Happy Holiday Daze faze is nearing its end, the PoMP project/book has shifted into high gear inasmuch as it is time to get down to basics, i.e. deciding who my target audience is, so that the writing can commence with that focus in mind….

….without a doubt, the primary target audience is me. That is to write that I am undertaking the PoMP project/book to organize and clarify-all in one place-my picture making thoughts and practices-along with a heaping sample of my pictures-in the hope that it may be of some value to my secondary target audience, i.e.: those picture makers who are wandering around in the photo-making wilderness searching for a way to free their picture making minds from the confines of conventional picture making “wisdom”.

That written, let me make one thing perfectly clear, I am not trying to set myself up as a “guru” / “expert” / “authority” or even a “teacher” about anything. My intent for my writing in the project/book is to create something that is interesting, for some, to read, just as my intent in making pictures is to create something that is interesting, for some, to look at.

There will be no “how to” about any thing in the book. Rather, it is my intent to write about some of the guideposts I bumped into-in many cases on accident, by means of traveling with an open mind-in my journey through the picture making wilderness. Guideposts that just may be of some interest and/or use for fellow travelers.

RE: THE PICTURES IN THIS ENTRY: these pictures-despite their disparate referents-are identical in one respect. If you can not recognize that similarity, consider this from Robert Adams from his book Why People Photograph ~ Teaching:

if teaching photography means bringing students to find their own individual photographic visions, I think it is impossible (ed: fyi, so do I)…the scholar’s task is relatively analytic, whereas the artist’s is synthetic; academics enjoy disassembling things in order to understand how they work, whereas artists enjoy taking scattered pieces and assembling from them things that do work.

# 6356-61 / street • common places ~ the same but different

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

AS I WAS RUMMAGING THROUGH MY LIBRARY SEEKING pictures for The Philosophy of Modern Pictures project/book, I was sidetracked by looking for street photography pictures. While I have never pursued the making of street photos with any degree of concentration, I have discovered that, nevertheless, I have a fair number of what could be labeled as street photography, or, at the very least, could be said to have been made in the street photography style. I found more than enough such pictures that I created a gallery of a selection of those pictures on my WORK page.

That written, my street photography differs from that of “traditional” street photography-tradition = monochrome images-inasmuch as I, as always, make color street pictures cuz, as always, I use color as a structural element in my pictures. However, just for comparison sake, I processed all of my street pictures as monochrome images in order to see how well they “work” in monochrome.

iMo, the monochrome images work OK. If I were to submit them as a portfolio to a gallery for exhibition, I would most likely do a bit more fine tuning of the images. That written, I have no qualms about the picture’s visual interest as a rather decent body of work.

That written, I also have no qualms about believing that the color work of the same images is a much more visually interesting body of work.

Any thoughts?

# 6132-35 / in situ (street photography) ~ an instant of life captured for eternity

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“‘A photograph can be an instant of life captured for eternity that will never cease looking back at you.” ~ Brigitte Bardot

AS MENTIONED IN MY ENTRY, STREET PHOTOGRAPHY ~ a first world problem, my intention was to make a photo book-the same pictures in color and monochrome in separate groupings-to investigate the differing viewing and appreciation experience (if any) between color and monochrome versions of the same pictures.

Initially, my thought was to limit the number of pictures to 10. That was, in part, cuz, not being a street photographer, I thought that coming up with 10 good street pictures might be a stretch. As it turns out, much to my surprise, I came up 30 very good-(iMo) picture possibilities, So, my now second first-world problem is editing down the choices to 10 just pictures.

After several go-arounds I narrowed it down to 15 strong pictures. So I thought, 15 it is until…I started designing the book-each spread with a picture on one page, location caption on the facing page-at which point I realized I was creating a 66(ish) page book. While the number of pages, per se, is not an issue, the cost of such a photo book with the design and production values I want-premium paper, lay-flat pages, 6C printing-would be in the $100USD + range. Once again, the cost is not an issue for me….except….

…what I hoped to create was a book in the $30USD range in order that some of you, the blog followers, might be interested in acquiring the book. Not because I am a brilliant picture maker but, rather, to partake in the investigation, re: color v monochrome of the same pictures, of whether there is a difference in the viewing and appreciation experience.

If there is an interest, I will edit the pictures down 8 or so and make a soft-cover book with 4C instead of 6C printing. The book would be available direct from the POD printer, Blurb. If anyone is interested just hit the LIKE button. FYI, I am not looking for big numbers. 5-6 would be enough for me to make the effort. And, BTW, I would be selling the book at cost.