# 6757-61 / common places • common things ~ omphaloskepsis*

October 25, 2023

***can you see the alchemist at work?*** ~ **all photos** (embiggenable)

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead-his eyes are closed.” ~ Einstein

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN THAT I AM NOT a fan of hi-def photographs. That is photographs which make obvious extreme fine detail and resolution. To my eye and sensibilities they often tend to illustrate everything but reveal nothing. A good example of such is in the comment made by a gearhead who wrote about one of his pictures…

…look closely at the fabric on the side of the hat. The detail is there.

Unless the picture was made for the hat manufacturer-fyi, it was not-then capturing the fine fabric is critical to the picture making mission. However, if the mission is to incite an emotional / mental involvement from the non-fabric obsessed viewer or, the non-photo technique obsessed viewer, iMo, who gives a crap about the fabric detail?

And, I might add, looking “closely”at a picture is a sure-fire recipe for missing what a photograph might be “about”. That’s cuz a good photograph is all about the collective visual sum of its parts, not the parts in and of their literal selves. iMo, in a really good photograph, when the sum is good, the overall effect can draw the viewer’s eye across the field of the print in order to investigate some of the parts - an activity that I label as experiencing a photographs visual energy.

All of that written, it explains why I have never been in pursuit of making photographs that exhibit ultra hi-def or, for that matter, photo technique “perfection”. That’s cuz I believe that the best photographs are those that have, albeit most often subtle, a sense of the mysterious. That is to mean, mysterious in the sense of being somewhat enigmatic, i.e. difficult to understand or explain cuz, ya know, some things are best left to a viewer’s imagination.

I know that I am successful in that pursuit cuz, at exhibitions of my photographs or when someone is viewing one of my POD books, the single most common comment / reaction I hear is, “Why did you take a picture of that?” (mystery #1). Followed by, “I don’t know why I like it, but, I do.” (mystery # 2). Reactions that are the result of the fact that my photographs are not stating the obvious. As in, ain’t pictures of beautiful things beautiful.

To be certain, my photographs are not in any manner in the same mystery league as, say, the grand mysteries of the universe. However, I do believe that I am exploring the little mysteries of how the quoditian, aka: everyday life, can mysteriously present, to those whose eyes are not closed, “quiet,” little vignettes that, when pictured with a sense of creating interesting form, produce prints of surprising visual beauty…

…a perfect example of the medium’s alchemistical ability-something of a mystery or is it magic?-to facilitate the nearly inexplicable or mysterious transmutation of the commonplace into the exceptional.

The fact that my eye and sensibilities are captivated by those seeming mysterious “presentations” is, believe it or not, after all these years still a mystery to me.

*aka: navel gazing - the practice as an aid to contemplation of basic principles of the cosmos and human nature

# 6621-23 / common places • common things • people ~ a public pageantry of people on parade

June 24, 2023

***street lights*** ~ Saranac Lake, NY (embiggenable)

***mode de rue*** ~ Paris, France (embiggenable)

IF COMMENTS FROM THOMAS AND DENNIS ON my last entry are any indication, I apparently created confusion, re: my idea of street photography. While I thought that the pictures in the entry might make my what is street photography? idea fairly clear, I believe the confusion culprit is the phrase “…can be done anywhere and people do not have to be present in the photo”. So, let me give it another go using my own words, as opposed to quoting those from some else. Smiply put…

iMo, to my eye and sensibilities, street photography is the surreptitious act of making candid pictures which depict people, in public places (primarily man-made environments), displaying gestures, expressions, body language, including quirky / spontaneous / curious situations and relationships to others and/or their immediate environment, and the like.

No. I do not believe any of Sir Ansel’s pictures of the natural world are street photographs. They are landscape photographs. While I appreciate-and make-street scenes devoid of people, I do not consider them to be street photography. No. They are urban landscapes.

All of that written, it should go without writing (as he writes it while writing it nevertheless) that street photography can be many different things to many different people. Ultimately, that’s OK with me cuz, I don’t give a damn what a picture might be labeled as. I care only about whether, or not, any picture (any genre) is, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, a good picture.

# 6612-15 / common things • street photography ~ touchy, touchy

June 20, 2023

PROCRASTINATION IS THE WORD OF THE WEEK. Since returning from Portugal, my mind, photography projects-wise, has been overloaded; processing, organizing and printing Portugal pictures, acquiring and messin’ around with the Instax printer and thinking about what I want to do with it, and what should be at the top o’ the heap - finalizing the work (and getting it out the door) on my Adirondack Survey Project.

The net result of all that mental muddle has been a bit of slacking off, blog entry-wise. However, over the past week there has been a bit of a preoccupation on a few sites, re: street photography. It seems like a bit of a contagion spreading from on site to another. So…

…the prime irritant which got me infected with the bug was a bit of a snit-ty entry from my annoyingly favorite Texas-based gearhead obsessive who is prone to getting a bit testy when his non-commercial, aka “personal”, photography bonafides are called into question. In this case, it seems that another blogger (unnamed) opined that the Texan’s pictures, those self-described as “street'“ photography, are not street photography at all. This poke at the hornet’s nest send the Texan into a snit that resulted in a throw spit-balls at the wall and see what sticks exercise. The spit-balls were a very large number of pictures, some of which had the “look” of street photography, others not so much.

That written, it is not my intention to get into the are-they-or-ain’t-they street photography fracas. My intent is to get off my chest, once and for all, my opinion that the work in question and, or for that matter, and / all of the non-commercial pictures posted by the Texan exhibit not single shred of a coherent picture making vision. And, when confronted with a similar assessment-which he has been-his defense is that his site is a gear review site, not an “art” site.

Well, iMo, he just blew that defense to smithereens. If his posting of his cluster-fuck / poorly edited street photography is not an attempt to bolster his non-commercial picture making creds, then-as his entry states-”we’re all delusional” and so is he.

All of the above written, what this street photography contagion has caused me to do is spend some time processing some of my Portugal street photography pictures to monochrome and present them in a new WORK page gallery. Have a look and let me know what you think of it.

PS more on street photography-specifically, Mike Johnston’s Tips For Photographing in Public-in my next entry. And, the bathroom picture in this entry is the bathroom in a our Porto, Portugal hotel room. I want to replicate it in our house.

# 6594-98 / street photography look ~ the question is why?

June 6, 2023

***Braga Romana Festival*** ~ (embiggenable)

WERE I TO BE OF A MIND TO I could make a monochrome body of work of scenes from Portugal that fit the street photography mode of seeing. Scenes in which color is not vital to the photograph’s visual impact.

That written, I don’t really have a reason to undertake such a project. Not sure what the point would be. On the other hand, were I to do so, make a book and present it to the wife as our trip to Portugal book, I might really enjoy her spontaneous expression-facial and verbal-of something along the lines of, “Are you f__ing kidding me? Is this a joke?”

Might be worth it just for that.

# 6499-6501 / common places • common things ~ It's true. Really, I swear it is.

March 7, 2023

***it’s true to life*** ~ (embiggenable)

ON A RECENT TOP ENTRY THE IDEA OF A PHOTOGRAPH being true / truthful was raised. A subject which always brings out those who like to dance on the head of pin. Consequently, I very rarely pay much attention to such commentary on the subject. That said, I’ll throw caution to the winds and wade into the subject.

First things first; I believe the words true / truthful are misnomers, re: a photograph. That’s cuz a photograph, a thing in and of itself, is, quite obviously (or should be) not the thing that it depicts. Rather, it is depiction of something. And, to my way of seeing / thinking, in the so-called straight photography world I look for depictions that are reasonably accurate representations, inasmuch as the medium and its apparatus is capable, of the thing depicted. And I leave it at that cuz I know…

“…. most serious photographers understand that there's this large gap between the world and how the world looks through a photograph. ~ Stephen Shore

Despite the “large gap between the world and how the world looks through a photograph”, straight photographs, made by both serious photographers and amateur snapshooters, all illustrate recognizable subject matter. Simply put, the depicted referent is recognizable cuz the depiction thereof-the visual essence-is reasonably accurate.

Does that make a given photograph truthful? Well, according to the dictionary-(of artistic or literary representation) characterized by accuracy or realism; true to life-the answer is “Yes, it is truthful.” However, I would write that the visual essence of a straight photograph can be accurate, realistic, or, if you prefer, true to life.

Which leads to this conclusion:

There's something essentially fictive about a photograph. That doesn't mean that if you understand that, and you understand how the world is transformed by the camera, that you can't use the limitations or the transformation to have an observation that is a very subtle perception of the world.” ~ Stephen Shore

All of the above written, there is a catch / fly in the truthy ointment of any given photograph; a photograph is capable of having two different attributes - the literally depicted referent, and, the content, aka: the picture maker’s concept-driven intent (often labeled as the meaning to be had in a photograph). These are two very different things.

Although, to the eye and sensibilities of the picture maker these two attributes-the visual essence and concept (which the picture maker believes to be true)-are inexorably / intrinsically linked. However, to the eye and sensibilities of a viewer of any given photograph, as Susan Sontag has noted….

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy.”

….a picture maker’s conceptual truth is, at best, illusive. And, even if discerned, it could be-re: in the sensibilities, if not the eye, of a viewer-to be un-truthful.

So, getting down to brass tacks, re: can a photograph be truthful? The answer, iMo, is both “Yes.” and “No.” That is, “Yes.”, re: visual essence, and “No.”-or maybe better put as “Anyone’s guess.”-re: the implied concept.

In any event, I am not much concerned about the truth in photography thing cuz, like Garry Winogrand…

“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.”

#6490-92 / single women • common places • common things ~ ennui

February 27, 2023

***this weekend past in Jersey City, NJ*** ~ (embiggenable)

IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE TO ME TO READ a blog entry-from a dedicated gear head-that expresses a sense of (non-commercial) photo making ennui. It would seem that an equipment fetish is not particularly conducive to the making of good photographs.

While it would me very easy for me to heap a bunch of no-shit-Sherlock on the author, I thought that I would instead-for instructive purposes only-intersperse a few Brooks Jensen quotes-from his Things I’ve Learned About Photography-together with a few excerpts from the blog entry in question:

excerpt: All I can manage to say for the photographic process now is that it gets one out of the house…But without a spark behind the process all the trappings of the craft are mostly rendered meaningless and banal….old duffers like me wandering around with wonderful gear in a vain attempt to re-capture the magic we felt when taking photographs in our youth….

The more gear you carry the less likely you are to make a good photograph. ~ BJ

excerpt:…Almost as though we've all concluded that with the endless torrent of images being constantly shared everywhere that no individual shot or selection of shots matters anymore….I felt a certain sense of futility…Another futile attempt to carve out some sort of alternate viewpoint.

…every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit. ~ BJ

Now I am not suggesting that the author is about to give up making non-commercial pictures but, if he were to do so, it would not be much of loss to fine art photo world cuz one should…

Never ask a person who collects cameras if you can see his photographs. ~ BJ

You would never know it by looking at the photographic press [ed. gear focused blogs], but there are an amazing number of creative people engaged in photography who couldn’t care less about equipment but who love photographs. ~ BJ

# 6438-42 / decay • common places • people ~ stumbling down a dead end street

January 31, 2023

“Established artists sometimes find a "comfortable" style that brings them success in the moment .… And they find themselves repeating the same basic work for decades and decades …. They seem unaware that they are stumbling down a dead end street …. Their real impetus going forward should be re-invention and an embrace of their vision of now …. A new format. A new color palette. An unusual angle. But the core of the original vision stays the same …. But art doesn't really work that way for the vast majority of artists.” ~ by an unnamed idiot

AS MENTIONED IN A RECENT ENTRY I WROTE that the plethora of bad advice from “experts”, re: picture making, is akin to all the hay you encounter when looking for a pin in a hay stack. The pin in this case being good advice.

The perpetrator of today’s bad advice example is advancing the idea that an artist’s vision can be sloughed off like yesterday’s clothing and a new suit of clothes-”re-invented” by the dictates of what’s happening now-can be manufactured whole cloth. This notion is so far off the mark, re; vision (which by, BTW, is not a “comfortable” style) that it’s difficult to know where to start. However ….

…. let’s just start with a re-fresher course, re: an artist’s vision. An artist’s vision is the bedrock on which all of his/her art is created. It is deeply personal. ASIDE It can not be “invented” therefore it can not be “re-invented” END ASIDE Rather, it reflects who a person is, what he/she believes, and how he/she sees-literally and figuratively-the world. iMo, it is often innate, waiting to be discovered and, ultimately understood. And, wait for it (this will piss off a lot of people)…it cannot be taught.

“Can photography be taught? If this means the history and techniques of the medium, I think it can…if, however, teaching photography means bringing students to find their own individual vision, I think it is impossible … As for studio courses in ‘seeing’ … I was never tempted to take one … Arrogantly, I believed right from the start that I could see." ~ Robert Adams

Nevertheless, it can be learned. That is, learned from a fair amount of picture making experience. Picture making which centers around just picturing what you see, not what you have been told is a good picture, and beginning to recognize how you see. And, once learned it is my belief that it can not be un-learned anymore than you un-learn how to breathe.

Of course, once one’s vision is identified, one will apparently-according to our idiot expert-be doomed to unknowingly stumbling down a dead end street for decades and decades, all the while repeating the same “basic” work. What shame.

And, here’s a clue for our clueless expert … discovering, understanding, and refining one’s vision and being grounded by it for the duration of one’s art making life is, quite actually, the way art works for a vast majority of artists.

PS bringing one’s bedrock vision to bear on a wide variety of referents is quite different than bringing “A new format. A new color palette. An unusual angle.”, aka: a “comfortable” new style to bear on one’s picture making.

# 6422-26 / common places • common things • civilized ku ~ what am I spota do master?

January 26, 2023

“I really didn’t have much to teach. I didn’t really believe in it. I felt so strongly that everybody had to find their own way. And nobody can teach you your own way…. in terms of art, the only real answer that I know of is to do it. If you don’t do it, you don’t know what might happen.” ~ Harry Callahan

IN MY SEARCH FOR A NEW BOOK WHICH IS built around a large number of digital photographers’ work-to date an unsuccessful search-my search query yielded up a seemingly endless number of landfill-worthy how-to digital photography books and workshops. Many with an emphasis on how to make so-called “fine art” digital photographs.

Needless to write, none-and I repeat, NONE-of the self-proclaimed “experts” were making pictures that had any resemblance to fine art. You can take that assessment to the bank based upon the absolute fact that, to my extensive knowledge, there is not a single bona fide fine art photographer on the planet who would even consider the idea of making a how-to book. That’s cuz they understand well the verse of poet X. J.Kennedy:

The goose that laid the golden egg Died looking up its crotch To find out how its sphincter worked. Would you lay well? Don’t watch.

Or consider this from Robert Adams:

“Photographers are like other artist too in being reticent because they are afraid that self-analysis will get in the way of making art. They never fully know how they got the good pictures that they have, but they suspect that a certain innocence may have been necessary.”

iMo, how to operate camera or use editing software-or, for that matter, process film and make prints in a wet darkroom-can be taught. In any case, it ain’t rocket science but hooking up with someone who can show you ropes can speed things along. But, while anyone can figure out how to make a picture, getting to the point where one’s pictures are considered to be fine art is not so easy.

The hard work arrives in the form of identifying and then understanding how one sees the world. That is, both literally and figuratively. No one can do that but you. For some it comes easy, for some its much more difficult, and, dare I write it, for some it is impossible. ASIDE Re: impossible; that’s where the “rules” of photography come in handy for those can’t figure it out for themselves. END ASIDE

The danger involved in looking for “expert” solutions to the hard work issue is that, upon choosing an “expert” from whom to get advice on how to make “great” pictures, one is more apt to become a photo groupy of sorts-aka: follow the leader-than one who is apt to free one’s mind from the boundaries of conventional picture making. As Brian Cohen says in the film Life of Brian:

You’ve got it wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals. You’re all different. You’ve got to figure it out for yourselves.

Of course, as Brian exhorts the crowd to be individuals-”yes, we are all individuals” they respond collectively-they repeat all he has to say as dogma / doctrine. I guess that explains why all the “experts” are so successful at finding recruits for following their picture making “wisdom”.