(embiggenable) • made from iPhone picture
(embiggenable) • made from iPhone pictures
(embiggenable) • made from iPhone pictures
(embiggenable) • made from iPhone pictures
NOT ALL OF THE QUOTES TO BE FOUND in the curriculum texts-volumes of quotes-in my ideal photography school of higher learning would be from just photographers. I have found quite a few intelligent and informative quotes from a number of other sources, especially so from authors of works of fiction.
Case in point, this bit from one of my favorite authors, Jean Shepherd....
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, a lot of "serious" picture makers have forgotten, if they ever knew, how to have fun making pictures.
landscapes / 3631-41 ~ however you see the world outside
Ireland ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
Tuscany ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
Tuscany ~ (embiggenable) • Pentax K20D
l-r, t-b / Adirondacks•Pittsburgh•Montreal•New Jersey~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
l>r, t>b / Brooklyn•Adirondacks•?•Massachutsetts~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
PREPPING SOME LANDSCAPE PICTURES AS CANIDATES FOR submission to a juried landscape exhibition.
Strangely enough, since the call for entries begins with the phrase "wide open spaces", most of the landscapes I am considering for submission were made outside of the Adirondacks. A few were made with my PENTAX K20D, some with my Olympus cameras and some with my iPhone.
In addition to "wide open spaces", the call for entries also mentioned "urban environments, with people or without, traditional, contemporary, minimalist — however you see the world outside". So I have included some of my the new snapshot and faux-Polaroid pictures under the cover of "contemporary". Which I assume to mean fanciful or manipulated.
When perusing my picture library for theme-based pictures for juries exhibition submission, I often "discover" theretofore enough never recognized pictures to crete a new body of work separate and distinct from any of my existing bodies of work. True to form, that is once again the case here. And, in a very real sense, what a surprise that is cuz....
.... as hard as it is for me to believe, especially so given the fact that I blogged for a decade or more under the name The Landscapist, I have never assembled a body of work titled Landscapes. DUH. What was I thinking? Perhaps Dylan said it best in the song, I've made up my mind to give myself to you, on his new album:
Well, my heart's like a river, a river that sings
Just takes me a while to realize things
In any event, I feel an editing / selecting project comin' on.
kitchen sink / around the house / the new snapshot - #3582-84 ~ pricking the un-thought known
(embiggenable) • iPhone
socially distant ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
WHENEVER THE IDEA OF "READING" OR FINDING "MEANING" in a photograph comes up, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Gen. George S. Patton in the movie, PATTON:
You know General, sometimes the men don't know when you're acting.
Patton: "It's not important for them to know. It's only important for me to know."
However, in my head, it goes lke this....
You know Mark, sometimes viewers don't know what the meaning of/is in your pictures.
Me: "It's not important for them to know. It's only important for me to know."
And, more or less, what I know is that, picture making wise, I am (primarily, not exclusively) a formalist. I.E., I place an emphasis on form over content or meaning in my picture making and, to be certain, in all of the arts. Add to that the idea that I am also a sensualist inasmuch as, re: picture making and the arts in general, I tend to make pictures-and view / appreciate art in general-which prick the physical sense of vision, aka: seeing, rather than to stimulate the mind. That is, to instigate feelings rather than thoughts when a viewer encounters my pictures.
That written, I certainly understand that feelings can, and most often do, lead directly to thoughts. Which is pretty much how our wiring works. But, when it comes to making pictures and viewing art, I have been, iMo, fortunate to have been able, to quote Bagger Vance, "to learn how to stop thinking without falling asleep."
A practice which I believe is most valuable to the "understanding" of art.
civilized ku # 3531 (the new snapshot) ~ back in time (sorta)
(embiggenable) • iPhone
A REQUEST FROM JONATHAN WEBER read (in part)....
....I would love to know the Photoshop process you use for framing your iPhone photographs as "family Snapshots" complete with date.
my response: my process started with a hires scan of an existing snapshot-grandma and grandpa, mother's side-from one of my passed-down-to-me family albums. Although, any original snapshot would do. Keep in mind that there are a wide variety of vintage snapshot shapes and borders which is why I have several different master files to cover different shapes and border styles I might want to use.
After making the scan, I added 4 additional layers to the file. One was a type layer for the date. The other 3 layers (all set to Multiply) are "dirt" and "scratches" - one for the border dirt, one for scratches over the picture area and another for grain over the picture area. I put the dirt and scratches on layers so that their blending transparency can be modified according the picture being converted to a snapshot.
FYI, the original scan base layer has a shadow I added to give the final piece a bit of a dimentional look. The master file also has guides-which conform to the original image size-that I use to place and size the picture I am converting.
Once you have a master file, it's a simple matter to drag / copy and paste a picture into the master file-placed directly above the background layer-and then position and size it. TIP: I always size the edges of my picture just outside of the the guides. Then, with the Rectangular Marquee tool (0 Feather), and the guides set to SNAP or SNAP TO / Guides, I drag the tool from top corner to opposing bottom corner of the guides, select inverse and hit delete. This procedure gives the picture a sharp and repeatable edge.
After the picture has been placed and sized, I perform-on the picture layer only-some image processing to give it a somewhat vintage look. Then type in the date and drag the date layer where I want it to be (always different cuz that's how original snapshots came back from the drugstore).
None of this is rocket science. A bit of just messing around with Photoshop should get you to where you want to go.
PS I use this same procedure for pictures made with my "real" cameras, not just for iPhone pictures.
civilized ku# 3587 / the new snapshot # 250 (or there about) ~ the object of my desire
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
FIRST THINGS FIRST ... it appears that, in my last entry, I may have given Thomas Rink the wrong impression inasmuch as he left a comment which stated in part, "I hope that I didn't offend you with my comment!". To be perfectly clear, I thought that his previous comment, quoted in my last entry, was spot on, re: "getting" what my pictures are most often about. Which is why I wrote, in that entry, that, if I were to make an all-purpose Artist Statement, it would be based on his comment.
AN ASIDE: note to all .... I welcome comments of all kinds. Pro or con, re: my pictures or opinions, are welcome. Ad hominem comments not so much. END OF ASIDE
THAT WRITTEN, ON TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND. I just encountered an opinion piece on the medium of photography and its apparatus which dealt with the idea of intent on the part of a picture maker. In a nut shell, the piece advocated the idea that a picture maker must have a very clearly defined concept of what his/her picture making intent is in order that what he/she is trying to "say" will be perfectly clear to the viewer(s) of their picture making creation. Or, as the opinionator stated, in order that the picture be a declarative statement.
iMo, that idea states the obvious in that what picture maker makes a picture without an intent? Granted, some pictures made by the most casual of snapshot-ers or even the most dedicated fine artists might look like they are made by "mistake"-what? did the camera go off by mistake?-but I would emphatically suggest that even the most casual of snapshot-ers have a reason for making any given picture.
However, short of including, in a picture, a very obvious visual indicator of what the picture maker's intented meaning is-a practice commonly used in the making of propaganda-isn't, iMo, really the point of making art. Of course, many a fine art picture maker from academia will create a convoluted, obtuse and artspeak laden artist statement to explain exactly what the intent and meaning of his/her pictures are. Without either of those props, I can't see (literally and figuratively) how picture can be a definatively declarative statement of a picture maker's intended meaning.
Another point of disagreement I have with the opinionator is the statement that, when a photographer-one who's intent is to make art as opposed to one making pictures of world events-points his camera at something and makes a picture, he/she is saying / implying that that something is important. It is something that is worth considering and thinking about. To which I write, "nonsense!"
Setting aside the fact that, to my eye and sensibilities, a picture, in print form, is an object to be seen and "felt", not to be "read" and interpreted, the idea that, in the art world, all depicted referents are "important" is ridiculous .....
.... in the case of my pictures-and I am by no means alone-I place no importance at all on any of my depicted referents, in and of themselves. I don'think that discarded flowers are important. I don't think that kitchen garbage bags are important. I don't think my kitchen floor and cabinet are important. And, even though I do think that picturing them in pleasing manner sensitive to their relationships to one another makes an interesting visual statement when presented on the 2D plane of a photographic print, I don't think that makes them important or anything to think about.
I can write with relative assurance that those referents depicted in my pictures-those pictures made with the intent of making art-mean nothing to me. The only thing that means anything to me is how those referents look when photographed and viewed on the surface of 2D print. That is, the print as an object, in and of itself. Other than my personal snapshots, my pictures are rarely about the thing depicted.
A common notion expressed, re: my pictures, is that I find beauty in the mundane / commonplace. In fact, I don't think that many of my depicted referents are beautiful. Nor is it my intent to make them look beautiful.
In my picture making, my pursuit of "beauty" is to found in the making of "beautiful", or at least visually interesting, photographic prints. That is to write, the creation objets d'art.
the new snapshot # 255 / SX-70 # 9-10 ~ a full plate
Notre Dame football ~ my Saturday obsession (embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • SX-70 camera / Time Zero film
(embiggenable) • SX-70 camera / Time Zero film
I COULD SPEND THE NEXT MONTH POSTING Polaroids ... but I won't. Instead, I have added a REAL POLAROIDS gallery to my WORK page wherein I have uploaded some not previously posted Polaroids and will continue to upload more Polaroids as I edit my way through the thousands (literally) of Polaroids I have.
As a result of my recent dive into my vast Polaroid collection of prints, it has struck me as somewhat incredible that I never done a serious edit of those pictures. Consequently, in a significant omission to my POD photobooks library, there is not a single book-there probably should be at least 3-of Polaroid pictures. A fact which makes me feel somewhat akin to an idiot.
The scary / intimidating thing about this situation is that it's gonna take some serious time and effort to right that ship. Like I need that now what with an upcoming heart proceedure (ablation), the holiday season, Hugo's high school hockey season and, not to mention, my desire to keep the iPhone (smartphone) Photography Gallery project moving forward.
The first thought which comes to mind is .... anyone want to volunter for the presitgious position of intern?
civilized ku # 3677-79 ~ we are all investigators now
Shore Jeresy Shore ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
didn’t notice the birds ‘til I got closer ~ South Jersey Shore (embiggenable) • iPhone
There was a time, shortly after the upstart medium of photography emerged onto the scene, that the art world, especially the world of painting, began to feel threatened by the new medium. The poet, Charles Baudelaire, wrote (c. 1859):
"“If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon supplant or corrupt it altogether, thanks to the stupidity of the multitude which is its natural ally."
That sentiment and many others like it was instrumental in art institutions of that era-London Royal Academy of Art / (French) Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, et al-to declare in their many proclamations, re: what qualifies as art, that the hand of the artist must be apparent in works of art.
Up until that point all art was "handmade" art. While this declaration re-enforced the status quo, it also disavowed photography-a mere mechanical craft, aka: pictures made by a machine-as an art form. As a reaction from the photography world, the practice of Pictorialism emerged. A practice where the hand of the artist was very visible.
That was then, this is now and the medium of photography and its apparatus have come along way, baby. Photography has established its niche in the art world (although not all photography is art) and many photographers are considered to artists who are making art.
That written, over a decade or two ago, there has been the emergence of the PhD photographer, a crowd who are members of what I refer to as The Academic Lunatic Fringe School of Photography. Needless to write, as my nomenclature implies, I am not a fan of the pictures they make, pictures that are always accompanied by the requisite artspeak, pyschoanalytical and pure flapdoodle-ish artist statement.
One of things in those artist statements that annoy me no end is the ever-present use of phrases which describe what they profess to be doing. Phrases such as, examining the fundamental search for, or, the use of intuitive process and various reinterpreted psychodramatic methods to examine, or, a method to investigate.
Apparently, the medium of photography and its apparatus is, for them, not about making pictures but rather a tool for "examining" or "investigating" one arcane art theory or another, or, very frequently, a navel gazing pursuit of highly personal identity or personal life issues.
What I find most annoying about the ALFSoP is the fact that they denigrate the idea that a photographic print is a thing in and of itself, a thing that can stand on its own without the need for a 1000 word essay about what it means. But, of course, the ALFSoP is all about content, aka: meaning, and little, if any thing at all, about form. Which, FYI, is why I don't like very many of their "investigations".
Apparently, we (picture makers) are all investigators and/or examiners now. So, be prepared. When asked what you are making a picture of / why you took a picture, the correct answer should be, "I am not taking a picture. I am examining and investigating the physical and psychological boundaries of simulacra and simulation."
civilized ku # 3603 (picture window, sorta) / the new snapshot # 254 ~ it's a prickly business
Plymouth Cheese screen door ~ Plymouth Notch, Vt. (embiggenable) • iPhone
Queen Connie ~ Leicester, Vt. (embiggenable) iPhone
I use the word "serious" (always in quotes) to indicate my picture making that is intended to be create something more than a non-"serious" documentary-type picture. Most often a non-"serious" pictures would be made on my travels or when I just want to picture something I see that's interesting but not a suitable referent for a "serious" picture. The 2 pictures in this entry are good examples of "serious" / non-"serious" picture types.
My intent with the Queen Connie pictures was simply to record a quirky roadside attraction which, as I later discovered, is # 16 on TOP 50 AMERICAN ROADSIDE ATTRACTIONS list. The picture could incite thoughts / comments regarding the strange and sometimes wonderful weirdness than can be found in roadside attention-getting business advertising / promotion items that dot the American landscape.
Often such things are indications of someone's joyful exuberance and, iMo, are worthy of note. That written, there is no heavy lifting, meaning wise, in the making of this picture nor is any required to enjoy it.
On the other hand, there is the Plymouth Cheese screen door picture. This picture was made when my eye and sensibilities, that is my seemingly prenatural sensitivity to color and form, was pricked by what my visual apparatus (eyes + brain functions?) determined to be stimulating. At which point I make a picture.
For my picture making, it really is that simple ... walk around with eyes and mind open and wait for lightning to strike my visual apparatus. The only "work" involved is arranging, by means of arriving at the best POV, those elements into a relationship within my imposed frame which tickles my visual fantasy, by means of "feel' not thought, and there you have it.
In a very real sense, the preceeding paragraph is fodder, if not the actual content, for an artist statement for any of my bodies of work. However, for most of my bodies of work, some other words are needed. In the case of my picture windows work, the words-the fewer the better- would come from answering the question, "Why am I attracted to picturing fragments of the outside world from an inside-out POV?"
In attempting to answer that question, It is quite probable that I have to get uncomfortably close to writing some academic lunatic fringe narcisstic phsyco babble, an endeavor I am loath to undertake. However, simple is as simple does, so...
Were I to venture a guess-without enrolling in psychotherapy for a couple of years-the answer might be that I am viewing the outside world from the safety and comfort of an inside space. While that is true, and rather obvious, in a literal sense, it is probably informative to make the leap to the figurative sense of inside / outside ....
.... I am looking at the "outside" world from the "inside" world of my psyche, a comfortable place to be. Without a doubt, I have always had a rather stolid-bordering on Stoicism ([dictionary definition] "living in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain"- relationship to and with the "outside" world. In practice, I keep a rather snug, but by no means complete, rein on my emotional state(s)....
....which I believe is evidenced in my picture making inasmuch as I make "straight" pictures, unembellished with grand and glorius visual jestures, from a rather dispassionate picturing POV. In other words, I do so from the comfort derived from staying within (inside) the borders of my psyche.
So, perhaps my picture window body of work explains the picture making M.O. I have for all of my work. Or, perhaps not. Maybe, the only artist statement needed for all of my work is that I like making pictures, aka: the joy of photography, and sharing with the world how and therefore what I see. Revelling in what pricks my eye and sensibilities and attempting to prick the eye and sensibilities of others.
FYI, notice that I did not state sharing with the world why I make pictures. That's only important for me to know.