# 6102-04 / roadside attractions ~ helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely what most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.” ~ John Rosenthal

# 6099-6101 / Adirondack roadside attractions (common places) • the new snapshot ~ a different kind of seeing

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“I used to think that photographs were "composed." This made photography sound very unexuberant, as if it was primarily a deliberate act. Such a notion suggests that a photographer stands in front of an inviting landscape, arranges a composition, and then takes the picture. And it's true that many photographers work that way. Of course, if photographs can be composed, then there must be rules of composition, such as: the subject should never be dead center. But why not? I used to think you could learn how to be a photographer by learning the rules of composition and how to use a camera. Now I think just the opposite: if you have to learn rules, then it's already too late. The elements of a design can make a photograph bearable and inoffensive, but they will not make a photograph compelling. We are compelled by photographs which, within the limits of an objectively appropriate form, manage to offer us something that touches on authentic concerns - our happiness or unhappiness, our fidelities, our modern war with perplexity. The balance between design and content must be there because design by itself is not interesting and pure content is merely assertive.” ~ John Rosenthal

RE: “The balance between design and content must be there because design by itself is not interesting and pure content is merely assertive.”

For the past few months I have been wandering about the picture making landscape in search of a picture making trope which is focused on a recurring single referent theme. That is to write, a departure from my design, aka: form, focused picture making M.O. in which any and all referents are fodder for my picture making endeavors. An endeavor in which pursuit of design / form is at the fore. Content, not so much.

ASIDE I am using the word content in the sense of the depicted referent, not in the sense, as currently fashionable in the Academic Lunatic Fringe, of “meaning” or what the picture “says”. END OF ASIDE

The difficulty I am facing in this search for a referent-focused picture making M.O. is that I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to find / see form, as it appeals to my eye and sensibilities, when I am in the referent seeking mode of picture making. That’s cuz, for all intents and purposes, referent-focused pictures are pretty much all about the referent. Form (in the classic art world sense of the word), not so much.

Which does not mean that I am incapable of making referent-focused pictures that have interesting visual characteristics which are independent of the depicted referent. What it does seem to mean to me is that I feel like I am cheating by depending upon the chosen referent for snagging and holding a viewers interest. And, perhaps the biggest challenge I face in pursuing this endeavor is getting over that feeling.

FYI, the pictures in this entry, which fall under the heading of Adirondack roadside attractions, is most likely to be the referent-focused picture making path I will follow. That’s cuz: a) the Park is bigger than the state of Vermont and there are roadside things aplenty, new and old, which can attract a wanderer’s attention, b) they have never been “cataloged”, and, c) I am pining for a gallery exhibition-in one regional gallery in particular-and this referent-focused body of work just might be like shooting fish in a barrel, re: getting the attention of regional gallery directors.

#6077-79 / the new snapshot • common places ~ magic...making something from nothing

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ON MY LAST ENTRY, JOHN LINN LEFT A COMMENT THAT READ in part:

“I am now involved with a camera club in our new community and will be presenting some ideas/thoughts on how we can find beauty around us that is not obvious without careful observation and visual curiosity... skills that need to be learned and internalized... skills that you are expert in and have written extensively about in the past.”

Thanks for the comment. Re: “find(ing) beauty around us that is not obvious…skills that you are expert in…” in my extensive writing about find(ing) beauty around us that is not obvious I have probably been less than precise in defining / describing what it is I actually see / find / picture in the everyday world.

To wit, in fact, I rarely see beauty in the everyday world. However, what I do see is a sense of form, aka: the relationship of color, line, shape, form, and texture-the “classic” elements of art-that emerges when isolated within my imposed framing to create, at the very least, to my eye and sensibilities, a visually interesting picturing possibility. In most cases, the depicted referent, when pictured and printed, is one that most viewers would not consider to be representative of the common notion of “beauty”.

That written, I believe that the beauty to be seen and found in my pictures is the beauty perceived in a carefully crafted print (which illustrates and illuminates how I see the world). The print, in and of itself, is a “beautiful” object (or, at least, visually interesting) independent of that which is depicted.

In fact, I believe that the transformative act of appropriating everyday artifacts for use as raw material for the creation of a beautiful object-a painting, a sculpture, a photograph-is what making Art is all about. To my eye and sensibilities, that act is nearly an act of magic…in a sense, making something beautiful out of “nothing”.

# 6027-28 / civilized ku•the new snapshot ~ I meant nothing by it

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“... I was aware that I was imposing an organization that came from me and from what I had learned: it was not really an outgrowth of the scene in front of me ... I asked myself if I could organize the information I wanted to include without relying on an overriding structural principle ... Could I structure the picture in such a way that communicated my experience of standing there, taking in the scene in front of me?” ~ Stephen Shore

WENT TO SARATOGA SPRINGS FOR DINNER WITH FAMILY. While there I tried to make a few pictures which communicated my experience of being there, taking in the scene in front of me without relying on an overriding structural principle.

# 6006-22 / a new adirondack vernacular ~ what went before comes around again

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

AFTER A WEEK OR MORE OF AGONIZING / STRESSING OVER THE idea of reinventing my picture making M.O. for the purpose of creating a new body of work about the place where I live, I came to question, having already created a body of work, the adirondack snapshot project, what exactly is the point of reinventing the wheel? My conclusion? Other than slathering some salve on an acute case of artist angst, there really is no valid point at all.

The adirondack snapshot project-which I will repackage under the title of a new adirondack vernacular-is comprised primarily of well over 200 pictures made over the the couple of decades. (although a number of pictures are culled from the late 1970s>2000). To that number, I can add up to 70-80 more pictures made over the past 2-3 years (made after my adirondack snapshot project solo exhibition). That written, I could potentially end up with 500+ new adirondack vernacular “snapshots”.

The new title, a new adirondack vernacular is co-opted from the book (published 20 years ago), Adirondack Vernacular - The photography of Henry M. Beech. A book written-with 250 photographs-by a Syracuse University professor. While the book is not a photography book , per se, inasmuch as the pictures are presented addendums to the text, it is an interesting take on the life, times and photographs of Henry M. Beech (1863-1943).

From the book:

Henry was a local, an insider to the world he photographed, a person intimate with the region’s people and geography.…[I]t was from that position that he photographed the Adirondacks. In addition to shooting as a local, he had little formal education and did not seem to be professionally trained in his craft. He lived far enough away from mainstream society that his work was not dominated by national styles and trends, and was unencumbered by art-world pretense. He was free to focus on different subject matters, add quirky elements to his pictures, experiment with form and composition, and do things with images that other photographers would not. The result is a vernacular documentary style that is unique, engrossing, and significant.

Believe me or not, even though I have had the book for a number of years-I believe I received it as a gift-this morning was the first time I read the previous excerpt. And, at the risk of engaging in self-aggrandisement, I was struck by the idea that I am, Adirondack picture making wise, cut from the same cloth as Beech. Especially so, in that he was in his Adirondack picture making prime for approximately 20 years (1905-1925). A time frame that approximates the period of the bulk of my adirondack snapshot / vernacular picture making.

Are my adirondack snapshot / vernacular unique, engaging, and significant?

Re: unique - I am unaware of any other picture maker who is creating and exhibiting Adirondack “snapshots”. Nor do I know of any picture maker who has a body of diverse work that reflects the everyday life-people, places / sights, and things-of living in the Adirondacks.

Re: engrossing - Judging by the reaction and comments I have received to solo exhibitions (here in the Adirondacks) of my work, viewers of my photo books, and comments from gallery directors, there is at least a better than average interest in the work.

Re: significant - To whom? The Art World? Locals? Adirondack tourists? Not for me to judge. Only time will tell. Although, that written, iMo, it is a significant body of work, if only in size and scope.

# 5981-83 / the new snapshot ~ here and gone again

my backyard ~ (embiggenable)

heading home from a cider run ~ (embiggenable)

THIS SATURDAY PAST WE HAD A SNOWFALL WHICH COVERED the then snow-free landscape. Later the same day we had a dramatically color-saturated sunset. An event that does not normally follow a snowstorm.

In any event, Spring was here for a week, then it was gone. Now, 3 days later, the snow is mostly gone and Spring is back again. Our cat is very happy.

# 5905 / the new snapshot • people • discursive promiscuity ~ sticking together

the authentic red couch / Andy and me ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ON THE LAST ENTRY THOMAS RINK LEFT A COMMENT which read, in part:

I think the hard part is not to decide which pictures are strong-like you said, one knows that while making the picture-but to decide which pictures to incorporate into a body of work…And these decisions are a time consuming process which cannot be sped up imho. One just has to live with the series of pictures for a while and hopefully decisions will reveal themselves.

I agree with Thomas for the most part but with one minor quibble / caveat. He writes that the editing process “cannot be sped up”. While that statement is true enough, I would write that speed has its place in editing pictures.

In my case, in a folder (on my computer) I assemble a number of pictures-35-40-which are suitable for inclusion in a given body of work. Then I view them in ADOBE BRIDGE as a group, a step which very quickly reveals a few pictures that do not quite cut the mustard. The next step is to open the remaining pictures and stack then one behind the other on my screen and, with my cursor hovering over the red X button the picture window, I click through them in fairly rapid fashion looking for quick first impressions which reveal the strongest evidence of being true to my vision.

iMo, the thing that makes this speed reading work is that there is very little, if any, thought involved in the process. Exactly, re: little thought wise, in the same manner I use when making my pictures. Quid est demonstratum, it’s about seeing, not thinking.

In any event, I did not invite you here today to write about editing pictures. I highlighted Thomas’ comment for the first sentence which stated, “to decide which pictures to incorporate into a body of work“…

Conventional photo wisdom dictates that a body of work should be unified by a repeating referent presented in a consistent picture making manner. In my particular case, such bodies of work are presented on my WORK page-picture windows, single women, decay, life without the APA, kitchen sink, et al. I have made photo books for all of my various bodies of work. Deciding which pictures -pre-final selection-to incorporate in each of these bodies of work, culling them from picture library, is a no-brainer.

However….

….then we come to my “real” true-to-my-vision body of work, discursive promiscuity. That is to write that I digress from subject to subject (discursive) in a very undiscriminating or unselective approach (promiscuity). The simple fact is that my personal (not commercial) picture making life has been spent looking at the any and all referents to be found in the world for their potential to be made into a picture. That is, as Garry Winogrand said:

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

So, the question for me becomes, does a collection of pictures of wildly diverse referents qualify as a body of work. (if William Eggleston is an example, the answer is “yes”. Emphatically so). iMo-I and a number of gallery directors, who upon viewing my early ad hoc portfolios-comprised of a variety of referents (cuz I did not, at that time, have enough pictures of similar referents to create separate bodies of work) perceive that my pictures are unified by my attention to form and my singular manner of making pictures. That manner being; one format (square), one lens (or primarily so-mostly made with a moderate wide angle lens), clean “real-world” color and the ever-present black border and vignette. And, of course, my rejection of le grand geste, picture making wise, and my embrace of the commonplace.

The idea that my pictures of wildly divergent referents hold together as a body of work was emphatically reinforced over the past week when I was thinking about the topic of editing. That drove to pull out 3 of my photo books that were not thematic referent oriented; 2019 ~ the year in review, Marking Time ~ Coronavirus Comes to Town, and, appropriately enough, Discursive Promiscuity ~ One Year With the IPhone. Books that I had not picked up and viewed over the past year or so. And therein is a point in favor of Thomas’ idea of “live with the series of pictures for a while and hopefully decisions will reveal themselves.” …

…After not viewing these books and the pictures therein for a while, the decision to make these books revealed itself to be a very good decision. That’s cuz I was very impressed with how well the pictures in each book hung together as a very unified bodies of work.

FYI, the screenshot in this entry is the start of putting together and then editing a collection of pictures for Discursive Promiscuity ~ Volume II.