# 5810-12 / kitchen life • landscape (civilized ku) - the pleasureable act of seeing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone / PORTRAIT setting

(embiggenable) • iPhone / PORTRAIT setting

IN THE LAST ENTRY REFERENCE WAS MADE TO SUSAN SONTAG'S declaration, re: art criticism. That critics should "show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."

Consider one such effort-from Sally Eauclaire in her book, the new color photography-to follow that directive:

"Jenshel's works demonstrate photography's potential in the romantic, picturesque mode. The formal play is relaxed. The forms unfold gradually but ineluctably, while colors shift into delicately nuanced and often improbable variations. Such melifluous features prolong the pleasureable act of seeing, caressing imagination while reviving subconscious yearnings for paradisiacal worlds of milk and honey." Len Jenshel

CAVEAT It should be noted that Sally consulted with me-on matters re: photo techniques / mechanics-during the writing of her book. She had little, bordering on none, knowledge about how photographs were made, camera technique / printing materials and technique, et al. Needless to write, that upon receiving an advance copy of the book, I was delighted to find my name in the Acknowledgements on the very first page in the book. END OF CAVEAT

The above excerpt-which I really like-from the book is representative of most of Eauclaire's critiques in her book, all of which are mercifully free of photo-world jargonisms. On the other hand, it could be suggested that her writing is chock full of artspeak jargonisms and 2-dollar words. However, whatever anyone might feel about the actual words, the fact of the matter is that she consistently writes about photographs from the perspective of "the pleasureable act of seeing" and a picture's capability of "caressing [the] imagination" - an erotics of art, indeed.

Even when Eauclaire addresses things photographic such as camera formats, she does so with a literary touch:

"Len Jenshel and Mitch Epstein seem to function like 'Aoelian harps' responding when strummed by the exceptional confluences of the worlld's appearance. Using hand-held, 6x9cm cameras, they are able to cruise fluidly in search of their subjects, reacting with greater rapidity than a large format camera would allow...Jenshel and Epstein shoot intuitively and omnivorously, navigating through reams of subject matter with the mobility of fighter planes in search of an appropriate target."

All of the above written, I find it refreshing to read about the medium of photography and its apparatus / photographs written by non-photographers. That is, writers / critics who come from the greater Art World rather than from a specific segment-Photography Division-thereof. It is also why, for the most part, I like showing / exhibiting my pictures to non-photographers cuz in both cases non-photographers are much more apt to see a picture for what it is rather than searching for meaning and/or viewing it through the fog of photo gear / technique.

# 5807-09 / civilized ku • kitchen life ~ I am what I am and that's all that I am - Popeye the Sailor Man

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IT IS WHAT IT IS AND THAT IS ALL THAT IT IS.

In her essay, Against Interpretation, Susan Sontag wrote:

"The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art.... more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."

Sontag suggests that, in the field of art criticism, content, aka: meaning, has taken precedence over form. Roughly translated, my understanding of that assertion is that finding the meaning(s) in a work of art is more important than what the work looks like. And, according to Sontag, that quest for finding meaning, re: the interpretation of work of art, "...is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of 'meanings'." Hence her statement (with which I emphatically agree):

"...interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.....[I]n place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art....to recover our senses. We must learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more."

All of the above written, you might wonder what my point is....well, it's really quite simple. After years of struggling with the "meaning" to be found in my pictures-even to the point of, is there any meaning in my pictures?-I have arrived at a point where I quite emphatically believe that the visual arts, especially the medium of Photography and its apparatus, are meant to be viewed / experienced for their visual quality / characteristics / merits and the feelings-not the thoughts-that they incite. That is to write, the sensory / sensuous pleasure they bring to the act of seeing, by means of the elevation of form over content, aka: meaning.

To that point, consider this...I do not know the context in which Oscar Wilde offered up the following, an opinion which I find particularly pertinent, not only to Sontag's point, but to the manner in which I practice my picture making:

"It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."

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

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

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

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • Canon PowerShot G3

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.

# 5798 / kitchen sink ~ can you see what I see?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

As far as it goes, this statement from Elliot Erwitt is a reasonable idea:

"To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place...You can find pictures anywhere. It's simply a matter of noticing things and organizing them. ~ Elliot Erwitt

AS I READ / UNDERSTAND ERWITT'S STATEMENT it seems that he is suggesting that, when one is out and about (anywhere) with a picture making device, with eyes and mind wide open, one is most likely going to notice things, picture making fodder wise. At which point it becomes a matter of organization, acka: composition, and then releasing the shutter. With the exception of a picture maker in pursuit of a very specific picture making objective-say, a white fire hydrant illuminated by the late day sun-that is a reasonable description of how many picture makers might work.

That written, the manner in which I work differs in one important aspect...I do not notice "things", rather, I notice "organization". That is, my eye and sensibilities are first pricked by arrangements (the organization) of things."Things" being best described as the relationships of line, shape, space, color, light and shadow, patterns, texture of a select segement of the real world independent of what might be perceived as the referent, aka: subject, of my picture.

In the case of today's picture, the select segment of the real world was that of my kitchen sink. What first pricked by eye and sensibilities was the strikingly intense-especially when viewed against the grey of the sink-color and texture of the bacon and noodle, followed immediately by their spacial and linear relationship to each other and the drop of water, the spot of warm directional sunlight and the repeating pattern, top to bottom, of arching bands of light and dark. All of this "noticing" happened within the span of 2-3 seconds.

However, here's the thing, while I can sit here now and write about what I saw, the fact of the matter is that I did not consciously think about those things, aka: the visual elements, at the moment of seeing them and then making the picture. The only way I can describe it is that I "felt" it. And, most likely, if I had thought about it, I would have missed getting the picture cuz that little spot of warm directional sunlight was gone in a flash.

In any event, some might view today's picture as a picture of a piece of bacon and noddle in a sink. But, of course, I saw and pictured much more than just that.

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

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

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

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.

# 5788-89 / civilized ku (landscape-ish)•people (me) ~ my lack of education hasn't hurt me none

fisheye selfie / Japan ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

fisheye selfie / Japan ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

CLIMBING INTO THE WAY-BACK MACHINE, THAT'S A picture of me, the year is 1968 / the location a camera shop in Japan, making a selfie with the use of a fisheye lens. Seems appropriate to post that picture as an intro to fulfilling my promise to tell the story of how I became a photo journalist within 6 months of picking up a camera for the very first time....

.... background: in 1966 I was drafted into the US Army* where, as luck and the spin of the wheel would have it, I was trained as a supply clerk. After training I was sent to Japan begin my tour of duty. However, upon my arrival in Japan, the Army noticed I had real-life experience with drafting, so, they ditched the supply clerk thing and made me a drafstman (making charts and graphs). I was assigned to a command headquarter where I toiled away making charts and graphs in air-conditioned comfort.

In any event, there I was, halfway around the planet, without a picture making device. But, lo and behold, I was in the land of big camera store in the sky, soooo, I purchased a camera-a Petri fixed-lens rangefinder-and began making, tourist wise, pictures. Soon after getting the camera, I discovered that the base rec center had a fully equipped (BW film and print, color slide processing) darkroom facility. Again, as luck (fate?) would have it, within a few weeks of getting a camera, I was processing film (spooling it on reels) and making prints, none of which seemed much like rocket science to me.

A few months later, I learned of a US Army photo contest. A contest which started at the local base level and progressed through several stages, ending at the final stage, the world wide level. A picture had to win (top 3) at each level to keep advancing in the contest. I entered 3 slides in 3 different catagories. All 3 took 1st place in each catagory and advanced to the Western Pacfic level of the contest where, again, they finished in the top 3-2 1sts, 1 HM-for each catagory and it was on to the All-Pacific / Asia level. 2 of the 3 pictures were awarded 2nd HM which was not enough to advance to the next level.

Needles to write, I was impressed with myself and, as I discovered, so was my company commander + base commander (a general) as well as the US Army Theater commanding general. The net result of that attention was a ceremony with the Theater commanding general (a 3-star) where I was awarded a certificate and a slew of US Saving Bonds. It should go without writing, but nevertheless, I was beginning to think this picture making thing was fun.

Fun aside, it was back to work as a drafstman until, a few weeks later, the base photographer was rotated back to the States and, as once again luck and the spin of the wheel would have it, the base Information Offce, just down the hall from my office, was left without a replacement. It took me all of a minute to raise my hand, metaphorically writing, and selflessly volunteer to fill the position.

It took the IO office hierarchy about 2 minutes, based upon my photo contest success, to say, "You're hired." (albeit in military speak). I was handed a 4x5 Speed Graphic (following in the footprints of Weegee) with a bunch of 4x5 film holders and put to work making pictures of army life / events, to include photo essays for the command newspaper, some of which were picked up by Stars and Stripes.**

And so it began, a career and a life in photography.

If there is a point to be made in this telling, it is that, as hindsight would have it, I can write (without a doubt), that I owe my picture making success to the fact that I started making pictures without a single bit of instruction / training / education (not then, not ever). I just started making pictures without knowing the "rules" (ignorance is bliss) or, for that matter, what was considered to be a good picture. Rather, I just made pictures which were the result of how I see the world. An M.O. which has served me well both in my commercial and fine-art picture making endeavors.

* I had recently dropped out of college cuz I had no idea whatsoever, re: what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

** Stars and Stripes is a daily American military newspaper reporting on matters concerning the members of the United States Armed Forces and their communities, with an emphasis on those serving outside the United States.