# 5909-10 / kitchen life • photos by others ~ hot time in the old town (house) tonight

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

THERE ARE THOSE WHO BELIEVE A PICTURE CAN TELL A STORY. I am not one of those people.

Case in point, the picture of Hugo on his butt during a hockey game. The caption, aka: words, tell us that it is Hugo Hobson, that he is scoring his team’s 2ng goal of the game, and he did so Tuesday in Lake Placid. Without words, all of that information is unknowable just by viewing the picture.

Case in point #2, the picture of stuff on my kitchen island counter with sink counter and window in the background. About the only thing one might deduce from the picture is that I must read some blogs, that the corkscrew implies that I might drink wine, and that light is streaming in the window. What a viewer would never know without words is that I am having coffee and light breakfast fare, waiting for the kitchen to warm up from the fire I have just started (in the fireplace).

I have started a fire cuz it’’s -11F outside and we have been without a furnace for two-and-a-half weeks. A viewer would also not know that I am awaiting the arrival of the heat pump distributor to inspect the installation of our whole-house cooling and heating heat system, and then fire the sucker up so we get some heat.

One other unknowables without words is that the, at times, the wife gets gently annoyed by the fact that I refuse to discard dead flowers-or let her discard them-cuz I like the way they look and I just might make a picture of them.

# 5906-08 / around the house • kitchen sink • landscape ~ as easy as waking up and falling out of bed

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

CREATIVITY and IMAGINATION ARE 2 WORDS /CONCEPTS WHICH ARE bandied about in discussions of the making of pictures. They are often used interchangeably, as in “use your imagination more” and/or “try to be more creative”. Hell, I can not count the times I have heard, re: my pictures, “your choice of subject matter is very creative” or “I would never have imagined that as a subject for picture making”.

Not that I don’t appreciate the comments-cuz I do-but those comments leave me ever so slightly perplexed cuz I do not associate the idea of creativity or imagination with the act of my picture making. Written sImply, when I make a picture I am just picturing what I see and do so in the manner in which I see. Saying that I am being creative or using my imagination while making pictures is like saying that I am being creative and using my imagination when I put put one foot in front of the other while walking down the street.

As a result of how I make pictures, specifically pictures that are intended to be art, I believe that there are 3 very suspicious / questionable bits of picture making-in the pursuit of finding your vision-advice: 1.) find a subject / referent you are very interested in / passionate about and make lots of pictures thereof, and, 2.) be as creative / imaginative as you can be, and, 3.) don’t be afraid to break the rules.

Re: questionable advice #1: following this dictate the chances are very good that, unless you are passionate about a very obscure and/or little known object of affection, you’ll be making pictures of a subject a lot other picture makers are picturing. Re: #2: creativity and imagination pursued for their own sake will head you straight down the road of cliche picture making. Re: #3: forget breaking the rules and concentrate on making your own rules.

iMo, the only advice worth a damn-employed in finding your own unique artistic vision-is to make lots and lots of pictures of any thing and every thing (no thinking allowed) that catches your eye and and pricks your sensibilities, using a single camera, one lens (or 2, a semi-wide and semi tele). Make small (cheap) prints and look at them. Following this activity for, say, 1/2 a year, I would be surprised if ,when you lay out the pictures, you don’t find some that; 1) capture the look and feel of what you saw, and, 2) stick together as a unified body of pictures.

The purpose of this activity is to discover and, hopefully, begin to understand how you actually see the world. That is, not in a “creative” or “imaginative” sense, but, rather, how you literally see the world using your visual apparatus / senses, just like you do when you open your eyes in the morning.

# 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.

# 5901-04 / around the house • kitchen life • kitchen sink ~ easy does it

note from a gallery director to staff ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ON A RECENT POST ON ANOTHER SITE THE IDEA OF EDITING one’s work came up. The general response to the post was that editing one’s own work is hard / difficult work and there were suggestions by commenters, re: how to make editing easier.

In my little corner of the picture making world, editing my work has never been hard or difficult. That is so for a number of reasons. One important reason is the fact that, even though I make a lot of pictures (nearly 13,000 pictures in my “finished” picture folder, all made over the past 20 years), those pictures are the result of making very considered single POV selections for making a picture. I rarely “work” a scene other than an exposure bracketing so in most cases it’s one-and-done. The result? There are not a lot of frames to sort through.

Add to that situation, the fact that I have a very high good picture success rate (feel free to call this a conceit), I do not spend much time having to decide whether a picture is a “keeper” or not. That written, some of my keepers are better than others.

How I determine which pictures are merely good, which are better, or which are best, aka: editing, is based upon the same premise I employ in my picture making…that is, trusting my vision-both literal (what my eyes perceive) and figuratively (perceiving forms that are recognizably derived from real life). Or, to put in in other words, I picture whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities and I determine whether my pictures are good / better / best based upon how they prick my eye and sensibilities.

That is, when a picture hits my eye like a big pizza pie and then shakes my nerves and rattles my brain, it slides into my “best of” folder and usually ends up on a wall (my home, in a galley) or in a photo book.

# 5899-5900 / kitchen life • kitchen sink • around the house ~ imagination deficit disorder?

some pictures on the walls ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

OVER MY YEARS OF INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MEDIUM of photography and its apparatus (more than half a century), I have been confounded by many of the activities that fall under the heading of the word, photography. As a matter of fact, I have always been hesitant to use the word photographer to describe myself, re: my picture making activities. I have always been a picture maker although albeit in my professional life I labeled myself as a commercial photographer, emphasis on the qualifier commercial.

In any event, one of the many continually confounding-it could also be called a depressing disappointment-items that rattles around in my head is the fact of the never-ending adherence to picture making conventions by the picture making throngs. That is, the unimaginative conformation to the “rules” of a given picture making genre.

An example…I once went on a spree of making pictures of flowers with the use of my flatbed scanner. I started posting them on the FLORA forum of a nature photography site. The moderators of that forum went bat-sh*t crazy cuz, you know, what I was doing was (they actually stated this) insulting to “real” flora picture makers. Picture makers who had specialized equipment-lenses, reflectors, scrims, diffusers, lighting (flash), tripods, et al-that they hauled around in their pursuit of a “proper” flora picture. The matter got very heated and the outcome was not in their favor, so they picked up their marbles and left that site to form their own site. You know, what better way is there to protect and define the rules of proper flora picture making than by walling off verboten thought?

That written, it was Brooks Jensen who wrote…

Real photography begins when we let go of what we have been told is a good photograph and start photographing what we see.

…and it was Robert Adams who wrote that we don’t need more of:

the cliché, the ten thousandth camera-club imitation of a picture by Ansel Adams.

So, all of the above written, my question is, why are so many picture makers unable to break out of the box of proscribed / convention-bound picture making?

And, BTW, why is it that so many picture makers don’t make prints / put pictures on their walls? If, indeed, that is true or is that a myth?

# 5897-98 / around the house ~ who cares about the mechanics?

the heat don’t work cuz the vandals took the handle ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

window needs cleaned ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

I AM GIVING THOUGHT TO NO LONGER TAGGING MY pictures with iPhone nomenclature. I started doing so shortly after I began pictures almost exclusively with an iPhone. Doing so was instigated by the desire to be a kinda poke-a-stick-in-the-eye of the idiots who were, and many cases still are, denigrating the iPhone as unsuitable use as a “serious” picture making device.

What has got me to thinking about ending this nomenclature practice is the fact that I have become increasingly sick to death, re: camera fanboys/girls who are forever telling us what a marvelous-the best camera ever made-camera they use…I’m especially addressing-but not exclusively-the Leicophiles-like the guy out there who wrote, “Seeking the wisdom of generations of Leicophiles-out there who think their pictures are something special cuz they use the Leica system. Although, in my experience, all that bragging usually means that the pictures are actually nothing to write home about.

In any event, I have no desire to be considered / viewed as an iPhone fanboy. So, I think the solution is to have a single all pictures made with an iPhone unless otherwise noted statement on my blog and WORK page. That is, unless, of course, Apple decides to underwrite my picture making with a $100K grant.

# 5895-96 / around the house ~ inertia

New Years Day morning ~ on and on it goes (embiggenable) • iPhone

the rooster doesn’t crow at dawn ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

I NEVER MAKE NEW YEARS RESOLUTIONS. IT SEEMED foolhardy that, if there was something that needed resolving, why wait for one specific day to do so.

In any event, I do have some goals as I enter the end of my 75th year on the planet. A few of those involve photography but nothing earth-shattering…maybe starting a new body of work-made with the ultra-wide angle iPhone lens-and updating my existing bodies of work with the possibility of adding of few new pictures to some of them.

The other item on my non-resolution list is to figure out what I am doing on/with this blog. With 1.5K visits / 2K page views a month, it ain’t dead yet but I feel as though I am just making it up as I go along. That written, there is a voice in my head that keeps telling me that I need a more specific focus on the blog. I keep telling the voice to shut up the f**k up but it refuses to accept that directive..

# 5891-94 / the light (civilized ku) ~ a perspective on light

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

AS I WAS RUMMAGING IN MY PICTURE LIBRARY I DISCOVERED that; 1. I have quite a number of pictures which were made due to “the light” and, 2. even though I have made a the light photo book, I have never made a the light gallery for my WORK page.

As I was organizing quite few (40 and more to come) of my the light pictures, it came to my awareness that many of those pictures where made with the 1.5mm (13mm equiv.) on my iPhone or, from the way-back machine, the 12mm lens (24mm equiv.) on my µ4/3 cameras. In the case of the 4 pictures in this entry, they all include doors and the exaggerated perspective of an ultra-wide angle lens. All of which leads me to the question …

….should I pursue the making of a complete body of work titled, a perspective (pun) on light and doors (or some such title)? And, if I were to do so, would it also be pictures that are about photography? That is, pictures which illustrate a specific visual characteristic intrinsic to the tools of the medium (as an example). A characteristic like narrow DOF or, as in this case, exaggerated perspective.

FYI, a thought about my use of “the light”….obviously, for me, “the light” is not the light that so many pictures makers salivate over, late day warm Hudson River School light. Rather, my “the light” is just ordinary, everyday sunlight which, when streaming through an opening-a door, a window, et al-creates a visual element which I use as an piece in the visual jigsaw-puzzle field created by / imposed by my framing. Or, in other words, the pictures I make that are instigated by “the light” are not about or defined by that light.