# 5928-39 / kitchen sink • civilized ku ~ yakkity yak

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

HAVE NOT POSTED IN A WHILE FOR A COUPLE OF reasons. Even though I have been making quite a few pictures over the last week or so. I have not had any significant thoughts / ideas, re: the medium and its apparatus, during that time. Since I like to include something about the medium and its apparatus along with my pictures, I just have not had the inclination to post an entry.

One of the things that can incite me to post is convoluted / loopy posts found on the interweb. But even that fodder for posting an entry has gone dry inasmuch as there is a lot of sameo-sameo out there. I mean, how many times can one comment on the fact that a certain gearhead illustrates, on a daily basis, that picture makers who are obessed with gear are intrinsically incapable of making a picture worth viewing? And, who really gives a crap about ice dams on pool shed?

In all fairness, in my case, how many times can I write about how much I appreciate making (and viewing) straight pictures or the idea of form as expressed in my pictures? Hell, even I am getting tired of it - that is, tired of writing about it but not about making pictures wherein form is important?

# 5925-27 / around the house • still life ~ the wife thinks we have too much stuff

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

BEEN GETTING TOGETHER FEW CANDIDATES FOR SUBMISSION to Mike Johnston’s “Objects” Baker’s Dozen. My selections all fall under the heading of “little things”, of which there must be nearly 100 of them spread out-on display, stored in boxes and cupboards-around my house.

There is no overarching thematic imperative to my procurement activities other I like little things. Some of the objects have been acquired during my wife and I near-and-far travels. Those objects tend to be representative of the place in which they were acquired. So, in some cases, the objects have embedded memories of our travels together.

I any event, I have so many little thing objects that I have started a still life body of work-cheerleader with rooster and nativity set-of random groupings of little things….

….which brings this entry back the to “Object” Baker’s Dozen. Mike Johnston has posted a few pictures of submissions. They represent pictures which could be labeled as documents which depict the visual characteristics of objects but nothing more. They have no value as photographs other than as documentation. That written Johnston posted them for reason’s other than their merit as interesting photographs.

So, when I was looking for a picture or two for submission, I was looking for candidates that went beyond mere documentation. I found a few that I thought met that criteria-USA rooster with Coca Cola things-but it occurred to me that I should make a picture for submission. So I did-Minox Leica with dried rose and mini Tabasco bottle.

I believe that these pictures evoke something beyond mere documentation. That written, it is quite possible that they do so only for me.

# 5923-24 / around the house ~ simple is as simple does

(embiggenable) ~ straight out of the iPhone with a little fine tuning

(embiggenable) ~ straight out of the iPhone with a lot of fine tuning cuz the iPhone’s AI wants every picture to be like a bright sunny day

AN ADDENDUM OF SORTS TO YESTERDAY’S ENTRY: re: not thinking while making a picture. One of the ways in which I do not think when making a picture is linked to the gear I use. From that standpoint, this entry also derives its subject matter form the T.O.P. entry about “simple” cameras.

One of the standard pieces of advice for those picture makers seeking to find their picture making vision is the one camera-one lens-one year idea. The point of that exercise is to minimize one’s involvement with the gear so that the focus can be on seeing. In short, set it, forget it, then start making pictures. Although the idea that, if you find your vision using that methodology, you can then start changing lenses or bodies is ludicrous. iMo, what should be done at that point is to duct tape the lens to the body and keep making pictures.

In any event, every digital camera I have ever owned was a simple camera inasmuch as, within 30 minutes-maybe a little more, maybe a little less-of getting my hands on a new camera (always from the same camera maker) I: 1.) set the shooting mode to MANUAL, 2.) designate 2 dials/wheels, 1 ea. for shutter speed and aperture, 3.) set the focus / metering settings to the center of the viewfinder / screen, 4.) set the rendering intent to NEUTRAL, 5.) engage the IS, and, 6.) make sure I have easy access to the ISO menu. In essence I have made my camera as simple to operate as my first late-60s Nikon F. And, at this point what I am looking to achieve with my set up is to end up with a rich image file, full of useful information which can be fine-tuned to any visual state I wish to achieve.

This set up has served me well during my “real” camera days. Although, in some extreme high dynamic range lighting conditions, it required a bracketed frame or 2 to blend either highlight or shadow detail-at times, both-into the master file to achieve my desired result. Note that virtually all of the “work” to achieve my desired result came after making the image file. Nothing got in the way of seeing. Also note that, by creating a rich / “straight” image file, all of how the final image will look is up to me, not the machine or the AI software programers.

Which brings me to the iPhone…but that’s for another entry.

# 5920-22 / landscape ~ the observing mind v. the thinking mind

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

IN MY LAST ENTRY I USED THE PHRASE, THE “challenge” of documenting the form. I employed the scare quotes to imply that my use of the word challenge should considered with a high degree of skepticism or doubt. That’s cuz seeing and picturing form is, for me, about as challenging as falling off a log inasmuch as seeing form is how I see.

I could not turn off seeing form even if I wanted to do so. Even though, at times, it seems like a curse, I realize that if I were to turn it off, I would not have had a career as a commercial photographer along with sub-careers in graphic design, art direction and as a creative director. Throw in to the mix my pursuit of fine art picture making and I can write that I would not have known what to do with my life.

In any event, back to picture making, re: the word challenge. I live in a forest preserve / state park to which thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of landscape / natural world picture makers flock like bees to honey, flies to sh*t, or any other metaphor one might like to use. Add Fall foliage to the landscape and the influx of picture makers takes on the aspect of a Pavlovian stampede. Be that as it may, you can bet your bottom dollar that saturation-slider-to-the-max, rule of thirds and other bogus advice about picture making is the order of the day.*

I mention the following cuz I find myself with a real picture making challenge when I come upon a wide-open landscape. The challenge? It’s as if my form-seeing visual apparatus has, just like Elvis, left the building. I don’t see it and I don’t feel it. It is, to put it mildly, very disconcerting. It is almost as if I am afraid to make a picture for fear that it will…pause for a gasp and shutter…look like a picture made by the stampeding masses.

I would consider counseling to get over my fear except for the fact that, if I get over my fear, I would probably start making pictures that look like, well, I don’t want them to look like. I have given thought to bringing along a flask of bourbon or scotch to drink in order to overcome my inhibitions, but the outcome would probably be no better than the counseling outcome and that would just be a waste of some good bourbon or scotch.

But seriously folks, the root picture making problem for me in such circumstances-to include making a picture of a referent I actually care about-is that, if I don’t see “it“ then I can’t feel “it”, and then I have to think about “it”. And, inasmuch as I have studiously, throughout my entire picture making life, avoided thinking about anything when making a picture, the very thought of thinking would just about end it for me.

In a nutshell, what I am writing about here is the difference between the observing mind-which just watches and is simply aware-and the thinking mind which judges, analyzes, reasons, and attempts to make sense out of things. And, my thinking mind tells me that, in pursuit of working in a visual medium, it makes sense to be an observer rather than a thinker.

*I have no problem with this kind of picture making. It’s just not my thing. If it floats your boat, have at it.

PS I have managed over the years to make some pictures of the landscape which avoid the genre’s typical cliches. So far, it has not killed me.

# 5917-19 / kitchen life • little things ~ it is not what you see, it is how you see it

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? …if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.” – Robert Adams

“The everyday, or the commonplace, is the most basic and the richest artistic category. Although it seems familiar, it is always surprising and new. But at the same time, there is an openness that permits people to recognize what is there in the picture, because they have already seen something like it somewhere. So the everyday is a space in which meanings accumulate, but it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable.” Jeff Wall

I have always thought that the best pictures are those that look like the picture maker saw something and then made a picture of what he/she saw with the intent of showing us what he/she saw. No flashy technique or slathering of art sauce in either the the making of or the post processing thereof cuz the picture maker is confident enough, re: his/her vision, to leave well enough alone. Consequently, I am very comfortable with Adams’ proscription other than…

….his idea that “beauty is commonplace”.

My feelings about the commonplace is much more aligned with Jeff Wall’s idea that; a) the commonplace, is the most basic and the richest artistic category, and b) it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable.

In my pursuit of making-the act of pictorial realization-objects, aka: photos in one form of print or another, that fall into the realm of the pleasurable, aka: interesting to look at / view, I am drawn to the commonplace for its wealth of picture making possibilities. I am drawn to it, not because the commonplace is intrinsically beautiful-quite the contrary, it is most often chaotic and unremarkable in and of itself-but rather for “challenge” of documenting the form, without any sublimation of the literal referent’s surface detail, that underlies the apparent chaos.

To be certain, I am not in the business of making pictures which suggest that beauty is commonplace. On the other hand, what my pictures might suggest (for those looking for suggestions) is that the fodder for making a beautiful object, a photo print in and of itself independent of what is litteraly depicted, is everywhere to be seen in the everyday / commonplace world around us.

# 5914-16 / around the house • landscape • places ~ craft vs technique...

all pictures made within the last 24 hours

(embiggenable)

1932 Olympic Arena* / Ice Rink ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

…OR IS IT CRAFT + TECHNIQUE?

My first thought is that the idea of craft-a skill of making things by hand-has little to do with the practice of making pictures. Exception - making prints by some archaic print making process. If one were to press the subject one could venture the opinion that one uses one’s hands in the making of prints. But, I would counter that with the fact that the use of hands in making pictures is limited that of pressing buttons or keys on a keyboard.

That written, the use of one’s hands/fingers on buttons or keyboards is guided by the use of one’s brain. In the best of cases, the use of one’s brain is engaged in the pursuit of employing the techniques needed to express one’s vision. Which, might lead one to be considered to be a very good technician (a person skilled in the technique of an art or craft) as opposed to a very good craftsperson, re: in the making of pictures.

In any event, I do not give a damn one way or the other, re: what label-craftsman or technician-is slapped on me and my picture making as long as the label includes the descriptor picture maker.

All of the above written, my hands and/or fingers are guided by my brain during the picture making process-most notably during image file processing-in pursuit of my desire / intent to create a printed pictures which are an accurate representation of whatever was in front of my eyes and my camera. A picture making pursuit most often labeled as straight photography.

That is why, on the last page of my photo books or at the end of an Artist Statement for an exhibit, I always include this disclaimer:

No filters or special effects were employed in the making of these pictures. All pictures were made with a (device name here). The resulting image files were processed in an image processing software for minor color balance, contrast, brightness, highlight and shadow adjustments / corrections. All adjustments / corrections were performed in order to insure that the finished prints are an accurate representation-as much as the tools of the medium allow-of that which was in front of my eyes and camera.

*the ‘32 ice rink is just down the hall from the ‘80 Olympic Arena, aka: the MIracle On Ice Arena.

# 5911-12 / around the house • kitchen life ~ it's not important for them to understand, it's only important for me to understand*

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall. ~ Paul Strand

I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT THAT MY PICTURES HAVE ANY IMPORTANCE. A statement to which many might respond, “That’s a good thing cuz your pictures are not important at all.”

Strand’s statement resonates with me. Although, perhaps not in the way Strand intended for this statement to be understood. Not knowing the context in which the statement was made, I am uncertain about his use of the word importance inasmuch as I am uncertain about the manner in which he meant it to be understood…did Strand mean his real answer be understood in the context of the academic art world? the photography world? the culture at large? historically? his reputation as an artist?

My (very educated) guess would be that his statement was instigated by a question about his pioneering activities, as evidenced by his pictures on the walls of many galleries and art institutions, in the movement to shift from the soft-focus Pictorialist aesthetic to the straight approach and graphic power of an emerging modernism. Considered in that context, his was work quite important.

That written, the idea that the answer is on the wall resonates with me in the context of my being asked, “What are your pictures about?” Which, btw, I consider to be fair question. My true answer to that question should be, “The answer is on the wall.” However, I just can not go there cuz to do so I am certain that I would be perceived as an arrogant butthead. So, my response is to mutter a few words about content + form and then talk about the weather.

*an adaptation of a Gen. George Patton quote from the movie, Patton. Patton was a forcefull speaker and given to uttering some outlandish and vulgar words. When told by an aid that “Sometimes the men don’t know when you’re acting.” Patton response was, “it’s not important for them to know. It’s only important for me to know.”