# 5965-74 / detritus & undergrowth ~ only time will tell

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ONE WAY TO GET AN IDEA ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE fine art (or not) is to submit a representative selection of your work (from body of work) to an art gallery in response to a request for submissions for consideration for a solo exhibition.

The pictures in this entry are pictures that I submitted this week to an art gallery in response to a request for work for consideration for a solo exhibition. The title of the body of work is detritus & undergrowth. Now I wait for a month to find out if I make the cut.

FYI, the body of work has been created , with only a casual sense of dedication to making such pictures, over the past 20 years. FYI, my son (the Cinemascapist) referred to the making of the pictures as my Jackson Pollack period.

In any event, while we are on the topic of fine art, I thought I would pass along my thoughts (a Baker’s Dozen of them) for your consideration, re: whether you are capable of making fine art photographs. To wit, you might not be on course for making fine art photographs if…

you think that circle of confusion is feeling you get when you view William Eggleston’s photographs

you think that a focus ring is how a focus group sits

you think that a proof print is what you show the doorman at a discotheque

you think that a darkroom is a room in your house were you draw the shades and take a nap

you think that an enlarger is a device you buy at a sex shop and use in a dark room

you think that museum glass is only found in the doors and windows of a museum

you think that the fixer is a mean-looking mob hitman

you think that fine art is what you say when Art asks you how you’re doing

you think that contact sheets is what you do when you get in bed

you get itchy fingers every time a new camera is introduced cuz…

you still can’t shake the idea that a “better” camera will make you a better picture maker

you don’t have a photo quality printer but you do have 3 or more lens for your camera

you have uttered the word microcontrast more than once in your life

# 5959-5964 / around the house • landscape ~ on the subject of subject matter

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I HAVE A THEORY, THAT I BELIEVE IS BORN OUT BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, that it is nigh unto impossible to make a photograph, one that is considered to be fine art, of a subject that is considered to be one of conventional beauty.

If I had to assemble a body of work (of my pictures) wherein the subjects are considered to be representative of conventional beauty, I would have no trouble doing so. And, I am certain that that body of work would be well received in a camera club presentation and garner plenty of likes on social media sites. I can also write with the same degree of certainty that that body of work, or any picture therein, would never be considered for display in a fine art gallery.

The reason I believe the aforementioned to be true is relatively simple….the Fine Art World believes, iMo rightfully so, that a piece of art-please remember that we are considering photographic prints-in which the Content (meaning) is unambiguously obvious has little capacity for stimulating the intellect. In addition, such a picture incites little curiosity regarding why the picture maker made the photograph cuz, duh, the subject matter makes unambiguously obvious the answer to that question.

Whereas, most fine art art begs the questions, why did the maker create this object (please remember, a photographic print is an physical object in and of itself), and, what is the maker trying to tell me, the viewer?

The answer to those questions (and/or any number of other questions that might arise from the viewing of a photographic print) need not be akin to a PHD dissertation on art theory or the meaning of life. In fact, iMo, the answers are best when they are short and sweet, leaving the viewer to fill in any of the blanks. That’s cuz photography is a visual medium and in many cases too many words spoil the broth.

In any event, all of the above written, whatever the answers, the important thing is that the questions are asked and curiosity is aroused.

# 5958 / kitchen life ~ navigable space and recognizable subject matter

(embiggenable)

I HAVE RECOVERED FROM MY PISSED OFF AT Squarespace mood swing. So, I am moving on with my greatest challenge to making fine art photographs idea.

Simply written, it is my belief that the medium of photography and its apparatus, when practiced within the “confines” of the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts, present some significant barriers to the creation of photographs that would fall into the world of fine art.

To clarify:

Re: “the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts” - aka: the medium’s intrinsic / ingrained relationship with and to the real. That is, it’s capability of reproducing an accurate and faithful illustration of that at which the picture maker points his/her picture making instrument.

Re: “fine art” - is created and appreciated solely for its aesthetic quality and capacity to stimulate the intellect, aka: art for art’s sake, subject matter be damned. “decorative art”, photography wise, is all about subject matter, aka: the referent, principles of art be damned.

Working within “the ‘confines’ of the medium’s most unique characteristic” most often results in the making of straight photographs. That is, photographs made with the intent of creating an accurate representation-as much as the medium allows-of that at which the picture maker pointed his/her picture making instrument. No art sauce, aka: bullying of the subject matter into exaggerated angles and supersaturated colors, applied during or after the picture making moment.

Working thus presents a number of problems for most “serious” amateur picture makers (those who expend a fair amount of time, money and effort in making pictures) inasmuch as they have been told / taught that the sine non qua of picture making is the subject. The result of that prescriptive is that most serious picture makers set out to find and picture subjects that they are told are suitable-people, places, things representative of “conventional” beauty-for good picture making.

Hence the emergence of too-numerous-to-mention picture making cliches. And, since most “serious” picture makers realize-consciously or otherwise-that they are making pictures that are essentially the same as other “serious” picture makers are making-pick a genre, any genre-the game is on to employ techniques and effects in their picture making in order to stand out from the crowd. Goodbye, straight photography. Hello, decorative photography.

To be certain, most of these “serious” amateurs are making art. However, according to the dictates of the Fine Art World, it is not art that that world considers to be serious art. Setting aside that world’s distain for “artistic” cheap tricks, aka: art sauce, it is also worth considering their embrace of the concept of art fart about art inasmuch as that idea does not give a rat’s ass-even if it’s a picture of a rat’s ass-about the idea of subject matter.

No, iTo, the only things the Fine Art crowd consider worthy considering about a work of art are Content (aka: meaning) and Form. And they have elevated the idea of Concept (meaning) to a fetish, the sine non quo of their art world.

All of that written, one might think that I have no affinity for either art world. While it would be accurate to think that I have little interest in decorative art photography cuz it is just not my thing. On the other hand, much fine art photography is my thing, however…I do subscribe to the tenets of a subset of that world.

The vernacular of that subset does include the idea of art about art but not to the exclusion of subject matter, but not subject matter as the decorative art world considers it. Rather, it is about subject matter and its visual essence as indivisible. Consider this:

Unlike those contemporary artists and critics who denigrate subject matter as an adulteration of the art about art imperative, the most resourceful photographic formalists regard the complexion of the given environment as potentially articulate material…These formalists perceive real objects and interesting spaces as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation….Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is coopted for its visual possibilities, yet delineated with the utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plain on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter. ~ Sally Eauclaire / Color Photographic Formalism

Making pictures which meet the criteria expressed by Eauclaire’s articulate and insightful photographic formalist viewpoint is what I do. And, iMo, her description of Photographic Formalism could be applied to nearly every picture maker’s work that is regarded by the FIne Art World as fine art photography.

All of the above written, I am more than willing to admit that there quite a number of picture makers who do not give a hoot or a holler about whether their work is viewed as fine art or decorative art. On the other hand, many of those same picture makers do harbor a desire to make pictures which transcend the merely decorative, pretty picture modality. Many have tried the How To Master -(insert genre here)- book or workshop route only to find that those materials and prescriptives offer nothing more than gussied up reiterations of glib, decorative art picture making formulas.

In the quest for inspiration, I would suggest a few things….read The Art Spirit (published 1923) by Robert Henri (easily and inexpensively found at many sources), read the first 2 chapter intros-The Problematic Presedents / Color Photographic Formalism in Sally Eauclaire’s The New Color Photography (long out of print but copies can be found at a reasonable cost). And, as a general rule, avoid any book / workshop that promises to make you a “Master” of anything.

Neither book has any “how-to” gibberish. Eauclaire’s book spends deal of effort describing what good photographic art looks and feels like. Henri’s book spends an equal effort describing the mindset. aka: spirit, one might develop and foster in the cause of making good art.

# 5948-56 / kitchen life (in the morning) ~ starting the day

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Anything that excites me for any reason, I will photograph; not searching for unusual subject matter, but making the commonplace unusual.“ ~ Edward Weston

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. ~ Ansel Adams

ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH A DISCURSIVE PROMISCUITY (albeit a “good” issue iMo) manner of making pictures, AKA: making a lot of pictures of any thing and/or every thing, is that, on occasion, I have “discovered” a body of work (hiding in plain sight) comprised of pictures that were randomly intermingled within my voluminous picture library. I found one such unknown body of work ( approximately 38 pictures)-I have labeled it as morning coffee-a couple days ago.

BACKGROUND (not an Artist Statement): virtually every morning that I am at home, I have a morning routine that begins with sitting at the kitchen island and having my morning coffee, sometimes with a side of a cinnamon sugar donut or a bowl of oatmeal loaded with blueberries. I read the newspaper and check out the NY Times and a couple photo sites on my iPad. During that time I am, on some occasions, “distracted”-that is to write that my eye and sensibilities have been pricked-by the morning light in combination with the “arrangements” on the kitchen sink counter. On those occasions when the combination feels right, I make a picture.

On other occasions when that combination just is not right, I often notice-when getting a coffee refresh-that something interesting is going on in the kitchen sink or on the counter and/or island. Of course, the kitchen sink pictures end up in my kitchen sink body of work where, up ‘til now, they remained hidden and out of sight, morning coffee wise.

One of the things I find interesting and somewhat surprising about finding the morning coffee pictures is how many of them, approximately 20, were made using the full iPhone frame. Conversely, most of the sink / counter pictures were made in the square format. In any case, I feel comfortable with the full-frame pictures inasmuch as I am secure in my ability to see and find interesting form in that format.

The next trick, re: morning coffee, is to come up with an Artist Statement that is, a.) short and sweet, and, b.) makes sense.

#5945-47 / around the house • civilizedku ~ twitchyness

the place to be on a sub-0 degree (F) day ~ (embiggenable)

the red truck ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I find it strangely beautiful that the camera with its inherent clarity of object and detail can produce images that in spite of themselves offer possibilities to be more than they are ... a photograph of nothing very important at all, nothing but an intuition, a response, a twitch from the photographer’s experience.“ - Joel Meyerowitz

# 5943-44 / kitchen life • civilized ku ~ because the individual is different

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner; not for the sake of being different, but ones that are different because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. I realize that we all do express ourselves, but those who express that which is always being done are those whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else. Expression on this basis has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves.“ ~ Harry Callahan

# 5940-42 / around the house • kitchen life ~ there is no OFF button

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“To know ahead of time what you’re looking for means you’re then only photographing your own preconceptions, which is very limiting, and often false.” ~ Dorohea Lange

It’s about reacting to what you see, hopefully without preconception. You can find pictures anywhere. It’s simply a matter of noticing things and organising them.” ~ ELLIOT ERWITT

REACTING TO WHAT YOU SEE WITHOUT PRECONCEPTION as method of making pictures is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, there are, in fact, pictures everywhere. On the other hand, one is apt, like me, to end up with 12,000+ “keepers” (and multiplying every day) in one’s photo library.