# 6023-24 / around the house•landscape (ku) ~ OT

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

SOME THINGS ARE HARD TO EXPLAIN. LIKE, SAY, WHO thinks paying $9,295US for a Leica SL2 with 24-70mm f2.8 lens make any sense at all? On the other hand, why do I have 4 bottles of whiskey that together have a retail price of $2,629US?

That written, one of the bourbons, the Van WInkle 12 Year Old, actually has a retail price of $80US. Although, good luck trying to find a bottle at that price cuz, currently, the least expensive bottle I can find is priced at $1,499US. Which, makes it rather amazing that a few years back I acquired 2 bottles for which I paid retail (don’t ask). And, I could have included in the picture my bottle of nearly empty-2 pours left-20 Year Old Van Winkle which has a current price of $4,500. FYI, for which I paid $200US (retail) about 8 years ago cuz I got the bottle as a favor from my US Congressman who got the bottle from a US Congressman from Kentucky.

The other high-priced whiskey in the bunch is the bottle of Bob Dylan’s limited release Bootleg Series II-15 Year Old bourbon finished in Jamaican pot still rum casks. Bottled at cask strength with a proof of 104.6-the white bottle with one of Dylan’s paintings, Sunset, Monument Valley, on it. Current retail, $550-650US. I paid retail but here’s the crazy thing - the Bootleg Series I is sold out but, on the secondary market, it sells for $1,200-1,400US. So, to drink or not to drink? That is the question.

Next in line, descending price wise, is Bob Dylan’s Heaven’s Door 10 Year Old bourbon finished in Redbreast single pot still whiskey casks ( before the casks held Redbreast ‘s single pot Irish whiskey, the casks held Spanish sherry). It’s a limited release bourbon that currently sells for $120-280US.

Last, but not least, is the Takamine 8 Year Old Japanese Whiskey which sells for a modest $100US. The unusual thing about this whiskey is that it does not use the standard mash process-the mixture of grain, water, and yeast that is initially fermented to produce alcohol. Instead, it carefully cultivates koji-Japan’s national mold (used in the making of in sake, soy sauce, and miso)-on barley grain to make amylase enzymes to convert starch into sugar. In layman’s terms, it amplifies fermentation. That written, Takamine is an amazingly good whiskey which can, iMo, hang in there with the big boys.

In any event, the moral of the story is that, with the expenditure of $9,295, you get something that can last a lifetime. On the other hand, $2,629US gets you, if you acquire the whiskey to drink (which I do), the fleeting pleasure of a good drink and a bunch of empty bottles to remind you of that pleasure. Although, an empty bottle of 20 Year Old Van Winkle-with the cork and red velvet pouch-is worth about $300-400US on ebay.

# 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.

# 6003-05 / around the house ~ casting about

ON MY LAST ENTRY THOMAS RINK WROTE A COMMENT IN WHICH he describes a picture making project he is working on. A project that bears a working premise that is somewhat similar to the project I wish to undertake.

“I'm currently pursueing a similar project, for about a year now. It's "about" a place where I've grown up….[T]he photographs are not about particular subject matter….but what I try to achieve is to "tell the story" what the place means to me, i.e. how I see it….[I] employ something like a "scatter gun" approach….I'll photograph anything that arouses my interest…”

Thomas’ picture making approach to his project is pretty close to how I will pursue my project. For that matter, his M.O. mirrors my M.O. in today’s making of the 4 pictures in this entry.

# 5998-6002 / around the house•(civilized) landscape ~ going fishing

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Pano Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Pano Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Portrait Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Portrait Mode

(emiggenable) ~ iPhone Portrait Mode

OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS I HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT I want to explore the possibility of a new way of picture making. Specifically, to create a new, themed body of work that is different from those bodies of work that have emerged from my discursively promiscuous manner of making pictures.

The big question, re: that desire, is, different in what way? Other than the fact that I would like to create pictures that represent something about the place where I live-in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, aka the Adirondack Park-is a new approach about subject matter? technique? a combination of subject matter and technique together? In any case, in thinking about this, I find that I keep bumping with into the walls of the box into which I have locked myself, picture making wise.

Re: the problem with subject matter - simply written, in my pursuit of making pictures, fine-art wise, I have rarely focused on specific referents. That written, my eye and sensibilities have been pricked by repetitive references-my kitchen sink as one example (of many)-but, not because I seek out those specific referents. Rather, what pricks my eye and sensibilities are sections of the real world which evidence potential as photographs which create interesting visual form.

Consequently, I have a problem with pursuing a specific referent cuz of my fear that placing my emphasis on chasing a specific referent will lead to the loss of my feel for seeing and picturing form.

Re: technique - I have no interest in making any kind of pictures other than straight pictures. I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than to add any thing to my pictures that I consider to be effects or cheap tricks. However, that written…the medium of photography and its apparatus does have a handful of native picture making mechanics with which I have always had an interest.

There is one mechanics in particular that I have tinkered with over the years-that of Depth-Of-Field, aka DOF. My “tinkering” has run the gamut of trying to achieve, in some cases, maximum DOF, or, in other cases, minimal DOF. It all depended-and still does-on what i was intending to achieve, picture making wise.

Virtually all of my discursive promiscuity pictures depend upon maximum DOF to elucidate the form I create. I want the lines, shapes, tones, colors, texture, et al in my pictures to be clearly delineated across the 2D plain of my pictures. However, it has come to my attention in experimenting with the iPhone full-frame format-using the Portrait Mode-that a bit of limited DOF can still accomplish my picture making intentions, form wise.

Literal referent wise, I have always liked limited DOF for its ability to lend a bit of “mystery” to a picture. And, I will readily admit, the contrarian in me wise, that I like it even more considering the current picture making obsession with sharpness and definition to the eye-searing max.

In any event, wherever all of this picture making casting about might end up, I think it will include a bit of limited DOF. And, thank you, thank you to the iPhone for giving me the capability of fine tuning the apparent DOF after the picture making fact.

# 5995-97 / around the house (life without color)•kitchen sink ~ therefore I see

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

STILL MESSIN’ AROUND WITH BW CONVERSION ON SOME OF my pictures. Some of which are converting quite well, by which I mean that they “work” as very good (iMo) photographs. That written, as much as I am pleased with the converted results, the idea of making in-camera monochrome pictures, that is, seeing in monochrome, is, for me, a non-starter.

The primary reason for that consideration is the fact that, in the digital darkroom, the control one can access in the color>bw conversion process is quite formitable-excluding cheesy canned “looks”-especially the capability to accentuate / de-centuate individual colors during the conversion. A capability which mirrors the use of making pictures with bw film using color filters to achieve the same effect. The significant analog/digital difference being that, shooting with film, the use of only 1 filter is possible, whereas in the digital darkroom, one can use as many “filters” during the conversion process as one wants on a single image file.

The other significant reason I do not want to learn to see in monochrome is the fact that I see in color. That is, from an art-making POV, I see color as an individual and integral visual component of the form I wish to create on the 2D plain of a print. From a real-world descriptive POV, the world is full of color. Therefore, picture making wise, I see in color.

All of that written, I do enjoy the visual experience of viewing a rich, well made monochrome print. So, I will be converting to monochrome and printing some of my pictures for display on the soon-to-be constructed, free-standing, 2-sided gallery wall (in my house).

# 5991-94 / life without color ~ it's a whole other thing

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

YESTERDAY, AS I WAS PERUSING A BOOK OF PICTURES MADE BY John Szarkowski-aptly titled, John Szarkowski ~ Photographs-I was struck by the manner in which Szarkowski’s pictures exhibited a rather exqisuite sense of form. A quality which I have rarely felt when viewing bw pictures.

However, that written, I must admit that I have had Szarkowski’s book for 10 years or more, viewed it a number of times since acquiring it and, truth be told, I was not very aware of the sense of form that seems so obvious to me now. I attribute that fact to the other fact, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, which is that I have always liked them cuz they are “quiet”, exquisitely rendered observations of ordinary life. Which is another way of writing that I was seduced and side-tracked by the referents in his pictures.

Shame on me.

In any event, I got to wonderin’ if some of my pictures, made with much awareness of color as an element of the form that I seek to create, could “work” in bw. So, I set about selecting a few pictures and converted them to bw. I even made a couple of large-ish prints-16”x16” / 16”x21”-in order to see how they looked off-screen.

When all was said and done, my conclusion was that some of my pictures “work,” as bw pictures some don’t. I also came to the conclusion that in some pictures, inasmuch as most bw pictures are “abstract” pictures, form is sometimes very apparent due to the fact that a viewer is not”distracted” by color. Lines, shapes, tones and the like seem to assume a very definitive and obvious visual identity as such.

The unexpected result of this monkeyin’ around is that one can, with the use of a high quality inkjet printer with multiple black inks, make some damn nice bw prints. So, I will be making some bw prints for display on the walls of my house. A practice that I have not engaged in for many decades.

In any event, the idea of comparing a color original to its “converted” bw cousin is a fools errand. Each manner of expression has its own visual signature which incites in a viewer a different visual experience.

FYI, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, his images meet my expectations, re: for considering a picture to be a very good picture (dare I write, a Fine Art picture):

“…an image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane 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 manner.” ~ Sally Eauclaire

Or, as I have often written, a picture which illustrates and illuminates.

# 5989-90 / hockey ~ I'll try anything once.

downtown Albany, NY ~ (embiggenable)

Nice helmets ~ (embiggenable)

DROVE TO ALBANY (NY) YESTERDAY TO ATTEND A NCAA D1 REGIONAL HOCKEY GAME. Notre Dame v. North Dakota. A good, closely played game won by Notre Dame 2-1 in OT.

The question of the day was, Sports action photography with an iPhone? The answer: Sure. why not?

FYI, every time I see the Notre Dame glittering, shiny hockey helmets (hand painted before every game), they always strike me as rather weird. But, if the ND football team can do it, why not the ND hockey team?