#6171-74 / common places • common things ~ soft eyes

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

MY FEELINGS, RE: STICKING YOUR NOSE WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG when viewing a photographic print, are well know. ASIDE For those who might not know it, in my fantasy world, all of my photo exhibitions would have crowd-control barriers-stanchion + velvet rope-along the walls where my prints are displayed. The distance of the velvet rope barrier from the wall would be determined by the size of the prints. And, of course, anyone leaning over the rope would receive an invisible ray electric shock. END OF ASIDE

That written, some might wonder why I hold such a strict viewing standard. The answer to that wondering is quite simple, having to do with, iMo, the very important idea-for both picture viewing and picture making-of soft eyes.

ANOTHER ASIDE Soft eyes, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to the art of seeing with the simultaneous, effortless combination of foveal vision-laser like focus on specific detail (a “hard” stare)-and peripheral vision-the taking in of the widest possible span and trying to catch all that is on the edges of this span (eye muscles stay relaxed) FYI, it is believed that peripheral vision is an acquired muscle-memory skill*. END OF ASIDE

So, why do I believe that soft eyes are a very important skill in the making and viewing of photographic prints? Consider this: the making of a photograph is considered to be the “art” of selecting. That is, noticing a piece of the world and isolating it via the imposition of a frame, aka: the edges of a photograph. The astute picture maker makes a decision of what include / exclude in the picture by means of that framing. And, it is the result of this decision which is creates the form-some might call it the design or composition-as perceived in the final print.

It should be needless to write, that the aware picture maker will include in his/her framing only those visual elements-actual things, shapes, lines, tones, colors, et al-that he/she believes (sometimes senses) are important to expressing what what and how they see, aka: their vision. In other words, every visual element within the frame of a picture is an integral component of the total visual statement. You can not have one without the other(s).

iMo, the only manner in which a picture maker can pull off this visual”miracle” (making something out of nothing), is with the art of seeing the world with soft eyes. And, if a viewer of such pictures desires to experience the totality of a picture makers’ vision then he/she must view a print in its totality with the use of soft eyes. And the only way that is possible is to view a print from a distance from which the eye can take in the whole image. Essentially, that means placing your foveal vision on the center of the image and letting your peripheral vision take in the rest.

And, I can write without a single, solitary shred of a doubt, that a viewer can not see the totality of a photograph with his/her nose where it don’t belong.

* when BIll Bradley, one of basketball’s all-time greats, was a young boy he walked down the main street of of his hometown and kept his eyes focused straight ahead and tried to identify objects in the windows of stores he was passing.

# 6166-70 / people . Common places ~ on the road agAin

FYI, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE MY LAPTOP WITH ME, I am creating this entry on my iPad using the Squarespace app. Trying to see if I can go all mobile device and be happy with the results. Even the images files were processed on the iPad (Snapseed).

Best as I can tell, the contrarian in me is instigating me to do this “experiment” just so I am able to demonstrate to the commontaria ignoramicus that it is possible-in fact, if you know what you are doing, deceptively easy-to make good photographs with the simple-ist of gear and processing tools.

Of course, the preceding statement is dependent upon one’s understanding of what constitutes a good photograph. An understanding of “good” which most of the ignoramicus class confuse with things like max DR, max resolution, max color depth, max sensor size, the best glass, et al, as opposed to the tool that produces the best picture making results - the tool that, as Sir Ansel opined, is 12 inches behind the camera. I.E., the brain (+soul/heart) in which resides a picture maker’s vision.

To be certain, I would never suggest that anyone should chuck all the fancy stuff out the car at at 100 mph. However, I might suggest to someone just starting down the picture making trail that, as a variation on the OCOY practice, he/she use a mobile phone based “camera” and a simple mobile device based processing app as their tools for a year cuz…

…if one can not make a good picture with those simple tools, all the of “best” gear and processing tools will not get ya there.

# 6163-65 / commmon place • common things • kitchen sink ~ commentoria ignoramicus

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

AS IS TO BE EXPECTED, RECENT TOP POSTS MENTIONING THE IPHONE, as a picture making device, has instigated the regular chorus of “(merely) adequate” / not adequate / deficient / note-taking only,” et al comments. iMo, these commentoria ignoramicus are completely unqualified to have an opinion worth considering-on the topic of iPhone picture making quality-inasmuch as it seems, by their own admission, that have not used the device enough to discover and understand its capabilities.

In fact, I believe that the real problem is that these know-nothings have little or no idea what makes a good photograph good. They are all hung-up on the technical aspects of photography that can be seen / deciphered on a photographic print, especially those prints made with the use of their beloved camera brand. That fact is what caused Magnum photographer Bruce Davidson to say”

I am not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore, but to people outside the photoclique.”

At exhibitions of my work, I can recognize a know-nothing from a mile away. He/she will be adorned with an “impressive”-looking DSLR, often sporting a large lens. Or, alternately, he/she will be looking at my prints with their nose within 6 inches of the prints. If one or both of these markers is missing, the other give away comes when they approach me and the first thing out of the mouth is, “What camera do you use?”

When mounting a defense for his/her choice and use of a particular picture making device, it is most often suggested-you may have to read between the lines-that he/she is a “perfection-ist”. To which I would respond-but never have because I am such a sensitive and polite kinda guy-”No you’re not. What you are is constipated tight ass and you might be better qualified to pursue, as a hobby, certified chartered accountancy.”

Any doubts about how I feel on the subject?

# 6159-62 / family photos ~ no other picture makers were involved

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Take away this pudding! It has no theme.” ~ Winston Churchill

I SINCERELY HOPE I WAS NOT PERCEIVED AS BEING TOO CRITICAL of Mike Johnston in my last entry. My critique was intended to address the article and its content which, according to Johnston…

“…was two months in the making, and the process is highly collaborative…"Secret Art" went through multiple major edits and innumerable small ones, with input from many departments.”

Knowing that detail, it is no surprise to me that my primary criticism of the piece is that “it had no theme”. That is, for me (and maybe I’m being thick-headed), I had difficulty trying figure out what the article was about cuz it touched on a variety of topics-each topic treated in slap-dash / kiss and a promise fashion-A mish-mash of sorts. And, I keep waiting, to no avail, for the “secret” to be revealed.

That written, there is no question, in my estimation, why the article was a flop for me…apparently, it was created by “committee”. Hell, even Johnston noted (re: committee) , that, “I think you can tell it's me…I'm hoping the humor survived…”

So, the question arises, who “wrote” this article? If the answer is even knowable, that’s where my critique is intended to land.

# 6158- / the real secret art of the family photo ~ a critique

(embiggemable)

(embiggemable)

(embiggemable)

(embiggemable)

FIRST THING FIRST - CONGRATS TO MIKE JOHNSTON for being published as the featured article in the The New Yorker. No mean feat, indeed.

That written, I did not like the article at all. iMo, it fell far sort of the best piece ever written, albeit now quite dated, about the family photo…

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

Re: what (and why) I didn’t like. I’ll begin with the title…

I did not know that the was/is a “secret” about family photos that was crying out to be revealed. And, after reading the article I most certainly did not feel that I was enlightened in any manner about any “secret”. Sorry, but I mean, is it a secret that family photos have been, and are currently being made by the billions? Or, is it a secret that many of those pictures are important to and have personal meaning for the picture maker and those with whom he might share them? I could go on but, simply put, what was the secret?

Item # 2: What photos made by professional photographers on assignment-in this case a specific FSA photographer-have to do with “family photos” is beyond my understanding of the concept of family photos. Ditto, photos made an accomplished FIne Art picture maker in pursuit of creating a body of Fine Art photographs for exhibition and publication.

Item # 3: The idea that “Creating a comprehensive record of a family’s life is inherently challenging…” is, within the boundaries of my understanding of ”family photos”, a rather ridiculous / inflated construct. In my experience, I have never encountered a picture making individual, even those who are “serious” picture makers, who has set out to create a comprehensive record of their family’s life. I can write, without doubt or fear of contradiction, that the overwhelming number of those making pictures of their family are, as Jean Shepherd wrote, just merrily “snapping away” with very little thought, if any, given to creating a comprehensive record for posterity. Why do I think so?…

Item # 4: creating a comprehensive record of a family’s life, if it is to have lasting value, would require a commitment to amass an actual record of that life, aka: making, and keeping safe, prints. A commitment that, while it has not completely disappeared, is sorrily under-utilized. A topic which, BTW, is left unaddressed in the article.

Item # 5: Johnston’s section about collecting is curious inasmuch as he writes about “the high-water mark of portraiture for hire” which I thought was a bit of a switch-a-roo inasmuch as, to my way of thinking, a “family photo” is one-most often a “snapshot”-made by a family member of another family member, to include relatives, friends, and acquaintances. (Perhaps my nit-picking definition of the idea of “family photo” is…well…nit-picking.)

Item # 6: In the same collecting section, Johnston mentions that “some people collect pictures of other peoples’ families” and that “some of the finds are beautiful and unique. (And sometimes weird, hilarious, or surreal.)” I am one of those people who collect pictures of other people who are other than friends and family. And, indeed, I seek out pictures that are occasionally beautiful pictures but the ones I enjoy the most are the weird, hilarious, or surreal pictures. Ones that Shepherd writes “freez[es] forever the plain people of [their] time in all their lumpishness, their humanity, and their universality.

Those pictures that I collect are ones that prick my eye and sensibilities. Pictures that might be weak on the interesting configuration side of things but, on the referent side of things, they are truly full of life. And I think that encapsulates my dislike, or perhaps better stated “disappointment”, in the article. There is too much emphasis on the personal experiences of the writer, slightly academic and historic takes on the subject, all of which is way too “serious” for me considering the topic at hand.

What, for me, is sorrily lacking in the article is the sense of spontaneity, the pure joy of making friends and family pictures, and the ultimate, over time, re-creation of that joy, spontaneity and, to be sure, occasional melancholy when viewing the pictures. I do not want to rain on Johnston’s parade-that’s why I am publishing this here-I’m sorry, but I just do not feel in the article a sense of that spontaneity and joy that the making and viewing of “family photos” (mine and those made by others) brings to me.

# 6155-57 / around the house • common things ~ it should come naturally

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. [...] [when viewing tan “interesting” photograph] we would be uncertain how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer. ~ John Szarkowski

ASIDE : NOW THAT-it is 1 day after my 75th birthday-I AM A DAY OLDER AND MUCH WISER I will return to writing about the idea of creativity. END OF ASIDE

In my last entry, The Eye Traffics in Feelings, it was written that, iMo, a creative photograph is one that excites the eye, not the intellect. Therefore, it seems logical that an explanation / definition of what I think constitutes a “creative photograph” would be in order…

In the photography realm, decorative arts division, a creative photograph most often refers to a picture that most often employs obvious effects, techniques, and “tricks” in order to make a picture “interesting” and appear to be the result of a creative approach to making a picture. In addition, those pictures are invariably representations of what I would label as officially approved photographic referents and they are composed by the rules.

In the other photography realm, the Fine Art division, photographs that display straight-forward approach to picture making, i.e. sans effects, flashy technique, or cheap tricks, are much more the order of the day. That is to write, creativity is evident in a picture maker’s choice of what to picture, aka: the act of pointing, and in doing so, imbuing the work with a formal rigor that identifies a work of art, aka: (amongst other qualities) an interesting configuration.

iMo, a creative picture maker is free to point his/her camera at any fact, event, circumstance, and configuration. However, to my eye and sensibilities (in both the making of my pictures and the viewing of those made by others), it is the manifestation of an interesting configuration, aka: form / the pattern created by the pointer, rather than the depicted referent that excites my eye cuz…

It ain’t what you eat, it’s the way how you chew it.” ~ Sleepy LaBeef-that excites my eye.

To be certain, I am not alone in this preference for form inasmuch as most (all?) of the Fine Art world places a very high value on this quality in any Art genre.

To quote Sir Ansel:

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”

Indeed. Just as there are no rules in Fine Art Photo Division for what can be pictured, there no rules for the making of an interesting configuration. The only right configuration for a photograph is the one that a picture maker chooses to create, the one that best serves the intent of the vision he/she wishes to express.

Good composition is the strongest way of seeing:” ~ Edward Weston

In the case of my picture making, my eye and sensibilities are pricked by scenes in the real world that provide the potential for the making of pictures with visual energy. That is a visual configuration quality that keeps the eye moving-skittering and careening and bouncing off my imposed frame (like a pool ball on a pool table)-across the 2D visual field of a photographic print. Although, that written, I attempt to illustrate that quality in a manner that appears to be controlled, as opposed to haphazard and indiscriminate.

All of the above written, I believe that creativity finds its roots in a photographer’s understanding of how he/she sees the world. That is, that which is commonly referred to as their vision. If that manner of seeing is one that leads some of us [to] point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others, then chances are better than good that true creativity and the making of pictures that excite the eye will follow quite naturally .

# 6153 / commonplaces ~ the eye traffics in feelings

(embiggenable)

“Creativity is seeing what others see and thinking seeing what no one else has ever thought seen.” ~ Albert Einstein

IN MY LAST ENTRY I PRESENTED A QUOTE FROM MR. EINSTEIN which I adapted-striking out his words and inserting my own-to make his thought more applicable to the making of photographs. I did so cuz Einstein trafficked in thinking, albeit very imaginative thinking (according to him, imagination is more important than knowledge), whereas, according to Walker Evans…

The eye traffics in feelings, not thoughts.” ~ Walker Evans

I believe, wholeheartedly, that thinking in situ while picturing is antithetical to the pursuit of creative picture making. Rather, relying upon an instinctive feeling-knowledge guided by experience and an understanding of how you see the world-about what to picture and how to picture it-is a much more productive manner in which to foster creative seeing.

And seeing is what picture making is all about cuz photography is a visual art form. iMo, the best photographs are those that excite the eye-the visual senses-not the intellect (aka: the feeling destroying search for meaning). Therefore, in the pursuit of making pictures which excite the eye (creative pictures), a picture maker’s focus should be, in fact, must be, be directed toward the seeing and feeling of the visual characteristics of what is in front of his/her eye and camera. Then intuitively sensing / feeling how those visual elements, when isolated (framing) and arranged (POV)-as determined by when they just feel “right” as seen on a picturing device’s viewing screen-will work when spread across the 2D field of a photographic print.

While the preceding paragraph might seem to be a bit on the heavy side, prescription wise, in fact, to the practiced and knowledgeable eye, the awareness and implementation of such prescription is nearly instantaneous and intuitive-no thinking required-at the moment of picture making.

All of the above written, for me and as it applies my picture making, creativity springs from my understanding of how I see the world (literally, my vision) and how that vision directs my picture making (figurative) vision. That knowledge-and my trust, re: what pricks my eye and sensibilities, thereof-frees me from having to think about what to picture-the world is my oyster-and how to picture it-quite simply, as I see it. Consequently, I am able, picture making wise, to free associate (an aid in gaining access to the unconscious processes of creativity) in response to what I see.