# 6353-55 / common places • common things ~ better duck, here they come

December 7, 2022

CAVEAT: IN THIS ENTRY, NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED-or omitted-to protect the guilty..err…ah, I mean the “innocent”.

This entry is a followup to my last 2 entries wherein I mentioned: a. prints-”the very thing one sees on the wall of a gallery or in a photographer’s monograph”-and, b. “the ease of making “good” pictures-i.e. sharp, correctly exposed with decent color balance, referent in focus and the like”.

Re: a. the print: on a recent entry on TOP, The Printing Challenge, wherein Michael Johnston wrote about “the treacherous waters of home printing”, incited 2 diametrically opposed responses….

“'…it's not a photograph until you can hold it in your hand.' I completely fail to understand folks who spend a fortune on cameras and lenses and the show their images only on a screen.”

….and this are-you-kidding-me pile of steaming xxx xxxx…

“We're not in the 1980s anymore. The print is no longer the ‘gold standard’.”

The later comment was put forth by a picture maker whom the former comment poster would “completely fail to understand”. That written, I have a pretty good inclination as to the source of the picture maker’s no-longer-the-gold-standard comment. Having viewed, over the years, a variety of pictures posted by said picture maker-who only shows pictures on a screen-I can write with complete assurance that that picture maker makes very few, if any, print-worthy pictures. Therefore, following the logic, there is no reason for that picture makers to make prints.

Re: the ease of making “good” pictures: due to the fact that only 7% of pictures currently being made are made with a real camera, I can picture, on the hi-def screen in my head, the beads of sweat cascading down the forehead of those “serious” real-camera picture makers as they hear the disturbing pitter-patter of the feet of the smartphone-wielding crowd who are breathing down their necks, good picture making wise.

To wit, so many of the “serious” real-camera picture makers-the aforementioned picture maker included, maybe even head of the class-pin all of their picture making hopes and dreams on the fact that they spend a fortune on expensive cameras, lenses, and related gear in the pursuit of making really good pictures with the belief, aka: delusion, that the resulting pictures will separate their work from that of the maddeningly annoying, camera phone picture making crowd.

iMo, their work is in fact separated from the maddening crowd, but not as a result of the gear with which they make their pictures. No. The most distinguishing characteristic that separates their pictures from those made by maddening crowd-using camera phones or even real cameras-is the fact that most pictures-to be certain, most, but not all pictures-made by the average gear-obsessed picture maker is sorely lacking in unique personal vision. A condition which is not aided, but rather, retarded by the fact that most of the gearheads make their pictures by-the-numbers, aka: the “rules” of so-called “good” photography, aka #2: what they have been told is a good photograph.

So there you have it. Another bit o’ words that will, in one form or another, be part of my modern pictures philosophy.

# 6350-52 / common places • common things ~ I'm a shooter

December 6, 2022

I'm a shooter

he's a shooter she's a shooter we're all a shooter
aren’t you happy to be a shooter too?

I AM BEGGINING TO COBBLE TOGETHER A FEW words, re: the introduction essay, for the Philosophy of Modern Pictures project / book. The above words-tip o’ hat to the early Dr. Pepper I’m a Pepper tv commercial jingle-are the leading candidate for the essay title.

The use of the word shooter derives from the aforementioned mentioned-a previous entry-interaction with a young hipster-body jewelry, “cool” hair style + color, et al-bartender in an upscale restaurant bar who asked me if I was a “shooter”. I was confused-was she asking if I wanted a shot of bourbon? was I packing heat? Noting my confusion, she pointed out that she had noticed my cap with the KODAK logo. Thus informed of that, it gave me license to answer that, “Yes. I’m a shooter.”

Apparently the younger generation thinks it cool to be a shooter. That being the case, for purposes of the book, it’s good enough for me.

Re: we’re all a shooter - OK. I get it. Not everyone is a shooter inasmuch as not everyone has a picture making device, However, with the fact that 1.7 trillion pictures are made / taken (whatever) a year and that there are 8 billion humans on the planet, the average number of pictures per human is 125 per year. And, this might be a bit of a surprise, 92.5% of pictures are made with a picture making device which can also be used to make a phone call. Only 7% are made with a “real” camera.

FYI, while the book will have some facts, figures, history, re: picture making, the emphasis will be on how, as the result of the ease of making “good” pictures-i.e. sharp, correctly exposed, referent in focus and the like-the boundaries of what can be pictured and how it can be pictured has expanded like never before.

# 6347-49 / common places • common things ~ memory and conjecture

December 5, 2022

EVERY TIME I READ YET ANOTHER ARTIST STATEMENT written by a member of the Academic Lunatic Fringe, Photography Division, such as this…

….is a photographic case study based on still lifes that emerge from inherited trauma and post memory, exploring the family as an essential contributor to psychological and cultural processes across history….Immersing myself into this story, I fill the gaps with dreams, associations, and imagined scenes to create a narrative transgressing personal and national boundaries. The objects and architecture of the house become parabolic proxies and open a gate between the past and the present….By confronting a past spanning across four generations, a renewed sense of identity provides ground for a detailed investigation of post memory, mental health, war, and history.

…the first thing that pops in my head is this…

"...it's been quite some time since I read an artist speak so eloquently and clearly about the world beyond his/(her) own asshole." ~ Bill Jay

Now here’s the thing that gets me all agita laden…in this particular case-like most other ALF work-I really do not give a crap about the picture maker’s “study” about their inner life / personal make-up / struggles. AKA, “inherited trauma and post memory”.

ASIDE And, to be clear on the mater, I do not give a crap about any picture maker’s personal life. I might like to read / hear a picture maker’s thoughts, re: the medium and its apparatus, but, unlike the ALF crowd’s writing / art-speak (really? ….”objects and architecture of the house become parabolic proxies), I like to read / hear those picture maker’s thoughts expressed in good ol’ fashion, plain-spoken English. END OF ASIDE

But of course art-speak artist statements are long-winded gimcrackery cuz, to the ALF crowd, it is all about meaning. The actual referents are secondary. So consequently, again in this case (as is usually the case), the pictures are nothing to write home about and, to my eye sensibilities, offer little grist for prolonged viewing. And, no matter how long I look at them, they never attain the status of providing, for me, a “ground for a detailed investigation of post memory, mental health, war, and history.”

Of course, I am willing to admit that maybe I just missed it (the meaning) but, then again, I do not look at pictures for the purpose of finding “ground for a detailed investigation of post memory, mental health, war, and history.”

All of that written, I have to wonder where and when it was that Academia went so far off the rails as to propagate the idea that the very thing one sees on the wall of a gallery or in a photographer’s monograph is secondary to what the thing means. Not to mention the emphasis placed on the long-winded, art-speak infused, and TMI, re: angst and struggles, all of which is an attempt to drive home the exact meaning baked into one’s pictures. Ya know, just in case the un-washed, un-educated rabble don’t see it.

Re: my pictures - all I hope for is to put enough in them to interest and seduce the eye, cuz it’s a visual art, and, as a bonus, to stir in the viewer both memory and conjecture.

# 6345-46 / common places • common things ~ juxtaposition and disjunction

December 2, 2022

I HAVE ADDED A NEW GALLERY TO MY WORK page titled discursive promiscuity. The pictures are presented as book pages- that is, as they would appear in a book (or framed on a gallery wall). FYI, in a book, each picture would be on 1 page of a 2 page spread.

While my photographs do not strictly conform to a specific genre-other than my own personal genre, aka: discursive promiscuity-in the cause of presenting them in a book, I do wish to borrow from one of the tenets of the snapshot genre:

Subject matter is often presented without apparent link from image-to-image and relying instead on juxtaposition and disjunction between individual photographs.

… the work, aka: The Philosophy of Modern Pictures, goes on.

# 6342-44 / common places • common things ~ this and that

November 30, 2022

BEEN MAKING NOTES, MENTAL AND HARD COPY, re: my The Philosophy of Modern Pictures book/project. No rhyme or reason to them yet, just random thoughts on the overall approach and miscellaneous thoughts / words on various topics to include in the book.

One item on which I have been rather fixated is how to describe my picture making M.O. However, as I skitter about the nomenclature landscape, I have realized that my M.O. does not fit neatly into any single genre inasmuch as my work evidences the quality and characteristics of several universally recognized genre - vernacular photography, the snapshot aesthetic, the new topography, to name a few.

That written, I also realize that I may have found the answer years ago when I coined the phrase / descriptor, discursive promiscuity, to explain my propensity to picture any/every thing I see that pricks my eye and sensibilities, aka: what I see. That nomenclature was never intended to describe anything more than my non-discriminatory approach to referent selection. However, I am sorta coming around to thinking that it also works as a descriptor for how I see, aka: a little bit of vernacular, a little bit of snapshot, a little bit of new topography aesthetics all mixed together in my own peculiar, hybred-ish manner of picture making.

FYI, I should point out that I have never been overly concerned with defining the how of my picture making, specific genre wise. That’s cuz the answer to that question, as Paul Strand once opined, “is on the wall”. So, viewers will see what they wanna see. Nevertheless, in the context of my book / project, much of what I will write will spin off of the how (and why) I photograph.

# 6337-41 / (common) people • places • things ~ if Dylan can do it, so can I

November 24, 2022

***people*** (***faces***) ~ (embiggenable)

*places* A (*hand of man*) ~ (embiggenable)

I HAVE BEEN DEVOTING SOME TIME TO reading-1 or 2 essays (of 66) at a time (in no particular order) the new Bob Dylan book, The Philosophy of Modern Song. In addition to reading the book, I have also been listening to the 66 songs-on a ready-made Spotify playlist-that Dylan writes about in the book. FYI, each essay is a about a particular song and the artist who performs it.

iMo, reading the essays without listening to the songs is really a dumb idea. But, then again, there are those who think whole endeavor is a dumb idea. While I am greatly enjoying the essays / songs-highly recommended-it is most definitely a roller coaster, fun house, hall of mirrors ride through the mind of Bob Dylan. And, no, there is not the slightest hint of any idea, re: philosophy, in the book.

In any event, Dylan’s creation has got me to a-thinkin’. The result of which is that Mr. Dylan has inspired me to undertake a similar project - a book, The Philosophy of Modern Pictures.

The book will not be a comprehensive overview of the wide, wide world of photography-it will be illustrated with my pictures and only my pictures. Nor will it be an attempt to put forth an academic-style theory about the medium and its practitioners-it will be about how I practice the medium and its apparatus. And, even though I am capable of writing like this…

Looking and seeing and learning and knowing. Coupled compartments speeding and lurching on cold-heart steel rails and sensuous shifting sands, pursuing the horizon, an illusive vanishing point shrouded in earthly moonrise mist and fog. Tour guides, tourists, back seat drivers, and card carrying fellow travelers, all in their place in a place blurred by memories, perceptions, and time. Each being exactly what they are and imprecisely what others make of them, all waiting to be found, to be seen, and to be known.

…I am going to keep it simple. More like this…

I want my photographs to function like a pool table / pinball machine inasmuch as I have no desire to give a viewer’s eye a place to land and relax on the 2D surface of my prints. Rather, I want to direct a viewer’s eye to careen around the surface of my prints, ricocheting off the hard-defined edges of the image, all the while chasing / tracing lines, colors, and shapes. Think of it as dancing, if you will. albeit more like Hip Hop than a Waltz.

And, you can be absolutely certain it will not be gear / how-to oriented.

My first task is to go back through my blog(s) and cull out written snippets that will form the baseline for the book’s writings. I will be very surprised if I do not find more excerpts than I might need. Then, after some judicious wordsmithing, it’s on to picking pictures.

The question, re: pictures, is not only how many to include in the book but also how to present them….organized in recognizable genre / themes (people, places, things) / bodies of work or simply as a run-on sentence / stream of consciousness, aka: discursive promiscuity, kinda way? Gotta think about that.

All of the above written, my intent is to create a picture book that, by twists and turns, is both serious and irreverent but, by all means, a very first-person, aka: me, expression of how I see and use the medium and its apparatus.

# 6334-36 / common things • around the house ~ do ya wanna dance and hold my hand?

November 19, 2022

But something is happening and you don't know what it is…Do you, Mr. Jones? ~ Bob Dylan

RE: WHAT I BELIEVE MAKES A PHOTOGRAPH INTERESTING.

It illustrates the real world, as much as the medium allows, in an accurate and truthful manner. AKA: straight photography.
It shows me something that I do not already know. Hint: Amongst many things, I already know that kittens and puppies are cute and that the natural world, when bathed in ‘glorious’ light, is pretty.
It shows me that “something” in manner that disregards the “rules for good photography”. But, no gimmicks. Just honest personal vision.
And, it also shows me an intangible “something” that is more than / beyond the literally depicted referent.
It is a delight for the visual senses.

Re: #5 : what delights my eye and sensibilities is a visual quality / characteristic that I call visual energy. A quality that defies the traditional picture making wisdom to simplify (see #3). To the contrary, I want my photographs to function like a pool table / pinball machine inasmuch as I have no desire to give a viewer’s eye a place to land and relax on the 2D surface of my prints. Rather, I want to direct a viewer’s eye to careen around the surface of my prints, ricocheting off the hard-defined edges of the image, all the while chasing / tracing lines, colors, and shapes. Think of it as dancing, if you will. albeit more like Hip Hop than a Waltz.

iMo and viewing experience, not only is the “dance” visually interesting, a photograph with visual energy encourages repeated viewing inasmuch as the “dance” will most likely be different with each successive viewing. And, in keeping with the dance metaphor, one could write that a photograph with visual energy has “legs”.

FYI, visual energy is a visual characteristic / quality that I look for, in one more-or-less degree, in the photographs made by others.

# 6329-33 / common places • common things • landscape ~ form-it-able

November 17, 2022

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs….The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial.” ~ Ansel Adams

“Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” ~ Edward Weston

IN MY LAST ENTRY, re: ideas on making an interesting photograph, I mentioned the idea that it is form, rather than the depicted referent, that is the most important element in creating interesting an photograph. And, I described form as the visual expression of “how the picture maker has “arranged”-by means of his/her framing and POV-line, shape, space, tone (value), and color across the 2D visual field of a print.

That written, it is quite possible that I should not be using the word “form” to describe the visual characteristic that I strive to illustrate in my photographs and appreciate in the photographs made by others. Technically, according to Tate Modern, my usage is correct:

In relation to art the term form has two meanings: it can refer to the overall form taken by the work – its physical nature; or within a work of art it can refer to the element of shape among the various elements that make up a work.

As you might surmise, I hang my picture making hat, re: form, on the idea of the element of shape among the various elements (to include line, space, tone, and color) that make up a work of art. However-and here’s the rub, re: maybe I should not use the word “form”-cuz if you were to search the interweb for “form in photography” you would discover that the genii in the photo commentariat world have decided that form…

“…refers to the three-dimensional appearance of shapes and objects in a photo…[and] is all about subjects that stand out as if they're 3D objects.”

and, get this awesome insight..

“Successfully conveying all three dimensions in a two dimensional medium is a great artistic accomplishment”

ASIDE from the song Assholes on parade: Assholes to the left…And assholes to the right … I once heard it said…That old assholes never die…They just lay in bed…And multiply END ASIDE

another ASIDE I realize the preceding aside is rather harsh but…the interweb is chock full of bad photo making advice, especially so from “experts” and workshop leaders and it gets me to setting my teeth on edge. END ASIDE

I’m sorry, but, the use of leading lines and value (tone - you know shadow and light) to create the faux appearance of 3D shape and/or depth in a 2D art form, aka: photography, is a very fer piece down the pike from a “great artistic accomplishment”. And, it has little to do, if anything, with the idea of form as seen and perceived in the Art World.

So, in my use of the word form to describe an important visual tool in my photo bag of tricks, I worry that the mis/mal-informed out there might get the wrong impression.

All of the above written, stay tuned for my next entry wherein I describe in greater detail much more exactly what I believe to be the good form that I strive to illustrate in my photographs.

PS the pictures in this entry all present, if one chooses to look at them in that way, a sense of depth. That, however, is not how I view them nor is why I made them.