# 6831-33 / common places • common things ~ surreal density and visual energy

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

OVER THE YEARS ON THIS BLOG I HAVE repeatedly mentioned my sought after picture-making concept of visual energy. That is, my seemingly preternatural disposition to make photographs chock full of visual information, and, I might add, to appreciate such photographs made by others. Best as I can tell, that’s cuz I enjoy it when my eye and sensibilities are invigorated / agitated / stimulated by the dance-instigated by a surfeit of visual information-required to navigate across the 2D surface of a visually complex print.

Coinciding with this disposition is the fact that I find this arousal of my visual apparatus’ erogenous zones to be heightened by the viewing of smallish-sized prints-as an example, my 8x10 color negative work was always printed as contact prints. And, it explains why I am so enamored of small INSTAX prints.

Stephen Shore has a related concept which he labels as “surreal density”:

“…what I found attractive about the contact print was the almost surreal density of information. That here’s this thing that you can take in, in a couple of seconds. But, to actually stand on that spot, and look at every branch on this tree, and every shadow on this building, and the pebbles on the road—this could take minutes of attention. It was, like, maybe fifteen minutes of attention had been compressed into this thing you can take in, in a few seconds. That’s what I mean by “surreal density” of information.”

iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, a photograph with “surreal density” quite obviously invites-especially to those who are naturally curious-the eye to roam around the surface of the 2D print. As Shore also wrote:

“I don’t have to have a single point of emphasis in the picture. It can be complex, because it’s so detailed that the viewer can take time and read it, and look at something here, and look at something there, and they can pay attention to a lot more.”

All of that written, I strive to make complex pictures with “surreal density” which, when taken in, in a couple of seconds (easier to do viewing small prints), read as a meaningfully organized whole-the idea that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Nevertheless, cuz the surreal density of the photographs tend to invite a dive into the discrete parts of the whole, the viewer can “pay attention to a lot more”, all the while enjoying the visual pleasures of engaging with visual energy.

At least, that is how I see it.

# 6830 / common things ~ I yam what I yam...

(embiggenable)

POPEYE THE SAILOR MAN REPEATABLY DECLARED TO THE WORLD, “I yam what I yam and that’s all what I am. I’m Popeye the sailor man.”

Were I to be a teacher of things photography, Popeye’s words would be printed large and mounted on the wall at the head of the classroom. That’s cuz, iMo and iMpersonal experience, if you desire to be a unique actor in the world of Art, plain and simple, ya gotta be what ya yam.

To wit, ya gotta discover and recognize the innate manner-the one ya came equipped with when ya slid down the chute-with which ya see the world. That is, a way of seeing which, in the Art World, is labeled as one’s personal vision.

Re: vision: in a purely “mechanical” sense, seeing begins when light falls on the eyes, initiating the process of transduction (the action or process of converting something, especially energy or a message into another form). Once this literal visual information reaches the visual cortex, it is processed by a variety of neurons that detect colours, shapes, and motion which creates meaningful perceptions-a mental image-out of the incoming visual stimuli.

Think of that like this: the “mechanical” apparatus of human vision records literal visual information. However, because we are sentient beings, we are able to use our mental acuity to create perceptions-responses to the sensations-about the literal visual information that we see. Or, as Edward Weston suggested:

...[the] “strongest way of seeing…means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible….so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing.

All of that written, finding one’s vision-putting your own imprimatur on your work-all comes down to a concept expressed by Robert Henri in his 1923 book, The Art Spirit*:

“An artist has to get acquainted with himself as much as he can. [cuz] The technique of a little individuality will be a little technique. However long studied it still will be a little technique, the measure of the man. The greatness of art depends absolutely on the greatness of the artist’s individuality…”

Bottom line:

“Know thyself ” ~ Socrates, and, “To thine own self be true” ~ William Shakespeare

*In addition to Popeye’s words in my things photography classroom, there is only a single mandatory read - The Art Spirit by Robert Henri.

# 6829 / landscape • common places • common things ~ a gripe with the photo critic crowd pt. 2

all photos ~ (embigenable)

IN ADDITION TO PHOTO CRITIC’S / AUTHOR’S WRETCHED EXCESS, artspeak wise, they also have the ever present propensity to attribute-to photographers-the use of a myriad of “strategies” in the making of their picture. That is, the conscious and deliberate implementation of visual art-theory technique(s).

I believe the reason for this is two-fold; 1) most critics / authors-who write about photography-have advanced degrees in ART theory / history / et al and, consequently, have the need to “share” this enlightenment with the unwashed masses, 2.) what Bob Dylan crooned: Come writers and critics…Who prophesize with your pen…And don’t criticize what you can’t understand.

Or, simply put: it has been suggested that those who can (make Art), do so, those who can not, teach write about it. I know of no critic / writer who makes great photographs-although John Szarkowski comes to mind as a notable exception. And, iMo, when they write about the making of a photograph, they tend to bury the reader under a pile of art-speak / theory cuz it’s the only tool they have to explain something, i.e. a sensation, that they do not understand.

Perhaps, if they spent more time reading what actual picture makers have to say/write about how they make pictures, they might have a clue regarding how it actually done. Consider Edward Weston’s words:

…to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravity before going for a walk…

…one does not think during creative work: one has a background of years — learning — unlearning— success — failure — dreaming — thinking — experience — back it goes — farther back than one's ancestors: all this, — then the moment of creation, the focusing of all into the moment. So I can make — "without thought" — fifteen carefully-considered negatives one every fifteen minutes, — given material with as many possibilities…

…I always work better when I do not reason, when no question of right or wrong enter in,-when my pulse quickens to the form before me without hesitation nor calculation...

Let me go out on a limb here; iMo and iMactual picture making experience, most good / great pictures-mine or those made by others-are created in situ without a great deal-or any at all-of “calculation”. Which is to write that, instead, at the moment of creation everything just feels right.

And, I can trust that feeling cuz I understand that my own personal vision will lead me to not only interesting referents but it will also direct me to see-and capture-those referents in a manner that satisfies my eye and sensibilities and, it is worth noting, the eye and sensibilities of others. Fortunately for me in my picture making world-both commercial and personal-that vision is all encompassing inasmuch as any thing and every thing is fodder for a picture making opportunity.

Case in point, photography for hire wise, the 2 spreads from 2 hardbound coffee table that featured my photography-all of the pictures in the Dusquesne Cookbook and all of the featured 2 page spread pictures in the Day in the Life of an Urban Hospital book + an out-take from a KODAK Storytellers campaign. Color? BW? Haute Cuisine? Open heart surgery? Faux Norman Rockwell characters? “Real” people? Models? Large format cameras? Rotating lens panoramic camera? Available light? Controlled light? Studio light?

Sure. Why not? The making of those pictures all felt the same to my eye and sensibilities. And there is nothing better, picture making wise, than the feeling you get when you know that you have nailed it and the client knows it too.

So, word of advice, making pictures wise. Forget what the critics / self-procalimed ”experts” write. Stop thinking and just do it.

# 6826 / common places • common things ~ a gripe with the photo critic crowd, pt. 1

(embiggenable)

IN YESTERDAY’S ENTRY I MENTIONED THAT I HAD BEEN reading a chapter in the new color photography book. Not that I did not look at a bunch of pictures in that chapter but, in fact, there is a whole lot to read in the book.

That written, re: “a whole lot to read"; it ain’t the easiest read in the world cuz there is an extraordinary amount of highfalutin art-speak verbosity to slog through and decipher. Of course, that is to be expected inasmuch as so much of art criticism, especially so in the photograph world, reads in much the same way. It is as if the author / critic is engaged more in flaunting and burnishing his/her art creds than they are in getting at the experience of viewing and appreciating a photograph without having to tick off a litany of art theory, art technique, and art history boxes to justify why a picture is worth looking at.

To wit, it is rarely, if ever, enough for that crowd that a picture is an interesting, visually stimulating artifact that is simply a delight just look at. A treat for the visual senses.

Case in point; I have mentioned that my favorite response from a viewer of my photographs is some variant on the oft heard, “I don’t know why I like it but I do.” My response is most often simply, “Thank you very much. I’m glad you like it.” However….

…. I could lapse into regaling them with a discussion of my frequent propensity to incorporate visually unifying strategies that include color-field wefting or fugue-like repetitions, inversions and transformations of particular motifs. And, because forms unfold gradually but ineluctably, while colors shift into delicately nuanced and often improbable variations, such melifluous features prolong the pleasurable act of seeing, caressing imagination while reviving subconscious yearnings for paradisiacal worlds of milk and honey.

Truth be told, I have never responded with that “explanation” cuz all it would get me from the commenter would be for him/her to slowly back away and look at me like had lobsters crawling out of my ears.

# 6823-25 / common places • common things ~ observation full and felt.

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

WRITING ABOUT WILLIAM CHRISTENBERRY’S KODAK BROWNIE snapshots, Walker Evans wrote:

I need not proclaim the distinction in these unpretentious pictures. They will be spotted by the many experts who now follow photography in all its turns-and they will probably be mishandled in one way or another, as usual. I want, though, to indulge myself in the truly sensual pleasure of these things in their quiet honesty, subtlety, and restrained strength and their refreshing purity. There is something enlightening about them, they seem to write a new little social and architectural history about one regional America (the Deep South). In addition to that, each one is a poem.

ASIDE Christenberry-who later became close friends with Walker Evans-made his Kodak Brownie camera pictures in the 1970s, getting his prints done at drugstore photo counters as he toured and pictured Hale County, Ala., where his family is from. Hale County is the local where Evans made many of his acclaimed photographs.END ASIDE

I stumbled upon Christenberry’s little color snapshots-and the above quote-earlier today while I was (re)reading the DOCUMENTATION chapter in the new color photography book. That reading was instigated by a desire to find some insight into the art world thinking, re: documentation, that I might pass along with the posting of the pictures presented in this entry. Pictures that some might think to be mere documents, or, some might think to be fine art, or, yet again, some might think to be casual snapshots.

In any event, it would seem that at least one influential author / critic-Sally Eauclaire-along with Walker Evans believes that a photograph made in a documentary style that exhibits honesty, subtlety, and restrained strength and their refreshing purity also can possess artistic merit. And, as more investigation, as written in 2010 in the Washington Post revealed:

“The drugstore prints barely even seem to count as art. That's what makes them so wonderful and so important. They feel like they provide the most direct, intense, unmediated encounter with the reality that matters to Christenberry, without any artifying filter getting in the way.”

So, all of that written, what I come away with is that I can at least feel good about the M.O. with which I approach my picture making; striving to make pictures that are quiet, direct, unmediated, honest, and art sauce free. Whether that M.O. translates into pictures that viewers perceive to possess those same qualities is out of my control.

# 6818-22 / landscape • people ~ pastoral

Talamore GC between the 16th and 17th (shown) holes ~ all photos embiggenable

TOT HILL FARM GC 8th HOLE

TOT HILL FARM GC

TOT HILL FARM GC clubhouse

AFTER 2300 MILES OF DRIVING-including 2 separate white knuckle drive snow storm events-and 72 HOLES OF GOLF later, I am back sleeping in my own bed.

Today, I fired up the desktop machine in order to process-or re-process-a few landscape pictures I made while in Pinehurst. The Talamore GC in particular called for some fairly nuanced processing that I could not have accomplished with the non-PS tools I had while on the road.

That picture has, to my eye and sensibilities, a very Hudson River School vibe and feel to it, albeit subtle. It has all the necessary ingredients: animals, contrasting foreground / background vistas, and interesting light (on the more subtle side than the very dramatic light found in most HRS paintings).

Not sure if I have nailed the processing yet. Have to live with it for a while and see.

# 6813-17 / travel • golf ~ I apologize

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

my 1st tee practice swing

looking back to 1st tee from 1st green

well protected flag

hummocks, swales, elevation changes everywhere

I was gonna try to fool ya, with the barn and old pickup picture, into thinking this is not a golf entry. But, quite obviously, it is. I apologize.

Yesterday, I played the most brutal golf course-Tot Hill Farm GC-I have ever played. A course designed by Mike Strantz, the enfant terrrible of golf course design. His propensity is to create courses where every thing is “over the top”. Or, in other words, to take standard golf course features to extremes.

In the case of Tot Hill Farm, it’s extreme elevation changes together with exaggerated swales and hummocks that create a multitude of uneven lies. To put it bluntly, in 18 holes of golf I did not have a single level lie. As an example, re; the massive elevation changes: simply put, the uphill elevation changes, tee to green, turn a 495 yard (as indicated on the score card), par 5 to playing like a 600+ yard hole. Add uneven lies on every shot and you have a recipe for brutal.

Lest it read as I am whining, it should be noted the the grandson and I are having fun.

FYI, the old pickup picture was made on the golf course. The scene was behind the clubhouse which is, true the to course name, a restored old farm house.