#6893-94 / common things • around the house ~ what's in a name?

all photos (embiggenable)

photography noun pho•to•gra•phy /fəˈtäɡrəfē/ : the art, application, and practice of creating images by recording radiant energy, especially light, on a light-sensitive surface.

IN AN ENTRY-The future of photo blogs-ON A “PHOTO” BLOG (as so labeled by the author), it was stated that:

“…it's almost like the joy of discussing new gear and new techniques has been wholly replaced on most of our photo blogs by personal observations about day-to-day routines, life's struggles, diets, and photo walks….”

Now I could go on a 5,000 word rant about the “joy of discussing new gear” but I won’t. Instead, I will attempt to discuss, with a modicum of intelligence, what, iMo, qualifies-and does not-as a photo(graphy) blog.

A simple / concise description of my idea of what constitutes a righteous photo(graphy) blog is one that features photographs. Blogs that feature photographs + thought-provoking words regarding the medium and its apparatus (aka: its conventions, applications, practices) are a bonus.

Or, in other words, I like blogs that, first and foremost, feature photographs that poke, prod, tickle, and challenge my visual senses. Toss in a few words / a little brain stimulation along the lines of what-the-hell-is-a-photograph-(any photograph)-anyways? and I’m hooked and the site is earmarked.

If one takes the time to find and follow some good leads, aka: links, I find that there are a surprising number of blogs / sites out there that satisfy my aforementioned wants. Rarely does a week go by during which I do not discover something new and interesting. There is a surprising amount of really good work out there being made by no-name photographers.

As for the “joy” to be had by discussing new gear, new tricks, how to-s, et al, I have to write that, for me, the “joy” eludes me. And, quite frankly, it annoys me to a certain extent that blogs which traffic in such subjects call themselves photo blogs. Whereas, at best, they might legitimately considered to be photo related blogs. Although, for example, gear related blogs most often fall into a category more accurately described as object fetishication related. AND, don’t get me started, re: “photo” bogs that constantly veer off into what the author’s eating, drinking, driving, exercising, recreating, et al habits and preferences are.

All that written, I do have an interest in reading about what an accomplished artist-big name or no name-might have to express about their vision as an integral part of what drives him/her to make pictures. However, that written, my interest in the medium of photography and its apparatus has always been about the pictures.

# 6887-92 / people • common places/things • travel ~ five days

late Sunday afternoon ~ all photos ~ (embiggenable)

Thursday evening

Thursday evening

Saturday evening~ Utica, NY

Thursday evening near home

Friday lunch

BETWEEN THURSDAY EVENING AND SATURDAY EVENING I ate in 4 different restaurants that were spread apart by 300 miles; a local restaurant (mile zero), a Rochester, NY restaurant (mile 300), a Rochester hotel restaurant, and a Utica, NY restaurant (mile midpoint on the return drive). The drive was instigated in order to attend the wake of a HS classmate / teammate and to visit a bedridden classmate / friend who is in a long-term care facility. Both activities were in Rochester. Managed to squeeze in a lunch with the ex and a long time friend while in Rochester.

Needless to write, the trip-to include 11 hours of driving within 24 hours-was a bit of an emotional roller coaster ride. So on Sunday I decompressed by processing photos, watching a hockey game, and ending with a sit on the upstairs porch with a cup of coffee watching the sun go down.

True to form, of course I made some pictures along the way. Could have made more but for on reason or another I did not make any at the wake or the care facility. In any event, inasmuch as I always have a picture making device at hand, I do tend to make lot of pictures. Although, I often wonder if my picture making habit is due the fact that I always have a picture making device at hand, or, whether I always have a picture making device at hand because I have a picture making habit.

That written, I tend to go with the habit idea cuz I do have what some might consider to be a near obsession with picture making. I don’t believe I could stop making pictures even if I wanted to. In a very real sense, my eyes will not / can not stop seeing pictures everywhere. And, to be accurate, this is a life-long “condition” inasmuch as I was drawing pictures at a very early single digit age. I made money during high school making drawings that were considered to be “illustrations”. All of which evolved into my “discovery” of making pictures, photography wise, at age 19. That was when I began a life long working life in the photo making world.

# 6883-86 / common places / things • people ~ on the subject of magic

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED TO WILLIAM EGGLESTON THAT the design of most of his pictures seemed to radiate from a central, circular core, he responded that this was true, since the pictures were based compositionally on the Confederate flag. This response, in the opinion of John Szarkowki, was…

“…presumably improvised and unresponsive, of interest only as an illustration of the lengths to which artists sometimes go to frustrate rational analysis of their work, as though they fear it might prove antidote to their magic.”

Re: rational analysis - it is the provenance of art critics and academics to delve into the rational analysis-the techniques-and the art theories-the aesthetics-employed in the making of any given piece of art. In most cases the rational analysis is intended to assist a viewer of any given piece of art in more fully understanding, aka: the ability to “interpret” and discover meaning (aka: content”)-and appreciating it. Or, in some cases, to assist a viewer in recognizing that a piece of art is actually a piece of crap.

In any event, whatever the merit(s) of rational analysis might be to some, one prevalent demerit, iMo, is the constant ascription to artists-PhotographyDivision-of consciously / deliberately using techniques and aesthetic devices in the making of their pictures. An assertion that is based upon the ignorance of critics and academics who, for the most part, are not practicing and/or accomplished artists themselves. That is to write, that based upon their voluminous technique and art theory expertise, they are predisposed to miss the forest for the trees.

Re: magic - To continue with the “forest” metaphor - the most interesting picture forests-in this discussion Photography, Fine Art Division-are germinated and fostered by picture makers who tend, on the whole, to understand that art theory and technique-other than what they need to make their vision visible-are nothing more than a hill of beans in their world.

iMo long-considered opinion, their “magic” springs fully formed and, seemingly, unbidden from their innate, personal vision-literally and figuratively how they see the world. Simply written, it’s all about the pictures…

“Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.” ~ Paul Strand

All of the above written, and getting back to the idea of fearing that rational analysis “might prove antidote to their magic”… I get it. Breaking down one’s vision-in this case, so called “magic”-into its individual components might, like Humpty Dumpty after the fall, be never able to be put back together again.

That’s cuz true vision is not formulaic. It is not a collection of parts glued together to create a operations manual. Rather, vision, like a photograph itself, it is an organically synthesized whole that is somewhat akin to magic-i.e. possessing the power of apparently influencing the course of (picture making) events by use of mysterious forces.

So, iMo, it is best to embrace the magic and go with its flow.

PS 2 new galleries - POLES and EYES DOWNCAST - on my WORK page.

# 6879-82 / kitchen life ~ who could have imagined?

All photos (embiggenable)

IN MY LAST ENTRY I WROTE ABOUT THE MATURATION of the medium, c.1970s, a key element of which included the realization of its unique and intrinsic relationship with, and as a cohort of, the real world wherein any thing and every thing was color-ed and considered to be referent acceptable. Or, as Szarkowski wrote…

“… [an] encompassing motif [that] is itself so broad and hopelessly unformed, with so many aspects, angles, details, sotto voce asides, picturesque subplots, and constantly shifting patterns-and none of this clearly labeled…”

This casting aside-by the fine-art picture making crowd-of the then conventional what-is-appropriate-subject-matter wisdom was, iMo, a very belated-case in point, re: hidebound, insular thinking-recognition / realization of the picture making practice employed by the ubiquitous, next door snapshot-ers ever since the advent of the earliest amateur, handheld film cameras. Snapshooters who-as an English writer observed in 1893-

“… run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? … They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera focused, the shot is taken! There is no pause … To them, composition, light, shade, form, and texture are so many catch phrases…”

As photographers, Fine-Art Division, pursued / explored this expansive picture making possibility landscape, the pictures they produced tended to have-to the casual viewer-the look of amateur-ish color snapshots. And, in an almost humorous, historic recurrence, the response-from “serious” amateurs and photo critics alike-to this sea see change was a nearly word-for-word repetition of the aforementioned 1893 “run rampant” observation. Case in point, Szarkowski’s introduction of the William Eggelston’s Guide exhibition / book was greeted by the then “traditional photo world with outright derision and scorn: “must be a joke”, “a put-on”, “can’t be serious”, etc., etc. Quite obviously, Szarkowski had a different opinion:

“… such pictures often bear a clear resemblance to the Kodachrome slides of the ubiquitous neighbor next door … it should not be surprising if the best photography of today is related in iconography and technique to the contemporary standard of vernacular camera work, which in fact, is often rich and surprising. The difference between the two is a matter of intelligence, imagination*, intensity, precision and coherence.”

Szarkowski recognized that what was happening at the time; a significant group of phorographers where striving to break free of conventional picture making “wisdom”, all the while in pursuit of creating a distinct art form with a unique visual syntax.

an ode ~ (embiggenable)

*I never imagined that my kitchen would be such fertile ground for picture making. On the other hand, once I began to make pictures therein, I continued to do so cuz I could, if I kept my eye and sensibilities open, imagine that a world of unknown picture making possibilities might just be lurking therein.

I believe that what one is drawn to-or chooses-to photograph is a creative act-innate or conscious-of one’s own unfettered imagination.

# 6876-78 / people • places • things ~ beggining of the end or end of the beginning?

(embiggenable)

I RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FOR A Call For Entries for the 13th Annual Photography Exhibition, aka: FRESH 2024, presented by the Klompching Gallery in New York. What does FRESH look for? FRESH looks for the very best examples of new contemporary fine art photography. We’re looking for single bodies of work with a consistent vision and originality—photography that is FRESH!

The notification, which put an emphasis on the idea of “new” fine art photography with a consistent vision and “originality” or, in their words, photography that is “fresh”, kinda got to to thinkin’. That is, to be precise, along the lines of, have we reached the end of photography (fine art division)?

CAVEAT to be perfectly unambiguous, I am not proposing that the making of photographs with the intent of creating fine art is at an end. What I am questioning is whether it is still possible to make fine-art photographs that are “new” (aka: “fresh”). And, for purposes of this topic, it should understood that I, above any other consideration, believe that a photographs is the embodiment of the act of selective seeing. END OF CAVEAT

Let me start with my perspective, re": the medium of photography (fine art division); after a century of meandering around the visual arts landscape searching for an identity which would “legitimize” it as a recognizable medium of expression-separate from the other visual arts-with its own, unique vocabulary / characteristics / conventions, it attained a level of maturity during the 1970s when it embraced its unique and intrinsic relationship with, and as a cohort of, the real world wherein any thing and every thing was considered to be referent acceptable.

And, the practioners of this new way of seeing, did so, without apology or reservation, in full-blown color. They were not bound by the rules. Rather, they were interested in how they, as unique individuals, saw the world….

“Preoccupation with private experience is the hallmark of the romantic artist, whose view is characteristically self-centered, asocial, at least in posture, anti-traditional….[they are] different in spirit and aspect from that with which we are familiar in the [romantic] photography of the past generation … photography which has tended to mean the adoption and adaptation of large public issues, social or philosophical, for private artistic ends … generally expressed in a style heavy with special effects, glints and shadows, dramatic simplicities, familiar symbols, and idiosyncratic techniques … [the new work is] uncompromisingly private experience described in a manner that is restrained, austere, and public…” ~ John Szarkowski

While Szarkowski’s words are to be found in his essay-describng Eggeleston’s work-in the William Eggeleston’s Guide book, he could have easily been describing the work of the veritable hordes of contemporaneous fine art picture makers-and those who have followed in Eggelston’s (tripod) foot prints (and continue to do so). That written, here’s my point…

… I have not seen any evidence of a “new” way of seeing. iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, the maturation of the art of selective seeing-restrained, austere, and public- which emerged en force in the 1970s continues to be the foundation on which the medium can rest its claim of being unique amongst the visual arts and the de facto manner in which most fine art photography is made.

That written, despite the fact that what was once a “new” way of seeing is no longer new (can you make something new / fresh from something old?), iMo, it is still not only the best and only manner in which to see the real world, but also the best way to the making of surprising fresh pictures. And, even though it has been said that every thing that can be photographed has been photographed, that does not mean that every thing that has been photographed cannot be seen afresh.

So, no. I do not believe we have reached the end of photography. Then again, maybe we are just beating on a dead horse while waiting for the next new thing to come roaring down the tracks.

# 6873-75 / picture windows • still life • fashion ~ it's a window, as I see it

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

IT IS MY FIRM AND CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, in the straight photography world, a picture can be viewed as “a window through which one may better know the world” (Szarkowski). Although, Winogrand might state that a picture can be viewed as a window through which one may better know “what something will look like photographed”. Szarkowski most likely would not have disagreed with Winogrand inasmuch as he also stated that … “the factuality of a picture, no matter how convincing and unarguable, is a different thing than the reality itself. Much of the reality is filtered out in the static…image, and some of it is exhibited with an unusual clarity, an exaggerated importance. The subject and the picture are not the same thing”.

All of that written, one could be led to the question of what exactly is a photograph? There are many possible answers to that question but most “serious” photographers-according to Szarkowski-tend to cluster around one of two possibilities; a photograph is either “a window through which to better know the world (an exploration)”, or, a photograph is “a mirror reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it (a self expression)”. However….

…iMo, the very best photographs are both a window and a mirror. That’s cuz a photograph that exhibits a high degree of convincing and unarguable factulality is able to help us better know the world when the captured image is the result of a picture maker’s unique manner of seeing, aka-his / her vision (literally and figuratively). That written, and to clarify my thoughts on the matter, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, The best photographs-as described above-are those that stand on their own two visual feet, AKA-their appeal to the visual senses.

Too many picture makers try way too hard to imbue their photographs with meaning. “Artistic” techniques / effects and accompanying artspeak are the primary evidence thereof. A picture never be just a picture. I.E. a thing that gives pleasure to the eye, what Sontag called the erotics of art.

In order to be “understood”, the purveyors of such pictures seem to insist that their pictures must be viewed as stand-ins for something else; a symbol, a metaphor, or a sign that reveals a hidden and invariably “deep” meaning. Ya know, like an apple for instance…is it a symbol for love, ecstasy, fertility and abundance, or, if your mind is of a certain bent, an apple core sliced in half represents the vulva. Take your pick. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that an art theorist / historian / MFA / critic and the like will have a zillion other possibilities.

In any event, all that decipher- the-meaning stuff requires thinking. And, just as the advice goes, re: don’t think when making a photograph, I apply the don’t-think idea when viewing photographs. That’s simply cuz I want to see and feel what a photograph has to offer, aka: what the photographer saw as he / she sees it. Inasmuch as photography is a visual medium, I want my eyes to do the investigating, not my intellect.

Call me simple-minded, but that’s how I see it.

# 6870-71 / common things • around the house • decay ~ recuperating

HAVEN’T BEEN AT MY COMPUTER FOR A FEW DAYS while recovering from a very nasty icy sidewalk fall. However, Also haven’t been inclined to make any pictures but I did spend some time making Lego flower arrangements. And while I was wiling away the time, I did receive a notice that one of my photographs was accepted into a REMAINS-themed exhibition.