# 6984-89 / landscape • roadside • (un)common thing ~ Spring sweetness

On the boil in the sugar house ~ It takes 40 gallons of maple sap to make 1 gallon of maple syrup. all photos (embiggenable)

I've worked out of a series of no's. No to exquisite light, no to apparent compositions, no to the seduction of poses or narrative.” ~ Richard Avedon

THE THING ABOUT SPRING HERE IN THE ADIRONDACKS is mist, fog, and raging water.

Of added Spring time interest is the very short weather window for maple syrup making. There are quite a number of so-called sugar houses doting the landscape. FYI, a sugar house is a small shack-like structure where maple sap is boiled down to produce the correct density for maple syrup. Standing in a sugar house during the boil feels / smells like you have coated the inside of your nose with, well… maple syrup. And, tasting the syrup straight out of the boil is a taste sensation that is simply amazing.

ASIDE Don’t know what will happen with the price of maple syrup this year cuz, thanks t-RUMP, most of the maple syrup in the US of A that originates in Canada will be hit with tariffs. The current price for pure maple syrup here in our neck of the maple tree woods is $34.95 / quart (32oz.) END SIDE

# 6981-83 / around the house • kitchen sink • common things ~ creative networks

all photos (embiggenable)

The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner; not for the sake of being different, but ones that are different because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. I realize that we all do express ourselves, but those who express that which is always being done are those whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else. Expression on this basis has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves.” - Harry Callahan

I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE THAT A LARGE PORTION OF the population feels quite safe and reasonably happy being in accord in almost every way with everyone else. Hell, even in our politically divided US of A, 75% of the population did not vote for t-RUMP,––who gave us E. musk-RAT as a bonus. However, that written, this is not about politics, it is about photography…

…. and I also believe it to be true that most “serious” amateur picture makers are reasonably happy making pictures, aka: expressing themselves, that look remarkably like the pictures everyone else is making. Ya know what I mean; safe, conventionally ”approved” subject matter pictured according to the “rules”, or if you prefer, creating one cliché after another. Whether this is due to the fact that most “serious” picture makers are risk-adverse or––as I believe––are unable to imagine themselves out of a wet paper bag is an open question. Although, iMo, it is most likely a combination of both causes….

ASIDE All of that written, it is worth asking what, contextually, was Harry Callahan referring to when using the phrase “expresses himself”? iMO, it would be reasonable (and safe) to assume that he was referring to the act of making photographs. And, it would also be reasonable to assume that with his idea, “Expression on this basis (thinking in accord with everyone else, picture making wise) has become dull”, Callahan is expressing––in the kindest possible manner––his dislike of boring, photographic schlock. END ASIDE

…. , but, my ASIDE aside, maybe the “cause” of all of this dull expression is not attributable to group thinking. Rather, it finds its roots in the fact current research suggests that:

Our findings indicate that the creative brain is “wired” differently and that creative people are better able to engage brain systems that don’t typically work together. Interestingly, the results are consistent with recent fMRI studies of professional artists, including jazz musicians improvising melodies, poets writing new lines of poetry and visual artists sketching ideas for a book cover.

Future research is needed to determine whether these networks are malleable or relatively fixed. For example, does taking drawing classes lead to greater connectivity within these brain networks? Is it possible to boost general creative thinking ability by modifying network connections?

For now, these questions remain unanswered.

So, going with my unable-to-imagine-their-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag idea, it is quite possible that this issue, attributed to those alike-thinking picture makers, is actually linked to the fact that they are not able to engage brain systems that don’t typically work together. Not cuz they are dumbasses but rather cuz they were born / wired that way. Sorta like they got passed over in that ability in the DNA / genetics spin-of-the-wheel, aka: “god-given gift”, lotto.

Now I am aware that mentioning the above research––just one of many that have come to similar conclusions––reads like the ye-olde either-ya-got-it-or-ya-don’t saying. Some might be inclined to put me on an express train to being an “elitist” but here’s the thing; I have indeed been a life-long believer in that ye-olde saying.

However, that is not to write that I believe it to be an all-or-nothing concept. Rather, I believe that “having it” runs along a spectrum; some have it to the max, some have a healthy dose, while others have enough of it to be dangerous, and some just don’t have it at all. And, to be certain, just cuz one has-it in one area of human endeavor does not mean they have it any other area of human activity.

So, if ya got it, use it. If ya don’t you can always play it by the “rules”.

# 6976-80 / landscape • common things ~ signs of spring / on the road again

all photos (embiggenable)

One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it...If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better…. My first thought is always of light.” ~ Galen Rowell

ONE MORE DAY UNTIL SPRING BUT I COULDN’T wait, so I got the EYE-TAL-EE-N sports car––twin intercooled turbo, track-tuned suspension, burble / pop / wail free-flow exhaust, soft top––out and on the road-gotta give the Mazda turbo a bit of a rest.With a ˚64F day the top was open and I headed 10 miles down river to check out the Spring runoff at the chasm. Made some photographs while I was out and about.

The day started sunny and gradually turned into a soft hazy overcast. Galen Rowell would have hated it and most likely left his camera at home. That cuz, ya know, it’s all about “the light” and if “the light” ain’t dramatic what’s the point? Without it it’s very difficult to be a photo-caricaturist. That is, a picture maker dedicated to making caricatures of the natural world cuz, ya know, the real world is just…well…boring.

And, iMo, Rowell was one of the masters of that genre and it’s fair to write that he never used a film that wasn’t color saturated and never encountered a hue & saturation slider that he did not use to the max. Rowell apparently believed that the answer to making one’s photographs “better” was to slather on a lot of art sauce cuz only suckers and nincompoops attempt to make their photographs bear a closer resemblance to the real world; in his words “fighting on the minus side of things”.

The only conclusion I can draw from his work and his words is that he is someone who employs the tools of a medium that excels, like no other visual art, at showing what the real world looks like, in order to make photographs that do not look like the real world. iMo, that makes made him the real nincompoop who is was fighting on the minus side of things.

# 6973-75 / landscape • roadside detritus • kitchen sink ~ more than meets the eye

all photos (enmbiggenable)

wonder: 1. n. a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.

I had a teacher who said there were three ways in which art functions: one, as decor, an augment to interior design; then there is art as a statement, a tool to support a particular argument; and then there is the idea that it evokes wonder. When I heard that, the idea of pursuing the sense of wonder stood out.” ~ Edward Burtynsky

I NEVER HAD A TEACHER WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT art or photography. And, I can write with authority that my lack of that kind of education hasn’t hurt me none.

That written, I do have a quibble with the statement made by Burtynsky’s teacher; I believe that fine art can function as decor, make a statement, and evoke wonder simultaneously. In fact, as an example, I would be delighted to hang a Burtynsky Quarries photograph––saw the NYC gallery exhibition––on a wall in my house (if I could afford one) and I am certain that it would function as a decor-like object, make a statement (albeit not a strident one), and most certainly evoke a sense of visual wonder.

In any event, many might wonder why I would choose to put a picture of a quarry on my wall. Most likely, my answer––”I did not hang a picture of a quarry on the wall. Rather, I put a photograph on the wall that expresses what a quarry looks like when photographed.”–– would only further add to their confusion. To take my answer a step further, I would add that, when looking at the photograph, I do not see a quarry; what I see is an image with an amazing amount of visual energy / interest––an organization of lines, shapes, color, tone, form––that pricks my eye and sensibilities.

And, that visual quality in a photograph––a photograph of any thing––is what I most prize in a photograph. That visual quality which, to my eye and sensibilities, is an act of transmutation that is capable of changing an image into a beautiful object, i.e., a beautiful print––in and of itself as an object––which transcends the literally depicted referent.

To be certain, a photograph’s form is intrinsically linked to what is literally depicted. However, that written, my advice #3 is-if you wish to dig deeper into a photograph, do not be distracted / misled by what is literally depicted. A really good photograph is most often about more than that.

# 6970-72 / common things ~ form fitting fotos

all photos (embigenable)

wonder: v. desire or be curious to know something.

I work to create an image that draws people in with its aesthetic, but then has them grappling with it and wonder why they are drawn to it. They’re thinking, “I am reacting against what I am seeing, but drawn to it.”….. If it makes the viewer somewhat uncomfortable, that’s interesting.” ~ Edward Burtynsky

I HAVE SEVERAL TIMES PAST MENTIONED THAT ONE of the most common comments I hear from viewers of my photographs is, “I don’t know why I like this, but I do.” In my experience, the “dilemma” they are grappling with is that they do not understand why they are drawn to / curious about a picture of something that is conventionally deemed to be very ordinary / plain / unexceptional.

When I hear such a comment, I am tempted to throw my hands and arms into the air and yell, “Success!!!!” That’s cuz, like Burtynsky, I work––although it does not feel like work to me–– to create an image that draws in, a. my eye and sensibilities (first), and, hopefully, b. other people’s eye (second) with its aesthetic, AKA: the form I see and photograph in the quotidian world and which is on exhibit in my photographs.

I am in no way trying to be condescending, however I do believe that most viewers who express such consternation have no conscious / learned knowledge, re: form …. ASIDE Unlike, say, an art center gallery director who asked, when viewing my very early on, unorganized portfolio–– I had yet to understand my discursively promiscuous picturing tendencies––”Are you a designer? Your photos, despite their random subject matter, have a very identifiable look that holds them all together as your work.” END ASIDE …. What I believe is happening with the don’t-know-why viewers is that, while they may have no formal recognition / understanding of form, many people* do possess an unconscious sensitivity / positive reaction to interesting / pleasing form when they see it.

That written, here’s the thing about form …. when attempting to describe form, most veer into vocalizing wispish vagueness, like, say, defining it as an orderly method of arrangement; a definition which most likely means many different things to many different viewers. Ya know like, one man’s orderly arrangement is another man’s sloppy mess. Others might describe form as the structural element, plan, or design of a work of art; while that might be viable for a painter who starts with a blank substrate, iMo, it simply don’t work for a straight photographer cuz, ya know, the visual structural elements of the real world are not very malleable.

There are also those, primarily found in academia or the writings of academia trained critics**, who go to great lengths to rip apart / dissect the visual structural elements of a work of art––a kinda post-mortem mori memento, an autopsy––in an effort to explain / understand how it “works”. It has always been my contention that if you have to kill it to understand how it works, then it was already dead to begin with.

All of that written, and to paraphrase A. Adams;

“There are no rules for making good form, there is only good form.” ~ I said that

*although, probably a minority of the population cuz ya can’t forget the quote attributed (but not verified) to H. L. Menckin;

Nobody ever when broke underestimating the taste of the American people.”

** and don’t forget the how-to-make-great-composition workshop hustlers

# 6967-69 / common places • common things ~ little rectangular worlds

all photos (embiggenable)

“Because of the resolution of working with an 8X10 camera, I found that I did not have to thrust the viewer’s face into something. If I saw something interesting, it could be part of a larger picture that has a number of points of interest. It changes the viewer’s relationship with an image. It is not framing one thing but creating a little rectangular world that the viewer can move their attention around and explore.” ~ STEPHEN SHORE

TO MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, THE IDEA THAT, WHEN making pictures, a photographer should “simplify”––that is, in framing a segment of the real world, one should eliminate all “distractions” which might direct attention away from “something interesting”––is simple minded. iMo, that edict, taken directly from the traditional canon of photography, can be accurately interpreted to simply (kinda a pun) mean to, dumb it down. Ya know, cuz simpletons need simple ideas cuz they have simple minds…

… to which I call balderdash!!! In my experience, say, when interacting with viewers of my photographs––which no one would consider to be shining examples of “framing one thing”––that they seem to be eminently capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. And, if my memory serves, I can recall only one instance of a viewer having to be revived from an attack of complexity derangement after viewing one of my pictures––fortunately, the gallery had a medic standing by for just such an emergency cuz, apparently, every now and then a simpleton did manage to sneak in the door.

All that written, I am totally down with Stephen Shore’s idea of making little rectangular worlds––albeit, in my case, (primarily) little square worlds. But, that stated, I am also sympathetic to the idea suggested by the Irish poet Peter Kavanagh:

There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman*.

*don’t know what Kavanagh had against policemen.

# 6959-66 / common places • common things ~ what's to gain by letting a picture stare back at you?

pinhole ~ all photos (embiggenable)

FIRST AND FOREMOST, A HEARTY THANKS TO John Babineau who left a comment / suggestion on the just making pictures entry:

Mark, please read the obit re Peter Elbow in the March 3, 2025 NYT.
Very interesting following this post of yours
!”

I very much appreciate this comment as it is remindful of how thing used to be on my blog; readers chipping in with links, references, opinions, and facts, all of which contributed to a rather vibrant vibe. Thanks again John. And now, on with the show….

I connect to things in a visceral way. There are things that surprisingly move me and often I am shocked at the unpredictable character of these things. The camera is a reflex for me. It rises to my eye and opens up to take in that thing out there––sensation, feeling, cohesive elements that appear in front of me. It is a way of matching and absorbing the response I have to the world. It captures my consciousness and, later, this allows me to read my consciousness back like a text and understand my relationship to things or moments.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

I HAVE, OVER THE YEARS, AMASSED QUITE A COLLECTION OF quotes––like the Meyerowitz one above––from photographers / creatives that align with my thoughts and practices, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus. Keys points for me in this quote are: connecting in a visceral way / camera as a reflex / taking in that thing out there–sensations, feelings, cohesive elements / and, especially for purposes of this entry, reading my consciousness back to me like a text.

Re: reading my consciousness back to me like a text. A number of years ago I stumbled upon an idea that struck a chord with me; the concept that a photograph is capable of staring back at the viewer––for all intents and purposes, a metaphor for the experience of a good photograph’s capability of holding the attention of a viewer. This fanciful notion captured my interest cuz, like Meyerowitz perceives, my photographs (as wells as photos made by many others)––to use the metaphor––stare back at me and, in doing so, assists me in understanding my relationship to things, moments, and event as encountered in the real world. Call it what you like, the idea that a good photograph––or for that matter, any visual art–– can hold a viewer’s interest ain’t exactly a secret.

That written, the NY Times has a running series, every first-Monday-of-the-month, The 10 Minute Challenge. Each month the Times picks a well known work of art that is presented on a neutral background with the “challenge” for a viewer to look at it for 10 minutes––there is a running timer that the viewer can activate when ready to begin. FYI, a viewer can zoom in/out if desired. After whatever time when a viewer is finished viewing, there is a comment section for the viewer to record what he/she derived from the viewing experience.

The current challenge is a Henri Cartier-Bresson photograph––his famous puddle jumper picture (not my HC-B favorite). This link will take you to the challenge page but the NYT is a subscription site so I do not know if you will be able to take the challenge. Nevertheless, there is nothing from preventing you from selecting a photo (mine or anyone’s) and isolating it on your screen and looking at it for 10 minutes. ASIDE 10 minutes ain’t a mandated / magic number, and, iMo, it is best to let your eye wander about the image instead of zooming in or out END ASIDE

IN any event, you just might see / experience something––a sensation / a feeling / a recognition of cohesive elements––that you probably would have missed with a much more abbreviated viewing.

# 6957-58 / common places • common things ~ good advice

ode to Berence Abbott ~ all photos (embiggenable)

If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image formed by a lens, I see no reason why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the contrary, we should take hold of that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest.” ~ Berenice Abbott

FYI, I believe my photo, c. 2008, is of the exact same location as seen in Abbott’s 1935 photo (click on her name above to see her Gasoline Station, Tenth Avenue , NYC, 1935).