# 6893-97 / travel • trees • landscape ~ I'm a pointer, you're a pointer, evryone can be a pointer too

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THIS ENTRY HAS 2 PHOTOGRAPHS MADE IN NEW MEXICO––2 in Santa Fe and 3 photographs made in and around Hemez. The common item–– the cottonwood tree. If one were attempting, by making photographs, to capture / present a sense of place, and that place was in the area of New Mexico I was in, then one would have to include the cottonwood tree in most photographs. And that written, “BINGO” might be declared if a photo also includes an adobe structure.

RE: a sense of place - attempting to convey a sense of pace in a photograph is, iMo, a bit of a questionable endeavor. That’s cuz reducing the representation of a place to; a) a flat-as-a-pancake 2D plane, aka: minus a sense of depth, b) minus a sense of sound, and c) minus a sense of smell is similar to attempting to experience a sense of bourbon by licking the outside of a glass––fine Irish Waterford crystal, of course––of bourbon with a stuffed up nose.

iMo, in point of fact, what you get when you photograph a place is what that place looks like when photographed.

That written, an adroitly produced photograph of a place (or thing / person) can incite in a viewer notions of curiosity / interest and even a desire to experience, in person, that place. A viewer might actually experience a vicarious sensation of some kind––in his/her imagination––from such a photograph. However, I would suggest that the imagined experience is instigated more from the photograph itself rather than from the literally depicted referent* CAVEAT: in the Fine Art world. As John Szarkowski wrote:

A photograph produced [ED] … with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that 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.”

To wit, the photographs, made by others, that I like and the photographs I strive to make tend to come down on the pleasure and sense of enlargement that comes from a pattern created by the pointer side of Szarkowski’s ledger. Or, in other words, I like to make or view a photograph(s) that is a beautiful object(s), in and of itself; photographs of a referent selected from the quotidian world that is not customarily considered to be beautiful in of itself.

To my eye and sensibilities, that is the magic and the beauty of the medium of photography and its apparatus.

* that written, nevertheless, the form––aka: pattern––and the literally depicted referent are inexorably linked.

# 6886-92 / (un)common palces-things • people ~ being there

all photos (embiggenable) ancient Pueblo cliff cave dwelling

Of all the world’s photographers, the lowliest and least honored is the simple householder…. His knowledge of photography is about that of your average chipmunk. …. 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 …. He lugs his primitive equipment with him on vacation trips …. 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.” ~ Jean Shepherd

PURSUANT TO MY LAST ENTRY (re: nix on touristy pictures) I CAN ATTEST THAT when making photographs while traveling that include the presence of the wife, I have successfully avoided making pictures that the lowliest and least honored simple householder might make while making a picture of his/her loved one standing in front of something and smiling into the lens.

My intent when making such photographs of the wife during our travels is to simply capture a slice of life––her doing her thing while I am doing mine. The photographs are not about her, per se, but rather about her being there, engaged in the moment.

On the flip side, when the wife takes a picture of me, it is usually at my request. That request is most always accompanied by “instructions” from me that she just picture me doing what I am doing and to include something that gives context to where we are. That written, she usually gets it “right”.

That success just might be due to the fact that, by living with me, she does know more about photography than the average chipmunk.

# 6981-85 / landscape • (un)common things • places ~ along for the ride

all photos (embiggenable)

FLIGHT TO DENVER, RENT A CAR, DRIVE 6.5 Hours TO Hemez, New Mexico. Knowing that there would be some spectacular scenery along the way, I let the wife drive so I could make pictures from the passenger seat. A good decision as it turned out cuz I made enough from-the-car photographs to make a small book. Not that I did not get out of the car to make a photograph or two (or more)––the mural in the middle of nowhere as an example.

That written, I am always somewhat conflicted when making photographs during our travels. That’s cuz, when traveling it is inevitable that one sees something new / never seen before. The temptation, picture making wise, is to focus on those things but, as previously written, I really don’t like to feature things in my photographs. In other words, I do not want to return from a trip with a bunch of typical touristy pictures.

That written, the tool I employ to avoid making touristy pictures is quite simple––I remain true to my vision, aka: the way I see the world. That is, I see something and I photograph it the way I encounter / see it. Works almost every time.

More photographs to come.

# 6977–80 / landscape • (un)common places—things ~ soaking it all in

FANTASTIC DAYS IN NEW MEXICO-2 AT A HOT SPRING “resort”, 2 in Santa Fe-and now I’m in Denver, Colorado-the mile-high city-for 4 days and then back home. Since arriving out here, I have not been below 5200 ft of elevation and have been as high as 9600ft (on a highway). Most of my time was spent between 6500-7500ft of elevation.

I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn’t say any other way.” ~ Georgia O’Keeffe

Spent the better part of an afternoon in the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe. I discovered that she and I share a few ideas about art and what we see: sorta like the 2 pictures below––hers, made of the view through her house window and mine, made through the windshield of our rental car.

In any event, I have made a lot of pictures that I will begin posting upon my return to home.

# 6974-76 / kitchen sink • flora • landscape ~ they're not as sharp as they think they are

all photos (embiggenable)

I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects.” ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

REGULAR FOLLOWERS OF THIS BLOG HAVE PROBABLY noticed there have been more entries posted than is usual. That is most likely do to my new proclivity for using quotes to introduce one topic or another. FYI, as mentioned previously, I have collected quite a number of quotes from the interweb and from photo book––monographs––intros / prefaces / reviews. They act as a kinda instigator for entry topics, so much so that rarely have words poured from my penny pencil with such feverish fluidity.

Be that as it may, today’s topic was not instigated by the above HBC quote––I dug that out after I encountered the real instigator; today’s entry on T.O.P. in which M. Johnston made know his opinion, re: too much sharpness, resolution, micro contrast, et al known, i.e. he, like my own self, don’t like it at all.

Having written on the topic numerous times, I am disinclined to do so again. However, as an addendum to my previous thoughts on the subject, let me add this idea; the addiction to sharpness / resolution to-the-max is just one of many picture making afflictions embraced by those who are “as far away from the real issues” as possible. Just like the band Spinal Tap, who play their music with their amp volumes set to “11”, these dreck-conian picture makers have never seen a slider––hue & saturation, sharpness, vibrance, et al––that they don’t set to “11”. They often refer to that proclivity as “being creative”. Ha. Enough written on the topic.

FYI, one possible reason I have posted more often than usual is that the wife and I are headed to New Mexico tomorrow for some R’nR. Staying for a few days in a modest Pueblo-style, hot spring resort. Then on to Santa Fe for 2 days and a night for some luscious food and some culture. Followed by a visit to Denver to visit with some friends and family. That being so, I kinda think I’ve been cramming in a bunch of thoughts on some virtual paper before heading out.

In any event, I will post while I’m away although it might be more pictures than words.

BTW, writing about sharpness, the picture with the budding maple tree was made through a back porch screen. A “diffusion” filter, if you will. I didn’t have any other choice of making that picture from the same vantage point without involving a step ladder. iMo, it gets the point across quite effectively without any sharpness to-the-max.

# 6969-73 / common places-things • landscape • in situ ~ nominal subject matter

“John Szarkowski has used the expression “nominal subject matter”. I think that’s perfect for my behavior here. I am not interest in gas stations or anything about gas stations. This happens to be an excuse for seeing.… I don’t care if it was about a gas station or if this is a rubber raft or if this is a crappy little house. That’s not my subject! The gas station isn’t my subject. It’s an excuse for a place to make a photograph”….

…. “I take a picture of the subject and its context––the subject as it stands with everything else…. I’m trying to make an atonal photograph where everything is as important as everything else…. I think it’s possible to make a photograph in which the photographer lays back enough so the viewer comes into the photograph and has a chance to perceive the thing on his own terms, instead of only seeing what the photographer has hooked him to see. I think one of the reasons I’m using the 8x10 camera is that I felt I could work with the large camera and make photographs in which the subject was everything in the frame.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

I RECENTLY WROTE THAT I DO NOT TITLE MY photographs onaccounta I do not wish to call attention to the literally depicted referent in my pictures cuz my pictures are rarely “about” the literally pictured referent. As an adjunct to that practice, at an exhibit of my photographs I have always wished for red velvet ropes strung 3-4 feet in front the gallery walls to prevent viewers from sticking their noses where they don’t belong––that is, so close to a picture that they can not see the print in its entirety. That’s cuz seeing the print in the all together is the only way in which a viewer can actually see what my pictures are about.

My “excuse” for making a photograph is the potential I see in isolated––by means of framing––sections of the quotidian world to create visually interesting form; form that results from the fact that everything within my frame is as important as everything else within the frame. In other words, creating visually interesting form is my subject, aka: what my photographs are about. It is not about the literally depicted things in my photographs.

FYI, if I were to title any of the above photographs, the titles might be something like; my son wearing a new hat, or, my grandson eating lunch at the Statue of Liberty, or, my daughter and her cousins reading on the beach. However, for the life on me, I just can not imagine how those titles would improve, in any manner, a viewer’s reaction to / appreciation of / understanding of the pictures. In fact, iMo, the titles might very well lead a viewer to think that that information had something to do with why I made the pictures which, in fact, had absolutely nothing––nada, zero, zip––to do with why I made the pictures.

# 6964-68 / common places • common things ~ they keep beating it like a rented mule

all photos (embiggenable)

Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography.” ~ George Eastman

“There is no such thing as “good” or “bad” photographic light. There is just light.” ~ Brooks Jensen

Photography is about light…. The best light for photography usually comes in early morning and late afternoon…. I might drive several hundred miles checking out barn sites and then double back to photograph an especially good one in evening light; or put up at a nearby motel if I thought morning light would be better.” ~ POOR, DELUDED PHOOL (as found on the interweb)

I use the real world: whatever the light is, wherever I find myself, I make the picture. I don’t often say I’ll come back the next day for it. There is only now. The moment is now, I am here now, it is happening now, take it now. The sense of that moment, the magnitude of that, is the only thing I can respond to…. Photography is about the consciousness of now for me.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

WHEN I CAME ACROSS A LINK TITLED, in part, with “…and the meaning of photography”, my curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on it. Unsurprisingly, what I found was yet another leaden nugget of dreck-conian, cliché drivel. The first thing that sprang to mind was Brooks Jensen’s opinion, re: light, followed by George Eastman’s opinion which, in turn, was followed by digging out my much worn, somewhat tattered copy of Cape Light by Joel Meyerowitz.

ASIDE I first encountered the work of Joel Meyerowitz when I worked as a consultant, c. 1978, for Sally Eauclaire, the author of the seminal book, the new color photography. Sally, a well-respected and published art critic, knew nothing about photography. Consequently, she asked me to advise her on all things photographic as we spread out photo prints, a near weekly occurrence, on my studio floor-work selected by her from work submitted by gallery / institutional directors and individual photographers for inclusion in her book.

For me, this experience was like having a front row seat at the emergence of the new fine art color photography movement. To say it had a profound effect on me is a…well…. profound understatement––a truly eye opening, literally and figuratively, experience. Ya know, kinda like having an student-of-one grad school study experience.

TRUE CONFESSION At that time I was smitten by the work of Meyerowitz. So much so that I went on a search to learn as much as I could about his photo technique; he used an 8x10 view camera-no problem, I had 2 8x10s along with a very ample number of 8x10 film holders; he used long exposure / tungsten balance color negative film-a seemingly odd choice for making daylight photos but, on second thought, long shutter speeds @ f45-64 were frequently required; the only thing I lacked was a light weight wood tripod but I was able to long-term borrow one from a friend. Armed with that gear, I must shamefully confess that I set out to make as many photographs as possible––but not exclusively––during the time of day, as mentioned by Meyerowitz, as entre chien et loup. END ASIDE

Getting back to the topic of light, I am totally down with Jensen inasmuch as I have always believed that there was just light. And like Meyerowitz, whatever the light is at the time when a picture making opportunity pricks my eye and sensibilities, I just make a picture. Unlike those who” chase the light”––those whose pictures most often degenerate into nostalgia and cheap sentiment––I prefer the real as opposed to caricature-ized, fanasty dramascapes.

Light is an obviously elemental constituent in the making of a photograph. However, iMo, it exhibits itself in a seemingly endless stream of variable emanations. That written, the question that arises in my mind is simply, why would any picture maker limit his/herself to just a single expression of that expansive natural phenomenon? A picture making act which creates an endlessly repetitive––in fact, deadening to my eye and sensibilities––sensation to our visual receptors.

# 6990-93 / landscape • common things • kitchen sink ~ it's more than what you think it is

all photos ~ (embigenable)

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.” ~ John Szarkowski

Finding something beautiful means conferring significance on it. Snatching it from oblivion, rescuing it, making it visible.” - Ariel Hauptmeier

By Interstate 70: a dog skeleton, a vacuum cleaner, TV dinners, a doll, a pie, rolls of carpet....Later, next to the South Platte River: algae, broken concrete, jet contrails, the smell of crude oil.... What I hope to document, though not at the expense of surface detail, is the form that underlies this apparent chaos.” ~ Robert Adams

The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, endowing the act… with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, 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

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THAT I COLLECT QUOTES that tend to have relevance to my thoughts and practices, re: the making of photographs. The 4 quotes presented herein come very close to encapsulating my M.O., re: the picture making process, to wit….

…. the “art” of photography is comparable to the act of pointing cuz, in fact, one is actually pointing a picture making device at something. And, in point of fact, some of us do tend to point that device toward more interesting facts / configurations than other pointers do.

In any event, making a picture of that something essentially snatches it from oblivion and makes it visible. A print made from that encounter does indeed confer a significance on that something cuz, the picture maker is conveying to a viewer of that photograph the simple directive of “Look at this. I believe it to be of some significance.”

Now here is where it gets “tricky”…. if the picture maker performs the act of making a picture with a “special grace”––understanding and trusting their unique vision, both literal and figurative––and employs a formal rigor that identifies a work of art, he/she will most likely manage to document the form that underlies the sometime apparent chaos of the real world––although, hopefully, not at the expense of surface detail.

In the most successful results of the act of picture making, a viewer of the printed result will be uncertain how much of their pleasure and sense of enlightenment comes from the thing pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer.

All of that written, my primary objective in making photographs is to document the form that underlies the apparent chaos of the real world. However, as a practitioner of straight photography, I also always strive to respect the visual integrity––as much as the medium allows––of the surface detail of the literally depicted thing(s) as seen in my pictures.

FYI, I rarely title / caption my photographs cuz most captions / titles call attention to the literally depicted referent(s) in a photograph and, to be perfectly clear, the literally depicted referent(s) in my photographs are not what pricked my eye and sensibilities and instigated my picture making activity, so why call attention to it?

Rather, once again to be perfectly clear, what pricks my eye and sensibilities is the visual possibilities of line, shape, value, color, and texture I see (quite literally see), which, when snatched from the real world, isolated and organized in a perfect––to my eye and sensibilities––frame, can be employed to create visually interesting form.

All of that written, I can unequivocally write that, if all I could do, picture making wise, was to make pictures of things, and only things, I would have traded in my picturing gear and purchased a Singer Sewing Machine a long time ago.