6774-78 / common things • landscape ~ raison d'être / flash in the pan

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THERE ARE SO MANY WAYS OTHER THAN THE ORGASMIC picture making orgy of blazing Autumnal color to herald the arrival of Autumn.

WHILE WE ARE ON THE TOPIC OF “GREAT” PICTURES (my definition thereof pending), it is my belief that “great” pictures are the unintended byproduct of the endeavor of creating a body of work.

FYI, in this conversational context I am considering to be “great” those pictures which come to define a body work and almost always/invariably, pop into one’s head when the name of the maker thereof is mentioned …. although, perhaps “Signature” picture is a better phrase. As examples, say “Eggleston” and think tricycle picture, or, say “Shore” and think Beverly Blvd / La Brea Ave picture, or say “Frank” and think Trolley picture.

To be certain those pop-up pictures are not necessarily the picture that comes to mind when hearing / reading those photographers’ names. However, show someone* any of those pictures and the maker’s name will most likely come to mind.

In any event, here’s where I’m going with this topic …. those pictures which have been designated as “signature” or “great”-–by whatever means, opinions, process, et al–probably came as surprise to the makers of those pictures. That is to write, that at the time–neither before nor after–of their making, the photographers in question were most likely not thinking that they had made a “greatest hit” picture. They were just doing their thing and then relegating the results to a specific body of work.

Which is not to suggest that as time went by they did not periodically review the work and, in doing so, come to recognize some the pictures as “better” than some others in expressing their vision. However …. in my fantasy photo world, I would be able to ask, as an example, Eggleston , Shore, Frank what photo of their making they consider to be their “greatest hit” and I would not be surprised if they had difficulty naming even one photo as their best ever photograph.

I write that cuz I believe that most, if not every, hardcore / driven-to-make-pictures photographer considers their bodies of work to be their “greatest” hit, individual “greatest hits” be damned. Furthermore, I believe that to be the case cuz whichever photograph comes to be considered to be “signature” or a “great hit”, more often than not, makes no sense when isolated from the context of the greater body of work from which it emerged.

iMo, in the greater scheme of things, photography wise, a “greatest hit”, without a body of work to validate its raison d'être, is little more than a flash in the pan.

*someone interested in the medium and its apparatus.

#6769-73 / landscape • common things ~ some photographers (most?) just wanna have fun

“[Writers on photography have] difficulty in accepting the fact that luck is a great and powerful force in photography; we tend to be interested only in intention, because it makes the enterprise feel more important.” ~ John Szarkowski

I RECENTLY CAME ACROSS A SITE–HERITAGE AUCTIONS / Photography Signature Auction–THAT CURRENTLY HAS 512 photographs available at auction. According to the site event description, this auction:

….”presents an extraordinary opportunity to acquire works by some of the most celebrated photographers of the 20th century. Headlining the sale are important offerings from Irving Penn, Robert Frank, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, and Peter Beard, each representing a distinct and influential vision within the medium. Spanning both black-and-white and color photography, the auction encompasses an impressive 512 lots that reflect the depth and diversity of the photographic tradition. Collectors will discover breathtaking landscapes, iconic portraits, dynamic studies of American life, intimate nudes, and other captivating subjects.”

The description is woefully deficient in mentioning the number of “celebrated” photographers represented in the auction; names such as Smith, Abbott, Cartier-Bresson, Shore, Salgado, Erwitt, Haas, Wegman, Weston, Stieglitz, Frank, Arbus, Strand and many others. Each of the works has a small roll-over enlargement which presents an expanded view of the work, a rare opportunity–but only until October 3–to view all these photographs together in one place.

Upon viewing the work, most of which would be considered to be great photographs, my impression was that I needed to re-evaluate my idea of the honorific phrase of [that’s] “a great photograph”. That is, even to the point of questioning whether or not there is such a thing as a “great” photograph.

Seeking an answer to that question is rife with pitfalls. First and most probably foremost is ITEM #1 - the fact that “great” for one person can be not-so-great for another person, aka: one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Then there is ITEM #2 - who the hell’s job is it to decide what is great or not-so-great? Academics? The Unruly Masses? The Art World Gatekeepers?–I guess it all depends on whether one is a proponent of MOMA or, conversely, Jean Shepherd’s Museum of American Slob Art. And, ITEM #3 - just for laughs, let’s just throw in, amongst many other pitfall possibilities, the BIG QUESTION, what exactly is Art/art anyway?

All of that aside, and, considering Szarkowski’s observation that “… because it makes the enterprise feel more important”, iMo, all the words it would take to give even the vaguest suggestion of what constitutes greatness in a piece of photographic art would be spent primarily in support of implying that making photographs is an “important” undertaking; a supposition that I am not eager to accept.

I mean, seriously, when viewing all of the “great” pictures in the auction, is anyone left with the impression that any of them are important in any way? Important, that is, outside of the Art World?

That is not to write, that the photographs are not very good photographs but, in fact, are they that much better than many of the very good photographs being made today by no-name picture makers? Nor is it to write that I would not drive 300-400 miles to view an exhibition of such photographs or an exhibition of a a single celebrated photographer cuz I have and still would do so. And, to be perfectly clear, I would go to the same effort to see a group exhibition of photographs made by no-name, unknown pictures makers whose work was harvested from the web.

All of that written, I’m guessing–cuz I’m not really certain–that my point here is that I’m hesitant to use the appellation “great” loosely. Got to think about more, especially when it comes to describing a single photograph. FYI, I have no inhibition against using it to describe a body of work, an accomplishment that is well worth a few accolades.

# 6764-68 / people • common things • landscape ~ STUPID: ACT 2

all photos (embiggenable) ~ Me and Teddy, aka: Theodore Roosevelt

“Here's a secret tip for making better photographs—look for great light….You gotta get used to looking at light rather than at the thingy-ness of the world. It's not those things you're photographing—it's those things in that light.” ~ Michael Johnston

THE PHOTOGRAPHY WORLD IS AWASH IN, to be kind, “questionable” picture-making advice. But every once in awhile one comes across a notion so blatantly ignorant as to be awarded the all-time Best Ever Worst Advice award. As a candidate for that honorarium, I give you the above quote from Michael Johnston.

The idea that you gotta get used to looking at light rather than at the thingy-ness of the world flies in the face of the medium’s bedrock, inexorable and intrinsic relationship with the real, aka: in this context, thingy-ness things. Every time one points their picture making device at something, that something is a thingy-ness of the world thing. Hell, it could reasonably be argued that light itself is a thingy-ness thing.

As for the idea that it’s not those things you are photographing, I can write only, ”Balderdash!!!!” Those things are exactly–i.e. one of the medium’s unique characteristics–what you are photographing.

That written, while most serious amateur picture makers are primarily concerned with making pictures of things–i.e. in a technically “perfect”, now-you-see-it depiction thereof–the real challenge in making “better” photographs is to create an image / picture that expresses something beyond the literalness of the thing depicted.

John Szarkowski had something to say about that:

“Photography is the easiest thing in the world if one is willing to accept pictures that are flaccid, limp, bland, banal, indiscriminately informative, and pointless. But if one insists in a photograph that is both complex and vigorous it is almost impossible.”

iMo, it takes much more than “great light” to make a great photograph. That. is to write, if one is enamored by the light and does not recognize the visual characteristics of the thingy-ness thing, well the words “ flaccid, limp, bland, banal, indiscriminately informative, and pointless” come to mind.

# 6758-63 / ~ landscape • common things ~ my involvement with the medium of photography over the past couple days

all photos (embbigenable)

“Great light makes great pictures.” ~ Michael Johnston

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

"Light makes photography. Embrace it. 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

SO, OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS I HAVE made some pictures, an endeavor which should not come as news to many. However, in addition to that satisfying activity, I was also very agitated, annoyed, and perhaps even apoplectic in fact.

What set me off, you might ask? All it took was reading the title of a Mike Johnston entry entitled; Great light makes great pictures. I can not explain fully–perhaps psychoanalytic counseling is called for–why I find this so overwhelmingly annoying but let me try to explain; simply stated, that idea is exceedingly stupid, amateur-ish rubbish in so many ways….

…. first and foremost, in order to even begin to understand that postulation one must define what-in-the-hell is “great” light and/or, for that matter, what-in-the-hell is a “great” picture? Seeking the answer to those 2 questions might not ever lead to a consensus so good luck with that quest.

Ignoring that potential pitfall, we can all most likely agree that in order to make a photograph of any kind–great or not so great–requires the availability of light cuz, as we all know, making a photograph is writing with light. So once again, belief wise, I think we can all agree that light is an essential ingredient employed in the making of a photograph.

However, that written, does or can light “make” a photograph?

The dictionary states that the primary meaning of the word make is to form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances. iMo, based on that definition, an actual person is the only maker who can put together all of the many “parts”–ya know, things like vision, technique, gear, subject selection and visual organization, et al–needed to make a photograph. Indeed, light is one of those parts and, in some applications, it can be a very important part but, nevertheless, a “great” picture requires more than just the light, no matter how “great”, in order to be considered to be “great”. In other words, quite literally, light can not make a picture.

That written, the dictionary also iterates other possible meanings of the word make, one of which is to assure the success or fortune of; as in, seeing her makes my day. That meaning of the word could be employed by some viewers of a picture (with “great” light) to state, “The light in that picture is what makes it for me”…..OK, I get that but, if it is only the light that stirs that reaction, then I would suspect that the picture is most likely little more than a sappy, romanticized rendition of something.

All of that written, I categorically reject the idea that great light makes great picture. Sure, sure, some great pictures exhibit the skillful use of great light but, truly great pictures are always about more than the light.

And, please, please, please, don’t get me started regarding serious amateur-made pictures that are “about the light”–with a subset of those that are “about color”–cuz it feels like I have now mellowed out enough to resume regular living.

# 6749-57 / landscape ~ looks like seeing

all photos (embiggenable)

“The central act of photography, the act of choosing and eliminating, forces a concentration on the picture edge – the line that separates in from out – and on the shapes that are created by it.” ~ John Szarkowski

“I’m looking at three-dimensional space and understanding how to articulate that space and collapsing it into two dimensions.” ~ Stephen Shore

“Most color photography, in short, has been either formless or pretty. In the first case the meanings of color have been ignored; in the second they have been at the expensive of allusive meanings. While editing directly from life, photographers found it difficult to see simultaneously both the blue and the sky.” ~ John Szarkowski

I HAVE BEEN GETTING OUT AND MAKING PICTURES of the natural world, Adirondack wise, and I must confess that making natural-world landscape pictures gives me pause–aka: to cause one to stop and think carefully, hesitate, or have doubts about something. It suggests a moment of reflection where one reconsiders their plans or intentions because something has made them unsure or prompted concern. 

That pause is instigated by the fact that, in the making of natural-world photographs, that act differs from–or I perceive it to be so–my “normal” picture making visual sensibilities. That is, in a man-made environment, I almost always see Form, i.e. relationships of line, shape, space, texture, value, and color in the real world that, when isolated within my imposed framing, creates interesting–to my eye and sensibilities–pictures. In the natural-world environment, not so much. Consequently, I do something that I rarely do in a man-made environment, make a framing variation; an act that is most often referred to in the photo making world as “working the scene.” And, to be honest, I find this situation mildly disconcerting.

My discomfort is caused by the fact that I actually have to make a choice of which photo to print. When faced by such a choice, I tend to fall back on a Stephen Shore quote ….

“I wanted to make pictures that looked like seeing and not pictures that look like photographs”

Shore’s picture making desire, which is very much like my own, invariably makes the choice crystal clear and very easy to make.

FYI, the photograph of the small river cascade is of the Hudson River, a mere 600-700 feet. from where it first bears the name of “Hudson”.

# 6744-48 / common places-things • picture windows • adirondack survey ~ magnum opus

all photos (embiggenable)

“Our artist in the Adirondacks has contrived to tell us his own story, in his graphic way, with the pencil camera, and explanation by the pen is therefore hardly necessary.” ~ excerpt from from the Saturday, September 21, 1872, edition of Appleton’s Journal featuring a wood engraving entailed “Our Artist in the Adirondacks”.

MY An Adirondack Survey / in plain sight BODY OF WORK IS APPROACHING the 650 pictures mark. Inasmuch as that number will continue to increase (where it will end, nobody knows) raises several questions. The most obvious one; whether (or not) it is time for some serious editing? Ya know, get the number down to a more “manageable” body of work. Next question; what about providence, aka: making a provision for the future? Ya know, I want the work to pass on after I pass on. After all, it is my magnum opus.

RE: editing? - simple answer: not gonna happen. While the body of work, as it currently exists, could be edited down to a more manageable number of so-called “greatest hits”, that procedure would, for all intents and purposes, dilute–if not completely destroy–the essence of what, iMo, the body of work is about; quotidian life in the Adirondack Park*. Here’s the thing ….

…. if the Adirondack Park were to be a state, it would rank as the 37th largest in the US. Within the blue line–the line drawn in blue to define its borders when the Park was created in 1892–there are 105 towns and villages with approximately 130,000 year-round residents. Yes, the Park is considered to be–and marketed as–an outdoor, natural world playground (with some nice civilized amenities throw in), but the fact is that it is also a place where the residents go about the business of paying the rent of daily living. In other words, it’s a big place with a big story, so to speak.

That written, realistically, I realize that I will most likely have to edit the collection down–for exhibition / book purposes–to approximately 300-400 photographs. FYI, that number will be determined by the number of folio edition photo books I am creating (see below).

RE: providence? - I believe that this body of work is an important collection; nothing like it has ever been undertaken. Fact is, most picture makers, tourist and accomplished locals, make, almost exclusively, pictures of the “grand” outdoors / natural landscape. If you want a picture of the Adirondack natural landscape, they are–or should be–a dime a dozen. ASIDE truth be told, I have sold–with a very hefty price tag–quite of number of that type of picture END ASIDE.

With this body of work, the major challenge for me is to find an art institution that will acquire the body of work. To that end, I will be creating 8-10 photo books (several copies of each), serial folio-edition style, each book containing 30 photographs that I will be circulating to a number of institutions.

Needless to write, I have my work cut out for me.

* An anecdote … early on I showed my first An Adirondack Survey / in plain sight photo book (70 photographs) to a couple I was just introduced to. From the art they had on the walls of their home (we were there for dinner), I judged them to be rather art conscious so I pulled out the book and they, separately, took the time to look through it, front to back. The initial comment from the wife, seconded by her husband, was, for me, quite telling …. she said that they had just returned home from a trip out side the Park and what immediately struck her about the work / book was that it expressed an overwhelming feeling of their recent drive through the Park.

Needless to write, I was delighted to know that they “got it”. And, that was confirmed when they each picked out 1 photo apiece for purchase to hang in their home.

# 6736-43 / common places - (un)common things • landscape • adk vernacular ~ out and about

all photos (embiggenable)

UPDATE # 1 It required 2 days of effort but I have finally set up PS as a reasonable facsimile of my older and familiar version of PS. While it is loaded with–some might say “bloated” with–lots of new tools / capabilities, I have yet to find one that I need. And, FYI, the guy at B&H was wrong; this basic version Mac Book works quite fine with PS.

UPDATE # 2 Attended the iPhone Workshop. The best part was when the instructor began–about a third of the way into it–to say, ”let’s let Mark answer that question.”

THE WIFE AND I ATTENDED A DINNER AND A LECTURE–Adirondack folk music and stories–at Great Camp Sagamore..….

Great Camp Sagamore was constructed by William West Durant on Sagamore Lake–owned by Durant–between 1895 and 1897. The camp, which was sold in 1901 to the Vanderbilts, is arranged in two complexes a half-mile apart, the Upper, or worker's complex–homes, church, store, school, work spaces: most employees were year round residents–and the Lower, or guest complex, 27 buildings in all. The guests would not have frequented the worker's complex, as the buildings at the Upper complex are much more utilitarian than those in the Guest complex, and without the embellishment of the buildings designed for entertaining. Sagamore served as a sylvan setting in which the richest families in America could relax, party, and get a feeling of returning to nature. All of this, however, was accomplished without leaving the comforts of civilization behind.

After it was purchased by Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt, he expanded and improved the property to include flush toilets, a sewer system and hot and cold running water. He later added a hydroelectric plant and an outdoor bowling alley with an ingenious system for retrieving the balls. Other amenities included a tennis court, a croquet lawn, a 100,000 gallon reservoir, and a working farm. ~ from Wikipedia

Prior to the event, we stopped at a funky little bar in the nearby village of Raquette Lake, pop. 115, for a drink. I had a Utica Club beer. A beer which is forever embedded in my childhood memories as a result of the Utica Club tv commercials featuring Schultz and Dooley, the talking beer steins.

# 6732-35 / landscape • rist • (a) kitchen sink ~ new tool

all photos (embiggenable)

outside

inside

SETTLING IN AT RIST CAMP. HAVEN’T GOT OUT YET FOR natural world picture making, however, as is always the case, the landscape view from the front porch offers up a very satisfactory visage. And, no matter were you go, it seems that there is always a kitchen sink. Then again, there is the question of whether or not a picture of a tree growing out of the roof of a building is a natural world landscape picture.

A fair part of my first couple days at camp was spent setting up my new Mac Book Air laptop. I purchased the absolute bottom of the line, 13 inch version despite the warning I got from the guy at BandH who said it would be “borderline” for Photoshop usage. He just couldn’t wrap his mind around the fact that I use PS for simplest of processing tasks, especially so when I am on the road.

In fact, the main reason for my purchase was that I do like to post entries on this blog while traveling but the mobile app for doing so on SquareSpace is a piece of crap. Now, with the MacBook, I can use the desktop software. It is kinda a bonus that I can now use PS while traveling cuz it gives me a bit more processing capabilities than most mobile processing apps. However, those apps, Snapseed and Darkroom, have been more than adequate for 95% of my on-the-go processing needs and I could always perform more demanding processing operations when I returned home from my travels.

So, now with most of the set-up heavy lifting done, the only thing I still have to wrestle with is coming to grips with the latest version of PS. In my wildest dreams I wish for a simple, no frills version of PS with all of basic photo processing capabilities and none of the “wonderful” upgrades. Of course, that ain’t never gonna happen.

PS this Wednesday I am gonna “crash” an iPhone Photography Workshop at a nearby art center / gallery. Have yet to decide if I will strive to be a asset or an irritant. Keep ya posted.