nature • kitchen life ~ throw out the rule book

February 14, 2025

***pinhole photo*** ~ *all photos* (embigenable)

IN THE LAST ENTRY WHEREIN I INTRODUCED THE idea of reducing the whole of the medium and its apparatus to a concise paragraph, there are 2 phrases–a rhythm in the world of real things / a precise organization of forms–which are commonly referred to as composition; a topic which has launched thousands of zillion word ships in an effect to codify / understand / “master” it. That written, here’s an example of an attempt to reduce the topic to a concise paragraph:

“In a photograph, composition is the result of a simultaneous coalition, the organic coordination of elements seen by the eye. One does not add composition as though it were an afterthought superimposed on the basic subject material, since it is impossible to separate content from form…. one composes a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter, at the speed of a reflex action….. Composition must have its own inevitability about it.” HC-B

Once again–just like the HB-C quotes in the last entry–this notion, re: the idea of composition, makes perfect sense to me. And, once again (again), that’s cuz, when making pictures, what pricks my eye (and sensibilities), aka: what I actually see, is a rhythm / organization of forms as it exists in the world of real things. Which is another manner of writing that the content of my photographs and the form visible therein are one and same.

Consequently, I never give a thought to composition–iMo, a bourgeoisie concept if ever there was one–when making a photograph. That’s cuz the visual rhythm / organization to be seen in my photographs is the inevitable result of my vision, literally and figuratively.Ya know, how I actually see the world.

ASIDE FYI, the fact that my vision is organically attuned to rhythm and form explains another fact; I rarely, if ever, “work” a scene–95.8% of the time-leaving aside a few exposure brackets–it’s one and done. END OF ASIDE

And now, a bit of speculation and going out on a limb – I suspect that most of the medium’s “greats” approach the practice of composition in the same–or a reasonably close–manner as HB-C describes. That is to write, they trust what their eyes tell them and then photograph what they see. I believe that to be true whether they carry around a 35mm rangefinder camera with preset shutter speed / focus and aperture and a reflex-action attitude, or, whether they expend a great deal of effort to haul around an 8x10 view camera / film holders / light meter / tripod /et al and a very methodical attitude. In effect both are point and shoot picture makers inasmuch as they point their camera at what they see and make a picture.

With speculation taken care of let me climb a tree and hope the limb holds sure and true –I believe–no speculation about it in my mind–that the ability to compose a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter is nigh unto impossible to teach or learn. That is cuz it is not a technique nor a theory that can be plotted out in a book but rather a native recognition–some might say an intuitive feeling–that the visual organization / rhythm you have imposed on your subject utilizing your POV and framing, when viewed on your picture making device’s viewfinder / ground glass / screen, just plain and simple, flat-out looks and feels “right”.

And in the end, lo and behold, there is not a single rule of composition to be seen anywhere on the surface of your print.

# 6939-41 / pinhole • around the house • common things ~ the eyes have it

February 11, 2025

pinhole photo - ***all photos*** ~ (embiggenable)

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I THINK THAT THE WHOLE of the medium and its apparatus can be summed up in a single sentence, or, at the very most, in a very concise paragraph. I believe that to be true cuz, getting down to the nub of it all, it really ain’t rocket science. Although…..when you think about it, maybe words ain’t needed inasmuch as, if a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe all one needs to do is spend considerable time making and looking at photographs in order to truly understand the medium and its apparatus.

Then again, here’s a radical idea; don’t think about it at all. Just, re: the medium and its apparatus, give in to the simple, pure philistine visual pleasures of making and looking at photographs.Ya know, just adopt an ignorance-is-bliss kinda attitude–simple is as simple does–about it all and move on.

All of that written, here’s my first pick for a concise paragraph addressing the nub of it all:

“Photography implies the recognition of a rhythm in the world of real things. What the eye does is to find and focus on the particular subject within the mass of reality; what the camera does is simply to register upon film the decision made by the eye.” ~ HC-B

Now, to be perfectly clear, that concise nob of the matter needs no additional words in order to make complete sense for me. That’s cuz it describes, since the day I began making pictures, exactly my making picture MO; my eye directs me to the what (and the how) to photograph what I see. Or, if you will, another HB-C quote:

“… the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event [ed. aka: a particular subject within the mass of reality] as well as of a precise organization of forms [ed. aka: a rhythm in the world of real things] which give that event its proper expression.”

iMo, if you want to make good photographs, always remember that the eyes have it – it ain’t got diddly squat to do with the brain.

# 6938 / around the house (20 years ago) • SX70 Polaroid ~ some expert advice

February 5, 2025

HAVING MADE MY THOUGHTS ON “EXPERT” ADVICE giving known, I naturally came to the conclusion that I should break out of my self-imposed restraint-–and practice–of not giving picture making device. I know the followers of this blog have been clamoring–many for a couple decades–for my advice*. However, to avoid disappointment, be forewarned that there will be no advice, re: gear nor technique.So, on with the show….

ADVICE #1 - do NOT make pictures that you hope will appeal to other photographers.

This item should be self evident / unnecessary cuz one should be engaged in making pictures that appeal to one’s self (identity, individuality, normal state of being). This ain’t rocket science. It’s simple enough. Just trust and understand the lesson that Rick Nelson learned at the Garden Party; “You see, you can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

ADVICE #1a - (addendum to ADVICE #1) avoid showing your pictures to other photographers.

To be more precise, avoid showing your pictures to “serious” amateur photographers. These people are hidebound practitioners of rules, gear / technique fetishism, and conventionality. They flock, quite literally at times, to locations, scenes, and things that have been decreed by the roving hordes to be acceptable picture making fodder.

Contingent upon these proclivities, in both their picture making and picture viewing, they are very unlikely to see anything beyond the literal identity of that which is depicted in a picture. Their first reaction and comment to a picture which is intended to represent something beyond the literal–or any picture for that matter–is apt to be, “What camera did you use?” To state it quite bluntly, they are literally unable to see beyond the obvious.

END OF ADVICE (more to come)

ASIDE - Ok, if a photographer shows up at your door to see your pictures and it’s John Pfahl–Pfahl is known for his innovative landscape photography such as Altered Landscape, his first major series of un-manipulated color photographs on which he worked from 1974 through 1978. His work has been shown in over hundred group and solo exhibitions and is held in many public and private collections throughout the world–as he did at my loft door, ignore Advice # 1a and let him in.

And, here’s the thing that blew me away during his visit; he entered my studio through my entrance foyer which displayed some of my commercial work-food, fashion, product, people, et al. After a quick tour, I handed him a beat up KODAK Ektacolor print paper box containing contact sheets made from my urban landscape / street 8x10 color negatives. He took his time browse through them.

About half way through the prints, he paused and said that he was quite confused. His confusion stemmed from the fact that, as he phrased, “You’re a commercial photographer and you should not be able to make good work like this.” I could not have been more delighted. But of course, that written, I shouldn’t have to point out that Pfahl was not a “serious” amateur photographer.

FYI, the SX70 Polaroid Time Zero photo in this entry; I have always been attracted to the image results one can get from so-called “crappy” cameras–Lomo, Diana, and the like. Some might even have considered Polaroid cameras to be crappy cameras. In any event, I’ll delve into this attraction in another entry.

*advice, re: emphasis on pursuing a Fine Art objective

# 6935-37 / common places-things • kitchen life ~ OT but with OnT pictures

February 3, 2025

OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS OUR WINTERS HAVE been rather erratic, weather wise. It comes and goes in cycles; light snow–2-3 inches–followed by balmy temps and the snow melts down to bare ground. Throw in a little freezing rain here and there and it gets downright odd for this time of year. This is quite a different scenario from 12-15 years ago (and before) when it was quite common to be buried under 60 inches of snow even in the month of March.

That written, I live in a tiny area in the Adirondack Mountains known in some quarters as The Banana Belt. That moniker derives from the fact that, quite often during winter, our little hamlet is much warmer–with less snow–than the village of Lake Placid which is only 25 miles away, albeit 1600-1700 feet higher in elevation. Travel another 6 miles beyond Lake Placid to the village of Saranac Lake and, more often than not, on many winter days it records the lowest temp on planet earth.

And, writing, re: cold temps and odd scenarios, yesterday’s pre-dawn temp here in The Forks was -12˚F. Today’s noon-time temp is 40˙F. That’s a 52˚ change in temp in 18 hours. There was a dusting of snow on top of 2-3 inches on the ground yesterday but, true to form, it’s all melting away today.

All of this is part of so-called weather weirding, a product of planet warming. But, I’m not worried inasmuch as I am certain that our Destructor-In-Chief will come to the rescue by burning more fossil fuels. Everything will be great once again. Not to worry, and, the price of eggs will go down.

# 6932-34 / common places-things • kitchen sink ~ the answer is hidden in plain sight

January 31, 2025

IT WAS ANSEL ADAMS WHO STATED:

“There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs.”

This quote popped up in my head as a result of my recent entry(s) in which I engaged in the verbal excoriation of some, iMo, boneheaded ideas as expressed by Michael Johnston. In retrospect I have come to realize that the focus of my lambasting, the singling out of M. Johnston, was way too narrow inasmuch as there is a vast universe of boneheaded photo advice bunkum permeating the photo making world…. books, podcasts, workshops, subscription-based blog sites, et al–all created by “experts” who dole out–in exchange for cash on the barrelhead–all manner of how-to drivel, re: the making of “great” photographs.

In an attempt to not sound too cynical / contemptuous, re: these tradesmen-a skilled worker who specializes in a specific trade or craft–do have something of value to offer–the “secrets” to success?–if one’s interest in making pictures falls under the banner of Decorative Art. To be certain, much of the picture making output of these tradesmen can be found on the walls of hospitals, offices, restaurants, homes, and the like. On the walls of Fine Art galleries / institutions, not so much (if at all).

On the other hand, if your picture making intentions veer more toward making Fine Art–keeping in mind that others will be judge of that–there is almost no “expert” advice to be had / found that emanates from sources who toil in that milieu. In my experience that’s cuz very few, if any, photographers who make pictures, which are judged to be Fine Art, can explain / codify how they make their pictures, much less write a how-to manual about it. In most cases, they essentially mutter something on the subject like Paul Strand’s idea that “the answer is on the wall.”

Consider, if you will, Bob Dylan’s utterances, re: the matter of the writing of his music / lyrics; when asked by Ed Bradly in a 2004 60 Minutes interview how he wrote Blowin’ In The Wind, reportedly in 5 minutes, Dylan responded that: “uhh…well.. it, uh, came from…right outa that well-spring of, uh, creativity I would think.” When Bradley went on to press him on the writing of songs like It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding), Dylan said, “Try to sit down and write something like that. There’s a magic to that (he also occasionally referred to it as a “miracle”) and it’s not Sigfried and Roy ya know. It’s a different kind of penetrating magic. And, uh, ya know, I did it at one time.” To which Bradly asked, “You don’t think you can do it today?” Dylan replied, “Unh-uh. Well… you can’t do something forever, and, uh, I did it once and I can do other things now, but, uh, I can’t do that.”

Forgive me for dragging a songwriter into a conversation about advice-giving in the cause of making pictures, but, nevertheless, here’s my point; M. Johnston and many other advice-giving others like him ain’t got no obvious connection to a well-spring of creativity and, most certainly, nor to a different kind of penetrating magic. iMo, it’s obvious cuz you can see the lack thereof in their pictures. So, my advice is to take what they write / say with a grain of salt or, better yet, make that a tablespoon of salt.

On the other hand, if you’re looking for advice, re: the making of good pictures, use your eyes cuz the answer is most likely found / can be seen somewhere on a wall. No words / “expert” advice necessary.

# 6928-31 / common places-things • kitchen sink ~ the ongoing ballad of the thin man

January 23, 2025

SO, HERE I SIT POISED TO GO OFF, YET AGAIN, on yet another bit of, iMo, unadulterated piffle from the keyboard of Mike Johnston. That written, I must admit that I have some reservations about how to articulate my thoughts on the subject inasmuch as I do not want to come off as engaging in an ad hominem attack on Johnston. So please bear with me as I try to continue without going down that back alleyway….

What was it that got my knickers in a twist this time? Well, in installment #4–he might have a fish bone stuck in his word writing throat–on his BONES driven fascination, he write this beauty:

“How then do you go out into the world, encounter one of those subjects in what you think are promising circumstances for shooting, and not think of the fact that, back at home, you've got a box going on that very subject? What, do you just wipe it from your mind? How would you do that? That's like not thinking of an elephant. I'd argue that it's impossible not to shoot without any idea once you're actively collecting pictures based on an idea.”

The first thought that, upon reading this clueless drivel, entered my mind was to enter a Bob Dylan quote–something is happening here but you don't know what it is Do you, Mr. Jones?–and move on. But, thinking about it, I felt it might be a bit too snarky and definitely leaning in the ad hominem direction. So, I cooled my jets and decided that a cooler, more informed retort would be a better bet.

Johnston wrote that in response to the idea that he believes no one–especially Lee Friedlander–can make a photograph, much less a really good photograph, without an intellectual structure to guide one’s picture making. That opinion is a direct contradiction to Friedlander’s actual words–spoken throughout his life–on the subject of ideas:

I tend to photograph the things that get in front of my camera….I take more to the subject than to my ideas about it. I am not interested in any idea I have had, the subject is so demanding and so important….Anything that looks like an idea is probably just something that has accumulated, like dust. It looks like I have ideas because I do books that are all on the same subject. That is just because the pictures have piled up on that subject.… I am not a premeditative photographer. I see a picture and I make it.

When confronted by an interviewer, re: the idea that “There is a difference between photographs where the image itself is beautiful for aesthetic reasons (light and form) and images that are beautiful for other reasons (the more ephemeral qualities they contain)” It went like this:

LF You are over my head. I never think about things like that.

What do you think about?

LF Not much.

You try not to.

LF It is not a matter of trying. It’s indigenous.

iMo, it seems so obvious that that even a blind person can see that Friedman does not think about much, if anything, when making pictures. And, beyond any shadow of a doubt, he sure as hell ain’t no idea man.

However, enough of trying to pin down someone else’s M.O. Let met me write about my M.O. which, if I mght be so bold as to write, is exactly like Friedlander’s M.O. Always is, always has been…. I see a picture and I make it. Absolutely no thinking / ideas involved. Nada. Never. Case in point, this AM…

…I made the 3 pictures in this post this morning. Even though each of those pictures could eventually end up in one of my referent-specific “photo trays” the idea that they might do so never entered my head prior to making each photo. Rather, each photo was made, as all of my photos are made, by a viseral–Oxford Dictionary: relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect–reaction to what I see.

It’s as “simple” as that. Except, of course, it ain’t really all that simple inasmuch as discoverying one’s vision, accepting it, and trusting it really ain’t all that simple. And here’s where this ramble veers toward ad hominum…

Most “serious” amateur photographers–I would consider Johnston to be one, at least a part-time one since he is really a writer)–have never discovered their unque, prenatural / indigenous vision (assuming there is one to be found which by no means is always the case). That is precisely why they cling to intellectal ideas as the M.O. / justification for their picture making endeavors.

And, it is their procivity / predisposition to embrace / cling to such things that makes it inconceivable for them that a picture maker who is not confinded to / motivated by conventions, rules, structure(s), intellectual ideas, concepts, et al, is able to make pictures that end up on fine art gallery and institution walls.

Ya know, like, say, as Johnston says “I'd argue that it's impossible not to shoot without any idea once you're actively collecting pictures based on an idea.” There are so many problems with that statement, the most obvious being that he seems incapapble of imagining that a picture maker might not be collecting pictures based on a pre-exisitng idea but rather, that he/she (saracsm alert) stand back, hold on your seats, just might be collecting pictures of any thing they see and if there is sorting to be done it will be done after the picture making fact.

To which I would add that there are many picutres makers who are very capable of…yes…gasp!!!….believe it or not, just wiping any thoughts from their mind when engaged in the making of a picture.

Imagine that, if you can.

# 6921 / common places • common things ~ boneheaded bunkum and balderdash

January 18, 2025

***kitchen sink ~*** all photos embiggenable

WRITING–IN 3 ENTRIES–UNDER THE RUBIC OF “BONES’ M. Johnston has informed his readers that “every creative effort in every artistic medium needs bones: a structure to guide the work and give it a framework. A concept.” You might ask, what are “bones” and his answer is that it is “an idea” aka: “any intellectual notion that facilitates and motivates working. And–(sarcasm alert) this is really good one–he also throws in the idea that:

“(I confess to never having liked the phrase "caught my eye.")…..They want to haphazardly grab any "photo opportunity" that happens to pass their way….they'll say something like, "I just take the camera when I go for a walk and photograph anything that catches my eye." That seems like a dreadfully weak-dishwater idea for working, a framework for little more than desultory camera-pointing.”

To which I reply, good f____ing grief, what a bunch of condescending bourgeois bunkum and balderdash. I mean, why would someone, when walking around with a camera and something catches their eye–in my case, pricks my eye and sensibilities–NOT make a f–––ing picture of it? Making pictures is what photographers do and they don’t need no stinkin’ “intellectual notion” to “facilitate and motivate working.”

Upon reading the idea of “intellectual notion”, the very first thought that came into my head was Sontag’s notion of the revenge of the intellect on art cuz I believe that anyone who looks for an “intellectual notion” to facilitate / motivate the making of their photographs is headed down the wrong road. Simply written, iMo, making a picture is not an intellectual pursuit. It is, plain and simple, a visual pursuit, the results of which are manifested as a visual manifestation, aka: the culmination and subsequent visual representation of the act of seeing… not of thinking.

All of the above written, let me express my take on the idea of facilitating / motivating one’s self to “get one past not-doing and into doing”….

…. in my experience, I have noticed that when a picture maker is experiencing a lack of enthusiasm for getting out and making pictures it is due precisely to the fact that they are sitting around on his/her lazy ass trying to come up with an idea about something to photograph instead of just getting out the door—or at least just getting off their lazy ass–and start making pictures. That is, pictures of any thing(s) that catches their eye.

To write it very emphatically, there is absolutely nothing f–––ing wrong with making pictures in order to just see what something looks like when photographed–especially so in order to see what it looks like when photographed by you. And here’s the thing about this exercise; after a period of time, you might just surprise yourself by realizing that, in your (sarcasm alert) “desultory” and “dreadfully weak dishwatery” camera pointing, there just might be a few pictures of referents / themes that you have unintentionally but repeatedly responded to that just might create the foundation for further picture making investigation.

Point in fact, all of my bodies of work, with just one exception, evolved from–as M. Johnston might put it –my “desultory” and “dreadfully weak dishwatery” camera pointing (discursive promiscuity, as I put it). That is to write that, as an example, I did not start my kitchen sink body of work by thinking that I should photograph my kitchen sink. Rather, I realized after of period time during which I made a few pictures of my kitchen sink, among many other referents, that, surprise, surprise, there was something, picture making wise, worth exploring further along that line of photographic inquiry. And that example is true of all of my various bodies of work (see examples above).

So, here’s my point–or is it a counterpoint to M. Johnston’s point? I don’t need no stinkin’ intellectual idea to facilitate / motivate my picture making. Rather, I rely upon my continuing desire to see what some thing(s) looks like when photographed–especially so when photographed by me. While my way of working ain’t gonna necessarily work for everyone, iMo, if your wheels are stuck in the station, instead of rootin’ around in your head for an idea, try rootin’ around with your eyes in order to see what your eyes might see.

Don’t be a bonehead. After all, it is a f–––ing visual medium.

PS Next up: a critique of Johnston’s thoughts, re: the Artist Statement.

# 6917-20 / the new shapshot • kitchen sink ~ all work and no play...

January 14, 2025

… make Jack a dull boy. OK, my name ain’t Jack but, that written, I do like to play cuz, ya know, I certainly have no desire to be a dull boy (OK, I ain’t a boy either). On the other hand, I do engage in a form of play that some might consider to be a bit dull - building LEGO sets. That written, I do tend to build sets that contain 2,000 pieces (+/- a few hundred). It’s sorta like doing a jigsaw puzzle except for the fact that LEGO sets do come with instructions.

However, those who think of building a LEGO set as a dull undertaking do have a point (sorta); those kits with multi-K parts do require the aesthetically unsatisfying assembly of most of those parts which serve as the unseen, internal support / structure of the finished piece. For instance, on the 1,700 piece Tuxedo Cat set, only about 300 of those pieces end up being visible.

But, enough OT and back to photography; after picturing part of the build-my real tuxedo cat seemed to find it boring-and then the final product in situ, it occurred to me that, tuxedo cats, being made up of black and white, the photos thereof should be presented as BW photographs. And, since I was “merely” documenting my hobby, the snapshot look was also the way to go cuz, ya know, I don’t want anyone to think I was trying to make art.

FYI, the last 2 entries generated 2 comments. WOW, maybe the times they are a-changin’ (or not). in any event, I appreciate knowing that someone out there is getting something from this blog. Thanks John and Bernie.