all photos ~ (embiggenable)
SUNDAY DAWNED RAINY AND FOGGY. Plus, the wife was away and I was bored. So it made absolute sense to grab my passport and go to a city in another country to make some pictures.
Visited a church. Walked the length of a street. Ate in a Polish restaurant-beet consommé w sour creme , kielbasa, sauerkraut, potato pancakes. On the placemat there was a bit of wise advice:
Remember, vodka goes good with everything …. especially vodka.
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
a garden figure made from old tools
“….photographic images tend to subtract feeling from something we experience at first hand and the feelings they do arouse are, largely, not those we have in real life. Often something disturbs [ed. aka, pricks] us more in photographed form than it does when we actually experience it.” ~ Susan Sontag
Yep.
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
I RECENTLY CAME ACROSS A SITE WHEREON THE AUTHOR announced that he was re-writing an e-book, re: Aspect Ratios and Composition.This caught my attention for a number of reasons, most notably the fact that, iMo, the photo universe needs yet another “expert” spewing out more cliched / convoluted ideas-or worse yet, so-called “rules”-about “composition” like it needs a proverbial hole in its head.
My reasoning for this position is quite simple, although, for many, it is also quite radical; bluntly written, I believe that there is no such thing as composition. It is, in fact, a bourgeoisie concept fabricated for those who cannot picture their way out of a wet paper bag. Consider this idiocy from the aforementioned site author:
“…3:2 is a difficult ratio to compose in, and it perhaps the no. 1 reason for many folks struggling with composition…..I see the same compositional errors time and time again….I advocated for cameras that allowed the user to work in ratios that are a little easier to work in (4:5 and 6:7 for instance).”
To my way of thinking, re: photography (or any fine art), there is so much wrong in the above excerpt; ideas such as “difficult ratio to compose in / ratios that are a little easier to work in”, “compositional errors”, and “struggling with composition”.
Re: “difficult ratio to compose in / ratios that are a little easier to work in”: Pure poppycock. Most fine art picture makers do, in fact, have a preferred aspect ratio within which they frame segments of the real world. However, the idea that, say, a 1:1 aspect ratio is easier or more difficult to work in than, say, 4:5 (or pick any other ratio) is absurd. Most settle into an aspect ratio that suits their vision and work in it without any “struggling” involved, thank you very much.
Re: “compositional errors”: there is no such thing as a compositional “error”, there is only unstructured seeing which yields up a degree (more or less) of visually discordant form. A result dictated by the fact that a picture maker has not identified his/her innate manner of how he/she, literally and figuratively, sees the world.
“To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible…Good composition is merely the strongest way of seeing…” ~ Edward Weston
Re: “struggling with composition”: struggling is inevitably the result of thinking, when making a picture, about so-called composition in terms of “rules” rather than being guided by the innate dictates, aka: feel, of one’s authentic vision….
“…. to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk…. I always work better when I do not reason, when no question of right or wrong enter in,-when my pulse quickens to the form before me without hesitation nor calculation.” ~ Edward Weston
Hope you see what I mean.
from Terry Falke’s book, OBSERVATIONS IN AN OCCUPIED WILDERNESS
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
“In photographing dwarfs, you don’t get majesty and beauty. You get dwarfs.” ~ Susan Sontag
Continuing with my thoughts on photography’s inability to convey meaning(s) or a true sense of place (amongst other such considerations), I offer for your consideration the Sontag quote about photographing dwarfs.
I agree with that concept but would also add that in photographing dwarfs, you “get” not only dwarfs, you also get a photograph of a dwarf(s). Ya know, a picture which illustrates what a specific dwarf looks like when photographed by a photographer at a specific point in time and from a particular POV-both literally and figuratively.
And, sure, sure…a photographer can employ the tools of the trade, his/her unique manner of seeing, and prop and posing, aka: theatrics sensibilities, to create a photograph of a dwarf who appears to project air of majesty and/or beauty, but, any intended (by the picture maker) meaning(s) to be gleaned from the picture is as Sontag suggests:
[an] “inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy”
Be that as it may, or, make of it what you will, forgive me if you feel that I am flogging a dead horse. But, in my defense, re: my curiosity, can a photograph have narrowly defined, unambiguous embedded meaning?, I have been revisiting a number of my photo books-individual photographer monographs-in a effort to discover what,if any, meaning I can glean from the viewing of a wide variety-personal vision wise-of numerous bodies of work.
What I have discovered is that my native and initial reaction to the viewing of a photograph is to see it as a photograph. That is, to consider it it as an object, in and of itself. An object which presents-in good photographs-interesting / intriguing / engrossing visual form and energy that pricks my eye-not my intellect-and my visual sensibilities. After that initial, spontaneous reaction, then and only then, do I take in what is literally been photographed, aka: the illustrated referent(s) as captured by the picture maker’s gaze.
iMo, if a photographer has extracted engrossing form from the “mere” quotidian world, then he/she has created a really good photograph. That is to write, a visual image that stands on its own as only a photograph can. It don’t need no stinkin’ meaning. Nor, I might add, it don’t need no 1,000 words. Ya just gotta see it and feel it.
FYI, writing of “1,000” words, it is customary (and predictable) that every photo monograph contain at least 1,000 words (or many more). Forwards, introductions, and essays give a viewer much run-at-the-mouth ideas about the work; historic and medium references, purported meaning(s), and suppositions about the photographer’s methodology and intent, ad nauseam.
In the case of Terry Fake’s book / photographs (as is the case in every photo book I view), I looked at the pictures before I read the commentary. That’s cuz I also agree with Sontags’s idea that….
“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.”
…. and sliding down the rabbit hole of interpretation, more often than not, sucks the life out of a photograph (or any work of Art). Although, to be fair, I do on rare occasion find a kernel or 2 of insight that might add a smidgen of additional appreciation to body of work.
BTW, one of my favorite monographs is Mark Wise 18 Landscapes. That’s cuz: a) I like the work, and, b) the only words in the book are Mark Wise 18 Landscapes, as seen on the title page. That’s it. No words, not even a title or artist name on the front or back cover. One picture per spread on the right page, left page blank. No picture titles or captions. Last page has copyright info printed in minuscule 6pt type centered on an otherwise blank page.
My kinda book. Figure it out / experience / enjoy it for yourself and let the art commentariat go pound salt.
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
WHILE I WAS REVISITING THE BOOK AMERICAN SERIES by Neal Rantoul, I came across this in the book’s foreword:
[Neal Rantoul is]…more open and acccepting of the world as it presents itself to the camera and of one’s own passage through it…This is not only exemplified the places Rantoul chooses to photograph…but also by the fact that his serial photographs extend the fraction of one second of a single photograph into a sequence of moments…As our gaze and attention shift from one thing to another we start to collect impressions that merge into a sense of place.
What strikes me about this apparent “sense of place”*-a much used phrase that has populated the photo landscape since forever-is that, iMo, a photograph (or series thereof) of a place-Rantoul photographs 9 places-can at best convey only a sense of what that place looks like when photographed. I believe that to be the case cuz photographs are mute. Ya know, no sound, no oders, no ambient temperature, no air, and in this case, no people. One might even add, no zeitgeist. And don’t forget, there is no movement - they are still pictures after all.
But don’t me wrong, Rantoul’s photographs, to my and sensibilities, are visually engaging. Especially so as viewed in the book in serial form inasmuch as one does get a sense of his out-for-a-walkabout and making a picture every few steps.
That written, I have included a few photographs-spreads from my nearly complete book of my own place, aka: my house and home, to prove my point…as intriguing / interesting as these photographs might be to some, iMo, they are, at best, visually interesting pictures of my house and home. and what it looks like when photographed. Sure, sure, some viewers might intuit a couple of generalizations about me and my wife or the aesthetic that we create in our living environment and then cobble that together to construct a, iMo, facile sense of place.
But, if you really want to get from these pictures a sense of something, what they are most about is what, in the quotidian world, pricks my eye and visual sensibilities and how I chose to photograph it.
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
MY BEST FRIEND-SINCE GRAMMAR SCHOOL-AND I GO OUT-mid-week, every week-for lunch. At each of the 3 restaurants in our rota-2 upscale, 1 mid-scale-we sit at the bar in part so I can kinda, sorta flirt with the bartendress at each restaurant- it’s kinda a hobby of mine.
Against that background and knowing that the restaurant in Lake Placid would not be busy cuz a) it’s mud season, and, b) the 150,000 visitors for the eclipse had left the scene, this past Thursday I brought along my most recent photo book, fragmentation & contingency; a book of 15 photographs* with no apparent unified theme. It represents an attempt to see if my discursive promiscuity approach to making pictures can, nevertheless, hold together as a cogent body of work. To that end, by showing the book around to people with whom I am only tangentially familiar, I hope to incite some holistic (an approach of looking at something as a whole, rather than focusing on its parts) feedback / reaction to the book.
That written, I gave the book to the woman behind the bar who prepares and serves drinks. She stepped back under better light and gave it a pretty leisurely look after which she stepped back to me and said, “Nice. I like it very much.” A very positive reaction that I found rather surprising. My response was to ask her why she liked it whereupon she hesitated for 10-15 seconds before saying that she couldn’t find the words to describe why she liked it other than to say it left her with a strong but undefined feeling.
We did not have the time to delve into her feeling. Whatever it was, it was more than enough for her to ask, 20 minutes later, if she could look at the book again under better light. She took the book and moved to better light at the end of the bar where she spent about 20 minutes working her way slowly through the book, even calling a co-worker over to take a look.
I mention this encounter cuz, in all my years of exhibiting and sharing my photos I have heard many, many times people express that they really liked my work but this is the first time someone has expressed having a feeling instigated by the viewing of my work. Her reaction has had a rather profound impact upon me. And, akin to her inability to describe her reaction to my book, I am at a loss to describe my reaction to her reaction.
Gonna have to ponder on it for a while.
*the photos in this entry are not in the book.
view from my back yard ~ all photos (embiggenable)
OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS I HAVE BEEN clicking away making pictures created with the iPhone ultra-wide lens, AKA: linear convergence pictures. The results suggest to me and my eye and sensibilities that that picture making technique is a valid concept for making a linear convergence body of work. Although…
… as can be seen when comparing 2 pictures made of the same scene (desktop workspace) but with different camera orientations-1 camera held vertical, 1 camera held at a downward angle-the results are quite different inasmuch as 1 view emphasizes the so-called wide-angle lens distortion, there other not so much. Which begs the question, “Should I limit my linear convergence picture making to one look or the other?”
My initial answer is that I do not want to mix and match the looks. So, it must be one way or the other. However, it may be that there is another option; a much less downward angle that more subtly exhibits the lens distortion. I’ll give that a go over the next few days.
FYI, over the past few days, I tried to resist being a 1-trick (linear convergence) picture making pony by making a few telephoto so-called compressed perspective pictures. Ya know, even more photos about photography.
cityside
countryside
(embiggenable)
WE ARE EXPERIENCING A 5-DAY CONVERGENCE OF EVENTS. To wit…
Thursday > Friday a significant-12-18 inches-Nor’easter snowstorm. And, just to make it interesting, one bolt of lighting and one extremely loud, long, rolling thunder clap during the snow storm + power and internet outages.
Today there was an 4.8 earthquake, centered in north Jersey / NYC, but felt here in our house.
Next up - mid-afternnoon on Monday, a total eclipse of the sun. Our house is directly under its path as it traverses the US from the Southwest to the Northeast treating us to a 100% black out of the sun.
Makes me wonder what’s next? Maybe a plague of locusts?