6874-77 / common places-things • winter ~ a return to yester-year?

January 20, 2026

OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS (OR MORE) WHILE ACCESSING ONLINE sites such as Facebook, Instagram, et al, and clicking on photo-related posts, I have noticed an increasing number of ads popping up that feature so labeled film-like apps–i.e. apps that give your digital files a film-like look. One can only assume that this flood of film-like apps is in response to a demand for such a thing.

That written the first thought that springs my mind is simply, define the nomenclature, film-like. Trying to do so seems like a bit of a conundrum inasmuch as back in the color film analog days there were a myriad of film stocks each with their own look. First and foremost there was the very different look of an image made with color negative film vs with color transparency film. Add to that distinction the fact that, even within individual film maker’s line up, there could be considerable variations in looks. Taking that into account, many film-like apps offer film-look variations based on popular film stocks …. which brings to my mind 2nd thought ….

…. let us consider, as just one example, Kodak’s Kodacolor color negative film–how many of today’s picture makers have even the faintest clue as to how a C print made from Kodacolor–or any other color negative film–looks? My answer to that question would be, precious few. For the most part, one would have to be an avid visitor to art institutions–museums–which present exhibitions of past masters works to see what a photographic print made with color negative film looks like. Or ….

…. that written, it is possible today to make an image with color negative film, have the negative scanned and then make an inkjet print from it which will display a made-with-film look. To be certain, that is an picture making M.O. that is being pursued by a fair number of serious amateur –and I might, younger–photographers. And, iMo, that pursuit is the only way to create an authentic film-look cuz, duh, the image is made with film. All the film-like apps are, for all intents and purposes, little more than special effect art sauce.

All of the above written, this subject (the film-like look) rose to the fore in my picture making brain as a result of a photo printing binge I am on–22x22”paper (see trim line on in 24”paper) with17x17” image–for presentation to a gallery, consisting of 4 images from 4 different bodies of work. What caught my attention as I was/am making these prints is how film-like looking the printed images are.

To be certain, this not a surprise inasmuch as, since my adoption of digital photography, I have pursued the idea of making my photographs look like they were made with film …. which is to state, to emulate the, dare I write, “soft” / “creamy” look of film-based images as opposed to the, re: to my eye and sensibilities, harsh / garish look of digital-based images. Let me explain ….

…. first, my qualifications: I, personally, with my own 2 hands have made approximately 1,000 color prints–from color negative film– which is to write that I am intimately familiar with the look thereof. So much so that I can spot a print made from film from a mile away, or, at least so from a proper viewing distance on a gallery wall. That written, what is it that I like about the look of a film-based print that I try to emulate in my prints?

Basically, it all comes down to list of “no”s:

• no maximized sharpness / resolution applied

• no maximized color saturation applied

• no extended dynamic range applied, i.e. greater than the range in the original scene

• no excessive contrast in the highlights and shadows

• no out-of-wack color balance

In processing my RAW images I; 1. often apply just the very lowest amount of Gaussian Blur 2. reduce the color Saturation, 3. adjust the overall dynamic range to that of the original scene–example: a grey/overcast day has a much lower dynamic range than a bright/sunny day, 4. individually select highlight and shadow detail and reduce contrast therein 5. achieve a clean / neutral / natural color balance.

The result of these procedures is to create, to my eye and sensibilities, an image with smoother transitions between colors and tones than is found in a “straight” digital image. More film like, if you will. And, I might point out, I don’t need no stinkin’ film-like filters.

# 6866-70 / common places • landscape • in situ • sink • winter ~ Qu'est-ce que "great"

January 13, 2026

“Who are the great photographers–Famous / Leading / Ambitious, accomplished, rewarded–now?” ~ a question posed by Mike Johnston

JOHNSTON’S QUESTION IS ONE THAT HAS CROSSED MY mind a number of times over the past year or so. Although, to be more precise, I am not looking for a “great” photographer, per se (I’m not much for hero worship)–rather, what I am looking for is “great” photography, new or otherwise.

In either case, finding great stuff, photography wise–leaving aside the conundrum of what constitutes “great”–has become increasingly more difficult than it was in the past (pre-2000?) inasmuch, as Johnston mentions / laments, many of the guideposts–publications, influential art galleries (large and small), art institutions, et al–which directed our attention to great stuff have either disappeared or succumbed to the influence of the Academic Lunatic Fringe kind of flapdoodle. While there is quite a bit of very, very good stuff floating around in the cloud, identifying that stuff in tan ever-pulsing / shifting about mass is an exercise in the classic endeavor of finding the needle in a haystack.

That written, iMo, what I believe to be the overriding paradigm that formerly identified so many of the “greats”–pictures and picture makers–but no longer exists, is the simple fact that there is nothing new, photography wise, to get excited about …. ASIDE this idea should not–I repeat in all caps–SHOULD NOT be understood to mean that there is not very, very good / interesting photography being created today END ASIDE …. let me explain ….

I do not believe that it is any kind of a stretch to write that virtually all of the so-called greats–pictures and picture makers–of the last century emerged from medium-bending, picture making movements such as but not limited to; Steiglitz (et al)/Modernism, Eggleston (et al)/The New Color Photography, Robert Adams (et al)/the New Topographics. Operating within, and sometimes stretching, the aegis of those movements, theretofore unrecognized practitioners emerged to engage in a new way of seeing* which enabled them to create a new form–literally and figuratively–of work.

The cumulative result of those movements was that the medium of photography attained a maturation point which, amongst a number of other considerations**, it was established that any thing and every thing was/is fair game as a subject for picture making. Not to mention the fact that it could be pictured in whatever manner the picture maker felt was best for his/her intentions, “rules” be damned. Needless to write , new-ness was busting out all over the place like weeds in an untended garden … ya know, like, “Wait. You can make a picture of that? Who would have thought? What a great idea!”

So, what has all this led up to? iMo, the medium of photography has arrived at a point where nothing is truly new–ground-shaking, mind-bending, never-seen-before new …. ASIDE that idea does not mean that everything that can be photograph has been photographed inasmuch as there is always the vision and intention thing to consider END ASIDE …. and, that’s OK with me cuz I will never tire of viewing a well made, visually interesting / engaging photograph no matter who the maker is. That cuz I know how special / unique it is to create such a photograph:

“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.” ~ John Szarkowski

*honest to Pete, unaffected–as opposed to artificial, pretentious, and designed to impress–seeing

**nor the least of which was acceptance into the ranks of the Fine Art World

# 6854-56 / travel / snow ~ I had both knees on the steering wheel

December 31, 2025

“The intellectual bar seems to be rising beyond the simplicity of well-seen images or, at least, the proverbial hand of funding that giveth and taketh away seems to have shifted its priorities in favor of strong intellectual foundations.” ~ written by an Academic Lunatic Fringe intellectual pinhead

“[in writing about photography] …. we tend to be interested only in intention, because it makes the enterprise feel more important.”~ John Szarkowski

“People say they need to express their emotions. I’m sick of that. Photography doesn’t teach you to express your emotions, it teaches you to see.” ~ Berenice Abbott

LIKE ABBOTT I AM SICK TO DEATH of the dreck served up by the ALF crowd. That written, although I am more than willing to accept the fact that the medium of photography contains a multitude of iterations / genres / applications, I do draw an exclusionary line, re: its suitability for “expressing” / conveying intellectual content–especially “deep”, personal, narcissistic, emotional and psychological conflicts, and social / cultural constructs. That written, what really gets my goat–but to be honest, I don’t actually have a goat–is when I see / hear crap such as “the simplicity of well-seen images” and the ridiculous idea that a “strong intellectual foundation” is an requisite for making good pictures….

…. MOVING ON:

WHILE XMAS SHOPPING WITH THE WIFE, I pointed to a photo book that appeared to be potentionally interesting. Lo and behold, it appeared under our Xmas tree. The book, WINTERLAND ~ THE COLORS OF SNOW, showcases photography by Christophe Jacrot.

FIRST IMPRESSION: It’s a large book– 9.75x12 inches, 207 pages, 120 photographs. The printing quality and paper quality are very good,, one might even write “excellent”. That written and writing in my graphic designer / photographer mode, the layout of the photographs is, to my eye and sensibilities, rather disconcerting inasmuch as I am not a fan of photos that bleed into the gutter on one side and off the page on the other while leaving a substantial white border top and bottom.

Most of the spreads display a photo on the right hand page while leaving the facing page blank. The remaining 27 spreads have photos on both pages although the left hand page photos are printed at varying smaller sizes than the pictures on the right hand page. Although, inexplicably / for no apparent reason I can discern, the smaller left page pictures are placed at varying, off-center positions on the page. While this might not be a problem for most, it drives my aesthetic sensibilities into a state of distraction.

OK, OK, you might be thinking that this ain’t no graphic arts / book designer blog, it’s a photo blog so how about the pictures? OK, I understand so I’ll continue albeit still in the FIRST IMPRESSION mode….

…. at first glance–admittedly a quick glance–I was struck by the sheer number of photographs and the thought arose that maybe there might just be too many photographs. However, leaving that issue aside for the moment, I was also rather unsure whether I was viewing wall-worthy fine art work or, instead, being visually seduced by some very well-crafted, eye-catching camera club work. On that note, I set the book aside but packed it for my trip to New Jersey.

SECOND IMPRESSION: In New Jersey after escaping from a family gathering, I returned to our hotel room, poured 2 fingers of Bob Dylan’s Heaven’s Door Straight Rye Whiskey and settled in to a comfortable chair (with good lighting) for a long, leisurely look at the book front to back….

…. by the time I was finished looking I had slipped in to a stream-of-consciousness kinda thinking …. way too many photographs, in need of a good edit, no consistency of vision–primarily re: image structure compromised, perspective-wise, by the use of multiple focal length lenses (a true gear-head approach), a significant number of rule-of-thirds compositions, he single handedly reduces the single, lonely person motif to a cliche–single structure in the middle of nowhere is a close second.

After a good night’s sleep, I revisited the book and came to the conclusion that, iMo, Jacrot is, essentially, a camera club style photographer whose work appeals to viewers who salivate at the sight of craggy spires, dramatic light and atmosphere. For my eye and sensibilities, not so much.

However, that written, I do believe that I could cull out from the book about 20 photographs that I could live with on my wall for an extended period of time. And, I would buy a Jacrot calendar cuz there are plenty of his photographs that I could live with for 30 days as long as I could turn the page to the next month /picture.

see his website HERE. https://christophejacrot.com/

# 6850-52 / kitchen life • landscape ~ something out of some thng

December 23, 2025

*Season’s Greetings ~* all photos (embiggenable)

“Photography is simultaneously and instantaneously the recognition of a fact and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms* that express and signify that fact.”
~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

* aka: “…. the pattern created by the pointer….” ~ John Szarkowsk

I AM ACTUALLY THINKING THAT I WANT TO write a book about composition expressly for the purpose of emphatically stating that, iMo, in the realm of photographic picture making, there is no such thing.

Much has been written, most of it worthy only of the trash bin, about “how to master composition” (or words to that effect), albeit never giving a thought to the fact that to compose something means, to form or make up a whole from parts (dic. def.). That activity, unless one is arranging objects for the purpose of making a still life or staged photograph, is not available to a photographer. Rather, the ability to arrange things to create a pleasing form is afforded primarily to those toiling in visual arts such as painting, illustration, and graphic design. Ya know … those who start with a blank canvas.

Photographers, on the other hand, start with the real world. Their so-called composition making choices are limited to the pointing–from a particular POV (an act of selection)–of a light-recording device in the direction of an arrangement of real world elements which the pointer perceives to be rich visual material for use in the creation of a pleasing / interesting visual pattern, especially so when isolated within the boundaries imposed by the pointer.

ASIDE another way of thinking of the difference: painters (and the like) can make something out of nothing whereas photographers can only make something out of some thing END ASIDE

Operating under the assumption that the preceding activity of pointing + perceiving has yielded up a satisfactory result–aka: a good picture–I would agree with Cartier-Bresson’s idea that the co-joined act was employed “simultaneously and instantaneously”. Or, in other words, a moment was experienced when the pointer made a decision that it had all come together–a decisive moment, if you will. It is my considered opinion that that moment arrived when the pointer recognized it in the fraction of a second when he/she saw / felt it-through the viewfinder, or on the focusing / viewing screen of their picture making device …. as opposed to mentally checking off items on a list of composition “rules” / guidelines.

All of the above written, the question remains, is it possible to learn how to point and perceive simultaneously and instantaneously? That is, to recognize a fact and the form to express that fact simultaneously and instantaneously? …. all in the cause of creating a pleasing / interesting/ compelling composition pattern / structure across the flat surface of a print.

I have doubts about that but let me quote Edward Weston on the matter of composition:

“Good composition is merely the strongest way of seeing.”

…. to which I would add, Some people see better (different?) than others.

# 6844-46 / in situ • travel ~ a day at the sea shore

December 11, 2025

AS YOU MIGHT KNOW BY NOW, MARTIN PARR shuffled off this mortal coil a few days ago. So, somewhat naturally, I pulled out my copy of The Last Resort book. Thought it was a good time for a refresh but, as it turned out, I didn’t need one inasmuch as I discovered that I practically knew all of the photos by heart. It would seem that they have etched a permanent home in my visual thinking brain.

That written, when I thought it might interesting to ask the wife to view the book and select which picture she might–if I held a gun to her head–like to have hanging on a wall in our house, I was rather surprised to discover that she had never previously looked at the book. Surprised cuz it–the book–has been hanging around the house for maybe 20 years or so.

In any event, on a fairly regular basis, I do ask her to view many of my photo books cuz I am always interested in a lay-person’s reaction / opinion to “fine-art” photography. She’s as lay as it gets–she’s neither an artist nor a photo maker of any kind and it surprises many people that an artist (me) and a lawyer (her) have manged to live together for 30 years without something going haywire–probably something about opposites attract thrown into the mix.

That written, she has spent many an hour at my side on gallery crawls and listening to me jabber on about things photography / art so she’s not exactly clueless about the subject. And, to be fair, I do value her input. Whatever the case, she did agree to take a look at the book ….

…. she was about 4 pictures into the book when she exclaimed, with an ear-to-ear grin on her face that “OMG, these pictures are awesome” and that was the first of a seemingly never ending flow of pure delight and amazement. Her connection to the pictures can certainly be attributed to the fact that they “spoke” to her about her summers on the seaside at Stone Harbor, NJ. However, I would be remiss not to mention that she also noted her keen appreciation for Parr’s stunning use of color. All in all, she truly loved the work, looked through the book 3x end-to-end and declared it to be the best photo book she has ever seen.

My take away from the experience is that Parr hit pay dirt inasmuch as he seems to have garnered appeal from an audience that is not part of the dedicated fine art photography crowd. For certain, in the case of the wife, while she “gets” work from Shore, Meyerowitz, Eggleston and host of other greats, her sheer delight and appreciation for The Last Resort is off the charts. And, it is my firm belief that, while she has not yet picked a photo that she would hang in our house, it wouldn’t surprise me if she said “All of them.”

And, FYI, I’m with her in that, iMo, Parr’s book is photography at its best.

# 6834-37 / around the house • common things • landscape ~ THE IN-BETWEEN WORLD

December 3, 2025

A WELL KNOWN ART-WORLD PHOTOGRAPHER, WHEN DISCUSSING his formative years, stated:

…. at that time [ed. late 60s] photography was separated from the art world …. there were these 2 worlds …. 1.) the old photography world, a place described as a somewhat geeky realm of camera clubs and group critiques …. 2.) the art photography world, relegated mostly to photography galleries where people with different degrees of aesthetic interests, different intensionalities, and very different styles were all lumped together.

This past-history tidbit is indicative of the idea that the more things change. the more they stay the same, or, on other words, the same as it ever was inasmuch as I would suggest that; a.) the geeky camera club / group critique world still exists albeit floating around in the ethereal digital domain rather than in actual, physical meeting places, and, b.) the art photography world still exists in galleries albeit as an adjunct to its formative residency in academia.

iMo, the bedrock difference that distinguishes one world from the other is how each handles the idea of content; the camera club world considers content to be–in my mind, to a fault–the actual, literally depicted subject to be seen in a photograph whereas, in the art photography world paradigm, content is the concept, aka: meaning, behind a photograph. Or, think of it this way; one manner of picture making wants a viewer to see a literally documented something whereas the other picture making crowd wants you think about a visually intangible something.

DISCLOSURE if it ain’t clear to anyone who follows this blog, let me restate my position; I think the current Academic Lunatic Fringe fine art photography world is a batch of hooey, aka: flapdoodle and green paint. However, I am willing to concede to it the idea of different strokes for different folks (as long as no innocents are harmed in the making) END OF DISCLOSURE

In any event and all of that written, here’s the point of this entry; in my current pursuit of gallery exhibition possibilities I find myself betwixt and between the 2 photography worlds inasmuch as my photographs are about more than what is literally depicted–YIKES, sounds suspiciously like a concept–but, on the other hand, the intensionality behind their making is not about any mental idea / concept. Point in fact, my photographs are about extracting form from the quotidian world so that it can create a visual experience that can actually been seen*.

The difference between the camera club and art photography worlds creates a dilemma for me; the camera club world cannot begin to comprehend why I would take a picture of the “mess” in my kitchen sink. They look at me as if I had lobsters crawling out my ears. On the other hand, the ALF world looks at me and my photographs with a where’s the beef? expression on its face–hey you simple-minded twit, where’s the 5,000 word artist statement cuz we know it’s a picture of your kitchen sink but what does it mean?

OK, OK, that’s my problem but here’s a more universal consideration, re: how the ALF is fucking up your photography life; until about 15-50 years ago, one could go to NYC, Chelsea district, and within a 4 block area visit 30-40 photo galleries–mostly small to medium sized with a couple large ones–located in the 4-5 story buildings that lined the streets. Most of those galleries displayed straight / straight-ish photography. Long story short, that is all gone now.

Part of the reason they are gone is due to real estate reality–gentrification–in The Big City, . But, that granted, as support for gallery display of straight photography waned under the onslaught of the ALF wave, most “old photography” world galleries just flat-out disappeared–not just in NYC but throughout the country. In my experience, I can not remember when was the last time I viewed an exhibition of straight photography that was not a collection of either camera club cliches or a retrospective exhibition of the work of various greats from the last century.

More’s the pity.

PS don’t despair cuz next entry I’ll provide a source for locating–cutting through all the digital world clutter–some damn good straight photography.

*ya know, “seen”, cuz photography is a visual art.

#6830-32/ around the house • common things ~ it ain't what ya eat, it's the way how ya chew it

November 26, 2025

"It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." ~ Abraham Maslow c.1966

OVER THE YEARS I HAVE MENTIONED (ON THIS BLOG) that I have a rather significant collection of books about photography, both monologues and what might be labeled as books that offer critical analysis–lots of words, very few pictures–on the medium itself. In the context of this entry, it is worth a mention that most monologues include essays–in some cases, multiple essays by different authors–about the presented work.

I have been acquiring photo related books for over 50 years and I continue to do so to this day; case in point, my recent purchase of the Sally Mann book–lots of words, a few pictures–and the MOMA Stephen Shore publication–lots of pictures and lots of words. That written, I continue to acquire such material as part of my ongoing Adult Education Program–a program of which I am the sole Director / Course Advisor.

In any event, you might be wondering what the hammer / analogy has to do with this topic. Well, it’s not complicated …. re: my photo book collection, the books I value most are the monologues and if I were required–most likely by the wife who dislikes “clutter”–to pare the collection down to essentials, all the critical analysis stuff would be headed for the trash bin. Why? Cuz virtually all of them are written using a “hammer”, i.e. academic falderol and artspeak, in order to beat / suck the life out of the “nail”, i.e. photographs. It is as if the authors see a photograph as an opportunity to let us know how fucking smart they are.

Credit were credit is due: To be fair, if one possesses the fortitude and persistence to wade through the often dry and tedious, arcane, academic morass of words, words, words–fyi, I do– there are nuggets of interest and, dare I write, insights to be had.

All of the above written, I am drawn to the question of whether a writer with an academic mindset can ever be a sensualist (a topic for future consideration), i.e. someone who embraces the data gathered by the senses over reason and intellect, especially so when viewing photographs. Most likely what I am considering here is the difference between visual thinking and verbal thinking. Which, it should be noted, can be intermingled to one degree or another in a person–rare is the person who think exclusively in one mode or the other. Case in point ….

…. I am, predominately but not exclusively, a visual thinker. I have a very good friend who is predominately, but not exclusively, a verbal thinker. He does appreciate my photography but, that written, typically, when viewing one of my photos on a device with a touch screen, he immediately uses the thumb / forefinger enlargement feature to view details in the photo. A practice which indicates, to me, that he tends to overlook the form / structure of the photo and concentrate his interest, primarily but not exclusively, on the literally depicted referent(s) to be seen in the photo.

ASIDE he and I were both Honor Class students in our all-boys Jesuit Prep school but, tellingly, relative to this entry, he chose Science Honors whereas I chose Greek Honors END ASIDE

One more case in point–based in part on an actual experience (mine) and in part on conjecture …. the photo in this entry of a vintage ironing board. When the wife brought this thrift store find into the house and set it up, I was immediately struck with a overwhelming, visceral, and intense reaction which could be summed up as “This is the most beautiful, man-made object I have ever seen”. The fact that it is an everyday, functional object makes it even more stunning. The words, elegant, delicate, subtle, and all-of-piece come to mind.

On the other hand–here’s the conjecture part–I am very certain that, while my good friend thought it to be interesting, his verbal thinking cap was all a-twitter wishing that he had brought his protractor and drawing compass along cuz there was so much geometry to be measured and cataloged. Then, of course, there is the structural integrity to be considered (fyi, it was quite sound).

In any event, all I now want to do is add a small, one room addition to our house–no windows, white walls and with gallery lighting–in which to place, centered of course, the ironing board so that from time-to-time I can contemplate it in order to keep connected to the true meaning of life.

Cuz, remember, as the sensualist in my visual thinking brain constantly reminds me, all knowledge is ultimately derived from sensory experience and sensations and perceptions are the most fundamental forms of true cognition.

And, oh yeah, acquire some photo books.

# 6827-29 / around the house ~ a world of shapes

November 24, 2025

“A round straw hat, the funnel leaning left, the stairway leaning right, the white drawbridge with its railings made by circular chains, white suspenders on the back of a man in the steerage below, round shapes of iron machinery, a mast cutting into the sky, making a triangular shape … I saw shapes related to one another. I was inspired by a picture of shapes and underlying that a feeling I had about life.” ~ Alfred Stieglitz

When confronted by a scene of abject human misery and defeat, Alfred Stieglitz saw the scene as a composition, a “picture of shapes” that bore no relationship to the facts–albethey factually described–of the scene itself. The picture–The Steerage–is hailed by some critics as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism.

Re: Modernism: Stieglitz, together with O’Keeffe, was considered to be amongst those who helped start the American Modernism movement; O’Keeffe with her paintings and Stieglitz with his photography and his gallery. Photography wise, Stieglitz, who began his photography career as a Pictorialist, eventually rejected Pictorialism–extensively manipulated photographs intended to be “artistic”–and adopted and advocated the practice of straight photography–a “pure” picture making technique that utilized the medium’s intrinsic, authentic characteristics.

Stieglitz was convinced that, if photography were to rise to the status of fine art, the medium had to free itself from its mimicry of painting and embrace its ability to describe, with clarity and fidelity, the facts of real life. Concurrent with the embrace of straight photography was an idiom bending shift away from symbolist referents to those evincing a sense of realism, in particular, the facts of everyday life, aka: the commonplace.

All of the above written, it would suggest that straight photography became a thing 'round about the creation of The Steerage photo which was made in 1907. OK, granted that was a momentous moment in the history of the medium but, the question remains, what makes the photo one of the greatest photographs of all time?

In addition to being one of the first, if not the actual first, straight photograph to be considered as fine art, it might also be the first photograph made in a Formalist tradition; i.e. a photograph that was made prioritizing the form or structure of the work over its content–the creator, aka: Stieglitz, was focused on elements like line, tone, space, shapes (elements of art) over historical context or societal impact. It would appear that Stieglitz was intent on creating an ideal image, a nearly Platonic belief in an ideal visual form.

The photograph points up to the extent to which so much (but not all) fine art photography relates to the commonplace, but doing so as part of an attempt, by the intervention of the photographer’s eye, to transform the most obvious of things into their unique potential as objects (aka, prints). It is as if everything waits to be photographed cuz it can only evince its apotheosis, as it were, in the image that reveals that ideal potential in visual terms.

All of the above written, it can be considered 2 ways; a.) as a very accurate description of my picturing making M.O. inasmuch as I strive to create photographs that exhibit “ideal visual form” as I see it in the quotidian world. My intent is not to imply / suggest that beauty can be found everywhere. Rather, my intent is to create a thing / an object, i.e. a photographic print, that is, in and of itself, beautiful (or, at least, visually interesting), or, b.) to suggest that I believe, iMo, that the overwhelming number of all-time “great” photographers, especially those who practice straight photography, think, see, and photograph in a manner not unlike that of Steiglitz.