# 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.

# 6812-14 / autumn • landscape • common places ~ here it is

November 9, 2025

Given that true intellectual and emotional compatibility
are at the very least difficult if not impossible to come by
we could always opt for the more temporal gratification
of sheer physical attraction …. That wouldn't make you a shallow person would it? Lyle Lovett ~ Here I AM song lyrics

I HAVE LONG BEEN A FAN OF LYLE LOVETT’S MUSIC so, when I read this on TOP ….

“The stories behind what the pictures show are as important or even more important than the things you can see…..I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with pleasant little pictorial experiences, or wandering around to see what "catches your eye," or enjoying patterns, tones, or pretty colors ….”

…. I modified it to suit my purposes in this entry:

Given that true meaning and significance
are at the very least difficult if not impossible to come by in a photograph
we could always opt for the more temporal gratification
of sheer visual attraction …. That wouldn't make you a shallow person would it?

In the spirit of first things first, let me get my pique out of the way––re: the author’s, iMo, dismissive pejorative, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with pleasant little pictorial experiences, or wandering around to see what "catches your eye," or enjoying patterns, tones, or pretty colors, emphatically pissed me the hell off. I mean WTF, let me count the ways …..

…. let’s start with; “enjoying patterns, tones, or pretty colors” Really? denigrating 3 of the 7 elements of art? Then, let’s move on to “pleasant little pictorial experiences” I really do not know how to address this other than to ask, what the hell is wrong with a “little” (or “large” for that matter) pictorial experience? –– every photograph is a pictorial experience cuz, for fuck’s sake, photography is a visual medium. And, iMo, if the author is trying to convince the reader––or me in particular––that the “meaning” in a photograph is what elevates a picture from “little” to “large”, I would opine that his intellect has gotten out too far ahead of his eyes.

In the spirit of honest disclosure, the part of the author’s discourse that really annoyed me was the inferred suggestion that wandering around to see what "catches your eye" is a somewhat lazy(?), un-serious(?), mindless(?) manner of picture making. The reason that comment ruffled my feathers / got my dander up is simple––it’s cuz that is exactly how I photograph. And, I would strongly suggest that that––at least so In the Fine Art World of photography––is exactly the M.O. of most picture makers. Which, FYI, does mean that, in the service of expressing their picture making intent, they most likely do “wander around” looking for specific picture making opportunities that, no duh, “catch their eye”.

Moving on to “The stories behind what the pictures show are as important or even more important than the things you can see”, I call BS. Although this idea of content over image is the current mantra of the Academic Lunatic Fringe, as far as I am concerned, IFAW pictures are, first, meant to be seen and experience how/what they cause me to “feel”, and then, second, if at all, to be “read”. And, I might add, I don’t need no art-speaky drivel to tell me what to see, feel or think.

All of that written, I hope that opting for the more temporal gratification of sheer visual attraction doesn’t make me a shallow person.

In closing, an opinion from Susan Sontag:

“Standing alone, photographs …. which cannot themselves explain anything …. promise an understanding they cannot deliver. In the company of words, they take on meaning, but they slough off one meaning and take on another with alarming ease ….”

#6804-07 / landscape • around the house • sink ~ document as form

October 31, 2025

“There are no heroics in [his] images, but rather a poetics of the ordinary and the everyday and a refusal to create an effect for its own sake, echoing Walker Evans’s desire to reveal the “deep beauty of things as they are.” His approach can be tied to a long American tradition of elevating the simple and the commonplace, in form as well as content, to a certain poetry and a way of life, from Ralph Waldo Emerson writing that “I embrace the common, I explore and sit at the feet of familiar, the low,” to Walt Whitman championing “a transparent, plate-glassy style, artless”, characterized by “clearness, simplicity, no twisted or foggy sentences.” Despite its historic context, this enthusiasm for the vernacular, when expressed through photography, has been unsettling for some observers, and continues to this day.” ~ from Stephen Shore: Solving Pictures by Quintin Bajac

AS I BEGIN TO EMBARK UPON A PATH OF intense self-promotion, with the objective of creating recognition / awareness of my photography in the gallery / exhibition world, I am directed toward the necessity of writing an Artist Statement, one that could be universally applied to any work that I have created; i.e., to each and every one of my 20 individual bodies of work. It might be said that that task is fraught with complications given the diverse variety of referent matter depicted in my various bodies of work. However, I think not cuz, regardless of the depicted referent, all of my photographs are unified under the aegis of my singular vision, the identifiable manner–if one can see / grasp it–in which I see and photograph life and the real world––hence, the discursive promiscuity nomenclature that I ascribe to my cumulative body of work.

That written, an Artist Statement most often addresses two objectives, aka: the how and the why. The how is the easy part––at least for me cuz it will essentially be a derivation / variation on the quote included above; simply written, I make photographs of the quotidian world without effects or “twisted or foggy sentences.” The why part is, however, a different kettle of fish ….

…. that’s cuz, in large part, I am not attracted to a particular referent material of any particular kind, as in, being drawn to––per the medium’s directive to photograph the singular “thing” that interests you––the landscape (natural world or man-made), people, still life, nudes, events / human activities, et al. For example, I will never write the sentence, “I am attracted to the dirty dishes in my sink,” cuz, the fact of the matter (pun) is that I am not attracted to the stuff in my sink other than for it potential to be made into a photograph. So, that all-purpose answer to the why question has exited stage right, aka: out the window.

It is also fair to write that I do not photograph to espouse any “deep” meaning, re: my referents or my personal “beliefs” or involvement is a cause or ideology; my intent is to make photographs that instigate feeling / emotions, not thoughts, to wit, visual interest, not intellectual interest. So, an appeal to the Academic Lunatic Fringe is most certainly not in my future inasmuch as they probably consider me to be a picture-making simpleton.

What I can state could be a variation on the idea that I am attracted to “the common” and that I do “explore and sit at the feet of familiar, the low,” but that still begs the question of why I do so ….

It is my belief that to address that question I need to. A) embrace the Shakespeare-ian concept that “what’s past is prologue” inasmuch as I am coming to the the conclusion that my “baked in” picture making proclivities are a direct result of my past young-life experiences of sitting next to the window on the passenger-side, back seat of my parent’s car, staring out that window at the everyday, real world landscape as it scrolled past my eyes like an old-timey newsreel––especially so during those long-which I thought of as boring-1950's drives on the 2-lane roads through small towns and the rural country side on the way to the Adirondacks*––made an indelible imprint on my visual perception of how I see the real world ….

…. and, B) I can also state that I take great pleasure / satisfaction in making photographs that express the idea that a beautiful or, at the very least, a visually interesting object––aka: a photographic print––can be created from the from the most likely considered un-beautiful, un-visually interesting referents.

All of the above written, be forewarned that I will be continuing to write quite a bit more about the creating recognition / awareness of my photography endeavor I am pursuing.

*not to mention the fact that I now am a longtime resident of the Adirondacks

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

September 30, 2025

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.

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

September 15, 2025

“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.

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

August 28, 2025

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.