# 6757-61 / common places • common things ~ omphaloskepsis*

can you see the alchemist at work? ~ all photos (embiggenable)

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead-his eyes are closed.” ~ Einstein

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN THAT I AM NOT a fan of hi-def photographs. That is photographs which make obvious extreme fine detail and resolution. To my eye and sensibilities they often tend to illustrate everything but reveal nothing. A good example of such is in the comment made by a gearhead who wrote about one of his pictures…

look closely at the fabric on the side of the hat. The detail is there.

Unless the picture was made for the hat manufacturer-fyi, it was not-then capturing the fine fabric is critical to the picture making mission. However, if the mission is to incite an emotional / mental involvement from the non-fabric obsessed viewer or, the non-photo technique obsessed viewer, iMo, who gives a crap about the fabric detail?

And, I might add, looking “closely”at a picture is a sure-fire recipe for missing what a photograph might be “about”. That’s cuz a good photograph is all about the collective visual sum of its parts, not the parts in and of their literal selves. iMo, in a really good photograph, when the sum is good, the overall effect can draw the viewer’s eye across the field of the print in order to investigate some of the parts - an activity that I label as experiencing a photographs visual energy.

All of that written, it explains why I have never been in pursuit of making photographs that exhibit ultra hi-def or, for that matter, photo technique “perfection”. That’s cuz I believe that the best photographs are those that have, albeit most often subtle, a sense of the mysterious. That is to mean, mysterious in the sense of being somewhat enigmatic, i.e. difficult to understand or explain cuz, ya know, some things are best left to a viewer’s imagination.

I know that I am successful in that pursuit cuz, at exhibitions of my photographs or when someone is viewing one of my POD books, the single most common comment / reaction I hear is, “Why did you take a picture of that?” (mystery #1). Followed by, “I don’t know why I like it, but, I do.” (mystery # 2). Reactions that are the result of the fact that my photographs are not stating the obvious. As in, ain’t pictures of beautiful things beautiful.

To be certain, my photographs are not in any manner in the same mystery league as, say, the grand mysteries of the universe. However, I do believe that I am exploring the little mysteries of how the quoditian, aka: everyday life, can mysteriously present, to those whose eyes are not closed, “quiet,” little vignettes that, when pictured with a sense of creating interesting form, produce prints of surprising visual beauty…

…a perfect example of the medium’s alchemistical ability-something of a mystery or is it magic?-to facilitate the nearly inexplicable or mysterious transmutation of the commonplace into the exceptional.

The fact that my eye and sensibilities are captivated by those seeming mysterious “presentations” is, believe it or not, after all these years still a mystery to me.

*aka: navel gazing - the practice as an aid to contemplation of basic principles of the cosmos and human nature

# 6326-28 / sink •common things • common places ~ it ain't got no zing if it ain't got that thing

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST WEEK I HAVE SAT DOWN QUITE A NUMBER of times to write a new entry and failed to do so. That’s cuz, inasmuch as I try to stay on topic, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus (apparatus = conventions and practices), I realize that over the past nearly 2 decades, I have touched upon so many related subjects that most days I feel that I have written everything there is to write about. But nevertheless, I have managed to list a few topics about which I will write over the next week or so…

…one such topic: my idea on how to make a visually interesting picture.

Most “serious” amateur picture makers believe the answer to the question of how to make a visually interesting picture is simple - make a picture of an “interesting” thing (with a dollop of art sauce). That is, q thing and effect that everyone knows about and likes to look at. The result: pictures that are easy to “understand” - the concept of Captain Obvious comes to mind. Or, how about the idea of the mindless pursuit of pleasure, cuz the mind need not get involved in the viewing of such pictures.

That written, while I would highly recommend the pursuit of picturing “common” things in an interesting manner, aka: how one’s own vision sees the world, the single most important “thing” one should pursue is creating the instigation for a viewer of your picture(s) to ask the question, “Why did he/she make this picture?”

That’s cuz, if why a picture was made is easily apparent (pretty is as pretty does), iMo, that picture lacks any reason to get involved with it and, ultimately, has no staying power. In other words, an “interesting” referent, in and of itself, is not enough to sustain extended consideration and contemplation, especially so in the Fine Art World. Rather, it is the printed picture, in and of itself, which must be visually interesting, independent of the illustrated referent.

And what is it that makes a picture visually interesting, independent of the illustrated referent? Answer: Form. That is, how the picture maker has “arranged”-by means of his/her framing and POV-line, shape, space, tone (value), and color across the 2D visual field of a print. The result is a thing, AKA: the print, which not only illustrates, in a literal sense, referents found in the real world, but also illuminates, by means of visually interesting form, visual properties of sections of the real world that lie beyond their mere physical appearance.

So, there you have it. Easy, Peasy. Go forth and make interesting pictures.

# 5905 / quotidian ubiquity ~ and the blind shall lead team

(embiggenable) • iPhone

GOOD GRIEF CHARLIE BROWN! THERE THEY GO AGAIN.....in his last 2 entries, Mike Johnston goes off, once again, with his ridiculous bias, re: the iPhone and/or smartphones in general. And, my intial response was very similar to that of Kenneth Tanaka, "To say the least, I’m disappointed by your reaction. I’ve no energy to debate the matter." However.....

....let's first get snarky out of the way - I was neither disappointed nor surprised by the sentiments expressed in the 2 aforementioned entries. That is cuz, in some ways, it is exactly what one might expect from someone who states that he is a writer, not a photographer. And, if I were to throw in a pinch of cynicism, it is also what might be expected from someone who wets his beak from conventional camera gear / supplies sales but hasn't figured out how to do so, re: iPhone / smartphone sales.END OF SNARKINESS So, moving on...

Re; "a writer, not a photographer" - I would be one of the first to admit that Mike Johntson has fairly broad, albeit generalized, knowledge of things photographic. That written, I don't believe that he has claimed to be a definitive expert in any one facet of things photographic. And therein, iMo, a specific lack of digital processing expertise, lies the problem with his thoughts and opinions, re: iPhone / smartphone picture making.

Re: the lake picture in the "wrong camera" entry - as presented, there is a measureable (INFO window in Photoshop) green cast along with a significant amount of cyan and yellow (which exacerbates the green cast) in the clouds. Whether this is due to the iPhone getting the White Balance wrong-which begs the question, is the picture made with the latest iPhone?-or is it due to the fact that it was introduced by questionable processing technique? No matter the answer to either variable, the fact of the matter is that the picture just flat out looks terrible. Green clouds? Really?

In any event, I'll make no assumptions, re: Johnston's iPhone version / processing expertise. What I will write is that, in my iPhone picture making experience-dating back to Version7-I have never experienced a severe WB problem nor been unable to process an image file to obtain a very high quality / desired result (see caveat below).

Having the knowledge and skills to make the most of the iPhone's capabilities makes it difficult for me to ignore the ignorance, re: the iPhone picture making potential, of those who know not of what they speak / write. When I confront that ignorance, aka: lack of experience and/or expertise, it is not done so out of a desire to embarass or demean but rather to enlighten and support those who might be tempted to explore the possibilities of a device which has re-introduced me to the joy of picture making.

CAVEAT I am a so-called Photoshop power user and have been considered as such by printing industry professionals for 3 decades. During that time, I have craved out a pathway through the byzantine labyrinth of Photoshop tools and techniques that gives me the ability to be very proficient at achieving very high standard results when working with image files made with whatever device. FYI, this pathway mirrors nicely in the smartphone processing app Snapseed. This proficiency has served me well in my transition to iPhone picture making.

# 5900-04 / quotidian ubiquity ~ a milk cow is not a helicopter and that's a fact

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(Not so) RANDOM THOUGHTS

The whole point of taking pictures is so that you don’t have to explain things with words. ~ Elliott Erwitt

Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall. ~ Paul Strand

The funny and sad thing is that photography is an art, but these guys have such an inferiority complex about it that all they do is tag on gold-plate words where they aren’t needed. If they’d only let it talk for itself ~ Gordon Parks

I have been involved with the medium of photography and its apparatus for ever so slightly more than half a century. During the first 30 years (approximately) I made pictures-primarily but not exclusively-for the purpose of commerce, aka: advertising, marketing, editorial, and corporate communications. During the last 20 years (approximately) I have been making pictures for the purpose of making Art. As an adjunct to that more recent picture making, I have written over 5 gazillion (approximately) words, re: the medium and its apparatus.

Most of those written words were (or should been) considered as my thinking out loud wherein I was trying to find answers to several questions that were ricocheting around the confines of my skull....questions such as, what is a photograph?, why do I make photographs?, what is the "right" way to look at photographs (mine or those made by others?, can a photograph have meaning beyond the visual?, amongst many other questions.

In addition to thinking out loud about such questions, I have also read a gazillion (or more) words-I have book shelves chock full of books-written by others who have expressed their ideas / answers to such questions. The one thing the books all seem to have in common is that they raise as many questions as they do answers. That's cuz it seems obvious to me (at this point) that virtually all of the answers to such questions are a matter of personal opinion. That is, kinda like trying to find the answer to the question, what is art?

All of the above written, my thinking out loud about such questions has resulted in a few answers (for me) that, iMo, can be summed up by the (not so) random thoughts presented at the top of this entry. Or, in my words....when employed by an open-minded practioner for the making of Art, the medium and its apparatus is capable of creating a thing (a print) which is, iMo, a piece of visual Art which is at its best; 1) when, iMo, it is perceived as a delight to the sense of sight, not, iMo, as an intellectual construct, and, 2) when, iMo, it exploits the medium and its apparatus' intrinsic charateristic as a cohort of the real.

And, to be perfectly blunt, I am sick unto tears with picture makers who try to convince, or is it "con, me into thinking-by means of gold-plated words or a sticky slathering of art suace-that a picture of a milk cow is a delightful picture of a helicopter when, in fact, I can plainly see that it is an un-delightful picture of a milk cow.