# 6537-42 / roadside attractions • kitchen life • around the house ~ more is better?

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN I MADE QUITE A number of diptychs. Even to the point that I put together an exhibition, Photographs In Conversation, wherein I invited a few blog followers and my son to participate. The idea was that I sent to them a couple of my photographs to which they would respond with one of their photographs. Ones which would create a “conversation” with my photograph. Alternately, they sent to me one of their photographs which I paired with one of my photographs. A good time was had by all.

Lately I have been noticing that, when I make a photograph, I often-at the same time and place-make another photograph which compliments the first photograph. But, to be honest, I never thought to pair them as a diptych.

However, I have been printing photographs for my An Adirondack Survey folio 2-up (just as they are presented here) on 14x24 inch paper to later be trimmed out to 11x11 inch size for the folio. And, surprise, surprise, I noticed that, pre-trimming, many of these pairings made interesting diptych possibilities. FYI, the pairings included in this entry were made from recently made photographs, not from An Adirondack Survey printing pairings.

iMo, this manner of pairing creates an impression wherein the cumulative expression is greater than the sum of its parts.

In any event, like it or not, you most likely will be viewing a number of diptychs on this blog.

# 6489 / roadside attractions • flora • common things ~ picture makers just want to have fun

(embiggenable)

AS PART OF MY PORTFOLIO SUBMISSION TO GALLERIES, re: roadside attractions, an artist statement is mandatory. Writing one is always a bit of challenge cuz, if it were allowed, I would write one that stated, I made these pictures cuz I photograph whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities and I like the way they turned out.

However, that would be laughed out of court as inadmissible. So, instead, I am writing, in part, something that reads like this…

…. my eye and sensibilities impel me to make photographs of seemingly haphazard confluences of variegated flora and detritus …. (that) evince a riotous visual energy; an amalgamation of texture, line, shape, color, and value …. intimate landscapes that manifest-both literally (these are pictures of the real world) and metaphorically (the concept behind the work)-the essence of the energy and forces at work in the lives of all living things ….

For me, the challenge in writing an artist statement is to avoid telling viewers how to look at / what to look for in my pictures. I would not worry about this as much if it were possible to not give viewers an opportunity to read an artist statement until after they have viewed the pictures.

That written, I do believe that artist statements are intended to be read by gallery directors so that they can be assured that the work was made by a “serious” artist, not by some guy with camera who is just having fun.

Be that as it may, the statement is still a work in progress. However, I do have a deadline for a submission that is due by next Tuesday.

# 6482-88 / roadside attractions • flora • common places ~ drive by shooting

book covers

all pictures ~ (embiggenable)

Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.”  ~ Edward Weston

DURING THE PAST COUPLE DECADES I HAVE amassed in the neighborhood of 150+ pictures that were made within 20 yards of my car; my car which was pulled over to the side of the road. And, in almost all cases the pictures were made with my feet firmly planted on the edge of the road. Hence, from that picture making M.O. comes the title, roadside attractions.

This practice is the not result of my being lazy or lame. Point of fact, I have ventured far from the road-10-20 miles into the forest / wilderness on foot or in a canoe-spending up to 4-5 nights in the backcountry. Needless to write, I make lots of pictures on those treks.

That written, what pricks my eye and sensibilities along the roadside is the abundance of intimate landscapes brimming with the potential for the making of photographs with a high content of visual energy /complexity. Tangles, thickets, and clusters of bio-diverse, indigenous flora / detritus present a riotously complex visual symphony of color, line, shape, and texture that, when isolated and “organized” within my imposed frame, conspires to give the eye no place to rest.

FYI, years ago, when I began this M.O., my son, the cinemascapist, had labeled this picture making practice my Jackson Pollock picture making state of mind (and eye).

In any event, I am assembling a couple roadside attractions print portfolios, together with a photo book, for submission to galleries. See more roadside attractions pictures in the new gallery on my WORK page.

# 6279-81 / flora • landscape • roadside attractions ~ I'd hike a mile (or not)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic.” ~ Brett Weston

I HAVE A LARGE BODY OF WORK LABELED AS roadside attractions. All of the pictures were found and made within 0-30 feet from the road. That’s well within Weston’s 500 yards. I assume that Weston’s idea was based upon his use of cumbersome, large-format gear whereas my gear is quite the opposite. Suffice it to write that gear is not the reason for my attraction to roadside tableaux.

That written, the biggest problem I encounter with making pictures of roadside tableaux, since all of those pictures are made while driving along various rural roads throughout the Adirondack Forest Preserve (aka: Park), is finding a place to park my car. There are times when, after I find a place to pull over, I have to walk nearly 500 yards to the place that pricked my eye and sensibilities. Life, and picture making, can be so hard at times.

In any event, FYI, the picture at the top of this entry is-currently-at the top of my best-picture-I-ever-made list. And, a best of roadside attractions body of work will be posted on my front (WORK) page in short order.

# 6106-08 / roadside attractions • the new snapshot ~ a question

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described. I like to think of photographing as a two way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing it as it is.” ~ Garry Winogrand

IN A NUTSHELL, WINOGRAND’S QUOTE IS A PRETTY EXCELLENT, SIMPLY-STATED description of straight photography.

I have always subscribed to making straight pictures and consider myself, re; my landscape photography, to be a New Topographic photographer, a moniker which emerged from the exhibition (the 2nd most—cited photography exhibition in history), New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape-at the George Eastman House in 1975. That exhibition introduced landscape pictures-primarily of the American West-that were stripped of any artistic frills and reduced to an essentially topographic state, conveying substantial amounts of visual information but eschewing entirely the aspects of beauty, emotion and opinion. Pictures that exhibited a cool detachmrnt / unsentimental manner of picture making.

To this day, the influence of that exhibition and the picture making M.O. that it spawned still commands a formitable following in the straight photography world. And, it is rather ironic that the pictures in the exhibition, which critics / academics described as having “an alleged absence of style”, became the forerunners of an actual style that has been called “…Arguably the last traditionally photographic style”.

FYI, 10 photographer’s prints-10 prints from each-were presented in the exhibit. The photographers were: Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Joe Deal, Frank Gohlke, Nicholas Nixon, John Schott, Stephen Shore, and Henry Wessel. With the exception of Stephen Shore, all the photographers worked in BW.

In any event, I mentioned all of the above cuz I have given some thought to the question, has straight photography, in particular the New Topographics genre, reached a dead end? Or, perhaps, is it just aimlessly driving around in circles in a cul-de-sac? Which is not to write that there is not some very good work being created. However, it does seem that it has fallen out of favor in the Fine Art gallery world.

Perhaps a related question-how long is it possible maintain a cool unsentimental detachment?-is also appropriate.

Any thoughts?

# 6110-15 / roadside attractions • kitchen life • around the house ~ deceptivity

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.” ~ Robert Adams

I HAVE USED THE ABOVE ROBERT ADAMS QUOTE PREVIOUSLY. It presents an idea with which I totally agree -that is, only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace. That written, I also agree with the notion that most great pictures look uncontrived.

Re: deception - I am currently wrestling with the idea of whether or not to apply classic, retro, drugstore-style borders on my roadside attraction pictures. And, to be honest, there are times when I believe I should apply those borders on all of my pictures. The purpose of such an application is my idea of a pure deception. That is, I am trying to" “deceive” the viewers of my pictures that they were easily made cuz, you know, quite obviously, they are “just” snapshots.

Why do I engage in this “deception”? That’s cuz most people believe that snapshots are made quite “casually”. That is, without much thought of artistic intentions. And therein is the “hook”. The hook being that which gets a viewer of my “snapshots” to stop and consider- a heightened level of curiosty?-why these “snapshots” are hanging on a gallery wall.

WIthout any pretense of disingenuous humility, I know that I am a damn good picture maker. I also know that my pictures of the commonplace world, when displayed on gallery walls, can and do capture a viewer’s attention and interest, with or without a snapshot border. However, it is becoming increasingly important to me to emphasize the idea that beauty is commonplace. Or, to be more precise, that a beautiful, or at least interesting, object can be made from the awareful observation of the commonplace.

I will admit that I may be deceiving myself with my deceptive snapshot deceptions, I do think that that device can and often does incite in a viewer of my “snapshots” the curiosity to investigate what is going on in and with my pictures that may not be obvious at first glance.

# 6102-04 / roadside attractions ~ helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely what most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.” ~ John Rosenthal