#6881-85 / around the house • common things • landscape ~ let us now praise artlessness

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN I ACTUALLY CONSIDERED converting all of my photographs into the snapshot look. That idea sprang from my thoughts, re: the pomposity of many practitioners / critics / academics toiling under the banner of “fine art” photography–sorta my gut reaction to blurt out, “Get over it. They’re just f–––ing pictures.” Needless to write, I got over the impulse but, when rooting around in my image files–10K +– while prepping materials for my gallery presentation, a snapshot related thought re-emerged from the past re: longevity.

Estimating that there are approximately 200-300 really good fine art “keepers” in my library of the hang-them-on-a-wall quality, I was given to wondering how many of them would be around, say, 5-10 years after my departure from the planet.

While I have had some modest success selling my work–prints and POD photo books–those photographs might have a longer longevity life span than my keeper image files which might not be so lucky. One exception are the significant number of POD photo books I have created inasmuch as they are easier objects to hang on to. That written, perhaps it’s time to write an end-of-life directive stating what I would like to be preserved / passed on to family.

Be all of that as it may, the snapshot thought that recently occurred to me was about a very large Tupperware-like storage container sitting in our attic that contains 300+ (or more, who’s counting) Polaroid family-oriented snapshots that have survived for close to 60 years. I have very little doubt that they will continue to survive for a very long time, perhaps even multi-generation wise. Those photographs–unlike my most fine art work–are apt to be cherished memento.

That written, I truly believe that the best photographs ever made are those made by the “nameless picture makers” cuz, when you come right down to it, they are just f…king pictures .….

Of all the world’s photographers, the lowliest and least honored is the simple householder who desires only to “have a camera around the house” and to “get a picture of Dolores in her graduation gown.” He lugs his primitive equipment with him on vacation trips, picnics, and family outings of all sorts. His knowledge of photography is about that of your average chipmunk. He often has trouble loading his camera, even after owning it for twenty years. Emulsion speeds, f-stops, meter readings, shutter speeds have absolutely no meaning to him, except as a language he hears spoken when, by mistake, he wanders into a real camera store to buy film instead of his usual drugstore. His product is almost always people- or possession-oriented. It rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens. What artistic results he obtains are almost inevitably accidental and totally without self-consciousness. Perhaps because of his very artlessness, and his very numbers, the nameless picture maker may in the end be the truest and most valuable recorder of our times. He never edits; he never editorializes; he just snaps away and sends the film off to be developed, all the while innocently freezing forever the plain people of his time in all their lumpishness, their humanity, and their universality. ~ Jean Shepherd

# 6878-80 / sink • winter • polaroid ~ getting back in the saddle

al photos ~ (embiggenable)

HAVE NOT POSTED IN A WHILE CUZ I have been very focused upon prepping my folio + book presentation to a gallery. Then there was also the engulf half the USofA snowmageddon storm–we got 18” in 24 hrs, seen much worse but the media played it up biggly–together with 10 days of below 0ºF temps.

BTW, most of the falling snow was, rare for these parts, champagne powder–a term for exceptionally light, dry, and fluffy snow with a very low water content (around 6%), making it airy and soft, creating very fine crystals. The 18” of snow was practically weightless which meant virtually no downed trees / limbs or power lines which, in turn, meant few power outages. And, I would assume, very few snow shoveling heart attacks.

In any event, the presentation work is nearly completed so, round about this coming Tuesday things should be back to “normal”, or, whatever passes for normal these days.

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

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

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"

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

alpenglow

neon glo

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

# 6857-59 / common places-things • winter ~ quick note and a couple FYIs

GONNA HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO SEE in Polaroid again cuz Santa left a Polaroid NOW camera for me under the Xmas tree. The most difficult adjustment, re: making Polaroid pictures, to be made is getting use to the idea that it costs just north of $2.00US per press of the shutter release.

FYI #1, I have had a bit of a rethink, re: the Winterland book. Or maybe think of it as a refinement on my thoughts about the work–stay tuned for my next entry.

FYI #2, One of my photographs made the cut for inclusion in the PhotoPlace On The Street gallery exhibition. See all the selections HERE

PhotoPlace Gallery juried selection

# 6815 / (un)common things ~ what the hell is going on?

(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?

# 6506 / common places • common thing • winter ~ I don't want / need no stinkin' metaphors

(embiggenable)

IT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE somewhere (or so wrote Stephen Shore):

Chinese poetry rarely trespasses beyond the bounds of actuality… the great Chinese poets accept the world exactly as they find it in all its terms and with profound simplicity… they seldom talk about one thing in terms of another; but are able enough and sure enough as artists to make the ultimately exact terms become the beautiful terms.

If there were to be a credo for making straight photographs-bits lifted from the visceral world with such tact and cunning that they seem true-iMo, this would be it.

# 6389-95 / common places / things ~ free and easy

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

DISCLAIMER: OVER MY YEARS OF READING ANY THING I COULD get my hands on (books) or find online, re: the medium and its apparatus, numerous words / phrases / paragraphs / et al have popped up which, to my way of thinking, have relevance to my manner of making pictures. And, over those same years, I have used many of those descriptors on my blog(s) or when talking about my work. ASIDE when using a full paragraph, aka: excerpt, I always include an attribution END OF ASIDE.

That written, one characteristic of my pictures, about which I have made plain, is the fact that my eye and sensibilities are pricked by the quotidian, aka: the “stuff” of everyday life. Or to put it another way…I like to take into account, picture making wise, much that barely impinges, for most, on consciousness, even though it makes up the usual stuff of our lives.

Consequently, since my mind and eye is open to any and all picture making possibilities, I never know where in the world I will “find” my next picture. And, it is precisely that “uncertainty” / openness-my complete lack of previsualization-that allows my seemingly innate vision to impose its will upon / respond to how I “see” / “feel” the correct configuration of visual elements of any slice of the world that pricks my eye and sensibilities.

Simply written, I do not “work” a subject nor I do not “think” about what I am doing. I spontaneously point my picture making device toward whatever has prick my eye and sensibilities, adjust my POV-guided by what I see on the device’s display-until the configuration of the subject feels “correct”-quite obviously determined by my eye and sensibilities-and then activate the shutter. Wham bam, thank you mam.

On those occasions when a picture making effort “works”, that picture is something of a visual delight / revelation to my eye and sensibilities. And that is the reason why I can not stop making pictures.