# 6423-37 / comon places • common things • still life • people ~ meaninng schmeaning

January 30, 2023

***Quality butcher*** ~ Scotland (embiggenable)

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy.” ~ Susan Sontag

IN MY LAST ENTRY I PROCLAIMED THAT, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus, it’s the same as it ever was. I believe that to be true albeit with one notable exception; the Major League Division of the Fine Art Photography World. To wit…

Over the past decade or two, fine art photo galleries and art institutions have been taken over-I would venture to write”hijacked”-by the Academic Lunatic Fringe. That is, at the directorial level graduate degrees-MAs /MFAs-are the norm and, consequently, the work being exhibited or acquired adheres to the ALF dictum of meaning trumps visual content. Or, in other words, what a picture means is much more important than what a picture depicts. Concept is the thing, which quite frankly is to be expected of academia, aka: the home of ideas.

The unfortunate (iMo) results are two-fold; 1) most ALF pictures are, to my eye and sensibilities, visual flops, and, 2) the pictures are always accompanied by a bloviating art speak explanation, re: what the pictures mean. The explanations are, iMo, virtually indispensable inasmuch as the pictures, in and of themselves, are rarely self-explanatory. In fact, after being told by a picture maker exactly what his/her pictures are about, I rarely see in his/her pictures whatever it is the maker is trying to express.

“University presses [ed. +fine art photo book publishers] increasingly hold to the policy that requires books of pictures to incorporate “substantial” texts…. layering together pictures with the photographer’s words, [ed. or more likely an academic’s essay] but also sandwiching the concoction between slabs of social—scientific balloon bread. ~ Robert Adams

To be completely honest, I should make it clear that my dislike, re: this sad state of photographic affairs, is predicated upon a very selfish desire to be visually engaged when viewing photographs on a gallery / art institution (or even online) wall. That is, as opposed to pictures of the self-pyschoanalyzing, navel gazing “investigations” by some so-called lens-based artist’s obsession with the “intersection” of some aspect of a social-scientific balloon bread concept and his/her inner self/life.

# 6427-31 / nocturnal • common places ~ the night is filled with shadows

January 27, 2023

***fiddling*** ***while house burns*** ~ fireman taking a picture (embiggenable)

SPOILER ALERT: well, not really. However, this entry will divulge a key part of my intro for the Philosophy of Modern Pictures book/project. To wit….after a lot of thought and research, I have come to the conclusion that the more things change, the more they remain the same, or, as David Byrne sang, same as it ever was.

Ever since the introduction of the digital picture making age, there has been considerable caterwauling and lamentation-don’t get me started with the monochrome crowd who can tell you the day the music BW died-re: the landmark, tradition changing, revolution about how picture making has change. To which I call, BS.

A far as I can see, sure, sure, light sensitive picture making substrates has changed from film to digital, print making has changed from the wet darkroom to the desktop / software ”darkroom”, and making good pictures, technically wise, has gotten easier BUT, paraphrasing Robert Adams…"

“…the only thing that is new in art [insert “photography’ here] is the example: the message [insert “photographs” here] is are, broadly speaking, the same-coherence, form, meaning.”

In other words, the medium and its apparatus are still inexorably / intrinsically a cohort of the real. That is, we all continue to make pictures of real-world referents-you know, people, places, things. Sure, sure, the tools have changed, but the “message” remains the same.

Of course, one could argue, what about all that special effects / filters / digital constructions stuff? Answer: one of the earliest “movements” in photography was Pictorialism and continued through the ages with Jerry Uelsmann as one of many prime examples. However, virtually all of their works, aka: acts-of-the-imagination pictures, start with pictures of referents snatched from the real world.

iMo, and that of many others, those making acts-of-the-imagination pictures are not photographers. In point of fact, they are artists-often referred to as photo artists-who employ the tools of the medium and it apparatus to create images, not photographs. And, there ain’t nothin’ new ’bout that activity.

So, from my point of view (literally-how I see the world-figuratively-my picture making vision), everything is the same as it ever was.

# 6422-26 / common places • common things • civilized ku ~ what am I spota do master?

January 26, 2023

“I really didn’t have much to teach. I didn’t really believe in it. I felt so strongly that everybody had to find their own way. And nobody can teach you your own way…. in terms of art, the only real answer that I know of is to do it. If you don’t do it, you don’t know what might happen.” ~ Harry Callahan

IN MY SEARCH FOR A NEW BOOK WHICH IS built around a large number of digital photographers’ work-to date an unsuccessful search-my search query yielded up a seemingly endless number of landfill-worthy how-to digital photography books and workshops. Many with an emphasis on how to make so-called “fine art” digital photographs.

Needless to write, none-and I repeat, NONE-of the self-proclaimed “experts” were making pictures that had any resemblance to fine art. You can take that assessment to the bank based upon the absolute fact that, to my extensive knowledge, there is not a single bona fide fine art photographer on the planet who would even consider the idea of making a how-to book. That’s cuz they understand well the verse of poet X. J.Kennedy:

The goose that laid the golden egg Died looking up its crotch To find out how its sphincter worked. Would you lay well? Don’t watch.

Or consider this from Robert Adams:

“Photographers are like other artist too in being reticent because they are afraid that self-analysis will get in the way of making art. They never fully know how they got the good pictures that they have, but they suspect that a certain innocence may have been necessary.”

iMo, how to operate camera or use editing software-or, for that matter, process film and make prints in a wet darkroom-can be taught. In any case, it ain’t rocket science but hooking up with someone who can show you ropes can speed things along. But, while anyone can figure out how to make a picture, getting to the point where one’s pictures are considered to be fine art is not so easy.

The hard work arrives in the form of identifying and then understanding how one sees the world. That is, both literally and figuratively. No one can do that but you. For some it comes easy, for some its much more difficult, and, dare I write it, for some it is impossible. ASIDE Re: impossible; that’s where the “rules” of photography come in handy for those can’t figure it out for themselves. END ASIDE

The danger involved in looking for “expert” solutions to the hard work issue is that, upon choosing an “expert” from whom to get advice on how to make “great” pictures, one is more apt to become a photo groupy of sorts-aka: follow the leader-than one who is apt to free one’s mind from the boundaries of conventional picture making. As Brian Cohen says in the film Life of Brian:

You’ve got it wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals. You’re all different. You’ve got to figure it out for yourselves.

Of course, as Brian exhorts the crowd to be individuals-”yes, we are all individuals” they respond collectively-they repeat all he has to say as dogma / doctrine. I guess that explains why all the “experts” are so successful at finding recruits for following their picture making “wisdom”.

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

January 10, 2023

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.

# 6383-88 / common places /things ~ winter

January 6, 2023

WINTER IS NOT PRIME TIME PICTURE MAKING for my eye and sensibilities. That is most likely due to the fact that the white landscape does not normally possess the visual complexity that pricks my eye and sensibilities. However, when I am driving about the place, I do encounter some picture making opportunities; emphasis on driving about inasmuch as most of my winter pictures made over the past decade or so have been made from the roadside about 20-30 feet from my car.

That situation is somewhat ironic cuz, prior to moving to the Adirondacks 23 years ago, most of my winter pictures were made quite a distance from my car - at 5,000+ft. elevation, above treeline, many miles from my car, in 0ºF weather, in the dead of winter, deep and high in the Adirondack High Peaks Wilderness Area. FYI, the Algonquin pictures below were made with my Pentax 110 SLR. I have the complete system - extra body, film winder and 4 lenses.

***climbing Algonquin in a near whiteout blizzard*** ~ we eventually dropped back down below treeline to pitch camp and find shelter from the raging wind. c.1982 (embiggenable)

***Algonquin at sunset*** ~ c.1982 (embiggenable)

***Algonquin pre sunrise ~*** c.1982 (embiggenable)

# 6374-76 / common places • common things ~ things that do work

December 28, 2022

RE: The Philosophy of Modern Pictures PROJECT / BOOK: now that the Happy Holiday Daze faze is nearing its end, the PoMP project/book has shifted into high gear inasmuch as it is time to get down to basics, i.e. deciding who my target audience is, so that the writing can commence with that focus in mind….

….without a doubt, the primary target audience is me. That is to write that I am undertaking the PoMP project/book to organize and clarify-all in one place-my picture making thoughts and practices-along with a heaping sample of my pictures-in the hope that it may be of some value to my secondary target audience, i.e.: those picture makers who are wandering around in the photo-making wilderness searching for a way to free their picture making minds from the confines of conventional picture making “wisdom”.

That written, let me make one thing perfectly clear, I am not trying to set myself up as a “guru” / “expert” / “authority” or even a “teacher” about anything. My intent for my writing in the project/book is to create something that is interesting, for some, to read, just as my intent in making pictures is to create something that is interesting, for some, to look at.

There will be no “how to” about any thing in the book. Rather, it is my intent to write about some of the guideposts I bumped into-in many cases on accident, by means of traveling with an open mind-in my journey through the picture making wilderness. Guideposts that just may be of some interest and/or use for fellow travelers.

RE: THE PICTURES IN THIS ENTRY: these pictures-despite their disparate referents-are identical in one respect. If you can not recognize that similarity, consider this from Robert Adams from his book Why People Photograph ~ Teaching:

…if teaching photography means bringing students to find their own individual photographic visions, I think it is impossible (ed: fyi, so do I)…the scholar’s task is relatively analytic, whereas the artist’s is synthetic; academics enjoy disassembling things in order to understand how they work, whereas artists enjoy taking scattered pieces and assembling from them things that do work.

# 6366-68 / discursive promiscuity ~ any where, any place, any thing

December 20, 2022

***book covers*** ~ note the crumpled **BANKRUPTCY** banner in store window • (embiggenable)

AS I MOVE ALONG WITH THE PHILOSOPHY PROJECT /BOOK, I am still trying to come to grips with what the book should be about. During that mental wrestling contest, the only “philosophy” I have come up with, re: why people make pictures, is quite simple (albeit very broad in scope):

Any time, any place, any thing (especially your face). Everyone photographs cuz they like what they see.

No matter under which genre banner a photographer might be toiling- decorative art, fine art, or no art at all-the ubiquitous snapshooters who are simply, without artistic intentions, recording the goings on in their life-I believe it is safe to write that they all like (and photograph) what they see.

Of course, what a photographers “sees” can have a literal and/or a transformative meaning inasmuch as those photographers working under the decorative art banner, along with the ubiquitous snapshooter, are relentlessly and unabashedly wedded to the actual referent depicted in their photographs. Whereas, those toiling under the fine art banner are much more inclined to “see” (and photograph) something that goes beyond the literal visual characteristics of their depicted referent. Thereby causing a change in how the viewer perceives, within the photographer’s chosen framing-and “organization” of line, shape, color, tone, and space-the depicted referent.

All of that written, with either a literal or a transformative picture making intent, I think it safe to write that photographers like what they see cuz, whatever they see or however they see it, they most definitely like it for its potential as fodder for the making of a good picture.

***on my way back from the grocery store*** ~ (embiggenable) - I definitely liked what I saw

# 6356-61 / street • common places ~ the same but different

December 13, 2022

AS I WAS RUMMAGING THROUGH MY LIBRARY SEEKING pictures for The Philosophy of Modern Pictures project/book, I was sidetracked by looking for street photography pictures. While I have never pursued the making of street photos with any degree of concentration, I have discovered that, nevertheless, I have a fair number of what could be labeled as street photography, or, at the very least, could be said to have been made in the street photography style. I found more than enough such pictures that I created a gallery of a selection of those pictures on my WORK page.

That written, my street photography differs from that of “traditional” street photography-tradition = monochrome images-inasmuch as I, as always, make color street pictures cuz, as always, I use color as a structural element in my pictures. However, just for comparison sake, I processed all of my street pictures as monochrome images in order to see how well they “work” in monochrome.

iMo, the monochrome images work OK. If I were to submit them as a portfolio to a gallery for exhibition, I would most likely do a bit more fine tuning of the images. That written, I have no qualms about the picture’s visual interest as a rather decent body of work.

That written, I also have no qualms about believing that the color work of the same images is a much more visually interesting body of work.

Any thoughts?