# 6681-84 / common places • common things ~ baby it's hot outside

looking toward Europe ~ (embiggenable)

the new normal ~ (embiggenable)

the old normal ~ (embiggenable)

HALF WAY THROUGH HELL WEEK. Although, to be honest, my misery has been tempered by my position at the top of the golf event Leader Board-helped along by an eagle on a par 5 and a birdie on a par 3-and by garnering the longest drive award. However, that consolation was compromised by playing golf in 100% humidity / 86º heat (feels like 92º) during which I rinsed my face, neck, arms and torso with cold bottled water 5 times.

I mentioned in a previous entry that 1 of the things I dislike about the South Jersey Shore was the fact that it is being overrun with the ultra rich and their grossly ostentatious McMansions. See the above old/new normal pictures to see what I mean…it must have been a really quaint unpretentious beach community at one time.

Making lots of INSTAX print pictures. And surprise, surprise - they have kitchen sinks in New Jersey.

# 6210-13 / common places • common things • kitchen sink ~ qoutidian ubiquity

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

FORTUNATELY, RE; MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, IT SEEMS that no matter where I go are there is always a kitchen sink and kitchen garbage.

On a different topic, I have been avoiding getting caught up in the monochrome sensor GAS” discussion”. That’s primarily cuz I do not think that my thoughts on the matter would be all that well considered.

First and foremost, I admit to not being much of a BW-oops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making guy. That’s cuz, for the most part, I believe that BW picture making is a curse on the medium and its apparatus.

Think of it this way…with the exception of cave dwellers, virtually all painting was created using color...ASIDE Sure, sure. With the advent of the printing press, illustrations were presented with the use of just black ink, BUT, even then some illustrators were given to hand coloring the printed illustrations. And, BTW, for the purpose this discussion, etchings and woodcuts are not paintings. END OF ASIDE…So when color dyes / paint became available, painters took to it like ducks to water. Without too much assumption, one could surmise that they adopted color materials cuz they were exceedingly more expressive and representative of the real world. And, fortuitously, they were never burdened by the need to break out of or revert to a BW painting legacy.

The medium of photography and its apparatus were born and wedded to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures and continued to be so bound until the 1936 introduction of Kodachrome film. ASIDE Sure, sure. Prior to 1936, there were a number attempts to create the means for making color photographs but they came and went in fairly short order. END OF ASIDE However, even with the advent of commercially available color film, “serious” photographers remained committed to using BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-film and, of course, making BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-prints.

Re: the curse - that BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-legacy has attached itself to the medium and its apparatus like fleas on a mangy dog. Consequently, those picture makers who cling to it today, in a manner similar to a deeply held religious belief, are given to uttering, in defense of their precious process, such ludicrous nonsense as it is easier to see and capture form or a person’s inner essence without the “distraction” of color. Nonsense.

ASIDE To be certain, if BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making is your thing, have at it unto your heart’s content. While, I appreciate much of the classic BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-work of the picture making masters, I just do not see the need for it any more. END OF ASIDE

Re: my second thought on BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making…the current practitioners of that genre seem to be hung up on the idea the only good BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures are those made the analog way, aka: using film or some digital facsimile thereof. In their quest for such a facsimile, they have landed on the idea of monochrome sensors as if those sensors create are more “pure” BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-files than converting a color image file to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome.

That notion is something that I can not wrap my head around inasmuch as, in the digital color>BW conversion domain, there is such a variety of conversion techniques / options that the picture maker has the capability to create any “look” imaginable for his/her pictures. Apparently, the current crop of BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures makers do not like the digital conversion process cuz-here’s the curse again-that’s not the way it was always done.

And, please stop already with the ridiculously absurd idea that “seeing” in BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-is easier / better when the image on the camera screen / viewfinder is BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome. That’s akin to saying Evans, Adams (both), Weston, Frank, and all the others who came before the advent of a digital BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome sensor would have somehow had an easier time of making pictures-perhaps even “better” pictures-if only they had a Leica Q2 Monochrom (or whatever the current fan boy monochrome-there, I got it right-sensor camera may be)? Once again, nonsense.

PS the BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture in this entry was converted from a color image file by first converting it to LAB Color Space then isolating the Lightness Channel by discarding the A and B Channels. At that point, I convert the file to RGB Color Space and then make minor adjustments, global and local, to taste using the Curves tool in PS.

# 6204-06 / the shore ~ riding it out

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Ornithologists concluded that migratory birds take hundreds of naps as they fly: they also practice unilateral eye closure, in which one eye closes, thereby permitting half the brain to sleep. Is this what happens when photographers close one eye to look through a viewfinder. If so, they might be operating with only half a brain. Perhaps that explains… ~ Bill Jay

I AM CURRENTLY AT THE SOUTH JERSEY SHORE FOR MY annual tour of hell on earth. Fortunately, this week hell is much cooler than usual. Maybe the horned guy is outa town and the furnace stokers are slacking off.

In any event, the fact is that I have something to look forward to. At the end of my week in hell, we move on to heaven on earth, or at least a part of it, for our annual 5 week Summer into Autumn stay at our Adirondack retreat, aka: Rist Camp. Although we will have visitors from time to time, it’s a protracted period of quiet isolation on hill top overlooking a lake with the Adirondack High Peaks as a backdrop.

PS I am quite pleased that I do not have to close one eye to look through a viewfinder when using the iPhone. Cuz, that way-with both eyes open-I can operate it using both sides of my brain.

# 5729-31 / civilized ku-landscape ~ it ain’t what it looks like

(embiggenable) - iPhone

(embiggenable) - iPhone

(embiggenable) - iPhone

YESTERDAY AS I WAS MOVING ABOUT THE WEB, PHOTOGRAPHY SECTION, I came upon a site entry wherein the author wrote: “I’ve been taking images in earnest for over 45 years now. You think I’d be bored with it but even on the worst days there’s something amazing about watching beautiful light cascade over objects of equal beauty…..”

My first thought was that how sad it is for someone to have been making pictures for nearly half a century and still be addicted to “the light”, aka: the golden light hour of sunrise / sunset bathing a dramatic landscape in heavenly color. Or, as I call it, the zombie-like photo cliche that can not be killed.

All of that written, I did not have another thought on the subject until this morning when I was processing a couple files made yesterday evening. That thought took on the form of isn’t it rather ironic (hypocritical?) that you fled the premise last evening in pursuit of a location where you could make a picture to include the late day light?

My answer to that question is….of course not. I’m better person / picture maker than that. I was just intending to include some evidence of the golden light merely as a compositional element. Most emphatically, I was not chasing the light.

So there. How’s that for a rationalization? Or, as a character in the film The Big Chill said, “Rationalizations are more important than sex. Did you ever try to make it through a day without at least one rationalization.”

# 5725-28 / (un)civilized ku ~ once upon a time

Once upon a time ~ (embiggenable) - iPhone

Once upon a time ~ (embiggenable) - iPhone

Here and now ~ (embiggenable) - iPhone

Here and now ~ (embiggenable) - iPhone

ONCE UPON A TIME STONE HARBOR, NJ AND OTHER like shore towns / villages were quaint-ish summer cottage enclaves. Places I would have enjoyed visiting, if only I could deal with the summer heat and humidity.

Fast forward to today where, over the past 10-15 years, these places have been turned into second-home (aka: seasonal vacation homes)-enclaves of the (obscenely) wealthy. I use the word “obscene” to describe the manner in which these place have been have been “turned”….virtually all of the quaint, cottage vibe has been eliminated, aka: demolished and replaced by ostentatious McMansions. The result - a lifeless facsimile of upscale suburban living.

Somewhat unfortunately, I have been consigned to the fate of spending 1 week a year-over the past 25 years-at the South Jersey Shore. Stone Harbor, NJ has been my wife’s family summer haunt for 60 years and that ain’t gonna change any time soon.

Lest this entry be what I want to avoid-whining about my personal life-I feel compelled to mention that what is going on at the Jersey Shore is not an isolated situation. There seems to be an American propensity for finding a place to visit-most often a place with unique character-and then, over time, completely destroying that character / uniqueness to the point where it becomes a Disneyland-like attraction. That is, a manufactured / contrived caricature of what it once was.

civilized ku # 3596-98 ~ mish-mashing around

3200K + 5200K ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THIS ENTRY'S PICTURES ARE A PRETTY GOOD ILLUSTRATION of my discursive promiscuity manner of picture making. Pictures wherein a consistent vision, aka: way of seeing, combines pattern and color to create a feeling of visual energy which holds a series of pictures together as all of a whole. And, FYI, visual energy is a visual characteristic that I prize, not only in pictures made with the medium of photography and its apparatus but also in any of the other visual arts.

civilized ku # 3677-79 ~ we are all investigators now

Shore Jeresy Shore ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

didn’t notice the birds ‘til I got closer ~ South Jersey Shore (embiggenable) • iPhone

There was a time, shortly after the upstart medium of photography emerged onto the scene, that the art world, especially the world of painting, began to feel threatened by the new medium. The poet, Charles Baudelaire, wrote (c. 1859):

"“If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon supplant or corrupt it altogether, thanks to the stupidity of the multitude which is its natural ally."

That sentiment and many others like it was instrumental in art institutions of that era-London Royal Academy of Art / (French) Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, et al-to declare in their many proclamations, re: what qualifies as art, that the hand of the artist must be apparent in works of art.

Up until that point all art was "handmade" art. While this declaration re-enforced the status quo, it also disavowed photography-a mere mechanical craft, aka: pictures made by a machine-as an art form. As a reaction from the photography world, the practice of Pictorialism emerged. A practice where the hand of the artist was very visible.

That was then, this is now and the medium of photography and its apparatus have come along way, baby. Photography has established its niche in the art world (although not all photography is art) and many photographers are considered to artists who are making art.

That written, over a decade or two ago, there has been the emergence of the PhD photographer, a crowd who are members of what I refer to as The Academic Lunatic Fringe School of Photography. Needless to write, as my nomenclature implies, I am not a fan of the pictures they make, pictures that are always accompanied by the requisite artspeak, pyschoanalytical and pure flapdoodle-ish artist statement.

One of things in those artist statements that annoy me no end is the ever-present use of phrases which describe what they profess to be doing. Phrases such as, examining the fundamental search for, or, the use of intuitive process and various reinterpreted psychodramatic methods to examine, or, a method to investigate.

Apparently, the medium of photography and its apparatus is, for them, not about making pictures but rather a tool for "examining" or "investigating" one arcane art theory or another, or, very frequently, a navel gazing pursuit of highly personal identity or personal life issues.

What I find most annoying about the ALFSoP is the fact that they denigrate the idea that a photographic print is a thing in and of itself, a thing that can stand on its own without the need for a 1000 word essay about what it means. But, of course, the ALFSoP is all about content, aka: meaning, and little, if any thing at all, about form. Which, FYI, is why I don't like very many of their "investigations".

Apparently, we (picture makers) are all investigators and/or examiners now. So, be prepared. When asked what you are making a picture of / why you took a picture, the correct answer should be, "I am not taking a picture. I am examining and investigating the physical and psychological boundaries of simulacra and simulation."