kitchen life / # 3697-97A ~ one of these things is not like the other

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

OVER THE COURSE OF 24-36 HOURS I HAVE TWICE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH a rectangle dilemma along the lines of to square or not to square. And, after careful consideration, I have decided that squaring was the way to go in both cases.

In the case of the sky-clouds picture, I don't believe that the squaring made much of a difference whatsoever in the picture's impression / impact. However, in the case of the kitchen-life picture, the squaring most definitely causes the picture to be perceived as a "Hobson" picture rather than entirely something else / different.

In fact, I "see" the difference between the two kitchen-life picture presentations as, to my eye and sensibilities, two very distinctly different pictures.

around the house / kitchen life / # 3692-94 ~ interanimating segments of a total visual presentation

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

C. 1979 I WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING, PHOTO-EPIPHANY WISE, WHEN I was invited by the author, Sally Eauclaire, of the book, the new color photography (Abbeville Press / 1981), to be her consultant about matters technical in the making of many of the pictures in the book. What that meant for me was that for the better part of a year, she and I would meet in my studio and spread out on the floor the work of the photographers to be included in the book.

ASIDE FYI, photographers such as William Eggleston, Steven Shore, Emmet Gowin, Emmet Gowin, Joel Meyerwitz, Joel Sternfeld, Roger Mertin, Jan Groover, Michael Bishop, Harry Callahan, Eve Sonneman, Arthur Taussig, John Pfahl, Neal Slavin, William Christenberry, Len Jenshel, Mitch Epstein, and many others. END OF ASIDE

iMo, the book is a must-have for any picture maker who wishes to break away from "those who express that which is always being done...whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else...Expression [which] has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves." And, for me, the book opened both my mind and my eye to the possibilities of what was suitable visual fodder for the making of pictures.

The book is long out of print but is still in demand. Used copies are available but prices can get rather steep. Although, soft cover editions can be had quite reasonably.In any event, the book is more than just a collection of pictures inasmuch as Eauclaire's writing / critque of the work is very interesting. Although it can slide toward artspeak at times, it is well worth reading.

Consider this excerpt from Chapter 2, COLOR PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMALISM....

Unlike those contemporary painters and critics who denigrate subject matter as an adulteration of the art-about-art imperative, the most resourceful photographic formalists regard the complexion of the given environment as potenially articulate aesthetic material. They consider the subject and its visual essence as indivisible.

These formalists perceive real objects and intervening spaces as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation. They test every edge, tone, color, and texture for its expressive potential and structual funtioning. Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is coopted for its visual possibilities, yet delineated with the utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter....These two contexts of the image coexist in conflict, producing a visual tension that transcends pure design.

I have always considered myself to be a photographic formalist and I have never read anything better than this excerpt which describes how I "see".

kitchen life / kitchen sink / # 3689-91 ~ because the individual is different

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ThIS WEEKEND PAST I WAS RE-VISITING THE BOOK, ANSEL ADAMS ~IN COLOR. The pictures in the book were curated / chosen by Harry Callahan. Callahan's methodology for making his selections-from nearly 3,000 transparencies-was simple enough ... he stated that he "chose what looks good" and "selected those things that pleased me."

In any event, Adams might be spinning in his grave like a high-speed drill press inasmuch as some of Callahan's selections display evidence of the limitations, tonal range wise, of transparency film. Which is to write, some blown highlights and many blocked-up shadows. That written, those pictures which were not pushing those boundaries, are quite good. In fact, were I to invest in one Adams' print to adorn one of my walls, it would be one of his color pictures.

There are a handful of Adams quotes in the book that are worth publishing here on my blog. However, in the meantime, while reading the text in the Adams book, I remebered this spot-on quote from Harry Callahan....

"The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner; not for the sake of being different, but ones that are different because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. I realize that we all do express ourselves, but those who express that which is always being done are those whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else. Expression on this basis has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves." ~ Harry Callahan

around the house / simulated Polaroid / # 3688 ~ just mucking arouund

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I LIKE RUNNING AMUCK WITH MY iPHONE or any other picture making device.

"The cumulative effect of one hundred and thirty years of man’s participation in the process of running amuck with cameras was the discovery that there was amazing amount of significance, historical and otherwise, in a great many things that no one had ever seen until snapshots began forcing people to see them." ~ John Kouwenhoven

FYI, I made pictures with and without the lens flair. The one with the flair looks better to my eye and sensibilities. It fits the snapshot aesthetic rathere well.

civilized ku / around the house/ kitchen life # 3677-79 ~ I'd pay for that

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I HAVE OFTEN THOUGHT THAT, IF a school of higher learning were to create a course of study, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus, which was built solely around multiple volumes of quotes, sans any and all reference to gear and technique, from a wide range of picture makers / critics together with a library of photo monographs from those same picture makers, there just might be a whole lot more interesting pictures to look at.

As an example ...

"One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others....The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." ~ JOHN SZARKOWSKI

around the house / kitchen life / single women / # 3668-72 ~ luck is where you find it

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ACCORDING TO MIKE JOHNSTON ON T.O.P. I am "lucky indeed." That's cuz I have the answer to his riddle and cuz I can answer "yes" to the second question...

"What are you happiest making pictures of—what kind of pictures have the highest satisfaction/gratification quotient for you—and do you have access to it? If you know the answer to the first riddle and can say "yes" to the second question, you're lucky indeed."

Re: "the riddle" - What are you happiest making pictures of / what kinds of subject matter? My answer to that question is quite simple inasmuch as, when I first began making pictures, I ignored (without much effort) the standard advice for good picture making which goes along the line of, pick a referent-almost always meaning a person/people, place or thing-that you care about / are interested in and concentrate on making pictures thereof.

This "timeless" advice, iMconsideredo, unfortunately leads many / most to believe that the literal, depicted referent is what a picture is and should be about. Which tends to lead to the impoverished idea that, if a picture is to be considered as beautiful / interesting, it is only because the referent is beautiful / interesting. Which, in turn, leads to, as Johnston points out in the same entry, "motifs [that] are beginning to become almost standardized in photography, as so many people take the same picture over and over again.

Not wishing to belabor the preceding opinion / point, my answer to Johnston's riddle is simple .... my favorite kind of subject matter is any thing and every thing cuz my real picture making interest / subject is the rhythms, the melodies, the harmonies, to include the dissonances that can be seen and found just about everywhere regardless of the actual /literal depicted subject matter.

And, since my favorite "subject matter" can be found / seen just about everywhere, I have constant and seemingly endless "access" to it.

So, I guess I am a very lucky guy indeed.

around the house / kitchen life / kitchen sink / # 3663-67 ~ no thinking required

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

GIVEN THE MEDIUM OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND ITS APPARATUS' intrinsic / inherent relationship with the real world as its primary defining characteristic which distinguishes it from the the other visual arts, it is my considered opinion that, in the digital picture making domain, the medium has moved beyond the creation of images which depict the real world in a "realistic" manner to that of the creation of images which are more hyper-real than real.

That written, and lest anyone think that I believe that the medium and its apparatus has gone to hell in hand basket, I am referring to that segment of the picture making world-camera makers and picture makers-for whom there is never enough rich color / saturation, micro detail, resolution, sharpness and brilliance. All of which are employed in the making of pictures which appear, to my eye and sensibilities, to be more real than real (my apologies to the Tyrell Corporation).

Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that this proclivity is solely the product of the digital picture making world inasmuch as, back in the good ol' analog days, one could choose color film / paper products which were designed to exaggerate / distort the real world. Fujichrome Velvia film and Cibachrome color paper come immediately to mind.

In either case, analog or digital, I just don't understand the desire to subvert the medium's primary characteristic. However, I might suggest that those who go down that road seem to lack the imagination / creativity to make good pictures within the "constraints" of adhering to the real as opposed to slathering the real with a cheap-trick veneer of art sauce.

natural world / around the house / # 3660-62 ~ for your eyes only

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ART DOESN'T NEED A SUBJECT. iMconsideredO, content is antithetical to the art aesthetic and it is form that opens the gateway to the rapture of the art experience. Consequently, I would rather view a piece of art that makes me want to puke than one which makes me want to think* about it, i.e. to discern meaning (aka: content). However...

....lest I get carried away, I can not ignore the fact that, inasmuch as I navigate the art-waters of the medium of photography, my art making endevours are inexorably liked to real-world referents. That is the intrinsic nature of the beast. And, especially so with the medium of photography, what is depicted is most often linked to a picture's content, aka: meaning.

Fortuntely for me and my picture making, I am (seemingly) preternaturally drawn to making pictures of 'nothing" or, more accurately, nothing of any great visual significance. That is fortunate inasmuch as the depicted referent is unlikely, for those atuned to it, to get in the way of seeing the artistic sensibility / characteristics, the intended content of my pictures, employed in the making of my pictures.

DISCLAIMER: Of course, that is just the way I see it.

* which does not mean that a picture I view might not incite thoughts. Although, most of those thoughts are descriptive of the emotion(s) which the picture might have incited in me.