# 5958 / kitchen life ~ navigable space and recognizable subject matter

(embiggenable)

I HAVE RECOVERED FROM MY PISSED OFF AT Squarespace mood swing. So, I am moving on with my greatest challenge to making fine art photographs idea.

Simply written, it is my belief that the medium of photography and its apparatus, when practiced within the “confines” of the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts, present some significant barriers to the creation of photographs that would fall into the world of fine art.

To clarify:

Re: “the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts” - aka: the medium’s intrinsic / ingrained relationship with and to the real. That is, it’s capability of reproducing an accurate and faithful illustration of that at which the picture maker points his/her picture making instrument.

Re: “fine art” - is created and appreciated solely for its aesthetic quality and capacity to stimulate the intellect, aka: art for art’s sake, subject matter be damned. “decorative art”, photography wise, is all about subject matter, aka: the referent, principles of art be damned.

Working within “the ‘confines’ of the medium’s most unique characteristic” most often results in the making of straight photographs. That is, photographs made with the intent of creating an accurate representation-as much as the medium allows-of that at which the picture maker pointed his/her picture making instrument. No art sauce, aka: bullying of the subject matter into exaggerated angles and supersaturated colors, applied during or after the picture making moment.

Working thus presents a number of problems for most “serious” amateur picture makers (those who expend a fair amount of time, money and effort in making pictures) inasmuch as they have been told / taught that the sine non qua of picture making is the subject. The result of that prescriptive is that most serious picture makers set out to find and picture subjects that they are told are suitable-people, places, things representative of “conventional” beauty-for good picture making.

Hence the emergence of too-numerous-to-mention picture making cliches. And, since most “serious” picture makers realize-consciously or otherwise-that they are making pictures that are essentially the same as other “serious” picture makers are making-pick a genre, any genre-the game is on to employ techniques and effects in their picture making in order to stand out from the crowd. Goodbye, straight photography. Hello, decorative photography.

To be certain, most of these “serious” amateurs are making art. However, according to the dictates of the Fine Art World, it is not art that that world considers to be serious art. Setting aside that world’s distain for “artistic” cheap tricks, aka: art sauce, it is also worth considering their embrace of the concept of art fart about art inasmuch as that idea does not give a rat’s ass-even if it’s a picture of a rat’s ass-about the idea of subject matter.

No, iTo, the only things the Fine Art crowd consider worthy considering about a work of art are Content (aka: meaning) and Form. And they have elevated the idea of Concept (meaning) to a fetish, the sine non quo of their art world.

All of that written, one might think that I have no affinity for either art world. While it would be accurate to think that I have little interest in decorative art photography cuz it is just not my thing. On the other hand, much fine art photography is my thing, however…I do subscribe to the tenets of a subset of that world.

The vernacular of that subset does include the idea of art about art but not to the exclusion of subject matter, but not subject matter as the decorative art world considers it. Rather, it is about subject matter and its visual essence as indivisible. Consider this:

Unlike those contemporary artists 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 potentially articulate material…These formalists perceive real objects and interesting spaces as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation….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 plain 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. ~ Sally Eauclaire / Color Photographic Formalism

Making pictures which meet the criteria expressed by Eauclaire’s articulate and insightful photographic formalist viewpoint is what I do. And, iMo, her description of Photographic Formalism could be applied to nearly every picture maker’s work that is regarded by the FIne Art World as fine art photography.

All of the above written, I am more than willing to admit that there quite a number of picture makers who do not give a hoot or a holler about whether their work is viewed as fine art or decorative art. On the other hand, many of those same picture makers do harbor a desire to make pictures which transcend the merely decorative, pretty picture modality. Many have tried the How To Master -(insert genre here)- book or workshop route only to find that those materials and prescriptives offer nothing more than gussied up reiterations of glib, decorative art picture making formulas.

In the quest for inspiration, I would suggest a few things….read The Art Spirit (published 1923) by Robert Henri (easily and inexpensively found at many sources), read the first 2 chapter intros-The Problematic Presedents / Color Photographic Formalism in Sally Eauclaire’s The New Color Photography (long out of print but copies can be found at a reasonable cost). And, as a general rule, avoid any book / workshop that promises to make you a “Master” of anything.

Neither book has any “how-to” gibberish. Eauclaire’s book spends deal of effort describing what good photographic art looks and feels like. Henri’s book spends an equal effort describing the mindset. aka: spirit, one might develop and foster in the cause of making good art.

#5945-47 / around the house • civilizedku ~ twitchyness

the place to be on a sub-0 degree (F) day ~ (embiggenable)

the red truck ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“I find it strangely beautiful that the camera with its inherent clarity of object and detail can produce images that in spite of themselves offer possibilities to be more than they are ... a photograph of nothing very important at all, nothing but an intuition, a response, a twitch from the photographer’s experience.“ - Joel Meyerowitz

# 5940-42 / around the house • kitchen life ~ there is no OFF button

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“To know ahead of time what you’re looking for means you’re then only photographing your own preconceptions, which is very limiting, and often false.” ~ Dorohea Lange

“It’s about reacting to what you see, hopefully without preconception. You can find pictures anywhere. It’s simply a matter of noticing things and organising them.” ~ ELLIOT ERWITT

REACTING TO WHAT YOU SEE WITHOUT PRECONCEPTION as method of making pictures is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, there are, in fact, pictures everywhere. On the other hand, one is apt, like me, to end up with 12,000+ “keepers” (and multiplying every day) in one’s photo library.

# 5925-27 / around the house • still life ~ the wife thinks we have too much stuff

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

BEEN GETTING TOGETHER FEW CANDIDATES FOR SUBMISSION to Mike Johnston’s “Objects” Baker’s Dozen. My selections all fall under the heading of “little things”, of which there must be nearly 100 of them spread out-on display, stored in boxes and cupboards-around my house.

There is no overarching thematic imperative to my procurement activities other I like little things. Some of the objects have been acquired during my wife and I near-and-far travels. Those objects tend to be representative of the place in which they were acquired. So, in some cases, the objects have embedded memories of our travels together.

I any event, I have so many little thing objects that I have started a still life body of work-cheerleader with rooster and nativity set-of random groupings of little things….

….which brings this entry back the to “Object” Baker’s Dozen. Mike Johnston has posted a few pictures of submissions. They represent pictures which could be labeled as documents which depict the visual characteristics of objects but nothing more. They have no value as photographs other than as documentation. That written Johnston posted them for reason’s other than their merit as interesting photographs.

So, when I was looking for a picture or two for submission, I was looking for candidates that went beyond mere documentation. I found a few that I thought met that criteria-USA rooster with Coca Cola things-but it occurred to me that I should make a picture for submission. So I did-Minox Leica with dried rose and mini Tabasco bottle.

I believe that these pictures evoke something beyond mere documentation. That written, it is quite possible that they do so only for me.

# 5923-24 / around the house ~ simple is as simple does

(embiggenable) ~ straight out of the iPhone with a little fine tuning

(embiggenable) ~ straight out of the iPhone with a lot of fine tuning cuz the iPhone’s AI wants every picture to be like a bright sunny day

AN ADDENDUM OF SORTS TO YESTERDAY’S ENTRY: re: not thinking while making a picture. One of the ways in which I do not think when making a picture is linked to the gear I use. From that standpoint, this entry also derives its subject matter form the T.O.P. entry about “simple” cameras.

One of the standard pieces of advice for those picture makers seeking to find their picture making vision is the one camera-one lens-one year idea. The point of that exercise is to minimize one’s involvement with the gear so that the focus can be on seeing. In short, set it, forget it, then start making pictures. Although the idea that, if you find your vision using that methodology, you can then start changing lenses or bodies is ludicrous. iMo, what should be done at that point is to duct tape the lens to the body and keep making pictures.

In any event, every digital camera I have ever owned was a simple camera inasmuch as, within 30 minutes-maybe a little more, maybe a little less-of getting my hands on a new camera (always from the same camera maker) I: 1.) set the shooting mode to MANUAL, 2.) designate 2 dials/wheels, 1 ea. for shutter speed and aperture, 3.) set the focus / metering settings to the center of the viewfinder / screen, 4.) set the rendering intent to NEUTRAL, 5.) engage the IS, and, 6.) make sure I have easy access to the ISO menu. In essence I have made my camera as simple to operate as my first late-60s Nikon F. And, at this point what I am looking to achieve with my set up is to end up with a rich image file, full of useful information which can be fine-tuned to any visual state I wish to achieve.

This set up has served me well during my “real” camera days. Although, in some extreme high dynamic range lighting conditions, it required a bracketed frame or 2 to blend either highlight or shadow detail-at times, both-into the master file to achieve my desired result. Note that virtually all of the “work” to achieve my desired result came after making the image file. Nothing got in the way of seeing. Also note that, by creating a rich / “straight” image file, all of how the final image will look is up to me, not the machine or the AI software programers.

Which brings me to the iPhone…but that’s for another entry.

# 5917-19 / kitchen life • little things ~ it is not what you see, it is how you see it

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? …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

“The everyday, or the commonplace, is the most basic and the richest artistic category. Although it seems familiar, it is always surprising and new. But at the same time, there is an openness that permits people to recognize what is there in the picture, because they have already seen something like it somewhere. So the everyday is a space in which meanings accumulate, but it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable.” Jeff Wall

I have always thought that the best pictures are those that look like the picture maker saw something and then made a picture of what he/she saw with the intent of showing us what he/she saw. No flashy technique or slathering of art sauce in either the the making of or the post processing thereof cuz the picture maker is confident enough, re: his/her vision, to leave well enough alone. Consequently, I am very comfortable with Adams’ proscription other than…

….his idea that “beauty is commonplace”.

My feelings about the commonplace is much more aligned with Jeff Wall’s idea that; a) the commonplace, is the most basic and the richest artistic category, and b) it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable.

In my pursuit of making-the act of pictorial realization-objects, aka: photos in one form of print or another, that fall into the realm of the pleasurable, aka: interesting to look at / view, I am drawn to the commonplace for its wealth of picture making possibilities. I am drawn to it, not because the commonplace is intrinsically beautiful-quite the contrary, it is most often chaotic and unremarkable in and of itself-but rather for “challenge” of documenting the form, without any sublimation of the literal referent’s surface detail, that underlies the apparent chaos.

To be certain, I am not in the business of making pictures which suggest that beauty is commonplace. On the other hand, what my pictures might suggest (for those looking for suggestions) is that the fodder for making a beautiful object, a photo print in and of itself independent of what is litteraly depicted, is everywhere to be seen in the everyday / commonplace world around us.

# 5914-16 / around the house • landscape • places ~ craft vs technique...

all pictures made within the last 24 hours

(embiggenable)

1932 Olympic Arena* / Ice Rink ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

…OR IS IT CRAFT + TECHNIQUE?

My first thought is that the idea of craft-a skill of making things by hand-has little to do with the practice of making pictures. Exception - making prints by some archaic print making process. If one were to press the subject one could venture the opinion that one uses one’s hands in the making of prints. But, I would counter that with the fact that the use of hands in making pictures is limited that of pressing buttons or keys on a keyboard.

That written, the use of one’s hands/fingers on buttons or keyboards is guided by the use of one’s brain. In the best of cases, the use of one’s brain is engaged in the pursuit of employing the techniques needed to express one’s vision. Which, might lead one to be considered to be a very good technician (a person skilled in the technique of an art or craft) as opposed to a very good craftsperson, re: in the making of pictures.

In any event, I do not give a damn one way or the other, re: what label-craftsman or technician-is slapped on me and my picture making as long as the label includes the descriptor picture maker.

All of the above written, my hands and/or fingers are guided by my brain during the picture making process-most notably during image file processing-in pursuit of my desire / intent to create a printed pictures which are an accurate representation of whatever was in front of my eyes and my camera. A picture making pursuit most often labeled as straight photography.

That is why, on the last page of my photo books or at the end of an Artist Statement for an exhibit, I always include this disclaimer:

No filters or special effects were employed in the making of these pictures. All pictures were made with a (device name here). The resulting image files were processed in an image processing software for minor color balance, contrast, brightness, highlight and shadow adjustments / corrections. All adjustments / corrections were performed in order to insure that the finished prints are an accurate representation-as much as the tools of the medium allow-of that which was in front of my eyes and camera.

*the ‘32 ice rink is just down the hall from the ‘80 Olympic Arena, aka: the MIracle On Ice Arena.