# 6259-61 / common places • common things ~ on shooting up the place

September 28, 2022

THE TOPIC OF “WORKING THE SCENE” HAS COME UP ON TOP. My immediate inclination is to call BS. That’s cuz the idea of working a scene brings to (my) mind the notion of aimlessly firing a machine gun at a target in the hope that one of those bullets will hit the bullseye. Whereas I believe the best way to hit the bullseye is carefully considered aim, the bullseye firmly fixed in one’s sighting device, and a relaxed squeeze of the trigger.

OK. I apologize. Those last 2 sentences are a bit heavy on the metaphor scale but I think that, most likely, you get my point.

That written, I am not declaring BS on the idea of working the scene inasmuch as a little bit-a very little bit-of working the scene can be useful every now and then. FYI, by a very little bit of working the scene I mean a matter of inches as opposed to firing off shots while break-dancing around a scene. I can write, without reservation, that I have never utilized the making of pictures as part of my calisthenics routine.

All 3 of the pictures in this entry were made over the last 24 hours with but a single pull of the trigger (sorry, yet another metaphor). One shot wonders, all. That written, I did employ my idea of working the scene inasmuch as, before I pulled the trigger (sorry), I did move the camera (sorry, the iPhone) a little bit-inches-while viewing the scene on the iPhone screen in order to get the framing and placement of visual elements where I wanted in order to manage a direct hit on the bullseye with just 1 shot (sorry, sorry, sorry).

The reason that this picture making process works for me, most of time, is that I see with soft eyes which, when a referent pricks my eye and sensibilities, I am able to identify, in my peripheral vision (no eye movement), surrounding visual elements and subsequently (and quickly) recognize how I might use them to create an interesting visual form, the true “subject” that I am always trying to create. Consequently, I am able to get right to the “right” POV with very little wasted effort, cuz I am ”just” photographing what I see.

And, FYI, writing of picture making calisthenics, if I were to be using a tripod-which I no longer do-it would need only 2 head-height positions. 1 set to my standing eye level and the other to my sitting eye level. That’s cuz 99 of 100-or some very close number-pictures I make are made from my eye level. In the case of tripod use, the head might be tilted up or down to one degree or another but, cuz I photograph what I see and, literally, how I saw what I see, it’s all a eye level POV for me.

In any event, re: working the scene, my manner of working a scene works for me. It may not work for many others. Although, it is most likely how those who work with a view camera work. That written, I probably average 2 pulls of the trigger per picture. I do some exposure bracketing and, every once and a while, I move the iPhone an inch or so in order to get an ever so slightly different POV. That’s cuz I wanna be sure I hit the bullseye (sorry).

# 6256-58 / kitchen sink • common place • common things • civilized ku ~ what something will look like photographed

September 26, 2022

AS MIGHT SEEM OBVIOUS FROM THE PICTURES IN this entry, I am back home after our 1 month + at Rist Camp. Got some work to do sorting through the 141 finished pictures I made while at Rist. Shutterfly is having an unlimited free pages offer. Maybe it’s time for a really big book.

A recent entry contained a quote from Alfred Stieglitz…

“My aim is increasingly to make my photographs look so much like photographs…”

…which brings to (my) mind a quote from Garry Winogrand:

“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.”

Both of these quotes, iMo together with the way that I read them, suggest to me that a photograph is something different from what has been photographed. That is a concept that is not news to me inasmuch as I have writing / saying for years that ”a printed photograph is a thing in and of itself, independent of what is depicted.” You can quote me on that.

Re: the Stieglitz quote: I do not think that Stieglitz was suggesting that there is a specific manner in which a photograph should look other than it should not look like a painting, aka: in the manner of the Pictorialism school of picture making. A school from which Stieglitz had previously graduated and subsequently disparaged. In other words, to utilize, in an unadulterated manner, the inherent / intrinsic characteristics of the medium.

Re: the Winogrand quote: I do not think that Winogrand was suggesting that a referent would, in and of itself, look any different in a photograph than it does to the naked eye. Rather, that a referent, when photographed with judicious framing and attention to the “arrangement” of color, form, line, shape, space, texture, and value, might be perceived in a manner different from that of the unaided viewing of it in situ.

iMo, to understand these 2 quotes is to understand the “genius” of photography. That the camera, in the hands of photographer who can truly see, does not need “tricks”, flashy techniques, bigger sensors, lots of gear in order to supplant the inclination to indulge in habitual seeing. Habitual seeing, a manner of seeing that may illustrate much but illuminate little.

# 6200-02 / common places • common things ~ stupid is as stupid does

August 13, 2022

***it’s raining outside*** ~ (embiggenable)

ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERWEB, IT HAS BE POSTULATED, AS AN answer to the question of “…why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography here on the blog instead of going over lots of gear and technical work…”, that:

“…a viewer using a phone or small iPad to view will see none of the technical "features" that might make the image worth looking at.”

“…when we do try to talk about the work we end up with so many different avenues for viewing, each of which is a diminished and poor replica of the original, that it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.”

At first blush, I would tend to suggest, first and foremost, that the author of the blog in question does not talk about the art of photography cuz that author has a very dim understanding of what it is that constitutes photography as Art. Consequently, the author would be best served by sticking to what he knows, aka: gear. My opinion is offered in light of the fact-one of many-of the author’s suggestion that “technical features” might make an image worth looking at (don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that cringe-worthy idiocy) - a statement in full-blown support of why Bruce Davidson is “not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore…”

Re: with so many different avenues for viewing… it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.” when trying to writing about on a blog. BS. While the author’s point, re: the diminished image quality-for any number of reasons-of images on the interweb, is true enough, unless a device’s viewing parameters are highly compromised, I believe that there is more than enough visual information in most cases to make a reasonable assessment of a picture’s aesthetic / ”artistic” worth. Enough, so that, you know, you can determine whether or not a picture is “worth looking at”.

I would even go far as to suggest that, under ideal screen viewing conditions-there is a long list of items under the concept of “ideal”-one could even undertake a critical, informed review of a picture.

Is viewing an image on the interweb-under ideal conditions-the same as viewing that image as a print? Short answer, “No.” Slightly longer answer, a qualified “Yes.” inasmuch as most of the visual qualities which distinguish a photograph as Art, especially the idea of form, are easily perceivable on even a less than ideal viewing screen. And, an on-screen viewing of a good photograph can stir virtually all of the feeling, emotion, and thought that a print of the same image can incite.

iMo and experience, I can write that, in the Fine Art World, Photography Division, there are very few who are interested in the technical features of a photograph. That’s cuz they know and have viewed countless number of photographs which display very little in the way of technical features but which, nevertheless, are some of the greatest photographs ever made.

# 6175-77 / common places • common things ~ Gutenberg would say, "Print it!"

July 28, 2022

IF IT IS TRUE, ANOTHER I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THING, re: picture making, is the notion that the making of photo prints is on the wain. I find it difficult to believe that “serious” amateur picture makers do not make prints. Why would anyone tote around a “serious” camera with which to make pictures and then not make prints?

In my case, I have 121 photo prints on the walls of my house. Add to that number 30+ photo books-let’s say an average of 20 pictures/book-sitting around the place and, it is safe to write, that I am not numbered amongst the do-not-make-prints crowd.

One way of looking at it (that’s sort of a pun), is that, in effect, I have approximately 800-900 printed pictures ready to go, posterity wise. And, since the work has been printed-in one form or another-over the past few decades, it was, and continues to be, a relatively painless endeavor.

Posterity wise, the most valuable printed pieces are the 12-picture, hard-bound, lay-flat pages, year-in-review calendar photo books that I make every year-for the past decade-as an Xmas present for the wife. The calendars are a collection of pictures of significant events, travels, and the like.

All of the above written, what is the point of picture making if you do not make prints?

# 6155-57 / around the house • common things ~ it should come naturally

July 14, 2022

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. [...] [when viewing tan “interesting” photograph] we would be uncertain 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

ASIDE : NOW THAT-it is 1 day after my 75th birthday-I AM A DAY OLDER AND MUCH WISER I will return to writing about the idea of creativity. END OF ASIDE

In my last entry, The Eye Traffics in Feelings, it was written that, iMo, a creative photograph is one that excites the eye, not the intellect. Therefore, it seems logical that an explanation / definition of what I think constitutes a “creative photograph” would be in order…

In the photography realm, decorative arts division, a creative photograph most often refers to a picture that most often employs obvious effects, techniques, and “tricks” in order to make a picture “interesting” and appear to be the result of a creative approach to making a picture. In addition, those pictures are invariably representations of what I would label as officially approved photographic referents and they are composed by the rules.

In the other photography realm, the Fine Art division, photographs that display straight-forward approach to picture making, i.e. sans effects, flashy technique, or cheap tricks, are much more the order of the day. That is to write, creativity is evident in a picture maker’s choice of what to picture, aka: the act of pointing, and in doing so, imbuing the work with a formal rigor that identifies a work of art, aka: (amongst other qualities) an interesting configuration.

iMo, a creative picture maker is free to point his/her camera at any fact, event, circumstance, and configuration. However, to my eye and sensibilities (in both the making of my pictures and the viewing of those made by others), it is the manifestation of an interesting configuration, aka: form / the pattern created by the pointer, rather than the depicted referent that excites my eye cuz…

“It ain’t what you eat, it’s the way how you chew it.” ~ Sleepy LaBeef-that excites my eye.

To be certain, I am not alone in this preference for form inasmuch as most (all?) of the Fine Art world places a very high value on this quality in any Art genre.

To quote Sir Ansel:

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”

Indeed. Just as there are no rules in Fine Art Photo Division for what can be pictured, there no rules for the making of an interesting configuration. The only right configuration for a photograph is the one that a picture maker chooses to create, the one that best serves the intent of the vision he/she wishes to express.

“Good composition is the strongest way of seeing:” ~ Edward Weston

In the case of my picture making, my eye and sensibilities are pricked by scenes in the real world that provide the potential for the making of pictures with visual energy. That is a visual configuration quality that keeps the eye moving-skittering and careening and bouncing off my imposed frame (like a pool ball on a pool table)-across the 2D visual field of a photographic print. Although, that written, I attempt to illustrate that quality in a manner that appears to be controlled, as opposed to haphazard and indiscriminate.

All of the above written, I believe that creativity finds its roots in a photographer’s understanding of how he/she sees the world. That is, that which is commonly referred to as their vision. If that manner of seeing is one that leads some of us [to] point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others, then chances are better than good that true creativity and the making of pictures that excite the eye will follow quite naturally .

# 6154 / common things ~ 75 years in the making

July 13, 2022

You say its your birthday…It’s my birthday too, yeah

# 6140-42 / around the house ~ never the same twice

June 27, 2022

IT WASN’T UNTIL ABOUT 4 MONTHS PAST I BEGAN TO start making full-frame pictures with the iPhone PORTRAIT setting. So it was somewhat of a surprise that I “discovered” 30+ pictures made with that combination all of which fall under the label around the house. Hence a new gallery on the WORK page by that name. ASIDE while most of those pictures were made in the house, a few were made in very close proximity to the house. END ASIDE

# 6110-15 / roadside attractions • kitchen life • around the house ~ deceptivity

June 9, 2022

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary 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

I HAVE USED THE ABOVE ROBERT ADAMS QUOTE PREVIOUSLY. It presents an idea with which I totally agree -that is, only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace. That written, I also agree with the notion that most great pictures look uncontrived.

Re: deception - I am currently wrestling with the idea of whether or not to apply classic, retro, drugstore-style borders on my roadside attraction pictures. And, to be honest, there are times when I believe I should apply those borders on all of my pictures. The purpose of such an application is my idea of a pure deception. That is, I am trying to" “deceive” the viewers of my pictures that they were easily made cuz, you know, quite obviously, they are “just” snapshots.

Why do I engage in this “deception”? That’s cuz most people believe that snapshots are made quite “casually”. That is, without much thought of artistic intentions. And therein is the “hook”. The hook being that which gets a viewer of my “snapshots” to stop and consider- a heightened level of curiosty?-why these “snapshots” are hanging on a gallery wall.

WIthout any pretense of disingenuous humility, I know that I am a damn good picture maker. I also know that my pictures of the commonplace world, when displayed on gallery walls, can and do capture a viewer’s attention and interest, with or without a snapshot border. However, it is becoming increasingly important to me to emphasize the idea that beauty is commonplace. Or, to be more precise, that a beautiful, or at least interesting, object can be made from the awareful observation of the commonplace.

I will admit that I may be deceiving myself with my deceptive snapshot deceptions, I do think that that device can and often does incite in a viewer of my “snapshots” the curiosity to investigate what is going on in and with my pictures that may not be obvious at first glance.