# 6916-19 / kitchen sink • around the house • common things ~ responsibilities

all photos (embiggenable)

“Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both.” ~ Garry Winogrand

I AM CURRENTLY PUTTING A PHOTO-BOOK together with the title, describing it as it is ~ there’s no way a photograph has to look. The book will contain 40 photographs of a wide range of referent material, more commonly known as my discursive promiscuity work.

If the book comes together as I believe it will, I will also make a handful of zines––of the same work––that I will offer for sale here on the blog. The zines will be much less expensive to produce than a hardbound book and can therefore be sold at a very reasonable price.

BTW, this project is also causing me to think that it is well past time for a total rebuild of the work displayed on my homepage and how it is presented.

# 6910-15 / around the house • kitchen sink • flora • fauna • landscape ~ same as it ever was

all photos ~ (embgiggenable)

“If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up.” - Richard Avedon

SINCE MY RETURN FROM NEW MEXICO / DENVER, 20 days ago, it was until 3 days ago that I made my first photograph here at home. Oddly enough, it wasn’t until I made the photograph in this entry that I realized that so much time had passed since my last picture making. That realization made it plain that I had, in fact, been feeling “it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence.” That written, it should be noted that all of those 17 photograph-making-less days were spent doing something related to photography––i.e. processing my travel photographs.

Over past 2 days I have made a couple more photographs and begun to realize what it was that caused the back-to-home photo making lull; apparently, or so it seems, while in New Mexico, my picture making sensitivity intuitively(?) transitioned to the landscape mode. A mode in which shapes, texture, color, line, and tone found in the natural world are very different from the same values in a more urban / domesticated / man-made environment.

I can not write that I was consciously aware of that change but I was most certainly aware of the fact that reverting to the “rules of composition” was not going to be productive in the cause of avoiding making touristy / calendar pictures. It was that thought that got me off on the right foot when, from the get-go, I decided to make photographs from the passenger seat of our rental car.

# 6967-69 / common places • common things ~ little rectangular worlds

all photos (embiggenable)

“Because of the resolution of working with an 8X10 camera, I found that I did not have to thrust the viewer’s face into something. If I saw something interesting, it could be part of a larger picture that has a number of points of interest. It changes the viewer’s relationship with an image. It is not framing one thing but creating a little rectangular world that the viewer can move their attention around and explore.” ~ STEPHEN SHORE

TO MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, THE IDEA THAT, WHEN making pictures, a photographer should “simplify”––that is, in framing a segment of the real world, one should eliminate all “distractions” which might direct attention away from “something interesting”––is simple minded. iMo, that edict, taken directly from the traditional canon of photography, can be accurately interpreted to simply (kinda a pun) mean to, dumb it down. Ya know, cuz simpletons need simple ideas cuz they have simple minds…

… to which I call balderdash!!! In my experience, say, when interacting with viewers of my photographs––which no one would consider to be shining examples of “framing one thing”––that they seem to be eminently capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. And, if my memory serves, I can recall only one instance of a viewer having to be revived from an attack of complexity derangement after viewing one of my pictures––fortunately, the gallery had a medic standing by for just such an emergency cuz, apparently, every now and then a simpleton did manage to sneak in the door.

All that written, I am totally down with Stephen Shore’s idea of making little rectangular worlds––albeit, in my case, (primarily) little square worlds. But, that stated, I am also sympathetic to the idea suggested by the Irish poet Peter Kavanagh:

“There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman*.”

*don’t know what Kavanagh had against policemen.

# 6946-50 / pinhole • common things • around the house ~ I needed a kick in the butt

1 ~ all photos - pinhole lens / (embiggenable)

2

3

4

5

OK, TRUTH BE TOLD, I HAVE A COUPLE ENTRIES ON deck ready for posting but, for one reason and some others, I have been reluctant to actually post. That written, with intention of avoiding any deep-dive self-analytical malarkey, I awoke this AM with a resolve to get off the schneid, posting wise.

FYI, that resolve was partially instigated by an entry on T.O.P., re: high mp / resolution picture making devices (in the form of FF digital cameras); a subject which has been known to tip me over the edge, re: resolution / sharpness as a component to making one’s pictures “better”. The topic always instigates flood of comments similar to those found on the T.O.P. entry:

“I believe resolution makes a huge difference in the quality of a photo …..” or, “I have no interest in ~24 MP sensors as they don't match my need for resolution …..”

So, rather than writing a 10K word scree on the subject, I thought that the best course of action for me would be to grab one of my µ4/3 cameras, slap on the pinhole “lens”, and make a bunch of res?what res? pictures (#2-4 above, #1 made earlier). Taking my own advice, I have, over the past few days, been making such pictures. And, FYI, it did, in fact, calm me down.

However, in closing (cuz I gotta get in some kind shot across the bow of that ship), let me write that, iMo, in all but a few examples, re: really good photographs, state-of-the-art sharpness / resolution has little or nothing to do with it. In fact, iMo, current state-of-the-art sharpness / resolution, in the trade aka: “perfection”, makes it nearly impossible–to my eye and sensibilities–to even look at, much less appreciate, such a photograph cuz I simply do not give a crap about technique. Pictures with visually obvious technical / technique “perfection” are an absolute non-starter to my eye and sensibilities.

# 6942-45 / common places • landscape-urban / nature • kitchen life ~ throw out the rule book

pinhole photo ~ all photos (embigenable)

IN THE LAST ENTRY WHEREIN I INTRODUCED THE idea of reducing the whole of the medium and its apparatus to a concise paragraph, there are 2 phrases–a rhythm in the world of real things / a precise organization of forms–which are commonly referred to as composition; a topic which has launched thousands of zillion word ships in an effect to codify / understand / “master” it. That written, here’s an example of an attempt to reduce the topic to a concise paragraph:

“In a photograph, composition is the result of a simultaneous coalition, the organic coordination of elements seen by the eye. One does not add composition as though it were an afterthought superimposed on the basic subject material, since it is impossible to separate content from form…. one composes a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter, at the speed of a reflex action….. Composition must have its own inevitability about it.” HC-B

Once again–just like the HB-C quotes in the last entry–this notion, re: the idea of composition, makes perfect sense to me. And, once again (again), that’s cuz, when making pictures, what pricks my eye (and sensibilities), aka: what I actually see, is a rhythm / organization of forms as it exists in the world of real things. Which is another manner of writing that the content of my photographs and the form visible therein are one and same.

Consequently, I never give a thought to composition–iMo, a bourgeoisie concept if ever there was one–when making a photograph. That’s cuz the visual rhythm / organization to be seen in my photographs is the inevitable result of my vision, literally and figuratively.Ya know, how I actually see the world.

ASIDE FYI, the fact that my vision is organically attuned to rhythm and form explains another fact; I rarely, if ever, “work” a scene–95.8% of the time-leaving aside a few exposure brackets–it’s one and done. END OF ASIDE

And now, a bit of speculation and going out on a limb – I suspect that most of the medium’s “greats” approach the practice of composition in the same–or a reasonably close–manner as HB-C describes. That is to write, they trust what their eyes tell them and then photograph what they see. I believe that to be true whether they carry around a 35mm rangefinder camera with preset shutter speed / focus and aperture and a reflex-action attitude, or, whether they expend a great deal of effort to haul around an 8x10 view camera / film holders / light meter / tripod /et al and a very methodical attitude. In effect both are point and shoot picture makers inasmuch as they point their camera at what they see and make a picture.

With speculation taken care of let me climb a tree and hope the limb holds sure and true –I believe–no speculation about it in my mind–that the ability to compose a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter is nigh unto impossible to teach or learn. That is cuz it is not a technique nor a theory that can be plotted out in a book but rather a native recognition–some might say an intuitive feeling–that the visual organization / rhythm you have imposed on your subject utilizing your POV and framing, when viewed on your picture making device’s viewfinder / ground glass / screen, just plain and simple, flat-out looks and feels “right”.

And in the end, lo and behold, there is not a single rule of composition to be seen anywhere on the surface of your print.

# 6939-41 / pinhole • around the house • common things ~ the eyes have it

pinhole photo - all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I THINK THAT THE WHOLE of the medium and its apparatus can be summed up in a single sentence, or, at the very most, in a very concise paragraph. I believe that to be true cuz, getting down to the nub of it all, it really ain’t rocket science. Although…..when you think about it, maybe words ain’t needed inasmuch as, if a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe all one needs to do is spend considerable time making and looking at photographs in order to truly understand the medium and its apparatus.

Then again, here’s a radical idea; don’t think about it at all. Just, re: the medium and its apparatus, give in to the simple, pure philistine visual pleasures of making and looking at photographs.Ya know, just adopt an ignorance-is-bliss kinda attitude–simple is as simple does–about it all and move on.

All of that written, here’s my first pick for a concise paragraph addressing the nub of it all:

“Photography implies the recognition of a rhythm in the world of real things. What the eye does is to find and focus on the particular subject within the mass of reality; what the camera does is simply to register upon film the decision made by the eye.” ~ HC-B

Now, to be perfectly clear, that concise nob of the matter needs no additional words in order to make complete sense for me. That’s cuz it describes, since the day I began making pictures, exactly my making picture MO; my eye directs me to the what (and the how) to photograph what I see. Or, if you will, another HB-C quote:

“… the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event [ed. aka: a particular subject within the mass of reality] as well as of a precise organization of forms [ed. aka: a rhythm in the world of real things] which give that event its proper expression.”

iMo, if you want to make good photographs, always remember that the eyes have it – it ain’t got diddly squat to do with the brain.

# 6938 / around the house (20 years ago) • SX70 Polaroid ~ some expert advice

(embiggenable)

HAVING MADE MY THOUGHTS ON “EXPERT” ADVICE giving known, I naturally came to the conclusion that I should break out of my self-imposed restraint-–and practice–of not giving picture making device. I know the followers of this blog have been clamoring–many for a couple decades–for my advice*. However, to avoid disappointment, be forewarned that there will be no advice, re: gear nor technique.So, on with the show….

ADVICE #1 - do NOT make pictures that you hope will appeal to other photographers.

This item should be self evident / unnecessary cuz one should be engaged in making pictures that appeal to one’s self (identity, individuality, normal state of being). This ain’t rocket science. It’s simple enough. Just trust and understand the lesson that Rick Nelson learned at the Garden Party; “You see, you can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

ADVICE #1a - (addendum to ADVICE #1) avoid showing your pictures to other photographers.

To be more precise, avoid showing your pictures to “serious” amateur photographers. These people are hidebound practitioners of rules, gear / technique fetishism, and conventionality. They flock, quite literally at times, to locations, scenes, and things that have been decreed by the roving hordes to be acceptable picture making fodder.

Contingent upon these proclivities, in both their picture making and picture viewing, they are very unlikely to see anything beyond the literal identity of that which is depicted in a picture. Their first reaction and comment to a picture which is intended to represent something beyond the literal–or any picture for that matter–is apt to be, “What camera did you use?” To state it quite bluntly, they are literally unable to see beyond the obvious.

END OF ADVICE (more to come)

ASIDE - Ok, if a photographer shows up at your door to see your pictures and it’s John Pfahl–Pfahl is known for his innovative landscape photography such as Altered Landscape, his first major series of un-manipulated color photographs on which he worked from 1974 through 1978. His work has been shown in over hundred group and solo exhibitions and is held in many public and private collections throughout the world–as he did at my loft door, ignore Advice # 1a and let him in.

And, here’s the thing that blew me away during his visit; he entered my studio through my entrance foyer which displayed some of my commercial work-food, fashion, product, people, et al. After a quick tour, I handed him a beat up KODAK Ektacolor print paper box containing contact sheets made from my urban landscape / street 8x10 color negatives. He took his time browse through them.

About half way through the prints, he paused and said that he was quite confused. His confusion stemmed from the fact that, as he phrased, “You’re a commercial photographer and you should not be able to make good work like this.” I could not have been more delighted. But of course, that written, I shouldn’t have to point out that Pfahl was not a “serious” amateur photographer.

FYI, the SX70 Polaroid Time Zero photo in this entry; I have always been attracted to the image results one can get from so-called “crappy” cameras–Lomo, Diana, and the like. Some might even have considered Polaroid cameras to be crappy cameras. In any event, I’ll delve into this attraction in another entry.

*advice, re: emphasis on pursuing a Fine Art objective

#6709-16 / zines ~ paging all photographers

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE LONG PONDERED THE IDEA OF WHY anyone would engage in picture making and not make physical / tactile objects-aka: prints, books, et al-of the results of that pursuit. The absence of such objects, leaves me perplexed, re: what’s the point? The only answer I can come up with is the old adage of “different strokes for different folks”, or, “whatever floats your boat”.

I, of course, am the poster boy for the making of printed photographs in one form or another; the current count of displayed photographs on the walls of my house is 124 (some prints display multiple photographs of my travels “snapshot” work). In addition there are 25 photo books laying around the place. And now, to add to the “clutter”, there is a growing body of zines.

FYI:

The word “zine” is a shortened form of the term fanzine, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Fanzines emerged as early as the 1930s…A zine is most commonly a small circulation publication of original or appropriated texts and images. More broadly, the term encompasses any self-published unique work of minority interest…There are so many types of zines: art and photography zines, literary zines, social and political zines, music zines, perzines (personal zines), travel zines, health zines, food zines. And the list goes on and on. 

My interest in making zines is to: a) create easily made and economically inexpensive updates of my various bodies of work, b) make the zines available for distribution on an e-commerce component of this site, c) thereby getting my work, in printed form, in the hands of those who might be interested in it, and, d)duh, I like looking a prints of my work

My zines are printed by BLURB. BLURB zines are actually labeled as magazines on the site. The quality of their magazines is much better than typical zines-often hand-bound pages made on photocopiers-inasmuch as the paper and printing quality is very good. And, what I find amazing is the very low cost; typically a 20 page zine will cost about $10-12US (+ shipping*).

Re: the paper and printing quality is very good: I can write, without much reservation, that, if making zines on BLURB were to be the only method I could employ to print my work, I would be quite happy to cut pages out the zines and frame them for display on my walls. The print/paper quality is more than good enough for that use. Portfolio use or photo-”perfectionist” viewing, maybe not so much.

BTW, my current photo world fantasy is to create a curated site devoted to showcasing and selling photo zines. The biggest problem to doing that is finding a critical mass of zine-making photographers and, accomplishing that, getting the word out to a sizeable audience.

In any event, why not give it-making a zine-a try?

*BLURB shipping costs are, iMo, a bit high. So what I do, in addition to selecting the cheapest shipping cost, is to order at least 3 copies of a zine and split the shipping cost across the number of books)