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

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

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.

# 6105-07 / around the house • roadside attractions (common places) • watch update ~ no $6000 cameras were used in the making of these pictures

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it.” ~ Weston

I THOUGHT IT WAS TIME FOR MY FIRST EVER WATCH UPDATE. You will be happy to know Mickey is still tapping his foot, one tap /second. And, he never tires of calling me “pal” when I inquire about the time. At the moment of this picture’s making, it was 11:35AM, 73F outside, and my heart was beating along at 66 BPM (6 minutes prior). It also should go without writing that I can live, any time I wish, my Dick Tracy fantasies when I talk to family, friends, or junk call recordings on my watch. Not to mention, how much joy I experience when reviewing, on my watch, my pictures from my iPhone picture library. And sometimes when I’m bored, I make an ECG using my watch and sent it to my cardiologist just cuz I can.

I pity the poor suckers who have a watch that only tells time.

That written, I also want to assure you that no pictures on this blog were made with a $6000 camera, or, for that matter, with a classic medium-format film camera.

# 6102-04 / roadside attractions ~ helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely what most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.” ~ John Rosenthal

# 6099-6101 / Adirondack roadside attractions (common places) • the new snapshot ~ a different kind of seeing

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I used to think that photographs were "composed." This made photography sound very unexuberant, as if it was primarily a deliberate act. Such a notion suggests that a photographer stands in front of an inviting landscape, arranges a composition, and then takes the picture. And it's true that many photographers work that way. Of course, if photographs can be composed, then there must be rules of composition, such as: the subject should never be dead center. But why not? I used to think you could learn how to be a photographer by learning the rules of composition and how to use a camera. Now I think just the opposite: if you have to learn rules, then it's already too late. The elements of a design can make a photograph bearable and inoffensive, but they will not make a photograph compelling. We are compelled by photographs which, within the limits of an objectively appropriate form, manage to offer us something that touches on authentic concerns - our happiness or unhappiness, our fidelities, our modern war with perplexity. The balance between design and content must be there because design by itself is not interesting and pure content is merely assertive.” ~ John Rosenthal

RE: “The balance between design and content must be there because design by itself is not interesting and pure content is merely assertive.”

For the past few months I have been wandering about the picture making landscape in search of a picture making trope which is focused on a recurring single referent theme. That is to write, a departure from my design, aka: form, focused picture making M.O. in which any and all referents are fodder for my picture making endeavors. An endeavor in which pursuit of design / form is at the fore. Content, not so much.

ASIDE I am using the word content in the sense of the depicted referent, not in the sense, as currently fashionable in the Academic Lunatic Fringe, of “meaning” or what the picture “says”. END OF ASIDE

The difficulty I am facing in this search for a referent-focused picture making M.O. is that I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to find / see form, as it appeals to my eye and sensibilities, when I am in the referent seeking mode of picture making. That’s cuz, for all intents and purposes, referent-focused pictures are pretty much all about the referent. Form (in the classic art world sense of the word), not so much.

Which does not mean that I am incapable of making referent-focused pictures that have interesting visual characteristics which are independent of the depicted referent. What it does seem to mean to me is that I feel like I am cheating by depending upon the chosen referent for snagging and holding a viewers interest. And, perhaps the biggest challenge I face in pursuing this endeavor is getting over that feeling.

FYI, the pictures in this entry, which fall under the heading of Adirondack roadside attractions, is most likely to be the referent-focused picture making path I will follow. That’s cuz: a) the Park is bigger than the state of Vermont and there are roadside things aplenty, new and old, which can attract a wanderer’s attention, b) they have never been “cataloged”, and, c) I am pining for a gallery exhibition-in one regional gallery in particular-and this referent-focused body of work just might be like shooting fish in a barrel, re: getting the attention of regional gallery directors.

# 6084-94 / common places ~ 4 days in May

returning from Vermont ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown, NY ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown, NY ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown, NY ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown, NY ~ (embiggenable)

Canajoharie, NY ~ (embiggemable)

Canajoharie, NY ~ (embiggemable)

Burlington, VT ~ (embiggenable)

Burlington, VT ~ (embiggenable)

Canajoharie, NY ~ (embiggemable)

Cooperstown, NY ~ (embiggenable)

“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

WHEN I AM OUT AND ABOUT / TRAVELING I MAKE A FAIR number of pictures. Most end up in hard-cover POD photo books which are made in response to specific travel ventures.

It is in those books that appear my pictures of tourist “hot spots”-people, places, and things which are “must sees”. While I attempt to make those pictures in a manner that differ from the typical touristy pictures-what Szarkowski labels as with a quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art. However, ultimately those pictures are primarily about the pictured referent. Re: more interesting…configurations / a pattern created by the pointer, not so much.

That written, the travel photo books are, in fact, dominated by pictures in which the pictured referents are co-opted for their potential, to my eye and sensibilities, for making photographs which illustrate more interesting visual configurations. And, it is those pictures which are the reason I make photographs.

Fortunately for me, the wife gets my more-interesting-configuration picture making M.O. That’s fortunate cuz she really appreciates the total visual representation of our travels as illustrated in the books. That’s true even though she has no memory of having seen most of things that I see and picture.

#6077-79 / the new snapshot • common places ~ magic...making something from nothing

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ON MY LAST ENTRY, JOHN LINN LEFT A COMMENT THAT READ in part:

I am now involved with a camera club in our new community and will be presenting some ideas/thoughts on how we can find beauty around us that is not obvious without careful observation and visual curiosity... skills that need to be learned and internalized... skills that you are expert in and have written extensively about in the past.

Thanks for the comment. Re: “find(ing) beauty around us that is not obvious…skills that you are expert in…” in my extensive writing about find(ing) beauty around us that is not obvious I have probably been less than precise in defining / describing what it is I actually see / find / picture in the everyday world.

To wit, in fact, I rarely see beauty in the everyday world. However, what I do see is a sense of form, aka: the relationship of color, line, shape, form, and texture-the “classic” elements of art-that emerges when isolated within my imposed framing to create, at the very least, to my eye and sensibilities, a visually interesting picturing possibility. In most cases, the depicted referent, when pictured and printed, is one that most viewers would not consider to be representative of the common notion of “beauty”.

That written, I believe that the beauty to be seen and found in my pictures is the beauty perceived in a carefully crafted print (which illustrates and illuminates how I see the world). The print, in and of itself, is a “beautiful” object (or, at least, visually interesting) independent of that which is depicted.

In fact, I believe that the transformative act of appropriating everyday artifacts for use as raw material for the creation of a beautiful object-a painting, a sculpture, a photograph-is what making Art is all about. To my eye and sensibilities, that act is nearly an act of magic…in a sense, making something beautiful out of “nothing”.

# 6072-76 / everyday • common places • common things ~ on being creative

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“For the first several years one struggles with the technical challenges…a learning curve and growth process that is rewarding, stimulating and self-renewing. But, eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit.” ~ Brooks Jensen

ON MY LAST ENTRY, RE: THE STUPID IDEA OF ADDING GEAR TO MAKE PHOTOGRAPHY MORE INTERESTING, Thomas Rink left a link to a site that, along similar lines, suggested “a photographer’s kit for getting out of a creative rut.”

The writer of that, iMo, cliche-d camera-club advice article wrote that “creativity is the difference between a nice photo and a NICE photo.” That statement was then followed by a description of his “photographer’s creative kit”:

“…using accessories, taking advantage of my camera’s unique menu options, trying different exposure techniques…or simply something I remember another photographer doing well.

iMo, the conflated idea that “creativity” + the application of craft / technique as a means to becoming “creative” is a thoroughly ignorant misunderstanding of the idea of true creativity as it pertains to the making of pictures. While a learned application of craft / technique employed in the making of a photograph can certainly be a significant element of a finely realized picture making vision, it is the vision itself-the manner in which a picture maker sees the world-that imparts the idea of creativity on the part of the picture maker.

iMo, in other words, a finely realized picture making vision don’t need no indiscriminately applied art sauce-employed under the rubric of “being creative”-to make it “NICE”.

iMo, true creativity in the making of pictures is simply about being creative-thinking outside the box of conventional picture making “wisdom”-about what is suitable as a subject for the making of a photograph and then going about picturing it in the unique / singular manner in which you see it.

To see something spectacular and recognize it as a photographic possibility is not making a very big leap. But to see something ordinary, something you’d see every day, and recognize it as a photographic possibility, that’s what I am interested in.” ~ Stephen Shore