# 6350-52 / common places • common things ~ I'm a shooter

December 6, 2022

I'm a shooter

he's a shooter she's a shooter we're all a shooter
aren’t you happy to be a shooter too?

I AM BEGGINING TO COBBLE TOGETHER A FEW words, re: the introduction essay, for the Philosophy of Modern Pictures project / book. The above words-tip o’ hat to the early Dr. Pepper I’m a Pepper tv commercial jingle-are the leading candidate for the essay title.

The use of the word shooter derives from the aforementioned mentioned-a previous entry-interaction with a young hipster-body jewelry, “cool” hair style + color, et al-bartender in an upscale restaurant bar who asked me if I was a “shooter”. I was confused-was she asking if I wanted a shot of bourbon? was I packing heat? Noting my confusion, she pointed out that she had noticed my cap with the KODAK logo. Thus informed of that, it gave me license to answer that, “Yes. I’m a shooter.”

Apparently the younger generation thinks it cool to be a shooter. That being the case, for purposes of the book, it’s good enough for me.

Re: we’re all a shooter - OK. I get it. Not everyone is a shooter inasmuch as not everyone has a picture making device, However, with the fact that 1.7 trillion pictures are made / taken (whatever) a year and that there are 8 billion humans on the planet, the average number of pictures per human is 125 per year. And, this might be a bit of a surprise, 92.5% of pictures are made with a picture making device which can also be used to make a phone call. Only 7% are made with a “real” camera.

FYI, while the book will have some facts, figures, history, re: picture making, the emphasis will be on how, as the result of the ease of making “good” pictures-i.e. sharp, correctly exposed, referent in focus and the like-the boundaries of what can be pictured and how it can be pictured has expanded like never before.

# 6345-46 / common places • common things ~ juxtaposition and disjunction

December 2, 2022

I HAVE ADDED A NEW GALLERY TO MY WORK page titled discursive promiscuity. The pictures are presented as book pages- that is, as they would appear in a book (or framed on a gallery wall). FYI, in a book, each picture would be on 1 page of a 2 page spread.

While my photographs do not strictly conform to a specific genre-other than my own personal genre, aka: discursive promiscuity-in the cause of presenting them in a book, I do wish to borrow from one of the tenets of the snapshot genre:

Subject matter is often presented without apparent link from image-to-image and relying instead on juxtaposition and disjunction between individual photographs.

… the work, aka: The Philosophy of Modern Pictures, goes on.

# 6342-44 / common places • common things ~ this and that

November 30, 2022

BEEN MAKING NOTES, MENTAL AND HARD COPY, re: my The Philosophy of Modern Pictures book/project. No rhyme or reason to them yet, just random thoughts on the overall approach and miscellaneous thoughts / words on various topics to include in the book.

One item on which I have been rather fixated is how to describe my picture making M.O. However, as I skitter about the nomenclature landscape, I have realized that my M.O. does not fit neatly into any single genre inasmuch as my work evidences the quality and characteristics of several universally recognized genre - vernacular photography, the snapshot aesthetic, the new topography, to name a few.

That written, I also realize that I may have found the answer years ago when I coined the phrase / descriptor, discursive promiscuity, to explain my propensity to picture any/every thing I see that pricks my eye and sensibilities, aka: what I see. That nomenclature was never intended to describe anything more than my non-discriminatory approach to referent selection. However, I am sorta coming around to thinking that it also works as a descriptor for how I see, aka: a little bit of vernacular, a little bit of snapshot, a little bit of new topography aesthetics all mixed together in my own peculiar, hybred-ish manner of picture making.

FYI, I should point out that I have never been overly concerned with defining the how of my picture making, specific genre wise. That’s cuz the answer to that question, as Paul Strand once opined, “is on the wall”. So, viewers will see what they wanna see. Nevertheless, in the context of my book / project, much of what I will write will spin off of the how (and why) I photograph.

# 6329-33 / common places • common things • landscape ~ form-it-able

November 17, 2022

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs….The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial.” ~ Ansel Adams

“Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” ~ Edward Weston

IN MY LAST ENTRY, re: ideas on making an interesting photograph, I mentioned the idea that it is form, rather than the depicted referent, that is the most important element in creating interesting an photograph. And, I described form as the visual expression of “how the picture maker has “arranged”-by means of his/her framing and POV-line, shape, space, tone (value), and color across the 2D visual field of a print.

That written, it is quite possible that I should not be using the word “form” to describe the visual characteristic that I strive to illustrate in my photographs and appreciate in the photographs made by others. Technically, according to Tate Modern, my usage is correct:

In relation to art the term form has two meanings: it can refer to the overall form taken by the work – its physical nature; or within a work of art it can refer to the element of shape among the various elements that make up a work.

As you might surmise, I hang my picture making hat, re: form, on the idea of the element of shape among the various elements (to include line, space, tone, and color) that make up a work of art. However-and here’s the rub, re: maybe I should not use the word “form”-cuz if you were to search the interweb for “form in photography” you would discover that the genii in the photo commentariat world have decided that form…

“…refers to the three-dimensional appearance of shapes and objects in a photo…[and] is all about subjects that stand out as if they're 3D objects.”

and, get this awesome insight..

“Successfully conveying all three dimensions in a two dimensional medium is a great artistic accomplishment”

ASIDE from the song Assholes on parade: Assholes to the left…And assholes to the right … I once heard it said…That old assholes never die…They just lay in bed…And multiply END ASIDE

another ASIDE I realize the preceding aside is rather harsh but…the interweb is chock full of bad photo making advice, especially so from “experts” and workshop leaders and it gets me to setting my teeth on edge. END ASIDE

I’m sorry, but, the use of leading lines and value (tone - you know shadow and light) to create the faux appearance of 3D shape and/or depth in a 2D art form, aka: photography, is a very fer piece down the pike from a “great artistic accomplishment”. And, it has little to do, if anything, with the idea of form as seen and perceived in the Art World.

So, in my use of the word form to describe an important visual tool in my photo bag of tricks, I worry that the mis/mal-informed out there might get the wrong impression.

All of the above written, stay tuned for my next entry wherein I describe in greater detail much more exactly what I believe to be the good form that I strive to illustrate in my photographs.

PS the pictures in this entry all present, if one chooses to look at them in that way, a sense of depth. That, however, is not how I view them nor is why I made them.

# 6326-28 / sink •common things • common places ~ it ain't got no zing if it ain't got that thing

November 15, 2022

OVER THE PAST WEEK I HAVE SAT DOWN QUITE A NUMBER of times to write a new entry and failed to do so. That’s cuz, inasmuch as I try to stay on topic, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus (apparatus = conventions and practices), I realize that over the past nearly 2 decades, I have touched upon so many related subjects that most days I feel that I have written everything there is to write about. But nevertheless, I have managed to list a few topics about which I will write over the next week or so…

…one such topic: my idea on how to make a visually interesting picture.

Most “serious” amateur picture makers believe the answer to the question of how to make a visually interesting picture is simple - make a picture of an “interesting” thing (with a dollop of art sauce). That is, q thing and effect that everyone knows about and likes to look at. The result: pictures that are easy to “understand” - the concept of Captain Obvious comes to mind. Or, how about the idea of the mindless pursuit of pleasure, cuz the mind need not get involved in the viewing of such pictures.

That written, while I would highly recommend the pursuit of picturing “common” things in an interesting manner, aka: how one’s own vision sees the world, the single most important “thing” one should pursue is creating the instigation for a viewer of your picture(s) to ask the question, “Why did he/she make this picture?”

That’s cuz, if why a picture was made is easily apparent (pretty is as pretty does), iMo, that picture lacks any reason to get involved with it and, ultimately, has no staying power. In other words, an “interesting” referent, in and of itself, is not enough to sustain extended consideration and contemplation, especially so in the Fine Art World. Rather, it is the printed picture, in and of itself, which must be visually interesting, independent of the illustrated referent.

And what is it that makes a picture visually interesting, independent of the illustrated referent? Answer: Form. That is, how the picture maker has “arranged”-by means of his/her framing and POV-line, shape, space, tone (value), and color across the 2D visual field of a print. The result is a thing, AKA: the print, which not only illustrates, in a literal sense, referents found in the real world, but also illuminates, by means of visually interesting form, visual properties of sections of the real world that lie beyond their mere physical appearance.

So, there you have it. Easy, Peasy. Go forth and make interesting pictures.

# 6324-25 / flora • common places • landscape • kitchen sink ~ why I like using the iPhone as a picture making device

November 7, 2022

RIGHT OUTA THE GATE, LET ME CRYSTAL CLEAR, re: the iPhone as a “perfect” picture making device. It is not. What it is is an amazingly good all-around picture making device. However, if the pursuit of technical so-called “perfection“ is your picture making goal, this device ain’t the one for you.

That written, the reason why I start this topic, re: why I like using the iPhone as a picture making device, with the fact that the iPhone camera module does not produce files with what is currently considered to be bleeding edge technical perfection is cuz that fact is at, or very near the top, on the list of reasons-what the hell, let’s call it Reason #1-why I like using this picture device.

To wit, ever since the dawn of my picture making life, it is quite accurate to write that, in my personal photographs-as-Art making life, I have never been in pursuit of pictures which exhibited “perfect” technical characteristics. That’s cuz, as a matter of course, I was-and still am-in pursuit of making pictures, on the technical level, that look like, as much as the medium and its apparatus allows, what the world looks like to the human eye.

Back in the day of analog, aka: film, picture making, I thought that, with the judicious selection of a color negative film type, photographs did a pretty damn good job of looking like what the world looked like. That’s cuz the human eye does not see the world in ultra high-def, saturated colors (unless the referent itself exhibited saturated color), or extreme dynamic range. Consequently, with my very first use of my very first digital camera, I set out, image file processing wise, to “soften” what I considered to be the “harsh” visual effects of digital picture making. And that pursuit continues to this day inasmuch as what, to my eye and sensibilities, appears to be ever increasingly “harsh” visual artifacts seems to be what the CCSoP crowd desires the most and what the camera makers are delivering to them in spades.

Reason #2 - While the iPhone does not deliver current state-of-the-art image files, its superior to that which any traditional camera maker offers AI-like it or hate it-does a remarkable job of delivering really good files in a variety of “difficult” picture making situations. Which not to write that most files do not need some degree of corrective surgery.

Reason #3 - the iPhone is the all-time leader in the convenient to have with you at times camera category. Not to mention, its ease of use and the fact that it’s virtually always at the ready. And, for the purist in me, it’s a 3 prime lens kit that I can hold in my hand or slip into a pocket.

Reason #4 - with the iPhone Pro Max, the viewing screen allow me to see not only an accurate view of my crop of a section of the real world but also how the arrangement of the visual elemts within the crop will look like on the flat, 2D field of a print.

Reason #5 - herein lies a guilty pleasure. I like the feeling I get-just like as if I were to be giving the finger to the CCSoP and gear loving crowd-every time I click the shutter. Or, to be more accurate, every time I touch the virtual shutter release “button” on the iPhone viewing screen.

ASIDE I have to wonder, does that make me a shallow person? END OF ASIDE

# 6318-20 / common places • common things ~ assuaging my guilt

November 2, 2022

SINCE MY ACQUISITION OF THE FIRST iPHONE WITH THE 0.5 lens setting-14mm equivalent-I have been, making pictures with that setting with no conscious directive of creating body of work focused upon the optical characteristics of that lens. As a matter of fact, when using that lens, I continually experience a guilt-driven suspicion that I am employing the lens to create a photographic cheap trick / effect.

Nevertheless, I plunged ahead cuz, as stated in the a wider view of things gallery on my WORK page, I use this lens, not for its extended field of view, but rather for the emphasis it creates on the visual elements of line, shape, and space as seen across the 2D plane of a photographic print. And, cuz I boldly went where no one has gone before (ha), I find myself with yet another uninitentionally made “found” body of work comprised of 55 pictures made with the 0.5 / 1.5 (14mm-e) lens.

And, much to my relief, cheap trick guilt wise, I have validation that I was making these pictures for all the “right”reasons / intentions (ok, ok, albeit unconsciously):

“Clement Greenberg’s dictate that each art ought to “determine through the operations peculiar to itself, the effects peculiar and exclusive to itself.”…Numerous photographers have made photographs about photography-enlisting, even embracing, the visual peculiarities of the medium that capable professionals once avoided or indirectly acknowledged….[they] purposely court and coax the perceptual ambiguities and accident visual excesses typically found in unselfconscious amateur snapshots. When imaginatively enlisted to achieve fastidiously formal and/or provocatively narrative images, such effects become crucial elements in a vivid and vital vernacular.” ~ Sally Eauclaire / the new color photography

FYI, one of the photographers Eauclaire calls out in chapter 3: THE VIVID VERNACULAR is Harry Callahan, about whose work she writes:

“While color photographs produced with relatively conventional lenses feature flattened spaces, Callahan/s extreme wide-angle lens imposes the reverse, so exaggerating near/far disparities that buildings lean away diagonally, gesturing anthropomorphically…Because the disorienting diagonals obviate stability and tranquility, Callahan has devised a spatial choreography in which rollicking voids and solids are equal, counteractive compositional partners. The result: photographs that burst into view, the color-dense sections discharging energy as they collide, giving the images a peculiarly photographic verve and pizazz.”

So, given all of the above, here’s the deal - Does it matter, re: making (Fine) Art wise, that all of the aforementioned pictures were made in a manner sans the conscious intent of what might be labeled as the above artsy-fartsy speak? No. Cuz it is not the intent that matters, it is the pictures that matter.* However, it is worth noting that as I continue to make pictures in this 0.5/1.5(14mm-e) manner, with confidence buoyed by artsy-fartsy speak, I will shed my “cheap trick” guilt and strive to, in fact, maximize this specific peculiar visual effect of the medium thus turning the traditional and derisive visual effect proscriptive, re: wide angle “distortion, on its head.

PS another the medium’s visual “peculiarity” that I am mining is lens+aperture based effect of limited DOF - see my AROUND THE HOUSE work / gallery on my WORK page.

* rationalization is more important than sex. Just try getting through a day without a juicy rationalization.

# 6311-12 / commonplaces • people ~ all hallows' eve

October 31, 2022

TOP: A HOUSE IN DOLGEVILLE, NY AS STUMBLED UPON during a self-impused detour drive just outside of the southern foothills of the Adirondacks along the Mohawk River Valley, aka: The Leatherstocking Region.

Bottom: Me in my Halloween costume-the porn photographer-c.1980.

Happy All Hallow’s Eve to one and all.