# 6514-19 / common places • common things ~ free your mind instead

all photos (embiggenable)

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” ~ Paul Simon from the song Kodachrome

THIS SONG LYRIC HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH me when I think about the idea of going to school-college / university level-for the purpose of learning about how to make good pictures. An idea that, iMo. I believe to be the complete antithesis of how to achieve the goal of making good pictures. That’s cuz, hold onto your hats, I am certain, beyond any doubt, that, in fact, making good pictures cannot be taught. FULL STOP.

For me, this is not a recent conclusion; back in the early-ish day of my commercial photography career, a professor-the same one who brought John Pfahl to my studio for a visit- from RIT’s School of American Crafts / College of Art & Design would bring students from RIT’s School of Photographic Arts and Sciences to my studio on day trips. During those visits I considered it my civic duty to inform those students that, within 5 years of graduation, only 7% of grads would be making a living making photographs. And, to understand that, after learning how to operate a camera, their way around a darkroom (no computers in the photo world at that time), and how not to kill themselves setting up high-powered strobe banks, they would be better served, financially and aesthetically, to get out of school, get a job in some facet of the photography industry, buy ton of film, make a zillion pictures, and, consequently, learn how they see the world.

I am certain that those students were very impressed with my work and studio: nationally-known client work on the walls and in my portfolio. I am also certain that they most likely were more than a little perplexed by the fact, which I drove home quite emphatically, that I had not spent a day, not an hour, not a minute learning anything about photography in a school, workshop, or any other learning institution. Don’t know if anyone ever heeded my advice. But, the simple fact was/is that I figured it all out on my own initiative.

FYI, the only thing I learned from someone else was how to spool 35mm film onto a processing reel; that took all of 5 minutes although it did require quite a bit of practice to consistently get it right.

That written, I did read nearly anything I could get my hands on, photography wise. Primarily, that included popular photo magazines which, sooner than later, I moved away from to read mags that featured photographs, not gear. One notable exception to the magazine focus was a subscription to the Time Life Library of Photography. I ended the subscription after receiving 4 books: The Camera, The Print, Light and Film, and Color. The books were hardbound, beautifully printed, and fairly informative, and, mercifully free from any advice from “experts”.

All of that written, Paul Simon sings that his lack of education didn’t hurt him none. I would suggest that a lack of education ain’t hurt a lot of folks none (to include myself). Like, say, as a notable example, Frank Lloyd Wright: with just a little bit of civil engineering education-no degree-under his belt, he went on to be declared by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time". In 2000, one of his projects, Fallingwater (I’ve visited many times), was named "The Building of the 20th century" in a "Top-Ten" poll taken by members attending the AIA annual convention in Philadelphia.

In any event, I ain’t agin readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, per se, as long as that educatin’ teaches one how to think. Ya know, so’s yinz can read the writtin’ on the wall.

# 6504-08 / common places • common things ~ in the eye of the beholder

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED A VERMONT based gallery-PhotoPlace [GALLERY] (link)-that conducts, per their website, “monthly, juried photographic exhibitions to photographers worldwide, each with a new topic and internationally recognized juror”. Their current juried exhibition’s theme is The Poetry of the Ordinary; a theme that is right up my alley.

Over the years I have submitted photos for many of their monthly exhibitions and am pleased to report that on 12-15 occasions (I have not kept count) my work has been accepted for the gallery exhibitions. Considering that there are usually 3-4K worldwide submissions per exhibtion, that is a reasonable accomplishment. In any event, I will be submitting work for the current call for entries which states:

As photographers, we have developed skill in seeing beneath the surface of our subjects, and often find in them the beauty, poignancy, and poetry that exist in ordinary moments. For this exhibition, we seek the simple poetic elegance of the ordinary.

As I wrote, that statement seems to be right up my alley. However….depending upon the juror, he/she might have a very different understanding on the word “ordinary”. For instance, in the 3 example photos on call for entries page, is the spreader in the mist/fog ordinary, or, is the runner with the broom in the smoke(?) ordinary? ….

…..to my and sensibilities, I think not. Inasmuch as the runner himself and the spreader itself are rather ordinary, the circumstances in which they are pictured is seems to be very much out of the ordinary. Of course, what I think doesn’t matter but someone-the juror? the gallery director?-thinks otherwise. And that situation- a differing definitions of what constitutes the ordinary-makes me think my pictures of the ordinary might not be what fits the bill.

Then there is, for me, the idea of “seeing beneath the surface”-an adage / concept that has been bandied about the medium seemingly forever. And, it is a concept about which I am very uncertain, re: what the hell does that mean? I am fairly certain it does not mean that one should elevate / pick up one’s subject to see what’s underneath it. Nor do I believe that it implies that one is making pictures with an x-ray device.

Wise comments aside, the phrase when used as a proposition means: aspects of it-one’s nominal photographic subject-which are hidden or not obvious. That is a meaning which I can embrace-with caveats-cuz in my photographs I try to capture and express something about what I picture that is not obvious to the casual observer-the “hidden”, aka: unseen in situ, but can be made “obvious” in a photograph, aka: form.

The primary caveat I have about making a photograph that is about something hidden or not obvious is that, in my case, I am not photographing something, the referent, which I or most anyone would consider to be, in and of itself, beautiful, poignant, or poetic. Rather, my intent to is to make a object, i.e. a photograph, that, in and of itself, may be considered to beautiful, poignant, or poetic.

Consider the referent in the photos in this entry. No one I can think of believes that, as an example, my kitchen trash can, stove, and floor are beautiful, poignant, or poetic in and of themselves. However, I do believe-please forgive my self-aggrandizing opinion of my work-that the photograph thereof and the form it presents is a beautiful photograph, in and of itself. Or, at the very least, visually interesting. Of course, I am also comfortable with the fact that other viewers may not agree.

All of that written, I can only hope that the juror of the exhibition will agree that one of pictures fits the bill.

# 6500-03 / common places-things ~ simulacrum , relativism, and dinkum oil

all photos (embiggenable)

THERE WAS A TIME MANY YEARS AGO, DECADES in fact, that, on my several iterations ago blog, I was a stanch defender of truth-def: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality-in photos. What was tiring about discussing that idea was the never-ending, dancing on the head of pin contrarian advocates who wanted wanted to take a deep dive into the philosophical meaning of “truth”. And, as an adjunct position, they also threw in the questioning of the idea of “real”. All of which I found rather unproductive inasmuch as I was interested in discussing the characteristics / conventions / apparatus of the medium, not the meaning of life.

Inasmuch as we photographers are going thru the motions of making simulacrum-def: something that replaces reality with its representation-I believe that the idea of so-called “truth” in a photograph might better be described as representational / visual veracity. That is to write that, if a casual viewer-aka: a non-“serious” amateur picture maker, were to view a straight photograph of some thing-people, place, thing, event, et al-made from the real world and see the same thing in situ, he/she would have no problem recognizing it as being related, reasonably accurately, to that thing as it was depicted in the previously viewed photograph.

That written, if one accepts the idea that photography is unique amongst the visual arts in its unique / intrinsic ability to accurately / convincingly / truthfully (there’s that word again) visually depict a segment of the real, why not employ that characteristic of the medium to create art?

Easy answer; iMo, the most difficult challenge in making art, Photography Division, is doing so without relying on art sauce / cheap tricks to garnish the real with a false pretense. Ya know, like making a “fake” photograph. Say, consider a picture of fall foliage so screamingly over-saturated, color wise, as to be a complete distortion of the real.

Some might ask if it is possible for a photograph to be able to convey a moral / cultural / emotional truth. The answer to that question is simply, “Maybe.” or, most probably, “No.” That is, at least not a clearly unambiguous, universal truth. That’s cuz the question legitimately opens the door to the idea of relativism-the doctrine that truth and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. For instance, there are those who saw horror and tragedy in the photo of people plunging to their death from the two towers while there were others who, viewing the same photo, saw a scene that incited great joy /celebration and a sense of the fulfillment of their dreams.

In any event, in my picture making I try to stick to the facts of life on this planet. Call it what you will but I currently think of it as the real dinkum oil.

# 6496-99 / common places-things ~ the treadmill keeps on moving

all photos (embiggenable)

BEEN BACK FROM RIST CAMP FOR A WEEK and it’s amazing how much catching up there is to do after being away from home for 5 weeks. Actually it was 6 weeks cuz there was a week at the Jersey Shore the week before Rist Camp.

In any event, there was one significant and unexpected catching up that arose last week; the message that popped up on my screen that said YOUR CURRENT VERSION OF PHOTOSHOP IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED. No big surprise cuz I knew it was coming sooner or later-I was hoping for later.

That written, I was also hoping there would be a version of PS-compatible with my OS-to which I could upgrade. But, no such luck cuz I can not upgrade the OS on my late-2012 MAC mini. So…it’s a new mini for me along with all the attendant set-up rigmarole. Ugh.

On the other hand, hardware wise, I am awaiting the delivery of my PRO MAX iPhone 16. I was not planning on an upgrade from my PRO MAX iPhone 14 but, while I was at our cell service provider store with the wife’s new PRO iPhone 15-she ordered the phone (at no cost with her trade in), which came with a free iPad, online (from our cell service provider) to set up activation, data/file transfer, add screen savers, et al, getting a new iPhone just seemed like the right thing to do. FYI, the $900USD trade in value on my PRO MAX 14 was an significant inducement to upgrade now instead of later.

That written, there are a few improvements / changes to the camera and its operation on the new iPhone. In particular, I appreciate the new 48mp RAW capability on the ultra wide lens cuz I shoot in the RAW mode whenever possible. Other than that improvement, most of the other “improvements” are, for the manner in which I use the iPhone, relatively minor. Although, there is the new Apple AI…..

# 6469-74 / rist camp • flora • folliage (autumn) common places-things ~ small is beautiful

all photos (embiggenable)

IN MY REGION OF THE ADIRONDACKS PEEK (pun) leaf peeper season is about a week away. While I am not immune to the sight of the forest swathed in a red / yellow rainbow of color, I am adverse to the making of pictures thereof. To wit, the making of “standard”, color saturated, landscape calendar art.

On the contrary, bogs and swamps are my favored autumnal picture making venues. That’s cuz the biodiversity found in these wetlands creates a much expanded color palette than is commonly found in the red and yellow dominated forest palette. Throw in a wide variety of shapes and textures and, to my eye and sensibilities, there are picture making opportunities aplenty.

Often times, on my way to a bog / swamp, along the roadside I encounter scenes of pre-peek color. That is, a bit of autumnal color mingled in a greater scene of late summer, green-dominated, color. To my eye and sensibilities, these scenes have a great degree of visual energy; ya know what I mean….the opportunity to make one of those exhausting-to-read (sarcasm alert) photographs wherein the eye tends to dance-instead of falling asleep-across the 2D surface of the print.

All of that written, I would encourage the pursuit of shunning the grand autumnal landscape scenes in order to find those much more intimate tableaux of autumnal splendor.

# 6457-62 / rist camp • common places-things ~ simple is as simple does

all photos (embiggenable)

ON MY AM CRUISE OF THE WEB, PHOTO SITES WISE, I came across a site with an entry that, on my first glance, caused me to think, this guy is yet another how-to-make-better-photographs guru doling out exceptionally idiotic advice. But, then I took breath, dialed down my over-reactive boiling point and decided it would be best to address his advice from a more even tempered point of view….

…. the advice which got my knickers in a twist was that picture makers should show less in order to show more. Essentially a take on the well worn adage of “simplify”. Ya know, cuz, in his words, “the more you put in the frame (or fail to exclude), the less impact any one element has, and soon it’s a photograph that isn’t really about anything specific…. because busy photographs are exhausting to read…. because what we do not exclude dilutes the power of what we include…. I need you to simplify.”

So, to be unremittingly uncharitable, it sounds to me that this guy is a rather simple-minded twit. Ya know, maybe he can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. But wait, here’s where I get a bit charitable….

…. it is quite obvious that, upon viewing his photographs in the entry, he is, like the preponderance of most “serious” amateur picture makers, literal referent oriented / biased. That is to write that people-places-things is their raison d'etre for making a photograph. Consequently (and to be kinda kind), I guess his advice is on-the-money for the room.

That written, this advice reminds me of an idea I have mentioned before; there are 2 kinds of art, Fine Art and Decorative Art. And, according to the authors of Einsein’s Space and Van Gogh’s Sky (from where this idea originates) Fine Art turns on the brain whereas Decorative Art turns off the brain. Or, to put it another way, Fine Art is meant invigorate / challenge the senses, whereas Decorative Art is meant to relax / sooth the senses. Or, yet another way to explain it, Fine Art can instigate a multi-dimentional experience where as Decorative Art promotes a singular experience, aka: a simple experience.

Therefore, iMo, whether he realizes it or not, this “guru” is advocating for his followers to make pictures which are decorative rather than fine. So, as I often say, whatever floats your boat.

# 6441-44 / kitchen sink •rist camp • common places ~ behind and beyond

all photos (embiggenable)

in Bolton Landing

yes, there is sink in Rist Camp

TOOK A 50 MILE DRIVE FOR DINNER WITH SOME NEAR-to-Rist-Camp friends. Dinner was at a husband and wife owner-built home in trendy Bolton Landing on Lake George. A good time was had by all.

Lake George, a summer tourist hot spot, is the place where Alfred Stieglitz and his paramour Georgia O’Keeffe spent summers on Stieglitz’s father’s large estate-staying not in the lakeside villa but rather in a modest farmhouse on the estate. It is where Stieglitz made his famous Equivalents photographs. In case you are not familiar with the photographs, they are photographs of the sky / clouds,

In the making of his Equivalents photographs Stieglitz maintained that these works were a culmination of everything he had learned about photography; he “wanted to put down my philosophy of life—to show that my photographs were not due to subject matter—not to special trees, or faces, or interiors, to special privleges—clouds were there for everyone.”

As photography historian Sarah Greenough wrote:

The Equivalents are photographs of shapes that have ceded their identity, in which Stieglitz obliterated all references to reality normally found in a photograph”…by doing so ”Stieglitz was destabilizing your [the viewer’s] relationship with nature in order for you to think about nature, not to deny that it’s a photograph of a cloud, but to think more about the >feeling< that the cloud formation evokes.

Additionally, art critic Andy Grundberg wrote:

Equivalents remain photography’s most radical demonstration of faith in the existence of a reality behind and beyond that offered by the world of appearances. They are intended to function evocatively, like music...[E]motion resides solely in form, they assert, not in the specifics of time and place.”

Now, to be truthful, I present this entry not only as a history lesson, re: the medium and its apparatus, but also to reiterate my picture making M.O.—that is, my photographs are meant to suggest something behind and beyond the visual appearance of the quotidian world-not only the surprising visual form that can be extracted from the ordinary but also a hint of my philosophy of life.

That written, have no doubt about it, the making of my photographs is not concept (aka: content) driven. It is driven my my desire to create interesting visual form as manifested in, ya, know, a picture.

However…on the other hand, some might consider form as a rather ethereal / intangible apparition rarely perceived or experienced whole cloth in situ. And, iMo, it is only on the surface of the photographic print that form becomes something “real”. But, even then, for many the perception of it is most often a rather elusive idea, aka: concept.

So, inasmuch as the point of my photographs is not about the their literal referents but, rather about something behind and beyond that offered by quotidian world appearances, I especially like and appreciate this exchange by Stieglitz and a viewer of one of his Equivalents photographs…

Viewer: Is this a photograph of water? Stieglitz: What difference does it make of what it is a photograph? Viewer: But is it a photograph of water? Stieglitz: I tell you it does not matter. Viewer: Well, then, is it a picture of the sky? Stieglitz: It happens to be a photograph of the sky. But I cannot understand why that is of any importance.

# 6434-36 / common places ~ from that to this

Rist Camp

Jersey Shore porch

Adirondack porch

I SURVIVED ANOTHER 6.5 HOUR / 420 MILE THRU THE NIGHT drive-Jersey Shore to home-on Saturday. Next up today is a very pleasurable 1.25 hour drive thru stretches of Adirondack wilderness to Rist Camp where I will spend the next 5 weeks.

The difference between the 2 vacation spots-although I actually reside in one of these vacation spots-could not be more dissimilar. One, iMo, is an urban / suburban megalopolis custerfuck-otherwise known as New Jersey-the other is the largest wilderness preserve, AKA. the Adirondack Park-which, in fact is larger than the state of New Jersey-east of the Mississippi River.

In any event, let there be no doubt, re: on which porch I would rather “vacation”.