# 6705-08 / in situ • common places-things ~ I contain multitudes

all photos (embiggenable)

LIFE IS BACK TO POST-HOLIDAY “NORMAL”. Been busy grinding out more SEEN magazine editions, most recently Issue No. 5, IN SITU. Also updated the IN SITU gallery on the WORK page. From the zine’s Artist Statement :

As I see it the medium of photography and its apparatus has as its primary capability making visible what something looks like when photographed. That characteristic is the impulse that drives my making photographs obsession….

…. Presented herein are photographs culled from my picture making oeuvre organized under the discriptor of in situ, aka: in the original place. They pay homage to the genre of street photography but not all are made on the street. My intent in the making of these photographs was to record, in a pictorially interesting manner, divine and sometimes quirky snippets of the human condition / comedy.

The other thing that has kept me somewhat busy is seeing-now 3 times-the A Complete Unknown movie. Wednesday evening I drove, to and from, a theater in Lake Placid during a moderate snow storm with 2˚F temps and a bitter, biting wind. Some might suggest that that certifies me as a Dylan fan-atic but, truth be told, I am not wrapped up, as so many others are, in the never-ending quest to unravel / decipher / understand the who and what of Bob Dylan.

In order to avoid going completely OT, I’ll bring it back around to photography, re: Paul Strand; who when asked about his work, simply stated that “the answer is on the wall”. Dylan has spent a lifetime of not answer any questions about his work and his private life. Which, in most people’s minds makes him enigmatic. I don’t think of him as enigmatic inasmuch as I believe the answer to Dylan is, simply stated, in the music cuz, after all, he was-and still is-aware that The Times They Are A-Changing, so consequently, he let it be know that (he) I Ain’t Gonna Work On Maggie’s Farm No More, and, he was-and still is-not afraid to tell his fans that It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue (..take what you need You think will last But whatever you wish to keep You better grab it fast). And, of course, if you still can’t figure it out, you might wanna remember that The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind.

What I appreciate / respect about any artist is their authenticity-true to one's own personality, spirit, or character-and an unrelenting commitment to their art. iMo, that’s true of many photographers, musicians, et al. Also iMo, I do not believe that in that regard Dylan has ever changed inasmuch as, no matter the musical “notes” / rhythms he pairs with his lyrics, his lyrics are always amazingly lyrical-think Nobel Prize for Literature.

All of that written, it’s back to photography, specifically, my photography. Like Dylan, I contain, photography wise, multitudes. Consider this from the In Situ Artist Statement:

During my 60 year picture making life, I have adopted no allegiance to any one photographic genre-landscape / nature, still life, people, street, et al. Rather, whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities is impetus for my discursively promiscuous picture making endeavors.

As I am creating multiple SEEN magazines representing many of my separate bodies of work-kitchen sink, in situ, life without the APA, picture windows, art reflects, poles, decay, autumn color / urban + nature, tangles scrub / thicket / trees, single women, all of which reside under the umbrella of discursive promiscuity-that endeavor serves to reinforce my understanding that ordinary life is my source of artistic inspiration, aka: my muse*. And, it should be made obvious that, like Dylan and his work, I refuse to be put in a box, referent wise.

Although, it should be made plain that I am not consciously “refusing” to do anything; rather, simply put, I am being true to myself and my muse, aka: being authentic. What others may think about what I create is of little concern to me** cuz I am doing just what it is I have to do.

*Some common synonyms of muse are meditate, ponder, and ruminate…. all these words mean "to consider or examine attentively or deliberately which describes precisely my picture making M.O.

**but, of course, I do appreciate that others may appreciate my work.

# 6594-99 / common places-things • kitchen sink • landscape ~ over the river (lake) and thru the woods

all photos (embiggenable)

Vermont as seen across Lake Champlain (6th largest lake in North America-120 miles long and 13-miles at its widest point)

CROSSED LAKE CHAMPLAIN INTO VERMONT AND went to Middlebury, a quaint college town, to do some Yuletide season shopping. The main street is lined with a number of small, eclectic gift laden shops. 5 miles out of town we drove into a snow storm which created a stereotypical winter wonderland vibe. Throw in a roaring waterfall along side of the main street and a late pub lunch and it was a grand day out; although, no visions of sugar plums dancing in my head were to be had.

In any event, Merry Holidays to all and to all…goodnight (and no, rest assured that I am not saying goodbye, blog wise.)

# 6541-46 / common places-things • around the house • kitchen sink ~ an alternate reality

all photos (embiggenable)

FOR THE BETTER PART OF 2 DECADES I HAVE been making square format photographs. With either a real camera or the iPhone, my picture making procedure has been the same; set the picture making screen view to square and make the picture, open full frame RAW file in PS and crop to square in exactly the center of the image which yields an image exactly as I saw it on the screen of my picture making device. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Somewhere along the way-about 18 months or so ago-the monkey wrench gang sneaked into the room and, as is the wont, threw a wrench into the works; i.e. I began to notice that the full frame image suited my eye and sensibilities as much as the square version. In a perplexing manner, both aspect ratios seemed to “work”-differently but, oddly, the same.

The oddness steams from the fact that, in almost every case, the additional image information-top and bottom or left and right (depending on camera orientation)-”fits” perfectly, to my eye and sensibilities, into the picture. I find that very disconcerting inasmuch as that information was not visible on the viewing screen in situ. A fact that throws the traditional picture making adage-”compose”, aka: what to include/ exclude in the frame, carefully-right out the window. Or, at least, right out of my window.

A part of what I am enjoying(?) about this revelation is that the additional visual information creates an image that comes as a bit of a surprise. A pleasant surprise to be exact. That said, it leads to an interesting question; would I have achieved the same result if I had been viewing the in situ scene with the viewing screen set to a full frame view? …. answer: don’t know and probably never will cuz sure as hell I ain’t gonna changes horses in midstream.

Might be time for a photo book titled alternate realities - square format on one page, full frame on the adjoining page.

# 6537-40 / common places-things • landscape ~ it's like an itch, when ya feel it ya gotta scratch it

all photos (embiggenable)

THE NY TIMES HAS AN ONGOING SERIES CALLED The 10 Minute Challenge which challenges the reader to look, uninterrupted, at a single piece of art-to date, no photographs-for 10 minutes. During that time the viewer has the ability to zoom in/out in order to explore details. The viewer can stop at any time and a timer will let him/her know how long was spent viewing the picture. There is no penalty for not completing 10 minutes. Upon the termination of viewing, an art “expert” steps in and writes about/comments on the picture.

The commentary does yield up a few interesting bits and pieces, put they invariably veer off into art-school “lectures” which break down / disassemble the art piece into individual visual components in order to “explain” to the viewer how the art piece “works”. For the mechanically inclined, I guess this makes sense. For those who prefer the experience and sensations of viewing art, not so much.

An example of “experience and sensations” v. “mechanically inclined”: I would suggest that the difference can be explained by my approach to automobiles; the wife and I have 3 “drivers” cars; cars with exceptionally good handling-one has a track-tuned suspension-which means they handle the twisty bits at speed with composure and precision, aka: no fuss, no muss. They just drive and feel-the synchronous connection between car, driver, and the road-right. That written, I have very little interest in how, mechanically, it all comes together cuz I primarily care about the experience and sensations of driving those cars.

FYI, I especially enjoy, when driving the track-tuned car with my best friend as passenger, I can drive (literally) him through the twisty bits right up to edge of where the uninitiated tend to soil themselves.

Moving on, I accepted the 10 minute challenge for Edward Hopper’s painting, Manhattan Bridge Loop. and made it through to the 10 minute mark. While I did zoom in 2-3x to view a few details, I primarily viewed the piece in its entirety letting my eyes wander around the piece exploring various points of interest that caught my attention. I enjoyed my time with the painting. Time well spent, although, having spent time viewing a number of Hopper’s paintings-most notably Nighthawks-I can write that, staring at it on a screen is a far cry from seeing it on a wall.

Next up, I read the commentary which was complete with multiple images of the picture with the perfunctory lines and shapes drawn across/on its surface to…I don’t know…make sure that stupid people “understand” the picture and that painters use lines and shapes in constructing their work? I guess this annoys me so much cuz it‘s a kissing cousin to the advice you get from photo “experts” on the subject of how to “master” composition.

On the positive side, re: the commentary, it included these words from Mr. Hopper, himself:

Mr. Hopper wrote that he was primarily interested in the “vast field of experience and sensation. Form and color and structure were the tools he used to express those ideas….Why I select certain subjects rather than others, I do not exactly know, unless it is that I believe them to be the best mediums for a synthesis of my inner experience,….So much of every art is an expression of the subconscious, that it seems to me most all of the important qualities are put there unconsciously, and little of importance by the conscious intellect.…But these are things for the psychologist to untangle.

The highlighted part of Hopper’s words support, iMo, my belief that most of great art is created, not by thoughts, but by feelings. Think too much about it and yer gonna fuck it up. Ya gotta feel it when yer makin’ it. Loosen up and let it all hang out. If ya wanna think about it, think about it later.

It was Joel Meyerowitz who wrote:

“I connect to things in a visceral way…The camera is a reflex for me, it rises to my eye and opens up to take in that thing out there-sensation, feeling, cohesive elements that appear in front of me. It is a way of matching and absorbing the response I have to the world. It captures my consciousness and, later, this allows me to read my consciousness back like a text and understand my relationship to things or moments.”

In any event, if you have a subscription to the NY Times, I recommend the challenge. If not, why not click on one of my pictures and spend 10 minutes with it?

# 6534-36 / commpn places-things • folliage ~ some men follow their junk

all photos (embiggenable)

RECENTLY, OVER ON T.O.P. , THE TOPIC OF “the most interesting photographer in history” was raised. To define that phrase M. Johnston went on to write, “Interesting meaning fascinating or thought provoking, in any aspect—personal lives, significance, ideas and attitudes, accomplishments, whatever.” Stated that way, I had very little interest inasmuch as I have no curiosity, re:what someone who makes pictures has for breakfast or if that someone picks his/her nose or who might literally, run around in little circles from dawn to dusk. The only saving grace in that descriptor was the inclusion of “significance” and “ideas.”

Having written all that, I can state that the primary interest I have with any photographer is the pictures he/she make or have made. The only interest I might otherwise have, is bit of background on what drove him/her, if applicable, to pick up photography and, minus any art-speak, what he/she believes he/she is trying to accomplish with their work. However, that would only interest me if I found his/her photographs interesting.

So, in any event, I thought, just for giggles and grins, that I would enlighten my readers with my list of photographers who. iMo / to my eye and sensibilities, make interesting photographs…

  1. THE SIGNIFICANT: In a class by themselves, Shore, Eggleston, Meyerowitz, Adams (Robert), Frank. These guys radically changed the idea of what can be photographed and what constitutes a good photograph like no other photographer before them.

  2. THE QUIRKY: Joel-Peter Witkin, Diane Arbus, Martin Parr, Weegee, Paula Klaw.

  3. THE VENERATED: Evans, Stieglitz, Weston, Margaret Bourke White, Porter, Bresson.

  4. THE ONE AND ONLY: Maier

In my personal photobook library, re: Photographer Monographs, I have at least one-in some cases 2 or more-book of each of the above named “interesting photographers”. That written, I have many other monographs by photographers whose work I admire. However, they tend to fall in one or another of the 1-3 categories listed above and I felt that those listed are more than enough for anyone to figure out the kinds of photographs I find interesting.

Burtynsky is one of my favorites (embiggenable)

FYI, a photobook I would emphatically recommend is Photo-wisdom ~ Master Photographers on Their Art;

Through the extraordinary images and insights of 50 of the world's master photographers, Photo-wisdom explores the richness of contemporary photographic practice. Photo-wisdom features commentaries from original interviews with world-leading photographers alongside exquisite reproductions of key images chosen by the artists themselves.The result is an unprecedented collection of 200 images showcasing each master photographer's work and their unique voice. ~ from publisher’s description

Then there’s this review-written by a woman-a customer on a used book site:

“It's big, it's beautiful, it's full of photos... but is it really full of wisdom? And if not, do we care? ….there's a lot to learn and a lot to love even if you never read a word of the accompanying first-person essays (mostly taken from interviews). But I do love reading that some photographers rely on luck, some make elaborate plans, and some let their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks.”

Keep in mind that “contemporary photographic practice “ is c. 2010, when the book was published and also note that the 50 photographers presented range from award-winning photojournalists to celebrity shooters; from politicized environmentalists to elusive artists; from timeless veterans to new visionaries; and from great storytellers to the makers of lasting icons. iMo, the diversity of the practitioners is what makes the book especially interesting.

In any event, the book is highly recommended and it can be found on a variety of used book sites (including Amazon) for very reasonable prices. I purchased my copy in 2012 in an upscale, small storefront, used book store on 2nd Ave. in the East Village NYC. Over a couple decades I visited the store 2-3x a year. It had a photobook section of ever-changing titles in near like-new condition at quite reasonable prices. Not that I am counting, but it is possible that half or more of photobook collection came from this store. Unfortunately, it closed a bout 10 years ago.

FYI, it should be evident from my discursive promiscuity approach to picture making that I am a photographer who-according to the woman reviewer quoted above-falls into the picture-making group that lets their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks…guilty as charged.

# 6527-32 / common places • common things ~ I don't miss dust, scratches, or chemicals

all photos (embiggenable)

SO, IT APPEARS THAT M. JOHNSTON WILL BE writing about “film photography”, over time with multiple installments. As far as my visits to TOP go, it will just be more stuff that I barely glance at-way too much O(ff)T(opic) as it already is.

But, then again, I never really considered TOP to be a site about photography. That is, about the medium itself and its and apparatus (practices, conventions, aka: the functional processes by means of which a systematized activity is carried out ). And FYI, to be clear, I do not consider entries about gear-cameras, lenses, computers, and other hardware-to be about photography. That’s cuz I’m sorta like Paul Strand, who, when asked about the importance / significance of his work, answered:

“My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.”

In other words, it is all about the photographs, aka: picture(s). It is not about how the picture was made or what gear was used to make it; that’s all just “serious” amateur hobbyist claptrap. And, to sound a bit snarky, photographs are in very short supply on TOP.

But I digress; if M. Johnston is serious about reaching the “youngsters” who are messing around with making images on film, he’s not gonna make it unless he stops writing and starts talking. Ya know, Vlogging, cuz the photo pipsqueaks out there, according to those in the know, do not read anymore.

That written, I also question the idea of how much-aside from nostalgia-is there out there to be written about the making of photographs with the use of film. I ask that question even though I come from over 40 years of making photographs (with the use of film) and making color and BW prints (in the wet darkroom). And, it’s also worth noting that, to this very day, I continue to believe that the pinnacle of color print making is a C print made from an 8x10 color negative; I made plenty of those and I can identify such a print from a mile away.

And while I’m at it, let me pick another nit; I do not believe that there is such a thing as “film photography”. That’s cuz, in my mind and to my way of thinking, there is only photography, aka: the act of making a photograph. Simply put for simple minds, one may make a photograph using any kind of equipment or light sensitive receptor but the end result is still, simply stated, a photograph….like, ya know, I do not make iPhone photographs; I do make photographs using an iPhone but, that written, the result is a photograph.

All of that written, I wish M. Johnston well in his “film photography” blogging endeavor.

BONUS PICTURE FROM LAST EVENING

(enbiggenable)

My iPhone was turned off, sitting on the arm of my Westport Adirondack chair; I picked it up, hit the Camera Control button, which instantly turned on the camera app, and the I hit the button again-click (shutter release noise)…. and there you have it. Maybe 3 seconds from start to finish. Amazing. Apple got that control right.

FYI, no flash, just my porch light.

# 6523-26 / landscape • autumn ~ change is a-comin'

all photos (embiggenable)

JUST SOME PICTURES FROM my neighborhood. Stick season is coming and some white stuff has been comin’ and goin’ at higher elevations. Gotta get my winter backpacking gear together cuz I promised myself that I would- while I still can-spend a few days and nights in the back country this winter.

# 6520-22 / common places/things • autumn ~ take some Extra Strength Tylenol and call me in the morning

all photos (embiggenable)

A COMMENT FROM DENNIS ON my last entry:

“…what set you off this time? Just because it worked for you don't mean jack for anyone else. Falling Water is lovely but falling down…”

Cannot imagine what, in my last entry, caused Dennis to experience a “migraine inducing eyeroll”. That written, let me pass on my condolence. Hope you feel better. In any event, I thought I should respond to his “riptose” on 2 counts; re: Fallingwater (1 word, not 2), and, re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else”.

re: Fallingwater - fun fact, Fallingwater is not falling down. Nor was it in eminent danger of falling down. In 1995 it was determined that the concrete cantilevered balconies were insufficiently reinforced. What a surprise (sarcasm alert). Who could have guessed that a structure-an untested, never-before attempted, never-imagined construction technique, using materials available at that time-built 60 years prior might just need a bit of additional reinforcement? In any event, in 2002 additional reinforcement was installed leaving Fallingwater's interior and exterior appearance unchanged and the original construction engineering intact.

re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else” - I have no idea if the topics and/or ideas and opinions expressed on this blog have any meaning, applicability, or value to anyone else (other than M). And, I most emphatically make it known that, with my liberal and continued use of the acronym, “iMo”-note that M is both bold and italicized-I am not writing ex cathedra. So, Dennis, please accept my thanks for pointing out the obvious.

And, speaking of the obvious, I would never suggest that what works for me would necessarily work for anyone else cuz, ya know, statistically, half the population is below average.