# 6112-13 / kitchen life • common places ~ malarkey on a shingle

finished (L.) / original (R.) ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable) ~ full frame / Portrait mode

RE: THE DEATH OF THE SMALL SENSOR CAMERA. I am not one to profess that I know what the future will bring. However, I will not let that stop me from offering a few thoughts on the speculative idea that small sensor cameras are on the way out.

First, let’s define “small”….best I can tell, it the current camera market, it seems that “small” is any sensor smaller than a full-frame-24mmx36mm-sensor. And, for some reason, camera makers seem to have decided that, surprise, surprise, bigger is better. If I put on my cynical hat, I would write that they think that the more money they can charge for a camera+lenses the better.

That written, the idea that small-sensor cameras are in a death spiral is based on the notion that, a huge majority of avid amateur picture makers will all want a full-frame sensor camera. A notion that I believe to be nonsense. cuz…

a) most full-frame cameras+lens are very expensive but, even if the prices drop over time…

b) …most picture makers, even avid amateurs, do not want to lug around large, heavy gear.

c) most avid amateurs who use “small”-format sensor cameras have an investment in lenses for their systems. Moving to full-frame sensor cameras means the significant added expense of acquiring new lens.

d) in addition to the expense of full-frame sensor cameras+lenses, there is, for many, the added expense of upgrading the computer in order to handle and store the larger file sizes, and, perhaps most significantly……

e) not all picture makers, including most avid amateurs, have the desire or the need to engage in the “my dick is bigger than your dick” competition.

All of that written, let me add my ultimate reason for why I do not give a damn about any sensor size. Simply out, I do not care one iota how or what gear was used to make a picture. I only care about the picture itself. And, great pictures can be made with just about any camera / picture making device you would care to mention.

FYI, the diptych in this entry offers a peek at the man behind the curtain. That is, the work I often put into the processing of my pictures. In the case of this picture, I probably-I did not keep track-employed more than 20 separate processing steps-most local as opposed to global-to achieve the final result.

# 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.

# 6109 / kitchen life ~ here I am

(embiggenable)

“Sometimes it feels like I write about gear too much. But it's much easier to write about than how and why we actually make photographs.” ~ written on the interweb

SINCE I BEGAN BLOGGING-c.2005-IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY INTENTION to avoid writing about gear and, to a lesser extent, technique. That’s cuz of my bedrock belief that writing about and encouraging comments / discussion about gear is best left to the domain of the hopelessly un-imaginative / un-creative picture makers.

That written, I also believe that it is nearly impossible to write about the how of picture making inasmuch as-despite the prevalence of the How-To-Master (pick a genre) advice sites / books-the making of pictures that are worth more than a passing glance simply can not be reduced to rules / formulas. Rather, as Walker Evans wrote:

The meaning of quality in photography’s best pictures lies written in the language of vision. That language is learned by chance, not systemWhether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts.

iMo, these Evans quotes are amongst the best I have ever heard / read, re: the how-to of picture making and why it is so difficult to write about. That’s cuz there are not many picture makers who are able to separate their feelings from their thoughts when making pictures, much less be able to write about it. In large part that difficulty originates from the long-held idea that a photograph is suppose to “say” something / have “meanings”. That a photograph can not be enjoyed and appreciated as a sensuous object, in and of itself*.

And then, of course, there is the dander of expressing feelings. That is, the “danger” of being perceived as getting all soft and mushy / touchy feely cuz, when you come right down to it, feelings are deeply personal and often times expressing those feelings opens one up to all kinds of ignorant responses. And, when you think about it, what good would there be in letting anyone know how / what you were feeling when making a picture?

After all, that’s a very personal experience that comes from within, from knowing one self and how you see the world, aka: one’s own understanding of the language of vision.

Think about it.

*Given that true intellectual and emotional compatibility
Are at the very least difficult
If not impossible to come by
We could always opt for the more temporal gratification
Of sheer physical attraction
That wouldn't make you a shallow person
Would it
? ~ Lyle Lovett

# 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

# 5958 / kitchen life ~ navigable space and recognizable subject matter

(embiggenable)

I HAVE RECOVERED FROM MY PISSED OFF AT Squarespace mood swing. So, I am moving on with my greatest challenge to making fine art photographs idea.

Simply written, it is my belief that the medium of photography and its apparatus, when practiced within the “confines” of the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts, present some significant barriers to the creation of photographs that would fall into the world of fine art.

To clarify:

Re: “the medium’s most unique characteristic amongst the visual arts” - aka: the medium’s intrinsic / ingrained relationship with and to the real. That is, it’s capability of reproducing an accurate and faithful illustration of that at which the picture maker points his/her picture making instrument.

Re: “fine art” - is created and appreciated solely for its aesthetic quality and capacity to stimulate the intellect, aka: art for art’s sake, subject matter be damned. “decorative art”, photography wise, is all about subject matter, aka: the referent, principles of art be damned.

Working within “the ‘confines’ of the medium’s most unique characteristic” most often results in the making of straight photographs. That is, photographs made with the intent of creating an accurate representation-as much as the medium allows-of that at which the picture maker pointed his/her picture making instrument. No art sauce, aka: bullying of the subject matter into exaggerated angles and supersaturated colors, applied during or after the picture making moment.

Working thus presents a number of problems for most “serious” amateur picture makers (those who expend a fair amount of time, money and effort in making pictures) inasmuch as they have been told / taught that the sine non qua of picture making is the subject. The result of that prescriptive is that most serious picture makers set out to find and picture subjects that they are told are suitable-people, places, things representative of “conventional” beauty-for good picture making.

Hence the emergence of too-numerous-to-mention picture making cliches. And, since most “serious” picture makers realize-consciously or otherwise-that they are making pictures that are essentially the same as other “serious” picture makers are making-pick a genre, any genre-the game is on to employ techniques and effects in their picture making in order to stand out from the crowd. Goodbye, straight photography. Hello, decorative photography.

To be certain, most of these “serious” amateurs are making art. However, according to the dictates of the Fine Art World, it is not art that that world considers to be serious art. Setting aside that world’s distain for “artistic” cheap tricks, aka: art sauce, it is also worth considering their embrace of the concept of art fart about art inasmuch as that idea does not give a rat’s ass-even if it’s a picture of a rat’s ass-about the idea of subject matter.

No, iTo, the only things the Fine Art crowd consider worthy considering about a work of art are Content (aka: meaning) and Form. And they have elevated the idea of Concept (meaning) to a fetish, the sine non quo of their art world.

All of that written, one might think that I have no affinity for either art world. While it would be accurate to think that I have little interest in decorative art photography cuz it is just not my thing. On the other hand, much fine art photography is my thing, however…I do subscribe to the tenets of a subset of that world.

The vernacular of that subset does include the idea of art about art but not to the exclusion of subject matter, but not subject matter as the decorative art world considers it. Rather, it is about subject matter and its visual essence as indivisible. Consider this:

Unlike those contemporary artists and critics who denigrate subject matter as an adulteration of the art about art imperative, the most resourceful photographic formalists regard the complexion of the given environment as potentially articulate material…These formalists perceive real objects and interesting spaces as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation….Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is coopted for its visual possibilities, yet delineated with the utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plain on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter. ~ Sally Eauclaire / Color Photographic Formalism

Making pictures which meet the criteria expressed by Eauclaire’s articulate and insightful photographic formalist viewpoint is what I do. And, iMo, her description of Photographic Formalism could be applied to nearly every picture maker’s work that is regarded by the FIne Art World as fine art photography.

All of the above written, I am more than willing to admit that there quite a number of picture makers who do not give a hoot or a holler about whether their work is viewed as fine art or decorative art. On the other hand, many of those same picture makers do harbor a desire to make pictures which transcend the merely decorative, pretty picture modality. Many have tried the How To Master -(insert genre here)- book or workshop route only to find that those materials and prescriptives offer nothing more than gussied up reiterations of glib, decorative art picture making formulas.

In the quest for inspiration, I would suggest a few things….read The Art Spirit (published 1923) by Robert Henri (easily and inexpensively found at many sources), read the first 2 chapter intros-The Problematic Presedents / Color Photographic Formalism in Sally Eauclaire’s The New Color Photography (long out of print but copies can be found at a reasonable cost). And, as a general rule, avoid any book / workshop that promises to make you a “Master” of anything.

Neither book has any “how-to” gibberish. Eauclaire’s book spends deal of effort describing what good photographic art looks and feels like. Henri’s book spends an equal effort describing the mindset. aka: spirit, one might develop and foster in the cause of making good art.

# 5948-56 / kitchen life (in the morning) ~ starting the day

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Anything that excites me for any reason, I will photograph; not searching for unusual subject matter, but making the commonplace unusual.“ ~ Edward Weston

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. ~ Ansel Adams

ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH A DISCURSIVE PROMISCUITY (albeit a “good” issue iMo) manner of making pictures, AKA: making a lot of pictures of any thing and/or every thing, is that, on occasion, I have “discovered” a body of work (hiding in plain sight) comprised of pictures that were randomly intermingled within my voluminous picture library. I found one such unknown body of work ( approximately 38 pictures)-I have labeled it as morning coffee-a couple days ago.

BACKGROUND (not an Artist Statement): virtually every morning that I am at home, I have a morning routine that begins with sitting at the kitchen island and having my morning coffee, sometimes with a side of a cinnamon sugar donut or a bowl of oatmeal loaded with blueberries. I read the newspaper and check out the NY Times and a couple photo sites on my iPad. During that time I am, on some occasions, “distracted”-that is to write that my eye and sensibilities have been pricked-by the morning light in combination with the “arrangements” on the kitchen sink counter. On those occasions when the combination feels right, I make a picture.

On other occasions when that combination just is not right, I often notice-when getting a coffee refresh-that something interesting is going on in the kitchen sink or on the counter and/or island. Of course, the kitchen sink pictures end up in my kitchen sink body of work where, up ‘til now, they remained hidden and out of sight, morning coffee wise.

One of the things I find interesting and somewhat surprising about finding the morning coffee pictures is how many of them, approximately 20, were made using the full iPhone frame. Conversely, most of the sink / counter pictures were made in the square format. In any case, I feel comfortable with the full-frame pictures inasmuch as I am secure in my ability to see and find interesting form in that format.

The next trick, re: morning coffee, is to come up with an Artist Statement that is, a.) short and sweet, and, b.) makes sense.

# 5943-44 / kitchen life • civilized ku ~ because the individual is different

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner; not for the sake of being different, but ones that are different because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. I realize that we all do express ourselves, but those who express that which is always being done are those whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else. Expression on this basis has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves.“ ~ Harry Callahan

# 5940-42 / around the house • kitchen life ~ there is no OFF button

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“To know ahead of time what you’re looking for means you’re then only photographing your own preconceptions, which is very limiting, and often false.” ~ Dorohea Lange

It’s about reacting to what you see, hopefully without preconception. You can find pictures anywhere. It’s simply a matter of noticing things and organising them.” ~ ELLIOT ERWITT

REACTING TO WHAT YOU SEE WITHOUT PRECONCEPTION as method of making pictures is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, there are, in fact, pictures everywhere. On the other hand, one is apt, like me, to end up with 12,000+ “keepers” (and multiplying every day) in one’s photo library.