referents and subject matter

March 3, 2023

“…all photographers of stature whom I admire seem to share this fundamental characteristic: a deep and long-lasting respect and love for the subject matter…” ~ David Hurn

iMo, ONE MIS-UNDERSTOOD AND, QUITE POSSIBLY, destructive piece of oft recommended picture making advice is that a picture maker who is looking for his picture making passion should seek out a subject matter that he/she really cares about.

On its face this seems to be a smart thing to do. However, the problem I see with it is that it almost always leads to thinking about “subject matter” as an actual, literal / physical thing-a people, a place, or an object. A picture making alley that leads to an endless stream of pictures of ever popular subject matter; pictures in the making of which techniques and effects, aka: art sauce, are employed in an effort to “see” the same old stuff in a “different” manner from the rest of the literal subject matter focused picture making crowd.

The advice often goes on to state that…

“if images are not rooted in “the thing itself” then…the photographer has not learned anything about the real world.” ~ David Hurn

…to which I would respond that there ain’t all that much to be “learned” about the real world from the viewing of pictures which show us the same old stuff over and over again-stating and re-stating the obvious-no matter how much technique / effects have been applied.

All of that written, if one looks at the advice, re: finding subject matter, with the idea in mind that subject matter does not have to be a tangible, physical thing, then, iMo, you’re heading down the right track. I write that cuz one is then entering the picture making zone wherein one makes pictures in which concept-not the actual, literal referent-is the subject matter.

Consider, for the moment, my pictures.

The concept-my “subject matter” as opposed to my referents-that drives my picture making is my intent to illustrate and illuminate the fact-the undeniable truth to be found in my work-that the quotidian world is awash-when one has a picture making device in hand and the eye to see it-with seemingly random and serendipitous arrangements of virtually any real world objects that, when isolated and captured within a picture maker's framing, are fertile ground for making images with, to my eye and sensibilities (and to that of others), interesting visual energy and form which creates it own sense of beauty.

And, let me add to that-considering the pictures in this entry-that I do not have “a deep and long-lasting respect and love for” egg yokes, greasy water in a pan, or the things in my kitchen dish rack.

Nevertheless, despite my lack of love and respect for the diverse things-the referents-in my pictures, they are an integral element in my pictures inasmuch as…

“…resourceful photographic formalists regard the complexion of the given environment as potentially articulate aesthetic material….they [ed. I] consider the subject and its visual essence as indivisible….[they] perceive real objects and intervening spaces as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation….The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane 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 Eauclair

The actual real world referents-the unconventional things, beauty wise-in my pictures also contribute to the perplexity / discomfort many have when viewing my pictures (the oft-heard, “I don’t know why I like these pictures, but I do.”)…

“.…many great photographs displaying beauty reveal a sensation of strangeness, not predictability, a kind of shock non-recognition inside the familiar. They are the opposite of cliche.” ~ David Hurn

All of the above written, I believe that “the thing itself” to be seen in a photograph is, quite simply, the photograph itself and, collectively, that which the photograph illustrates and illuminates.

ADDENDUM It should be understood that this entry is not suggesting / implying or otherwise insinuating that it is impossible to make photographs of things considered to be of conventional beauty that also conveys a concept that is beyond the obvious. However, I can write, without a moment’s hesitancy, that it is very easy to be seduced into thinking that a referent’s conventional beauty is all it takes to make a photograph interesting.

# 6443-50 / bodies of work ~ stumbling down a dead end street #2

February 3, 2023

***Life without the APA*** ~ (embiggenable)

***Adirondack Snapshot Project*** ~ (embiggenable)

ACCORDING TO THE IDIOT QUOTED IN MY LAST entry, I have apparently been “repeating the same basic work, for decades and decades, unaware that I have been stumbling down a dead end street”. That would be because I have been making pictures driven by my very own picture making vision. A vision that does not allow me to go careening around the technique / visual effects / gear-obsessed picture making landscape like a drunken sailor. To wit, I see what I see and that’s how that I see (all credit to Popeye who said, “ I am what I am and that’s all that I am.)

That written, re: careening around like a drunken sailor, I will readily admit to careening around the referent landscape like a drunken picture maker. A picture making condition condition (affliction?) that I call discursive promiscuity. To my eye and sensibilities, any thing and every thing is fair game for a picture making possibility. The result of that discursive promiscuity is that I have accumulated, over the past 25 years, at least 15,000 pictures.

One might think that that glut of pictures would make for a very unruly mess. However, that is not the case cuz, thanks to the guidance of my vision, the overwhelming majority of my pictures exhibit a consistent,-but not formulaic-very particular attention to form, aka: the “arrangement” of the visual elements-line, shape, tone, color and space-within the imposed frame of my pictures.

This “consistency” leads to a very interesting result; while I rarely work with the thought of creating a body of work in mind, nevertheless, I have, over an extended period of time, realized that my eye and sensibilities have been, and still are, drawn to specific referents again and again. The result is that eventually-many times over the course of years-I “discover” that I have, in fact-albeit inadvertently, created many bodies of work.

ASIDE the body of works illustrated above, with a few images each, are some of the bodies of work I have created, most of which were “discovered” in my library (as opposed to deliberately created). The are at least 6 more bodies of work I could display. END OF ASIDE

And, what I find interesting and very surprising is that, once a number of referent related pictures are organized into a body of work, the coherent consistency of vision is, quite frankly, amazing.

Makes me quite happy that I have not tried to “re-invent” my vision. And BTW, I really like the “street” I am on. It is not a “dead end” and, in fact, there is no end in sight as far as I can see.

# 6396-6405 / discursive promiscuity ~ a time line

January 13, 2023

SOME DEFINITIONS, RE: the philosophy of modern pictures…

re: modern - for the purposes of this book / project I am inclined to define “modern” as beginning c. 1970 and proceeding to the present. I base that designation upon the fact that it was around 1970 that, in the major and minor league Fine Art World (which is the focus of the book / project), picture makers began-in a dramatic and terra firma shaking turn of picture making conventions-to take seriously the making of color pictures. And, it was also around that time that the BW Pepper and Rock era was on the wain.

Another reason for that designation is that-again around the same time-major art institutions were beginning to take note of and exhibit what Sally Eauclaire dubbed as the new color photography. Think MOMA’s 1976 Photographs by William Eggleston exhibition as a prime example.

ASIDE There are, of course, exceptions to my “modern” picture time frame. Eliot Porter’s work, as presented in his 1962 book In Wilderness Is The Preservation Of The World, is an outstanding example-early on it opened my eyes and sensibilities-of color picture making that, in a very real sense, foreshadowed the 70’s color picture making revolution. In fact, I would not object if someone (that would be me) opined that Porter’ work was the bedrock upon which the 70’s color photography revolution was predicated. END OF ASIDE

c.1970 is, iMo, is also notable for the fact that the new color photography picture makers “discovered” that any thing in the real world could be a suitable referent for the making of a color picture. Ya know, say “hello” to kitchen utensils-Jan Grover-and a tricycle on a suburban street-William Eggleston. Quite truly, the world was, and still is, our oyster.

So, like it or leave it, c.1970 > the present is it.

# 6372-73 / tis the season

December 25, 2022

***day before*** / ***day of*** ~ (embiggenable)

HOLIDAY CHEERS, JOY, AND PEACE to one and all. BTW, I really like my Japan-sourced salt & pepper set.

#6369-71 / common places • common things ~ confined to quarters pt.2

December 23, 2022

***driving home from pharmacy*** ~ (embiggenable)

ABOUT A WEEK AGO WHEN I WAS CONFINED to quarters, it was related to a extreme weather event. This time it’s cuz I am under the weather (to use a commonly expressed idiom). The “weather” in question this time around is Covid.

My symptoms are quite mild with extreme fatigue being the featured ailment. While this could not have happened at a more inopportune time, I should be out of isolation-my bedroom which, fortunately, is a suite with comfortable reading chairs, a tv, a full bathroom, an insulated porch, and some nice pictures on the walls-on Xmas Eve day.

That written, I do get out of the bedroom every now and then. I can do that cuz there is no else in the house other than the wife who came down with Covid a few days before I did (and then passed it on to me).

FYI, the wife and I both got Covid even though we are both up-to-date on vaccines. Obviously, the Covid keeps evolving but medical knowledge believes that our mild symptoms are due to the fact that we are up-to-date vaccine wise. Who knows? But, iMo, it’s better to try to be safe than to end up being sorry.

# 6362-65 / nature • kitchen sink • kitchen life ~ confined to quarters

December 17, 2022

YESTERDAY AT APPROXIMATELY 3:12PM-9 hours into a 24 hour snowstorm-I was a couple minutes away from hitting the SAVE icon on an entry when, off went the electricity (town wide) and, poof, went the entry.

Happens on a regular basis when we have a heavy, wet snowfall. However, this time electricity was back in a few minutes but only as brown-out. Not enough juice for computer usage but, fortunately (and surprisingly), enough to operate our heating system (air-air heat pump). That situation lasted for a couple hours at which time we were plunged into heat-less darkness.

We lit candles all over the house and started a fire (in the fireplace) for warmth. That lasted for a couple hours and then the electricity returned at full strength. That lasted for 3 hours and then we were again light and heat-less for approximately 9 hours-midnight to10:30AM this morning.

All that written, I did not leave the house for approximately 30 hours so my picture making was confined to our kitchen.

# 6353-55 / common places • common things ~ better duck, here they come

December 7, 2022

CAVEAT: IN THIS ENTRY, NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED-or omitted-to protect the guilty..err…ah, I mean the “innocent”.

This entry is a followup to my last 2 entries wherein I mentioned: a. prints-”the very thing one sees on the wall of a gallery or in a photographer’s monograph”-and, b. “the ease of making “good” pictures-i.e. sharp, correctly exposed with decent color balance, referent in focus and the like”.

Re: a. the print: on a recent entry on TOP, The Printing Challenge, wherein Michael Johnston wrote about “the treacherous waters of home printing”, incited 2 diametrically opposed responses….

“'…it's not a photograph until you can hold it in your hand.' I completely fail to understand folks who spend a fortune on cameras and lenses and the show their images only on a screen.”

….and this are-you-kidding-me pile of steaming xxx xxxx…

“We're not in the 1980s anymore. The print is no longer the ‘gold standard’.”

The later comment was put forth by a picture maker whom the former comment poster would “completely fail to understand”. That written, I have a pretty good inclination as to the source of the picture maker’s no-longer-the-gold-standard comment. Having viewed, over the years, a variety of pictures posted by said picture maker-who only shows pictures on a screen-I can write with complete assurance that that picture maker makes very few, if any, print-worthy pictures. Therefore, following the logic, there is no reason for that picture makers to make prints.

Re: the ease of making “good” pictures: due to the fact that only 7% of pictures currently being made are made with a real camera, I can picture, on the hi-def screen in my head, the beads of sweat cascading down the forehead of those “serious” real-camera picture makers as they hear the disturbing pitter-patter of the feet of the smartphone-wielding crowd who are breathing down their necks, good picture making wise.

To wit, so many of the “serious” real-camera picture makers-the aforementioned picture maker included, maybe even head of the class-pin all of their picture making hopes and dreams on the fact that they spend a fortune on expensive cameras, lenses, and related gear in the pursuit of making really good pictures with the belief, aka: delusion, that the resulting pictures will separate their work from that of the maddeningly annoying, camera phone picture making crowd.

iMo, their work is in fact separated from the maddening crowd, but not as a result of the gear with which they make their pictures. No. The most distinguishing characteristic that separates their pictures from those made by maddening crowd-using camera phones or even real cameras-is the fact that most pictures-to be certain, most, but not all pictures-made by the average gear-obsessed picture maker is sorely lacking in unique personal vision. A condition which is not aided, but rather, retarded by the fact that most of the gearheads make their pictures by-the-numbers, aka: the “rules” of so-called “good” photography, aka #2: what they have been told is a good photograph.

So there you have it. Another bit o’ words that will, in one form or another, be part of my modern pictures philosophy.

# 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.