(embiggenable) • µ4/3
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
WHILE ROOTING AROUND IN MY LIBRARY looking for pictures for my next entry, I came across a number of image files which I had not finished processing. Makes we wonder how many more "hidden" unfinished images files there are floating around in my library.
from my big landscape work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
from my intimate landscape work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
from my tangles and thickets work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
from my on the gound work ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
MORIBUND-def. (of a thing) in terminal decline; lacking vitality or vigor. A word which, iMo, could justifiably be used in conjunction with the phrase / nomenclature of Landscape Photography.
To be clear, it should be noted that the genre of Landscape picture making is not an single organized picture making movement which adhers to a single, uniform picture making aesthetic / norms. I would not even try to count and/or describe the number of sub-genres taking refuge under the umbrella of Landscape picture making.
That written, I do believe that here is one undeniable fracture in Landscape picture making spectrum. That is, the picture making divide between the ANSEL Adams crowd and the ROBERT Adams crowd (feel free to choose your own particular examples).
iMo, the diference between the crowds is that the A. Adams crowd-by far the largest of the 2 crowds-focuses their attention and lenses on the grand, the majestic, the dramatic landscape. Most often with the intent of capturing sentimental / romanticized depictions of the natural world with the use of art sauce-to-the-max visual "hyperbole, theatrical gestures, moral postures and expresivo effects" (quote thanks to John Szarowski). And, it is well worth noting, there is, almost (but not quite) exclusively so, never any evidence of human kind in their pictures.
On the other side of that coin, there is the R. Adams crowd. A picture making crowd for whom "the shrill rodomontade of conventional conservation dialectics has lost its persuasive power" (again, a Swarkowski quote). A crowd which pictures the entire landscape to include, most definitely, evidence of humankind as well as the more quiet / ubiquitous (everyday) natural world. A crowd wihich has discovered that beautiful pictures can made by picturing referents which are not made up what are considered to be the trappings of iconical / conventional beauty.
A quote from Robert Adams, taken from his Introduction in his book The New West kinda somes up, for me, the difference between the A. Adams and the R. Adams crowds:
"...we also need to see the whole geography, natural and man-made, to experience a peace; all land, no matter what has happened to it, has over it a grace, an absolutely persistent beauty....Even subdivisions, which we hate for the obcenity of the speculator's greed, are at certain times of day transformed to a dry, cold brilliance."
All of the above written and re: MORIBUND, iMo, it is the A. Adams crowd that is cononically moribund inasmuch as, for better or for worse, there practitioners aplenty which insures that the genre ain't dying. However, in the case of the R. Adams crowd, I have a sense of moribunity inasmuch as there has been little new activity and/or work from that crowd of late. At least, little that I am aware of.
It is possible that the paucity of such activity / work is a condition dictated, temporally, by COVID restrictions. It is also quite possible that my sense of real or imagined paucity is the result of my lack of concentrated effort in searching for such work.
That written, any recommendations of where to find such work will be well apppreciated.
faux Polaroid ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
faux Polaroid ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
THE FOLLOWING QUOTE FROM RICHARD KALVAR makes me a little crazy / perplexed...
"A photograph is what it appears to be. Already far from 'reality' because of its silence, lack of movement, two-dimensionality and isolation from everything outside the rectangle, it can create another reality, an emotion that did not exist in the 'true' situation. It's the tension between these two realities that lends it strength."
...and I could go down a long list of the crazy / perplexed whyfors however, instead, let me deal with what attracted me to the quote....
I have spent a fair amount of time ruminating about a picture's "silence, lack of movement, two-dimensionality and isolation from everything outside the rectangle." The result of that mental effort is that I believe those aforementioned characteristics of a picture are one of the medium of photography and its apparatus' most unique characteristics in all of the visual arts.
That is to write, nearly every photograph stops time inasmuch as it "freezes"-snatched from the stream of time as we perceive it-a very short-duration segment of time. The result, when viewed as a print, is what some, to incude me, might consider to be a static schematic of that particular and isolated moment / segment in time. And, assuming the picture was made by a picture maker with the intent to capture what he/she sees-to include the literal and figurative vision thing-the fact that the pictured moment in time is freed from the "distractions" of "reality"-sound, movement, surroundings, et al-the viewer of the picture can devote as much time as he/she wants to in order to "discover" what the picture is about.
That written, I am not so certain that the static schematic "create[s] another reality". Sure, the photographic print is a "real" thing and it, most definitely, is not the "real" thing depicted on the 2D substrate but I think one has to engage in a bit word parsing, re: reality, to get to the idea of another "reality".
Although, if one looks at the idea of differing realities from the picture maker's perspective (and this quote comes from a picture maker), it is possible that, inasmuch as he/she experienced both realities, there can be an emotion that results from the viewing of the static schematic which differs from the emotion experienced at the moment of the picture's making.
I can attest to the 2 separate experiences / realities idea cuz it has happened to me over and over again. While I picture "things" to which my eye and sensibiites are intuitively attracted, the fact remains that I rarely spent any time at the moment of picture making to appreciate / contemplate that which I have pictured.
That is due to the fact that, for the most part, I have little, if any, interest in the thing(s) I picture. My interest is to be found in what those things look like when pictured. That is, the static schematic. The thing I could and do contemplate for hours and do so again and again over time.
man with Sanshin ~ Naha, Okinawa / Japan - c.1967 (embiggenable)
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
"The process of photographing is a pleasure: eyes open, receptive, sensing, and at some point, connecting. It's thrilling to be outside your mind, your eyes far ahead of your thoughts....Part of it has to do with the discipline of being actively receptive. At the core of this receptivity is a process that might be called soft eyes. It is a physical sensation. You are not looking for something. You are open, receptive. At some point you are in front of something that you cannot ignore." ~ Henry Wessel
I CAN ONLY ASSUME-WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ASSURANCE- that just about everyone gets pleasure (of one sort or another) from the process of photographing. I mean, why even bother if there ain't no pleasure / joy / satisfaction / positive vibe involved in the activity?
That written, I am also certain that whatever sense of pleasure may be derived from the act of photographing, any specific pleasure is dependent upon the motivations of the picture maker him/herself. After all, the medium and its apparatus provide a broad landscape for satisfying a wide range of pleasure seeking....there are those who revel in the "pleasure" of acquiring / using and "mastering" gear and/or, likewise, technique. Then there are those who seek to "express" themselves or elucidate the viewer, re: the "meaning" of various referents.
And then there are those, much like me, who indulge in the act of photographing simply to see what something-any thing and/or every thing-looks like when photographed (as presented / expressed on the 2D surface of a photographic print).
That is, the making of a fairly stict visual thing. No expression of my "innner self", no "meaning" or "message", no technical / technique driven tour de force. Nope, none of that stuff. I just want to make prints that are visually interesting, capitivating and involving to view. Not cuz of what is depicted but, rather, how it is depicted.
For me, the idea of receptivity, aka: soft eyes, is paramount to my way of seeing. I rarely go out and about "looking for something" but, that written, I am forever-I am convinced that propensity is preternatural-looking and, seemingly, my thinking does not get in the way of my seeing. My eyes are ahead of my thoughts.
Consequently, throughout my entire life, I have consistently found myself "in front of something I cannot ignore".
(embiggenable) • iPhone
"One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. [...] The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." ~ John Szarkowski
IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT JOHN SZARKOWSKI SUGGESTS THAT a work of art, in this case a photograph, is comprised of 2 primary ingredients...a thing pointed to and a pattern created by a pointer. He also suggests that the viewing of such a photograph could be comparable to an "adventure of a tour" accompanied by "pleasure and a sense of enlargment". And, the way I read it, Szarkowski implies that a really good photograph-with a thing pointed to and a pattern created by the pointer-can capture a viewer's attention / interest but, in a very real sense, leave a viewer wondering about why he/she is attracted to that photograph...is it the thing depicted or the manner in which the thing is depicted that has drawn the viewer in?
I can write with authority-based upon my actual experiences-that I have encountered quite a number of viewers of my pictures-at a gallery openings of my pictures or showing someone one of my photo books-who have run smack dab into such a dilemma. Simply written, they are confronted with a picture of a thing, a thing which they can not begin to fathom why I (or anyone) would make a picture thereof. That written, what really confuses them is the fact that they feel unexplainedly attracted to the picture.
Most often heard at such a juncture is, "I don't know why I like this picture(s) but I do." A statement which I consider to be a very high compliment indeed cuz I truly believe that I have zapped them with my "secret weapon", the "hidden"-to their eyes and sensibilities-pattern I have created on the 2D surface of my print. That is, a concept of which the average viewer has no conscious knowledge or perception.
And, have no doubt about it, it is at this point in such an encounter that I make absolutely no attemp to try to explain the concept of a "hidden" pattern on a 2D surface to the viewer. The reason for that is simple, the viewer has "felt" something in the picture in addition to what he/she has "seen" and I have no desire to practice confuse-a-cat psychology. Not to mention the fact that I am not about to tell a viewer-who is confused as to why he/she likes the picture-why he/she likes the picture cuz that's for the viewer to figure out.
there is nothing on tv ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
FYI, I HAVE UNDERTAKEN A PROJECT TO UPDATE, REORGANIZE and SLIM DOWN my site's WORK page. While I have begun to update a few bodies of work, I have yet to settle on a manner of presentation and, just as important, to decide which bodies of work I might eliminate.
In any event, today's entry contains a few pictures from my seeing red work. Pictures which have not been previously displayed as part of that body of work. And, in culling through my picture library I have been surprised by the number of new candidates for inclusion in the seeing red body of work. I have also been surprised by the number of different picture making situations-urban / natural world landscapes, kitchen sink, people, still life-in which I have seen and made pictures of "red". And, I do find it a bit strange that there is no other color around which I could build a similar body of work.
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
"I often find photos in the most ordinary places. Many of the subjects are nothing special either. They are just the beautiful things all around us that we don't make the effort to see truly … I believe that a spectacular photo of something ordinary is more interesting than an ordinary photo of something spectacular. The latter is about something else, the former is something else." ~ Jim Coe
THE WIFE AND I GOT WAY FOR A BIT to a little cottage on Blue Mountain Lake in the central Adirondacks. Since it is well into the off-season, we had the lake and village all to ourselves. Which was just how we had hoped it would be.
I realize I have beena bit of a slacker, posting wise, over the past little while. While I have been making lots of pictures, I seem to have developed a sorta brain lock, re: posting pictures without words. Which is what I have done-pictures with words-for the last 12-15 years.
Over those years I have offered for consideration a heap of thoughts, re: the medium and its appartatus. Lately, it seems there is little or nothing left for me to write about. And the last thing I want to do is to start repeating myself. So, I have been thinking about ways to get around this brain lock.
One idea is to start adding selected quotes from photographers from my huge "library" of found quotes. Most of those quotes were copied and pasted into my "library" cuz they tend to relect my ideas about the medium and its apparatus. And, interesting enough, quite often when I select a quote to use in an entry, that quote causes me to reflect upon it and, in doing so, I come with something to add to the expressed idea. So I'll probably give it a try.
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
APPARENTLY PATRICK KAVANAGH DID NOT HAVE a very high opinion of Irish policemen or at least of their artistic sensibilities....
"There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman." ~ Patrick Kavanagh*
Policeman aside, I believe I get the point Kavanah was trying to make....everyone does not "understand" art. And, I might add, I am somewhat sympathetic to his POV inasmuch as I subscribe to the idea that 50% of the planet's human population is, in fact, below average. A de facto condition which explains a lot of questionable goings on. However ....
....when it comes to "understanding" art, there is, iMo, a lot of room to move cuz even a confirmed dimwit squating amongst the classroom rubble of lunch buckets, golashes and spent spitballs can "appreciate" a piece of art based upon his/her simple "understanding" that he/she likes the color red or cute puppies or whatever. And, in that same classroom, an Academic Lunatic Fringe twit can put his/her "appreciatiation" and "understanding" into a 10,000 word blather composed of obtuse artspeak, flapdoodle and green paint. A writing that no one can understand.
Personally, I have always considered photographs to be a sort of Rorschach test, a belief which was reenforced by the words of the Rock Man (a character from the movie The Point):
"Say, babe, there ain’t nothing pointless about this gig. The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. You dig?
Then, of course, Susan Sontag had/has a few words to add to the conversation:
"Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy... The very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness....Standing alone, photographs promise an understanding they cannot deliver. In the company of words, they take on meaning, but they slough off one meaning and take on another with alarming ease."
All of that written, my thoughts on the idea of "understanding" art, or specific piece of art, is that there is little to understand. What, iMo, is more important is how a particular piece of art makes a viewer feel. And, hopefully, if that viewer is a curious and thoughtful human being, he/she might strive to understand / identify how and why a particular piece of art instigates that experienced feeling.
* Irish poet and novelist, 1904-1967