# 6053-56 / landscape (roadside springtime) ~ purpose and technique

“The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art is to make objects "unfamiliar," to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object: the object is not important.“ ~ Viktor Shklovsky

Viktor Shkiovsky packs a lot of insight about art in 3 sentences. One could write lengthy essays about many of the insights to be found in those sentences. And, to be honest, I gave thought to doing just that using the pictures in this entry to illustrate / illuminate his insightful ideas. However…

…it occurred to me that using my pictures to expound on his ideas would come perilously close to telling viewers of my pictures how to perceive my perceptions. Don’t wanna do that. So, it’s up to you, the viewer, to perceive away as “difficult and lengthy” as that perception might be.

# 6040 / landscape (ku) ~ in this moment

(embiggenable)

WENT TO THE PHARMACY TO PICK UP SOME MEDS. ALONG THE WAY I stopped at The Flume-along the Au Sable River West Branch-to check out the Spring runoff. No thunder but it was moving along quite nicely with high volume (water and sound). That written, 10 days ago the rocks in the river would have been under water.

That written….

“No one moment is most important. Any moment can be something.” ~ Garry Winogrand

# 6034-39 / landscape (ku) ~ just another day in the 'dacks

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, ON THE WAY TO DINNER, I STOPPED at Buttermilk Falls-on the Raquette River-to check out the spring runoff. The falls, which is really more of a rapids with a significant drop over its span of about 100 meters-was in a fine fury and sounded like thunder as I approached it through the forest.

I pictured the falls as I walked it from top to bottom. The result is presented above in 2 formats - a long horizontal which is how I will print it-6 ft in length-(but may be difficult to view online) and stacked (which might be easier to view on line).

On a side note, one landscape / nature picture making cliche I detest is the very common technique of picturing moving water with a slow shutter speed which renders the water with a fuzzy, diaphanous, cloud-like effect. A practice which hearkens back to the early days of photography when picture makers were using very slow plates, film (or whatever light-sensitive material) which necessitated very slow shutter speeds.

This annoys me cuz it, iMo, “emasculates” the power of moving water, even the water in a gently flowing stream. It might be just me, but I simply do not get it.

FYI, before I left for dinner, I manage to make yet another kitchen sink picture.

(embiggenable)

# 6029-33 / roadside springtime ~ invisible to the naked eye

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

We walk by wonders every day and don't see them. We only stop at what shouts the loudest. “ ~ Barbara Bordnick

I AM CURRENTLY WORKING ON CREATING A NEW BODY OF WORK, roadside springtime.

Unlike, as Barbara Bordnick wrote, a referent that “shouts the loudest”, the referents in these pictures do not shout at all. If they utter a sound, it is most likely a whisper. And cuz they whisper, most people just drive by-not walk by-them along the roadside.

One of my intents in the making of these pictures is to make visible some things that most people do not see.

# 6023-24 / around the house•landscape (ku) ~ OT

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

SOME THINGS ARE HARD TO EXPLAIN. LIKE, SAY, WHO thinks paying $9,295US for a Leica SL2 with 24-70mm f2.8 lens make any sense at all? On the other hand, why do I have 4 bottles of whiskey that together have a retail price of $2,629US?

That written, one of the bourbons, the Van WInkle 12 Year Old, actually has a retail price of $80US. Although, good luck trying to find a bottle at that price cuz, currently, the least expensive bottle I can find is priced at $1,499US. Which, makes it rather amazing that a few years back I acquired 2 bottles for which I paid retail (don’t ask). And, I could have included in the picture my bottle of nearly empty-2 pours left-20 Year Old Van Winkle which has a current price of $4,500. FYI, for which I paid $200US (retail) about 8 years ago cuz I got the bottle as a favor from my US Congressman who got the bottle from a US Congressman from Kentucky.

The other high-priced whiskey in the bunch is the bottle of Bob Dylan’s limited release Bootleg Series II-15 Year Old bourbon finished in Jamaican pot still rum casks. Bottled at cask strength with a proof of 104.6-the white bottle with one of Dylan’s paintings, Sunset, Monument Valley, on it. Current retail, $550-650US. I paid retail but here’s the crazy thing - the Bootleg Series I is sold out but, on the secondary market, it sells for $1,200-1,400US. So, to drink or not to drink? That is the question.

Next in line, descending price wise, is Bob Dylan’s Heaven’s Door 10 Year Old bourbon finished in Redbreast single pot still whiskey casks ( before the casks held Redbreast ‘s single pot Irish whiskey, the casks held Spanish sherry). It’s a limited release bourbon that currently sells for $120-280US.

Last, but not least, is the Takamine 8 Year Old Japanese Whiskey which sells for a modest $100US. The unusual thing about this whiskey is that it does not use the standard mash process-the mixture of grain, water, and yeast that is initially fermented to produce alcohol. Instead, it carefully cultivates koji-Japan’s national mold (used in the making of in sake, soy sauce, and miso)-on barley grain to make amylase enzymes to convert starch into sugar. In layman’s terms, it amplifies fermentation. That written, Takamine is an amazingly good whiskey which can, iMo, hang in there with the big boys.

In any event, the moral of the story is that, with the expenditure of $9,295, you get something that can last a lifetime. On the other hand, $2,629US gets you, if you acquire the whiskey to drink (which I do), the fleeting pleasure of a good drink and a bunch of empty bottles to remind you of that pleasure. Although, an empty bottle of 20 Year Old Van Winkle-with the cork and red velvet pouch-is worth about $300-400US on ebay.

# 5985 / scrub•landscape (book) ~ as few words as possible

from the book ~ (embiggenable)

covers / scrub, weeds, and tangles ~ (embiggenable)

scrub, weeds, and tangles statement ~ (embiggenable)

spreads / scrub, weeds, and tangles ~ (embiggenable)

HERE IS ANOTHER OF THE 3 RECENTLY MADE PHOTO BOOKS , scrub, weeds,and tangles ~ seen but seldom looked at, mentioned in my last entry.

One of the challenges (for me) in the making of a photo book is creating the artist statement inasmuch as I would like to communicate to a viewer the idea of what caused me to make the pictures in a book but not to tell a viewer what or how to think about the pictures. And, at all costs, to avoid the use of artspeak.

However, in writing an artist statement one must realize that you are writing for 2 different audiences, 1.) the general viewing public, and-if one desires to garner gallery / art institution exhibition-2.) the gallery director / art institution curator. A balance must be attained, artist statement wise, for the 2 audiences in order to, 1.) avoid causing the general public viewers to think that you are a know-it-all, snooty artist, yet, on the other hand, 2.) cause the director / curator to think that you are not just a rube with a camera.

FYI, the scrub, weeds,and tangles ~ seen but seldom looked at photo book contains 16 pictures (not including my visual joke on the back cover).

# 5959-5964 / around the house • landscape ~ on the subject of subject matter

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I HAVE A THEORY, THAT I BELIEVE IS BORN OUT BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, that it is nigh unto impossible to make a photograph, one that is considered to be fine art, of a subject that is considered to be one of conventional beauty.

If I had to assemble a body of work (of my pictures) wherein the subjects are considered to be representative of conventional beauty, I would have no trouble doing so. And, I am certain that that body of work would be well received in a camera club presentation and garner plenty of likes on social media sites. I can also write with the same degree of certainty that that body of work, or any picture therein, would never be considered for display in a fine art gallery.

The reason I believe the aforementioned to be true is relatively simple….the Fine Art World believes, iMo rightfully so, that a piece of art-please remember that we are considering photographic prints-in which the Content (meaning) is unambiguously obvious has little capacity for stimulating the intellect. In addition, such a picture incites little curiosity regarding why the picture maker made the photograph cuz, duh, the subject matter makes unambiguously obvious the answer to that question.

Whereas, most fine art art begs the questions, why did the maker create this object (please remember, a photographic print is an physical object in and of itself), and, what is the maker trying to tell me, the viewer?

The answer to those questions (and/or any number of other questions that might arise from the viewing of a photographic print) need not be akin to a PHD dissertation on art theory or the meaning of life. In fact, iMo, the answers are best when they are short and sweet, leaving the viewer to fill in any of the blanks. That’s cuz photography is a visual medium and in many cases too many words spoil the broth.

In any event, all of the above written, whatever the answers, the important thing is that the questions are asked and curiosity is aroused.

# 5920-22 / landscape ~ the observing mind v. the thinking mind

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

IN MY LAST ENTRY I USED THE PHRASE, THE challengeof documenting the form. I employed the scare quotes to imply that my use of the word challenge should considered with a high degree of skepticism or doubt. That’s cuz seeing and picturing form is, for me, about as challenging as falling off a log inasmuch as seeing form is how I see.

I could not turn off seeing form even if I wanted to do so. Even though, at times, it seems like a curse, I realize that if I were to turn it off, I would not have had a career as a commercial photographer along with sub-careers in graphic design, art direction and as a creative director. Throw in to the mix my pursuit of fine art picture making and I can write that I would not have known what to do with my life.

In any event, back to picture making, re: the word challenge. I live in a forest preserve / state park to which thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of landscape / natural world picture makers flock like bees to honey, flies to sh*t, or any other metaphor one might like to use. Add Fall foliage to the landscape and the influx of picture makers takes on the aspect of a Pavlovian stampede. Be that as it may, you can bet your bottom dollar that saturation-slider-to-the-max, rule of thirds and other bogus advice about picture making is the order of the day.*

I mention the following cuz I find myself with a real picture making challenge when I come upon a wide-open landscape. The challenge? It’s as if my form-seeing visual apparatus has, just like Elvis, left the building. I don’t see it and I don’t feel it. It is, to put it mildly, very disconcerting. It is almost as if I am afraid to make a picture for fear that it will…pause for a gasp and shutter…look like a picture made by the stampeding masses.

I would consider counseling to get over my fear except for the fact that, if I get over my fear, I would probably start making pictures that look like, well, I don’t want them to look like. I have given thought to bringing along a flask of bourbon or scotch to drink in order to overcome my inhibitions, but the outcome would probably be no better than the counseling outcome and that would just be a waste of some good bourbon or scotch.

But seriously folks, the root picture making problem for me in such circumstances-to include making a picture of a referent I actually care about-is that, if I don’t see “it“ then I can’t feel “it”, and then I have to think about “it”. And, inasmuch as I have studiously, throughout my entire picture making life, avoided thinking about anything when making a picture, the very thought of thinking would just about end it for me.

In a nutshell, what I am writing about here is the difference between the observing mind-which just watches and is simply aware-and the thinking mind which judges, analyzes, reasons, and attempts to make sense out of things. And, my thinking mind tells me that, in pursuit of working in a visual medium, it makes sense to be an observer rather than a thinker.

*I have no problem with this kind of picture making. It’s just not my thing. If it floats your boat, have at it.

PS I have managed over the years to make some pictures of the landscape which avoid the genre’s typical cliches. So far, it has not killed me.