# 6185-90 / the new snapshot • commonplaces ~ my precious stand-in

this weekend past ~ (embiggenable)

times past ~ (embiggenable)

“…it rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.” ~ Jean Shepherd

OVER THE YEARS, THE WIFE HAS PLAYED, DURING OUR TRAVELS, HER ROLE in my pictures, ala Jean Shepherd’s “loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.”, with the patience of a saint. And, this weekend past was no different.

Our travel this weekend past, a 260 mile (total) out-and-back run to the central Adirondacks in order to purchase a dozen of the planet’s best cinnamon sugar donuts, started with our first ever gas up at our hamlet’s rebuilt-from-scratch convenience store / gas station. After securing the donuts, we stopped for an early afternoon breakfast in the hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake where we dined in a recently restored 1946 era diner that was moved-after its restoration-from Maryland to the Adirondacks.

I have been making travel pictures with the wife as a stand-in for quite some time. I began making them as a somewhat casual, satirical take on the classic tourist picture as described by Jean Shepherd. I continue to do so with the same intent but, as my collection of these pictures grow, I am now approaching the making of such pictures as a “serious” endeavor with the idea of creating a “serious”, albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheeky, body of work.

My only regret about this undertaking is that it was not until quite recently that I started to this picture making seriously. Consequently, I am kicking myself in the butt-not easy to do at my age-for all of the stand-in picture making opportunities I have passed up over the years.

# 6166-70 / people . Common places ~ on the road agAin

FYI, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE MY LAPTOP WITH ME, I am creating this entry on my iPad using the Squarespace app. Trying to see if I can go all mobile device and be happy with the results. Even the images files were processed on the iPad (Snapseed).

Best as I can tell, the contrarian in me is instigating me to do this “experiment” just so I am able to demonstrate to the commontaria ignoramicus that it is possible-in fact, if you know what you are doing, deceptively easy-to make good photographs with the simple-ist of gear and processing tools.

Of course, the preceding statement is dependent upon one’s understanding of what constitutes a good photograph. An understanding of “good” which most of the ignoramicus class confuse with things like max DR, max resolution, max color depth, max sensor size, the best glass, et al, as opposed to the tool that produces the best picture making results - the tool that, as Sir Ansel opined, is 12 inches behind the camera. I.E., the brain (+soul/heart) in which resides a picture maker’s vision.

To be certain, I would never suggest that anyone should chuck all the fancy stuff out the car at at 100 mph. However, I might suggest to someone just starting down the picture making trail that, as a variation on the OCOY practice, he/she use a mobile phone based “camera” and a simple mobile device based processing app as their tools for a year cuz…

…if one can not make a good picture with those simple tools, all the of “best” gear and processing tools will not get ya there.

# 6159-62 / family photos ~ no other picture makers were involved

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

Take away this pudding! It has no theme.” ~ Winston Churchill

I SINCERELY HOPE I WAS NOT PERCEIVED AS BEING TOO CRITICAL of Mike Johnston in my last entry. My critique was intended to address the article and its content which, according to Johnston…

“…was two months in the making, and the process is highly collaborative…"Secret Art" went through multiple major edits and innumerable small ones, with input from many departments.”

Knowing that detail, it is no surprise to me that my primary criticism of the piece is that “it had no theme”. That is, for me (and maybe I’m being thick-headed), I had difficulty trying figure out what the article was about cuz it touched on a variety of topics-each topic treated in slap-dash / kiss and a promise fashion-A mish-mash of sorts. And, I keep waiting, to no avail, for the “secret” to be revealed.

That written, there is no question, in my estimation, why the article was a flop for me…apparently, it was created by “committee”. Hell, even Johnston noted (re: committee) , that, “I think you can tell it's me…I'm hoping the humor survived…”

So, the question arises, who “wrote” this article? If the answer is even knowable, that’s where my critique is intended to land.

# 6136-38 / people • landscape ~ it's all the rage

0.5 selfie ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

JUST YESTERDAY, RIGHT THERE ON/IN THE NY TIMES, AN article titled, The Rise of the 0.5 selfie. A few excerpts:

..All of a sudden, one day, everyone was taking 0.5 selfies…Unlike a traditional selfie, the 0.5 selfie — so named because users tap 0.5x on a smartphone camera to toggle to ultra-wide mode — has become popular because it is far from curated. Since the ultra-wide-angle lens is built into the back cameras of phones, people can’t watch themselves take a 0.5 selfie…You really don’t know how it’s going to turn out, so you just have to trust the process and hope something good comes out of it…These images are best when they have “ominous, creepy” vibes.

Having read the article-with sample pictures-it was incumbent upon me, last evening while dining out, to teach the bartender how to make an 0.5 selfie. She done good, getting the wife, daughter and me well placed in the background.

Question: is there something in human DNA which causes people to get crazy / weird when making a selfie? - the question arose as I sat stoically by while the selfie was made.

Had a nice drive home after dinner. Happy to be a passenger which allowed for some on-the-go picture making.

# 6109-11 / people • common places • the new snapshot ~ I don't understand

the daughter (r.) and her cousin, both scheduled to be married next Spring ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

WENT TO AN EXHIBITION OPENING (at an university gallery)-PAINTINGS, solo artist-THIS FRIDAY PAST. I was quite disappointed by what I saw even though, after seeing the work online, I was expecting a different reaction.

The work is described as “realist”-not photo-realism-in style. The subject matter was a large local family on their farm. Portraits of family members working on the farm as well as landscape scenes of the farm and its buildings. A review of the work focused on the artist’s ability to capture quality of “the light” as encountered in situ. View the work here.

As I understand it-as told to me by a member of the farm family who is marrying our daughter (as seen above making a selfie)-the artist works from photos. I found that interesting-but not unusual-inasmuch as my ultimate feeling, re; the work, is that the exact same images would have made a much better impression, to my eye and sensibilities, if they were presented as photographs instead of paintings - a take that stands in contrast to the oft-stated notion of, “That photograph looks like a painting.”

FYI, one of the primary issues I had with the exhibition was that, surprisingly, the galley lighting was not daylight balanced (5400K). Rather, it appeared to be closer to tungsten (3200K) which caused the colors of the paintings to have a warm, yellow-ish tint / cast that was quite unlike the more more neutral / “clean” look of the work as seen online.

I asked the artist about this fact and he said that he thought that the lightning enhanced the look of his work. A response which befuddled me no small amount inasmuch as it seems inconceivable to me that an artist who takes care in the selection the color to apply to his/her paintings wouldn’t seem to care about how they look on a gallery wall. That notion stands in direct opposition to how I process my work for printing in that, a hallmark of my prints, is very clean color which is intended to convey to a viewer, as accurately as the medium allows, how the world looked at the moment when I made any given picture.

Given the fact that the artist was lauded by his ability to capture the quality “the light”, I thought that the gallery lighting worked in significant opposition to that characteristic of the work. So much so, that it spoiled the entire viewing experience for me.

# 5905 / the new snapshot • people • discursive promiscuity ~ sticking together

the authentic red couch / Andy and me ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ON THE LAST ENTRY THOMAS RINK LEFT A COMMENT which read, in part:

I think the hard part is not to decide which pictures are strong-like you said, one knows that while making the picture-but to decide which pictures to incorporate into a body of work…And these decisions are a time consuming process which cannot be sped up imho. One just has to live with the series of pictures for a while and hopefully decisions will reveal themselves.

I agree with Thomas for the most part but with one minor quibble / caveat. He writes that the editing process “cannot be sped up”. While that statement is true enough, I would write that speed has its place in editing pictures.

In my case, in a folder (on my computer) I assemble a number of pictures-35-40-which are suitable for inclusion in a given body of work. Then I view them in ADOBE BRIDGE as a group, a step which very quickly reveals a few pictures that do not quite cut the mustard. The next step is to open the remaining pictures and stack then one behind the other on my screen and, with my cursor hovering over the red X button the picture window, I click through them in fairly rapid fashion looking for quick first impressions which reveal the strongest evidence of being true to my vision.

iMo, the thing that makes this speed reading work is that there is very little, if any, thought involved in the process. Exactly, re: little thought wise, in the same manner I use when making my pictures. Quid est demonstratum, it’s about seeing, not thinking.

In any event, I did not invite you here today to write about editing pictures. I highlighted Thomas’ comment for the first sentence which stated, “to decide which pictures to incorporate into a body of work“…

Conventional photo wisdom dictates that a body of work should be unified by a repeating referent presented in a consistent picture making manner. In my particular case, such bodies of work are presented on my WORK page-picture windows, single women, decay, life without the APA, kitchen sink, et al. I have made photo books for all of my various bodies of work. Deciding which pictures -pre-final selection-to incorporate in each of these bodies of work, culling them from picture library, is a no-brainer.

However….

….then we come to my “real” true-to-my-vision body of work, discursive promiscuity. That is to write that I digress from subject to subject (discursive) in a very undiscriminating or unselective approach (promiscuity). The simple fact is that my personal (not commercial) picture making life has been spent looking at the any and all referents to be found in the world for their potential to be made into a picture. That is, as Garry Winogrand said:

I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.

So, the question for me becomes, does a collection of pictures of wildly diverse referents qualify as a body of work. (if William Eggleston is an example, the answer is “yes”. Emphatically so). iMo-I and a number of gallery directors, who upon viewing my early ad hoc portfolios-comprised of a variety of referents (cuz I did not, at that time, have enough pictures of similar referents to create separate bodies of work) perceive that my pictures are unified by my attention to form and my singular manner of making pictures. That manner being; one format (square), one lens (or primarily so-mostly made with a moderate wide angle lens), clean “real-world” color and the ever-present black border and vignette. And, of course, my rejection of le grand geste, picture making wise, and my embrace of the commonplace.

The idea that my pictures of wildly divergent referents hold together as a body of work was emphatically reinforced over the past week when I was thinking about the topic of editing. That drove to pull out 3 of my photo books that were not thematic referent oriented; 2019 ~ the year in review, Marking Time ~ Coronavirus Comes to Town, and, appropriately enough, Discursive Promiscuity ~ One Year With the IPhone. Books that I had not picked up and viewed over the past year or so. And therein is a point in favor of Thomas’ idea of “live with the series of pictures for a while and hopefully decisions will reveal themselves.” …

…After not viewing these books and the pictures therein for a while, the decision to make these books revealed itself to be a very good decision. That’s cuz I was very impressed with how well the pictures in each book hung together as a very unified bodies of work.

FYI, the screenshot in this entry is the start of putting together and then editing a collection of pictures for Discursive Promiscuity ~ Volume II.

# 5884-86 / around the house • kitchen life • people ~ feeling it

I’ve been taking my temperature more often lately ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

the light switches are in the off position ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

carpet protects the porch floor from heel marks ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

ON MY LAST ENTRY, A COMMENT WAS LEFT BY STEPHEN McATEER:

Some people I used to read on the internet seemed to think that a photograph had to have 'Meaning' to be any good….My own view is that it is a good photograph if it pleases the eye. Meaning does not interest me in the least.

To clarify my thoughts on meaning to be seen / found in a photograph, I believe every photograph ever made has some meaning or another, even if only to the individual who made it. However, that written, once the photograph is offered for viewing to those other than the maker, what the photograph means (if anything) is anyone’s guess.

Truth be written, I spent a lot of time, used a lot of internet space, and typed a zillion words over the years (on this blog and my previous blog) speculating / festering, one might even say “obsessing” about meaning in photographs. ASIDE: Stephen might even have been taking a shot at me, re: “used to read on the internet” wise. END OF ASIDE That endeavor was due primarily to my concern, re: did my pictures have any meaning? That concern was based up my very loose acceptance of the idea that “a photograph had to have 'Meaning' to be any good”.

After intense and protracted looking for meaning in my pictures, I discovered that, shockingly, there was none to be seen / found. However, what I did find was that all of my “good” pictures shared a common characteristic - that is, they all incited feelings and sensations instigated by their visual-senses activation. There was nothing to" “interpret”, nothing to “understand”. Their “goodness” was predicated upon how a picture looked and how that “look” pricked my eye and sensibilities.

If how a picture looks is the basis for a viewer to look for meaning in a picture-literary, cultural, art theory, historic connections, et al-so be it. I am not suggesting that there is nothing of the sort to be seen /found in my pictures. However, in the making of my pictures I am not trying to instill / insert any meaning. My intent is to make visible the experiences I see / feel as I traverse the planet-with my eyes wide open-in a manner that pricks my eye and sensibilities and of those who view my pictures.

That written, and despite the fact that the visual referent(s) depicted in most of my pictures is not what the pictures are about, some of those pictures can, and do, hold special meaning for me.

So, when all is written / said and done, I do not see meaning v. pleasing to the eye as mutually exclusive ideas. My only problem with meaning in photography is with those who elevate meaning, aka: content, over form. Or, when doing so, eviscerate a picture by dissecting / breaking it down into pieces.

FYI, you may noticed the non sequitur-like captions with the pictures in this entry. I am playing with the idea of mis-direction, re: providing a caption to a picture which causes a viewer to try to figure out what a picture is really about cuz it can not possibly be about what the caption seems to imply that it is about.

# 5853-57 / still life (kitchen life) • landscape (civilized / ku) • people ~ this and that

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THE MORE YOU LOOK, THE MORE YOU SEE. The more you see, the more you make pictures. The more pictures you make, the more you wonder what the hell you are going to do with all of them.

I have yet to come up with an answer / solution to that dilemma.