# 6932-34 / common places-things • kitchen sink ~ the answer is hidden in plain sight

all photos (embiggenable)

IT WAS ANSEL ADAMS WHO STATED:

“There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs.”

This quote popped up in my head as a result of my recent entry(s) in which I engaged in the verbal excoriation of some, iMo, boneheaded ideas as expressed by Michael Johnston. In retrospect I have come to realize that the focus of my lambasting, the singling out of M. Johnston, was way too narrow inasmuch as there is a vast universe of boneheaded photo advice bunkum permeating the photo making world…. books, podcasts, workshops, subscription-based blog sites, et al–all created by “experts” who dole out–in exchange for cash on the barrelhead–all manner of how-to drivel, re: the making of “great” photographs.

In an attempt to not sound too cynical / contemptuous, re: these tradesmen-a skilled worker who specializes in a specific trade or craft–do have something of value to offer–the “secrets” to success?–if one’s interest in making pictures falls under the banner of Decorative Art. To be certain, much of the picture making output of these tradesmen can be found on the walls of hospitals, offices, restaurants, homes, and the like. On the walls of Fine Art galleries / institutions, not so much (if at all).

On the other hand, if your picture making intentions veer more toward making Fine Art–keeping in mind that others will be judge of that–there is almost no “expert” advice to be had / found that emanates from sources who toil in that milieu. In my experience that’s cuz very few, if any, photographers who make pictures, which are judged to be Fine Art, can explain / codify how they make their pictures, much less write a how-to manual about it. In most cases, they essentially mutter something on the subject like Paul Strand’s idea that “the answer is on the wall.”

Consider, if you will, Bob Dylan’s utterances, re: the matter of the writing of his music / lyrics; when asked by Ed Bradly in a 2004 60 Minutes interview how he wrote Blowin’ In The Wind, reportedly in 5 minutes, Dylan responded that: “uhh…well.. it, uh, came from…right outa that well-spring of, uh, creativity I would think.” When Bradley went on to press him on the writing of songs like It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding), Dylan said, “Try to sit down and write something like that. There’s a magic to that (he also occasionally referred to it as a “miracle”) and it’s not Sigfried and Roy ya know. It’s a different kind of penetrating magic. And, uh, ya know, I did it at one time.” To which Bradly asked, “You don’t think you can do it today?” Dylan replied, “Unh-uh. Well… you can’t do something forever, and, uh, I did it once and I can do other things now, but, uh, I can’t do that.”

Forgive me for dragging a songwriter into a conversation about advice-giving in the cause of making pictures, but, nevertheless, here’s my point; M. Johnston and many other advice-giving others like him ain’t got no obvious connection to a well-spring of creativity and, most certainly, nor to a different kind of penetrating magic. iMo, it’s obvious cuz you can see the lack thereof in their pictures. So, my advice is to take what they write / say with a grain of salt or, better yet, make that a tablespoon of salt.

On the other hand, if you’re looking for advice, re: the making of good pictures, use your eyes cuz the answer is most likely found / can be seen somewhere on a wall. No words / “expert” advice necessary.

# 6928-31 / common places-things • kitchen sink ~ the ongoing ballad of the thin man

all photos (embiggenable)

SO, HERE I SIT POISED TO GO OFF, YET AGAIN, on yet another bit of, iMo, unadulterated piffle from the keyboard of Mike Johnston. That written, I must admit that I have some reservations about how to articulate my thoughts on the subject inasmuch as I do not want to come off as engaging in an ad hominem attack on Johnston. So please bear with me as I try to continue without going down that back alleyway….

What was it that got my knickers in a twist this time? Well, in installment #4–he might have a fish bone stuck in his word writing throat–on his BONES driven fascination, he write this beauty:

“How then do you go out into the world, encounter one of those subjects in what you think are promising circumstances for shooting, and not think of the fact that, back at home, you've got a box going on that very subject? What, do you just wipe it from your mind? How would you do that? That's like not thinking of an elephant. I'd argue that it's impossible not to shoot without any idea once you're actively collecting pictures based on an idea.”

The first thought that, upon reading this clueless drivel, entered my mind was to enter a Bob Dylan quote–something is happening here but you don't know what it is Do you, Mr. Jones?–and move on. But, thinking about it, I felt it might be a bit too snarky and definitely leaning in the ad hominem direction. So, I cooled my jets and decided that a cooler, more informed retort would be a better bet.

Johnston wrote that in response to the idea that he believes no one–especially Lee Friedlander–can make a photograph, much less a really good photograph, without an intellectual structure to guide one’s picture making. That opinion is a direct contradiction to Friedlander’s actual words–spoken throughout his life–on the subject of ideas:

I tend to photograph the things that get in front of my camera….I take more to the subject than to my ideas about it. I am not interested in any idea I have had, the subject is so demanding and so important….Anything that looks like an idea is probably just something that has accumulated, like dust. It looks like I have ideas because I do books that are all on the same subject. That is just because the pictures have piled up on that subject.… I am not a premeditative photographer. I see a picture and I make it.

When confronted by an interviewer, re: the idea that “There is a difference between photographs where the image itself is beautiful for aesthetic reasons (light and form) and images that are beautiful for other reasons (the more ephemeral qualities they contain)” It went like this:

LF  You are over my head. I never think about things like that.

What do you think about?

LF  Not much.

You try not to.

LF  It is not a matter of trying. It’s indigenous.

iMo, it seems so obvious that that even a blind person can see that Friedman does not think about much, if anything, when making pictures. And, beyond any shadow of a doubt, he sure as hell ain’t no idea man.

However, enough of trying to pin down someone else’s M.O. Let met me write about my M.O. which, if I mght be so bold as to write, is exactly like Friedlander’s M.O. Always is, always has been…. I see a picture and I make it. Absolutely no thinking / ideas involved. Nada. Never. Case in point, this AM…

…I made the 3 pictures in this post this morning. Even though each of those pictures could eventually end up in one of my referent-specific “photo trays” the idea that they might do so never entered my head prior to making each photo. Rather, each photo was made, as all of my photos are made, by a viseral–Oxford Dictionary: relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect–reaction to what I see.

It’s as “simple” as that. Except, of course, it ain’t really all that simple inasmuch as discoverying one’s vision, accepting it, and trusting it really ain’t all that simple. And here’s where this ramble veers toward ad hominum…

Most “serious” amateur photographers–I would consider Johnston to be one, at least a part-time one since he is really a writer)–have never discovered their unque, prenatural / indigenous vision (assuming there is one to be found which by no means is always the case). That is precisely why they cling to intellectal ideas as the M.O. / justification for their picture making endeavors.

And, it is their procivity / predisposition to embrace / cling to such things that makes it inconceivable for them that a picture maker who is not confinded to / motivated by conventions, rules, structure(s), intellectual ideas, concepts, et al, is able to make pictures that end up on fine art gallery and institution walls.

Ya know, like, say, as Johnston says “I'd argue that it's impossible not to shoot without any idea once you're actively collecting pictures based on an idea.” There are so many problems with that statement, the most obvious being that he seems incapapble of imagining that a picture maker might not be collecting pictures based on a pre-exisitng idea but rather, that he/she (saracsm alert) stand back, hold on your seats, just might be collecting pictures of any thing they see and if there is sorting to be done it will be done after the picture making fact.

To which I would add that there are many picutres makers who are very capable of…yes…gasp!!!….believe it or not, just wiping any thoughts from their mind when engaged in the making of a picture.

Imagine that, if you can.

# 6921 / common places • common things ~ boneheaded bunkum and balderdash

kitchen sink ~ all photos embiggenable

landscape urban

still life

single women

twigs / tangles / thickets

landscape nature

street

in situ

WRITING–IN 3 ENTRIES–UNDER THE RUBIC OF “BONES’ M. Johnston has informed his readers that “every creative effort in every artistic medium needs bones: a structure to guide the work and give it a framework. A concept.” You might ask, what are “bones” and his answer is that it is “an idea” aka: “any intellectual notion that facilitates and motivates working. And–(sarcasm alert) this is really good one–he also throws in the idea that:

“(I confess to never having liked the phrase "caught my eye.")…..They want to haphazardly grab any "photo opportunity" that happens to pass their way….they'll say something like, "I just take the camera when I go for a walk and photograph anything that catches my eye." That seems like a dreadfully weak-dishwater idea for working, a framework for little more than desultory camera-pointing.”

To which I reply, good f____ing grief, what a bunch of condescending bourgeois bunkum and balderdash. I mean, why would someone, when walking around with a camera and something catches their eye–in my case, pricks my eye and sensibilities–NOT make a f–––ing picture of it? Making pictures is what photographers do and they don’t need no stinkin’ “intellectual notion” to “facilitate and motivate working.”

Upon reading the idea of “intellectual notion”, the very first thought that came into my head was Sontag’s notion of the revenge of the intellect on art cuz I believe that anyone who looks for an “intellectual notion” to facilitate / motivate the making of their photographs is headed down the wrong road. Simply written, iMo, making a picture is not an intellectual pursuit. It is, plain and simple, a visual pursuit, the results of which are manifested as a visual manifestation, aka: the culmination and subsequent visual representation of the act of seeing… not of thinking.

All of the above written, let me express my take on the idea of facilitating / motivating one’s self to “get one past not-doing and into doing”….

…. in my experience, I have noticed that when a picture maker is experiencing a lack of enthusiasm for getting out and making pictures it is due precisely to the fact that they are sitting around on his/her lazy ass trying to come up with an idea about something to photograph instead of just getting out the door—or at least just getting off their lazy ass–and start making pictures. That is, pictures of any thing(s) that catches their eye.

To write it very emphatically, there is absolutely nothing f–––ing wrong with making pictures in order to just see what something looks like when photographed–especially so in order to see what it looks like when photographed by you. And here’s the thing about this exercise; after a period of time, you might just surprise yourself by realizing that, in your (sarcasm alert) “desultory” and “dreadfully weak dishwatery” camera pointing, there just might be a few pictures of referents / themes that you have unintentionally but repeatedly responded to that just might create the foundation for further picture making investigation.

Point in fact, all of my bodies of work, with just one exception, evolved from–as M. Johnston might put it –my “desultory” and “dreadfully weak dishwatery” camera pointing (discursive promiscuity, as I put it). That is to write that, as an example, I did not start my kitchen sink body of work by thinking that I should photograph my kitchen sink. Rather, I realized after of period time during which I made a few pictures of my kitchen sink, among many other referents, that, surprise, surprise, there was something, picture making wise, worth exploring further along that line of photographic inquiry. And that example is true of all of my various bodies of work (see examples above).

So, here’s my point–or is it a counterpoint to M. Johnston’s point? I don’t need no stinkin’ intellectual idea to facilitate / motivate my picture making. Rather, I rely upon my continuing desire to see what some thing(s) looks like when photographed–especially so when photographed by me. While my way of working ain’t gonna necessarily work for everyone, iMo, if your wheels are stuck in the station, instead of rootin’ around in your head for an idea, try rootin’ around with your eyes in order to see what your eyes might see.

Don’t be a bonehead. After all, it is a f–––ing visual medium.

PS Next up: a critique of Johnston’s thoughts, re: the Artist Statement.

# 6917-20 / the new shapshot • kitchen sink ~ all work and no play...

all photos (embiggenable)

… make Jack a dull boy. OK, my name ain’t Jack but, that written, I do like to play cuz, ya know, I certainly have no desire to be a dull boy (OK, I ain’t a boy either). On the other hand, I do engage in a form of play that some might consider to be a bit dull - building LEGO sets. That written, I do tend to build sets that contain 2,000 pieces (+/- a few hundred). It’s sorta like doing a jigsaw puzzle except for the fact that LEGO sets do come with instructions.

However, those who think of building a LEGO set as a dull undertaking do have a point (sorta); those kits with multi-K parts do require the aesthetically unsatisfying assembly of most of those parts which serve as the unseen, internal support / structure of the finished piece. For instance, on the 1,700 piece Tuxedo Cat set, only about 300 of those pieces end up being visible.

But, enough OT and back to photography; after picturing part of the build-my real tuxedo cat seemed to find it boring-and then the final product in situ, it occurred to me that, tuxedo cats, being made up of black and white, the photos thereof should be presented as BW photographs. And, since I was “merely” documenting my hobby, the snapshot look was also the way to go cuz, ya know, I don’t want anyone to think I was trying to make art.

FYI, the last 2 entries generated 2 comments. WOW, maybe the times they are a-changin’ (or not). in any event, I appreciate knowing that someone out there is getting something from this blog. Thanks John and Bernie.

#6709-16 / zines ~ paging all photographers

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE LONG PONDERED THE IDEA OF WHY anyone would engage in picture making and not make physical / tactile objects-aka: prints, books, et al-of the results of that pursuit. The absence of such objects, leaves me perplexed, re: what’s the point? The only answer I can come up with is the old adage of “different strokes for different folks”, or, “whatever floats your boat”.

I, of course, am the poster boy for the making of printed photographs in one form or another; the current count of displayed photographs on the walls of my house is 124 (some prints display multiple photographs of my travels “snapshot” work). In addition there are 25 photo books laying around the place. And now, to add to the “clutter”, there is a growing body of zines.

FYI:

The word “zine” is a shortened form of the term fanzine, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Fanzines emerged as early as the 1930s…A zine is most commonly a small circulation publication of original or appropriated texts and images. More broadly, the term encompasses any self-published unique work of minority interest…There are so many types of zines: art and photography zines, literary zines, social and political zines, music zines, perzines (personal zines), travel zines, health zines, food zines. And the list goes on and on. 

My interest in making zines is to: a) create easily made and economically inexpensive updates of my various bodies of work, b) make the zines available for distribution on an e-commerce component of this site, c) thereby getting my work, in printed form, in the hands of those who might be interested in it, and, d)duh, I like looking a prints of my work

My zines are printed by BLURB. BLURB zines are actually labeled as magazines on the site. The quality of their magazines is much better than typical zines-often hand-bound pages made on photocopiers-inasmuch as the paper and printing quality is very good. And, what I find amazing is the very low cost; typically a 20 page zine will cost about $10-12US (+ shipping*).

Re: the paper and printing quality is very good: I can write, without much reservation, that, if making zines on BLURB were to be the only method I could employ to print my work, I would be quite happy to cut pages out the zines and frame them for display on my walls. The print/paper quality is more than good enough for that use. Portfolio use or photo-”perfectionist” viewing, maybe not so much.

BTW, my current photo world fantasy is to create a curated site devoted to showcasing and selling photo zines. The biggest problem to doing that is finding a critical mass of zine-making photographers and, accomplishing that, getting the word out to a sizeable audience.

In any event, why not give it-making a zine-a try?

*BLURB shipping costs are, iMo, a bit high. So what I do, in addition to selecting the cheapest shipping cost, is to order at least 3 copies of a zine and split the shipping cost across the number of books)

# 6705-08 / in situ • common places-things ~ I contain multitudes

all photos (embiggenable)

LIFE IS BACK TO POST-HOLIDAY “NORMAL”. Been busy grinding out more SEEN magazine editions, most recently Issue No. 5, IN SITU. Also updated the IN SITU gallery on the WORK page. From the zine’s Artist Statement :

As I see it the medium of photography and its apparatus has as its primary capability making visible what something looks like when photographed. That characteristic is the impulse that drives my making photographs obsession….

…. Presented herein are photographs culled from my picture making oeuvre organized under the discriptor of in situ, aka: in the original place. They pay homage to the genre of street photography but not all are made on the street. My intent in the making of these photographs was to record, in a pictorially interesting manner, divine and sometimes quirky snippets of the human condition / comedy.

The other thing that has kept me somewhat busy is seeing-now 3 times-the A Complete Unknown movie. Wednesday evening I drove, to and from, a theater in Lake Placid during a moderate snow storm with 2˚F temps and a bitter, biting wind. Some might suggest that that certifies me as a Dylan fan-atic but, truth be told, I am not wrapped up, as so many others are, in the never-ending quest to unravel / decipher / understand the who and what of Bob Dylan.

In order to avoid going completely OT, I’ll bring it back around to photography, re: Paul Strand; who when asked about his work, simply stated that “the answer is on the wall”. Dylan has spent a lifetime of not answer any questions about his work and his private life. Which, in most people’s minds makes him enigmatic. I don’t think of him as enigmatic inasmuch as I believe the answer to Dylan is, simply stated, in the music cuz, after all, he was-and still is-aware that The Times They Are A-Changing, so consequently, he let it be know that (he) I Ain’t Gonna Work On Maggie’s Farm No More, and, he was-and still is-not afraid to tell his fans that It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue (..take what you need You think will last But whatever you wish to keep You better grab it fast). And, of course, if you still can’t figure it out, you might wanna remember that The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind.

What I appreciate / respect about any artist is their authenticity-true to one's own personality, spirit, or character-and an unrelenting commitment to their art. iMo, that’s true of many photographers, musicians, et al. Also iMo, I do not believe that in that regard Dylan has ever changed inasmuch as, no matter the musical “notes” / rhythms he pairs with his lyrics, his lyrics are always amazingly lyrical-think Nobel Prize for Literature.

All of that written, it’s back to photography, specifically, my photography. Like Dylan, I contain, photography wise, multitudes. Consider this from the In Situ Artist Statement:

During my 60 year picture making life, I have adopted no allegiance to any one photographic genre-landscape / nature, still life, people, street, et al. Rather, whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities is impetus for my discursively promiscuous picture making endeavors.

As I am creating multiple SEEN magazines representing many of my separate bodies of work-kitchen sink, in situ, life without the APA, picture windows, art reflects, poles, decay, autumn color / urban + nature, tangles scrub / thicket / trees, single women, all of which reside under the umbrella of discursive promiscuity-that endeavor serves to reinforce my understanding that ordinary life is my source of artistic inspiration, aka: my muse*. And, it should be made obvious that, like Dylan and his work, I refuse to be put in a box, referent wise.

Although, it should be made plain that I am not consciously “refusing” to do anything; rather, simply put, I am being true to myself and my muse, aka: being authentic. What others may think about what I create is of little concern to me** cuz I am doing just what it is I have to do.

*Some common synonyms of muse are meditate, ponder, and ruminate…. all these words mean "to consider or examine attentively or deliberately which describes precisely my picture making M.O.

**but, of course, I do appreciate that others may appreciate my work.

# 6704 / common places • common things • the new snapshot ~ I hate it when my eyes bleed

(emebiggenable)

THERE EXISTS A SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY DILEMMA which stems from 2 ideas a.) that digital is better than analog (aka: film) and that, nevertheless, b.) that there is an interest in film simulation apps. Or, in other words, that you make a photograph using some form of digital capture-cuz it’s better than film?-but would like it to look like it was made with film-i.e., exhibiting the visual characteristics of film-cuz it looks better than digital?.

It would seem that the obvious solution to that somewhat contradictory situation is quite simple; if you want your pictures to look like they were made with film then, duh, make your pictures using film. However, it is not really that simple. Using film is much more expensive in the long run than using digital and it also involves finding a reliable source of high quality film processing-more expense-which, depending upon where one lives, is like finding a needle in a haystack. And, quite frankly, even finding film can be a challenge; that is, if you can want certified “fresh” film-film that has been properly stored and handled before sale. In my commercial film-based hay-day, when I purchased film, it came out of a refrigerator and was then kept in a refrigerator in my studio (film warmed to room temp prior to use).

Truth be told, very few picture makers are willing to enter-or re-enter-the film world. Consequently, app makers have recognized enough of a demand for a film-like appearance that can be applied to digitally produced images. So now you have it, film simulation apps aplenty. Haven’t tried any of those apps and I don’t intend to. However….

….. all of that written, I must admit, I do like my prints to exhibit film-like appearance. Which is not to write that I want my prints to look like they have been made with a specific type of film-aka: Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Kodak color negative film, Fuji film, Agfa film*, et al.

Rather, what I strive for is what might be called an anti-digital look. That is, a “softer” look that is less color saturated, has less acutance (edge contrast), softer highlight / shadow contrast, and a smidge-and-a-half less “sharpness”. I can get that look all by my lonesome all of which produces a print which strongly resembles a C-print made from a color negative. A look that, to my eye and sensibilities, is more gentle on the eye than the prints that exhibit all of the “better” qualities of digital capture.

*true confession, I did love Agfa color negative film.