civilized ku # 3604 ~ one of things is not like the other thing

it is whatever you make of it ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

IN YESTERDAY'S ENTRY, WHEN WRITING ABOUT collecting vintage snapshots, I wrote:

....old snapshots can be described as "mysteries". One can never know anything about their making or the people depicted. Although, they are quite enjoyable to look at and wonder / ponder.

I have always felt that, relative to my eye and sensibilities, if a picture-any picture, not just a vintage snapshot-is, at first glance, enjoyable to look at*, I am inclined to spent some time and expend some effort to ponder it. And, when pondering a picture, I prefer to have my pondering un-infected by a statement from the picture maker who made it.

AN ASIDE I have no issue with artist statements unless they are little more than an obtuse / convoluted ramble of artspeak gibberish or narcissistic self-psychoanalytical navel gazing. However, my preference is to read them after I have viewed the pictures made by the artist. END OF AN ASIDE

In other words, I want my viewing and pondering to begin with a blank slate affected only by that which I bring to the viewing experience. Of course, that means that the results of my encounter with a picture will be predominately subjective / highly personal. However, that does not mean that the result(s) of my picture viewing experience can not be subsequently altered or expanded to accommodate the input from a well written artist statement or the option of another viewer. I do try to keep my eye and mind open to other points of view(ing).

All of the above written, when pondering a picture, I am never attempting to discern the meaning of that picture. Let me repeat, NEVER. That is because, iMo, art is best seen and felt.

When I experience a feeling instigated by the viewing of a picture (piece of art), that feeling almost always causes thoughts-connected directly to the picture-induced vibe I am experiencing-to come to my mind. HOWEVER (and this is important to my ultimate point), because I am a visual thinker, those thoughts which come to mind are in the form of pictures, not words. And, those mind-pictures are images drawn from my life experience memories. Memories of place / situation / people experiences which relate directly to the feeling(s) I am experiencing from the viewing of a picture (piece of art).

Since I am a visual thinker, I am more apt to seek out / experience the feeling(s) incited by a picture (piece of art) rather than some form of meaning associated with a picture (piece of art). Meaning construted with words, aka: the provenance of word thinkers.

So, I get it .... some picture / art viewers seek feelings while others seek meaning. For me, that seeking is determined by the difference (genetics at work) between visual thinkers and word thinkers ... although, that idea should not be understood to mean that one type of thinker or the other seek only feeling(s) or only meaning(s).

In conclusion, in an enlightened world (that would be a world filled with open minds), I would have to write, "vive la différence".

* "interesting to look at" might be a better phrase. One way or the other, it should be understood that what is enjoyable / interesting to one person is apt to not be so to another person.

civilized ku # 3601-03 ~ odd assortments - kinda off topic

singing with the band ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

our cars~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

scotch and bourbon ~ ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

I THOUGHT OF NAMING THIS ENTRY "SOME THINGS I COLLECT RATHER THAN CAMERA GEAR". But then it occurred to me that it might rather be titled, "Why I can't afford to collect camera gear".

Point in fact, the only pictured thing that I actually collect-in the traditional sense of "collecting"-is the BW "snapshot"-made by me-of a local mentally-challenged woman singing with the band-she is not a band member-on New Years Eve. That is to write, I do not collect my own snapshot pictures but, rather, I do collect old snapshots-made by others-which are almost always pictures of people.

Collecting old snapshots is not an expensive endeavor. They can be found in odds-n-ends / curiosity / low-end antique shops and usually cost about 10 cents each. There is a high-end of the snapshot market but I avoid that marketplace. Collecting old snapshots is fun and enjoyable insmuch as old snapshots can be described as "mysteries". One can never know anything about their making or the people depicted. Although, they are quite enjoyable to look at and wonder / ponder.

Re: the cars. 3 of the 4 cars depicted-the Abarth, Mercedes and Elantra GT (next to the porch in the driveway) belong to the wife and me. The Abarth may actually, in time, turn out to be a collectible car. On the otherhand, I own it because it's a blast to drive so it will not end up in "Concours" condition. Although, it is only driven in late Spring, Summer and Autumn and is in the garage during the Winter. BTW, you might notice that we like black cars.

Re: liquor. I drink bourbon and scotch and have a liquor cabinet full of very nice expressions of both. I even have 3 bottles of the the very difficult to obtain Van Winkle bourbons-2 12 year old "Special Reserve" and 1 very rare 20 year old "Pappy". Two of my current favorities, Heaven's Door label, are Bob Dylan's whiskeys. Yes, that Bob Dylan, who owns a distillery and actually is involved in the distilling process.

While it is accurate to write that I have a collection of bourbon and scotch, I do not "collect" them inasmuch as I drink them. They are, after all, a consumable.

adirondack views # 1-8 ~ a sense of where I live

Raquette River ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

Algonquin Mt. / sunset / -10F ~ (embiggenable) • Pentax 110 SLR / Kodacolor negative film

Algonquin Mt. / sunrise/ -15F ~ (embiggenable) • Pentax 110 SLR / Kodacolor negative film

Raquette Lake ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

Elk Lake ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

my hometown ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

the flume ~ West Branch Au Sable River (embiggenable) • µ4/3

horse farm ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

KINDA THOUGHT IT WAS TIME TO POST some of my landscape pictures, lest anyone think that I only make pictures of my kitchen sink.

Over the past 20 years of living in the Adirondack Park-it's actually not a park but rather a forest preserve-I have certainly made quite a number of landscape pictures of the place. However, it would be misleading to write that I have concentrated on doing so. Haphazard is more like it and the reason for that is simply that there are more than enough other picture makers who are quite devoted to making Adirondack landscape pictures. Pictures that, for the most part, I would label as "calender" quality pictures.

Nevertheless, I do live in an amazing place....

The Adirondack "Park"-6 million + acres) is larger than the state of Vermont. Approximately half of the park is state owned and, with exception of the 120 towns, villages and hamlets (120,000 residents), most of the park is protected by an Article in the NYS Constitution as Forever Wild.

Within the park there are 3,000 lakes and ponds, 30,000 miles of rivers and streams, 2,000 miles of hiking trails and hundreds of rolling hills and mountains-46 of which are over 4,000 ft (clustered in the High Peaks Region near Lake Placid). And, it's worth mentioning that Lake Placid has hosted 2 Olympic Winter Games, 1932 / 1980.

It's also with mentioning that the 1980 Olympic facilities are still in use for World Cup events, most prominently, the Bobsled / Luge / Skeleton track. A track on which I have won 2 Silver Medals in amateur Regional Luge competition.

... and I probably should get out more for the expressed purpose of making landscape pictures.

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

Although, the wife and I and occasionally Hugo (seen here at age 5 during one of his first self-propelled wilderness canoe trips), do get out onto wilderness waterways in our canoes for extended stays. After all, we do live in a giant outdoor playground.

civilized ku # 3600 ~ mastery of the machine

(embiggenable) • iPhone

PERFECTION. IN SOME WAYS I JUST DO NOT "GET IT". That written, I especially do not "get it" when it comes to picture making. Or, at least when comes to the idea of a "perfect" picture / print...

...I have always been both befuddled by and distainful of those picture makers who look for technical "perfection" when viewing a picture. Or, for that matter, the idea of even considering, at all, any "technical" aspects of a picture.

Consider this loopy comment left on a discussion about the use of film:

... the results are so inferior to modern digital images that God forbid if I got an image I loved and wanted to do anything with it. Even the better images from a technical point of view would have been considered complete failures if taken with even an average digital camera. Film is simply an overwhelmingly inferior technology.

Apparently, according this line of thought, all of the pictures made during the film era should be considered, from a technical point of view, to be "complete failures". How terrible it must be to bring this attitude to the viewing of all of the great pictures made during that era. And when I write "great pictures", I mean from both an aesthetic and a technical viewing perspective.

The question which comes to my mind for this idiotic commenter to answer is, "Have you never viewed a print made from large format-that is medium format and up-color or bw negatives?" ASIDE which is not to imply that carefully made 35mm format negatives, using some specific film stocks, can not produce beautiful prints. END OF ASIDE

My conclusion about moronic pronouncements like the comment from the aforementioned commenter is that, inasmuch as the medium of photography and its apparatus is linked to the use of mechanical devices-of one kind or another-used in the making of pictures, photographic picture making will always attract those who want to exercise and display their mastery over the machine...

...always seeking-one might write "fetishizing"-maximized resolution / sharpness, extended dynamic / tonal range, the "purest" and most extended color values and, of course, the possession of "over-the-top" / hyper-expensive picture making gear.

At this point in this entry, it is very tempting to cast aspersions upon the aesthetics of the pictures made by the masters-of-the-machine crowd. However, suffice it to write that, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities (and I am by no means alone), the making of a "perfect" picture has little-in some cases, nothing at all-to do with technical "perfection".

civilized ku # 3599 ~ times they are a-changin'

(embiggenable)

THE TIMES THEY ARE A'CHANGIN'.

Over my picture making career-professional and personal-I have owned and used 30 cameras, maybe more. Those cameras ranged from subminature to 8x10 view cameras and just about every format in between, to include rotating lens panoramic cameras and SX-70 Polaroid cameras. I am still in possession of 20 of those cameras.

At this time, all but 2 of those cameras are in use as paper weights or quasi-historic objects. The 2 cameras still in use as picture making tools are used on a very ocassional basis for picture making situations that are best served with the use of a "real" camera. Probably no more than 5% of my picture making needs.

For the purpose of this entry, it is worth noting that I also possess a desktop computer (Apple) set up, packed with RAM memory, loaded with image file processing software (Photoshop is my image file processing software of choice) and acommpanied with 6 external hard drives. I am considered to be a Photoshop Power User.

All of that written, you can only imagine-or maybe not-my perplexed, astonished and rather incredulous state of mind, re: as illustrated by the picture in this entry....

.... I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that the iPhone (11 PRO MAX) and iPad (with keyboard case) constitute all I need for 90% of my picture making needs. A fact which I find to be mind-blowing.

AN ASIDE Let me be perfectly clear. I have not downgraded my picture quality expectations-not a single scintilla-with the use of the iPhone. And, I challenge any non-believer to a duel ... view (no pixel peeping) my 24x24" print next to a 24x24" print made by someone else (made with any picture making gear) and defy him/her to see any significant difference between the two. END OF ASIDE

BTW, I could eliminate the iPad from the above picture inasmuch as I could do most of what I want to do, including image file processing, on the iPhone. However, I do enjoy performing image file processing on the larger screen of the iPad. And, the card reader in the picture can be used to transfer photos from my "real" cameras to the iPad for processing. And yes, I can process RAW files with the Snapseed app (amongst serveral other apps).

FYI, the image on the iPad screen is of one of my image files opened in Photoshop. Not Photoshop Express. Photoshop for iPad. A version which is undergoing development to a near-full version of the desktop version of Photoshop.

I have not used this app much because the iPhone's native image editing tools, together with the Snapseed app, meet most of my image editing needs. However, in the interest of complete disclosure, when I want to do some really fine tuning on an iPhone image file, I do open it in Photoshop on my desktop set-up.

So, I'm not quite ready to put all of my "real" cameras and desktop computer set-up in a dumpster-figuratively writing, of course. But that day may be coming sooner than I think.

FYI, in case anyone is wondering, the iPhone, iPad and my desktop system are all sync-ed together. Any picture I make with my iPhone or process on my iPhone / iPad is available to me, on any device, from iCloud.

The future is here and I am in a full-on embrace of it.

civilized ku # 3596-98 ~ mish-mashing around

3200K + 5200K ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THIS ENTRY'S PICTURES ARE A PRETTY GOOD ILLUSTRATION of my discursive promiscuity manner of picture making. Pictures wherein a consistent vision, aka: way of seeing, combines pattern and color to create a feeling of visual energy which holds a series of pictures together as all of a whole. And, FYI, visual energy is a visual characteristic that I prize, not only in pictures made with the medium of photography and its apparatus but also in any of the other visual arts.

civilized ku # 3594-95 ~ pattern and color

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

WITHOUT A DOUBT I CAN WRITE THAT I am, predominately, a visual thinker (as opposed to a word thinker). Being a visual thinker is not something that I learned, rather, it is a personal character trait that I eventually realized is what I am and have been for my entire life. And, that is what led me to, without considering anything else, creating visual things in my professional and personal picture making life.

In my professional and personal picture making life-as well as many other "visual" aspects in my life-I never once thought about the art aesthetic aspects of my work as a commercial photographer and graphic designer-the why or the how I created work that looked like it did. I just did it. It was all created intuitively and/or by "feel".

It was not until I became seriously involved in my personal "art" picture making-when I started to be interested in the idea of what is a photograph?-that started to realize that, to my eye and sensibilities, my pictures were not about what-the depicted referent-I pictured but about how I saw and pictured whatever the depicted referent was. Without question, I was much more interested in how my pictures, the thing itself (when printed), looked rather than what they depicted.

Which is why, when I found the following excerpt (from an article about visual thinking), I felt that I had discovered something very important about who and what I am....

...fundamentals in visual thinking lay the ground work for many design disciplines such as art and architecture*. Two of the most influential aspects of visual composition in these disciplines are patterns and color. Patterns and color are not only prevalent in many different aspects of everyday life, but it is also telling about our interpretation of the world.

I could probably use this excerpt as the basis for an artist statement which accurately defines my work and how I see / interpret the world I live in.

* I started college as a student of architecture. Did not like the career path that it entailed. Dropped out. Got drafted. Sent to Japan. Discovered photography and asked to become a US ARMY photographer. Request granted. The rest is history.

cvivilized ku # 3593 ~ a blessing and a curse

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IN A RECENTY ENTRY I WROTE THAT I thought that the medium and its appparatus' most distinguishing characteristic, which separates it from other visual arts, is its inherent / intrinsic relationship to / the real. I also opined that the relationship is both, if you will, a blessing and a curse.

The medium and its apparatus is a blessing inasmuch as its allows a picture maker to find, at the very least, visually interesting picturing opportunities of the real and capture and present them in a very authentic manner. The possibilities are endless as well as everywhere. The medium and its apparatus also allows a picture maker to express a very broad range of picture making intents, all manner of genres from creating memories, creating art and story telling to a myriad of other possibilities.

The curse is to be found in the "public"'s belief that the medium and its apparatus are best used to create literal representations. That is, a "good" picture is, and should be, always about the thing depicted, aka: the referent. The idea that a picture can be a "good" picture in and of itself, regardless / independent of the thing depicted, is not an option on the picture viewing menu.

This is a belief that many a picture maker-with the intent of creating art-has worked tirelessly, since the inception of the medium and its apparatus, to overcome. It has also been the primary roadblock to the medium and it aparatus acceptance as an art rather than a "mere" mechanical craft.

Re: a "mere" mechanical craft. Lest anyone think that only the "public" is to blame for subscribing to the idea that "good" pictures are those with "good" referents, iMio, there are many (most?) "serious" picture makers who believe the same thing and reinforce that idea with the beief that better mechanicals-cameras, sensors, lenses, et al-will create better pictures. They are, indeed, mechanical craftsmen/women and their pictures are rarely the better for it.