# 5991-94 / life without color ~ it's a whole other thing

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

(embiggenablbe)

YESTERDAY, AS I WAS PERUSING A BOOK OF PICTURES MADE BY John Szarkowski-aptly titled, John Szarkowski ~ Photographs-I was struck by the manner in which Szarkowski’s pictures exhibited a rather exqisuite sense of form. A quality which I have rarely felt when viewing bw pictures.

However, that written, I must admit that I have had Szarkowski’s book for 10 years or more, viewed it a number of times since acquiring it and, truth be told, I was not very aware of the sense of form that seems so obvious to me now. I attribute that fact to the other fact, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, which is that I have always liked them cuz they are “quiet”, exquisitely rendered observations of ordinary life. Which is another way of writing that I was seduced and side-tracked by the referents in his pictures.

Shame on me.

In any event, I got to wonderin’ if some of my pictures, made with much awareness of color as an element of the form that I seek to create, could “work” in bw. So, I set about selecting a few pictures and converted them to bw. I even made a couple of large-ish prints-16”x16” / 16”x21”-in order to see how they looked off-screen.

When all was said and done, my conclusion was that some of my pictures “work,” as bw pictures some don’t. I also came to the conclusion that in some pictures, inasmuch as most bw pictures are “abstract” pictures, form is sometimes very apparent due to the fact that a viewer is not”distracted” by color. Lines, shapes, tones and the like seem to assume a very definitive and obvious visual identity as such.

The unexpected result of this monkeyin’ around is that one can, with the use of a high quality inkjet printer with multiple black inks, make some damn nice bw prints. So, I will be making some bw prints for display on the walls of my house. A practice that I have not engaged in for many decades.

In any event, the idea of comparing a color original to its “converted” bw cousin is a fools errand. Each manner of expression has its own visual signature which incites in a viewer a different visual experience.

FYI, re: Szarkowski’s pictures, his images meet my expectations, re: for considering a picture to be a very good picture (dare I write, a Fine Art picture):

“…an image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject manner.” ~ Sally Eauclaire

Or, as I have often written, a picture which illustrates and illuminates.

# 5989-90 / hockey ~ I'll try anything once.

downtown Albany, NY ~ (embiggenable)

Nice helmets ~ (embiggenable)

DROVE TO ALBANY (NY) YESTERDAY TO ATTEND A NCAA D1 REGIONAL HOCKEY GAME. Notre Dame v. North Dakota. A good, closely played game won by Notre Dame 2-1 in OT.

The question of the day was, Sports action photography with an iPhone? The answer: Sure. why not?

FYI, every time I see the Notre Dame glittering, shiny hockey helmets (hand painted before every game), they always strike me as rather weird. But, if the ND football team can do it, why not the ND hockey team?

# 5987 / reflections on art (book) ~ it is exactly what it was

covers ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

statement ~ (embiggenable)

AFTER 8 YEARS I HAVE FINALLY GOT AROUND TO remaking the photo book, refections on art ~ the eye traffics in feelings. The photo book which was actually stolen. A happening that I consider to be of the highest compliment.

As I felt it necessary to mention in the book, I will write again here that the pictures in the book are straight out of the camera. They are not double exposures or composites.

FYI, I believe it is worth a mention, re: Mike Johnston’s OL/OC/OY notion, that I am not a such a picture making practitioner. I am (in my personal picturing), in fact, a OL/OC/IP - that is one lens / one camera / in perpetuity.

To clarify: in the making of pictures meant to be art / fine art, I have always, through a number of picturing “periods”, used one lens / one camera for a considerable length of time. In the beginning (c.1980) I used an 8x10 view camera and a Ektar (Kodak) 10in. lens for about 3-4 years. Later (c.2000, after a 20 year fine art hiatus), I used an Olympus µ4/3 camera (one iteration or another) with a 20mm lens on one camera and a 17mm lens on another-the 2 lenses were very similar in angle of view. Eventually, about 3 years ago, my “one” camera became the iPhone (one iteration or another) and using the “normal”, aka: semi-wide lens. During the 20 year hiatus I did use one lens / one camera to make a ton of personal snapshots ( and a some Fine Art pictures). That camera and lens combination was-I actually had 5 and still do-the Polaroid SX-70.

I mention this because I truly believe that one lens / one camera is the only way to find one’s vision and move on to making Fine* Art.

* for what it’s worth, in a series of books (mystery books by a single author) I am reading, a re-occurring character defines FINE as, Fucked up, Insecure, Neurotic, and Egotistical.

# 5986 / kitchen sink (book) ~ look, really look, and you shall see

covers ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

spreads ~ (embiggenable)

statement ~ (embiggenable)

YET ANOTHER PHOTO BOOK, the kitchen sink ~ a rich life of its own, HEADED TO THE PRINTING PRESS. And I must admit that when I began the edit to narrow the pictures down to the top 20, I was a bit intimidated inasmuch as there were over 160 pictures in the kitchen sink folder.

However, after viewing all 160 of the pictures as a group in Adobe Bridge, I was able to surprising easily cull out 50 pictures in my first cut. Then I opened those pictures and arranged them in neat rows on my monitor where, once again viewing them all together, it was rather easy to identify the 20 (actually 22) finalists.

All of that decided, I came to the artist statement challenge, about which Thomas Rink had a few thoughts (thank you Thomas):

I think these pictures do not need an essay at all to go with them - they speak well for themselves. Absolutely no need to rationalize (or justify) why you made them! There is a high risk that an essay will appear contrived, which would rather take away from the series instead of adding to it….

I tend to agree with Rink’s idea to the extent that I have been considering (for a couple years) of simply using a quote from Paul Strand as a stand-in artist statement:

Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.

So, you can read my adaptation of Strand’s position, re: the artist statement, above. Although, in the case of a photo book, I may amend it to read, the answer is on the pages of the book

# 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).

# 5984 / around the house (book) ~ a certain form of place

(embiggenable)

around the house ~ (embiggenable)

around the house ~ (embiggenable)

OVER THE WEEK PAST I HAVE MADE 3 PHOTO BOOKS. I AM working on a third book with 2 more to follow. Each book will also be accompanied by an 8 print folio. All of this activity is in prep for a major full-on assault on gallery / art institution directors / curators.

One of the things that happened in the creation of the around the house book, which has happened prior, is one day after hitting the order button for the book on the POD site, I made the picture seen on the top of this entry. A picture I most definitely would have included in the book. Needless to write, it will be included in the around the house folio.

BTW, this body of work is yet another body of work that was not planned from the get-go. It is an assembled-after-the-fact, oh-look-what-I-found lurking in my photo library. The amazing thing (to me) about the work is that it is my first body of work that is made using the iPhone full-frame format. A fortuitous picture making happenstance if ever there was one.

FYI, the around the house book contain 20 pictures.

# 5981-83 / the new snapshot ~ here and gone again

my backyard ~ (embiggenable)

heading home from a cider run ~ (embiggenable)

THIS SATURDAY PAST WE HAD A SNOWFALL WHICH COVERED the then snow-free landscape. Later the same day we had a dramatically color-saturated sunset. An event that does not normally follow a snowstorm.

In any event, Spring was here for a week, then it was gone. Now, 3 days later, the snow is mostly gone and Spring is back again. Our cat is very happy.