killing time • iPhone
hospital art • iPhone
re-gifted rose to me from the wife • iPhone
A crazy day in hospital so another entry created on iPhone with pictures made and processed with the iPhone. Posted from my hospital bed.
Kinda crazy when you think about it.
In hospital ‘til Thursday noon. This entry is a quickie from phone. Will post more from my laptop.
the sweeper ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • µ4/3
sweepings ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • µ4/3
sweepings awaiting picturing ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • µ4/3
Garry Winogrand stated:
Anything and all things are photographable. and Every photograph is a battle of form versus content.
Re: yesterday's entry, VANTAGE POINT / LEARNING HOW TO SEE, wherein I wrote about the field of visual energy, aka: form ... I believe that interesting / arresting form is what separates (very) good pictures from (merely) good pictures.
That is to write that interesting / arresting form is the characteristic which allows a print to become an object which, in and of itself, transcends that which it depicts. And, it interesting / arresting form which makes it possible to create very good pictures of any and all things.
tomatoes in strainer ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • iPhone
Excerpted from Szarkowski's quote, re: Vantage Point (as presented in yesterday's entry) ...
From his photographs, he learned that the appearance of the world was richer and less simple than his mind would have guessed.
As should be obvious to "serious" picture makers, there are many impressions / lessons to be gleaned from his/her pictures and, just as important, from pictures made by other picture makers. However, if one wishes to move beyond discerning the mere technical / technique properties to be noticed in a picture, one must develop and cultivate the capability to look beyond those properties and beyond whatever the picture depicts in order to see the print as an object in and of itself.
Garry Winogrand stated,"Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed." And, of course, the print is the evidence of how a "thing looks photographed".
The "thing" itself is experienced by the picture maker in a 3D world. In turn, the 3D "thing" itself is reduced to a 2D representation of that "thing" on the flat surface of a print. That 2D representation can then viewed as a collection of shapes, forms, lines, colors and tones-indepent of the depicted referent-which work/play together, within the frame imposed by the picture maker, to create what I refer to as a field of visual energy*.
iMo, it is the field of visual energy to be seen / experienced in a picture which stirs / stimulates the mind and soul / intellect and emotion of a viewer and it does so in a sensuous subconcsious / thoughtless manner ...
... Susan Sontage wrote that interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. That interpretation-an overabundance of importance placed upon the content or meaning of an artwork-interferes with (or even negates) a viewer's ability to be keenly alert to the sensuous aspects of a given work.
All of that written, in my experience I have found that most "serious" picture makers' first impression upon viewing a picture (their own and those made by others) are focused upon: 1.) the referent, and 2.) the technical qualities of the picture's presentation. For the most part, they have never learned how to see the sensorial beauty that lies beyond the depicted obvious.
More's the pity inasmuch as, if a picture maker is oblivous to the unthought known hidden beneath the surface of a picture, he/she will never be able to let go of the intellect employed in the making of their own pictures and learn how to "feel it" when making / viewing pictures. Consequently, they will make pictures using the "rules" of composition in mind rather than finding a vantage point from which they can "arrange"-more by "feel" than thought-the visual elements of their 3D referent into a 2D sensual field of visual energy.
To close, 2 ideas expressed by Garry Winogrand:
A photograph is not what was photographed, it’s something else. and The photograph should be more interesting or more beautiful than what was photographed.*that field of visual energy can induce in a viewer a sense of serenity or, conversely, discordance.
in the kitchen / 12:35AM ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • µ4/3
In his book, THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S EYE, John Szarkowski, in discussing the idea of Vantage Point, wrote:
If the photographer could not move his subject, he could move his camera. To see the subject clearly-often to see it at all-he had to abandon a normal vantage point, and shoot his picture from above, or below, or from to close, or to far, or from the backside, inverting the order of things' importance, or with the nominal subject of his picture half hidden.
From his photographs, he learned that the appearance of the world was richer and less simple than his mind would have guessed.
He discovered that his pictures could reveal not only the clarity but the obscurity of things, and that these mysterious and evasive images could also, in their own terms, seem ordered and meaningful.
iMo, these are some of the absolute best words-when one fully understands their import-to make pictures by inasmuch as Szarkowski is not attempting to impart a formulaic methodology for the making of good pictures but rather to express how Vantage Point can influence the creation of visual characteristics and qualities which define a good picture.
It is my intention, over the course of the next few entries, to attempt to emunerate and clarify those visual characteristics and qualities which Szarkowski has chosen to mention in his Vantage Point writing.
Hugo ? Nat'l Aquarium ~ Baltimore, MD. (embiggenable) • µ4/3 - from WORK/Water
bakery window ~ Woodstock, VT. (embiggenable) • iPhone - from WORK/iPhone Made
bowl on kitchen table ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • µ4/3 - from WORK/Quotidian
Spent most of last week dealing with (non-life-threatening) heart issue. Fortunately, I was able to devote some time to selecting/editing pictures for 3 new WORK galleries ...
Check them out. Comments appreciated.
my new iPhone 7 Plus case ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
Ever feel embarrassed when making a picture with your phone (especially when others around you are making pictures with their mega-tainium dslrs or the like)? Or, perhaps you even avoid using your phone to make pictures for the same reason.
If so, the perfect solution is at hand. Just slap a DS-100 cell phone case on your phone and the problem is solved. You can even wear the phone (disguised as a camera) hanging from your neck using the attached carrying strap and be assured of no more snickers and sneers from the high-end camera cognoscenti.
And BTW, if they should ask, tell them it's a secret protype camera with a new 500mp sensor and it will drive them nuts.
After yesterday's Color Riot entry, I thought a bit of monochromatic might be a good idea. FYI, the Polaroid pictures are a find from my previously mentioned antique shop adventure.
RE: the Polariod pictures ... while they certainly quailfy as snapshots, they appear to be a more serious attempt at making pictures inasmuch as the picture maker was required to focus the lens and make some sort of exposure decision. Perhaps there was even an attempt at making "art". Whatever the case, I - as a picture maker - chose them because I liked them and because, as far as I know, there are no rules for collecting snapshots.
That written, on Easter Sunday when all the inlaws were gathered together, a few of them expressed an interest in viewing my snapshot find. Interestingly, but not a surprise to me, every person who viewed the pictures responded with great interest and commentary with those pictures which were people referential - ones like those from 2 entries ago. The Polaroids were given rather scant attention
Without a doubt that reaction was driven by the viewer's ability and inclination to picture him/herself in similar pictures, situations or knowing someone who has been in similar pictures and/or situations. Or, in other words, they made a personal connection to the pictures.
The viewers had absolutely no knowledge regarding the pictured people, places, things or events. Nevertheless, other people's snapshots, aka: personal memories, have the ability to instigate memories in people with whom they (the picture makers) have no connection or knowledge.*
I find that fact absolutely fascinating. Fine Art pictures come and go but snapshots have a staying power like no other pictures.
*Think of the pictures as kinda like a message in a bottle cast out to sea. No knows where or in whose hands the message might end up.
