# 5750 / trees ~ plus a reader's comment

a tree grows in Brooklyn ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

IN RESPONE TO MY LAST ENTRY wherein I explained the derivation of the the Old German statement made in 1589. That statement was later changed to read, Of what use are lens and light to those who lack in mind and sight? On that entry Thomas Rink left a comment which explained some additional German history:

"In 1589, we Germans were still so primitive that we used DSLR's! Even though already in 1517, somebody wrote that "mirrorless is the future" on a PostIt and stuck it on a church door. Things went nasty in 1618, when a Fuji user, frustrated with the fiddly handling of the camera, threw the damn thing out of the window and the 30 years war ensued."

Thanks Thomas. It is always appreciated when a blog follower chimes in to set the historic record straight.

# 5747-49 / still life•sink•around the house ~ familiar things made new

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THREE OF MY CARVED-IN-STONE, BEDROCK BELIEFS, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus:

"If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image formed by a lens, I see no reason why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the contrary, we should take hold of that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest." ~ Berenice Abbott
"To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place.... I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them." ~ Elliott Erwitt
"The two most engaging powers of a photograph are to make new things familiar and familiar things new." ~ William Thackeray

I also have a "warning"-a reminder of sorts-belief that I keep tucked in my back pocket for use in those occasions when I might be tempted to partake in the never ending prattling and nattering-re: gear, technicals and technique...

"Of what use are lens and light
To those who lack mind and sight?
"

...a quote often used in in the context of photography conversations. It is derived from an inscription-written in Old German-on a Brunswick Thaler (coin) in 1589- which reads: ""Torch and glasses will not help the old man who will not help and know himself."

In any event, if a picture maker has "mind and sight", there is no need to get involved with stuff that is best left to those who would not recognize a good picture-or what it takes to make one-even if they were to walk face-first into it on a wall.

# 5742-46 / kitchen life ~ it's about the eye, not the brain

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THE PAST FEW DAYS HAVE YIELDED UP A WEALTH of picture making opportunities in my kitchen.

Amongst many things, the light has been nice and interesting (iMo) serendipitous arrangements of things have been popping up here and there. The picturing results, to my eye and sensibilities, are visually very interesting and rather captivating.

That written, I am well aware that, for any number of reasons, these pictures may not be interesting and captivating to many viewers. That's fine with me cuz I am making pictures that suit my eye and sensibilities. Which, unless one has to pander to the masses for the sake of profit (not at all a bad thing), making pictures that suit one's personal vision should be how one goes about making pictures.

In any event, from time to time I do question the idea of what my vision dictates, art sensibility wise, as a good picture. That is, my vision dictates that a good picture (or any art) must, first and foremost, be visually interesting and captivating (regardless of what the depicted referent might be).

That dictate is cuz I believe the best pictures (or any art) should prick the eye, the viewer's visual apparatus, rather than the brain, the viewer's thinking apparatus. Which is to write that I believe that the best art is directed toward sight, aka: seeing, as opposed to "thought", aka thinking.

Or, to break it down even further, when making/ viewing pictures (or any art), I want to "feel" something rather than "think" something.

That doesn't make me a shallow person, does it?

ADDENDUM "Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts." ~ Walker Evans

# 5740-41 / landscape•people ~Rockwell Kent-ish

(embiggenable) • iPhone

kentassgardmntssq.jpg

(embiggenable) • µ43

kentdonegalbetsy.jpg

WHILE DRIVING-TOP DOWN IN THE ABARTH-THIS PAST SATURDAY-I drove around a bend over a knoll and was confronted with a Rockwell Kent painting, Adirondack scene wise, apparition.

Rockwell Kent was a prominent 20th century painter, print maker, illustrator who spent most of his adult life on his farm (with studio), Asgaard*, 3 miles up the road from my home in Au Sable Forks (pop.541), NY in the Adirondack Mountains / Forest Preserve. FYI, that's his farm with barn in the above hay bale painting.

*named after a location associated with gods. It is depicted in a multitude of Old Norse sagas and mythological texts.

When I moved to the Adirondacks, 21 years ago, Kent had died 30 years prior. His farm was still in operation (new owners) and is where we still get most of our beef, poultry, pork and aclaimed-around-the-world goat cheese. We are friends with the owners of the farm so on occasion I am able to go up to the farm and hang out in Kent's empty stand-alone studio.

In any event, every once in a while I do come across a Kent-like looking landscape. I never have pictured one. However, the mountain landscape pictured here was so much like that found in many a Kent Adirondack painting that, I swear, the Abarth came to stop on its own and seemed to indicate that it was not going anywhere until I made a picture.

While thinking about making this entry, I recalled that I had made a picture, in the exact same location (and I do mean exact!) where Rockwell Kent had made a painting-in Co Donegal, Ireland near the location of the so-called "Ghost" fishing town, aka: Port. At the time I made the picture, I was not aware of Kent's very well known painting, "Annie McGinley" (presented in this entry). It was not until I returned from Ireland that I discovered the painting while researching Kent's time painting in Ireland.

Upon viewing the painting (online), I will admit to having a freaky spine-tingling moment as I realized, not only had I trod in Kent's near-exact footprints, but I had also made a picture with a similar motif ... a lone woman in a dramatic location. In my case, my wife. In Kent's case, most likely his Irish Lassie inamorata inasmuch as he was a well known seeker of many women's "affection".

PS I was very lucky to come across a very nice signed, first edition copy of Kent's 1940 book, This Is My Own. An interesting illustrated telling of his life and times in Au Sable Forks.

(embiggenable)

# 5736-39 / trees ~ one way or the other

(embiggenable) • µ43

(embiggenable) • µ43 infaredish

(embiggenable) • µ43 infaredish

WORKING ON A BOOK ABOUT TREES. Might be in BW or, maybe, color. Have not decided yet.

(embiggenable) • µ43

# 5733-35 / kitchen sink•around the house•civilized ku ~ a truly fuzzy concept

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

NOT LONG AGO THERE WAS A SPATE OF JIBBER JABBER-minus the rapidity-about lenses...the "perfect" portrait lens, corner sharpness, Leica lenses vs every other lens maker in the known photo universe, the ever popular debate about the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image (aka:bokeh), etc./etc....true gearhead / fan boy stuff. However there was one statement*-made by the Mother-Of-All-Gearheads-which caught my attention:

"...the powerful lure of Leica legend always makes me wonder if their lens will supply just that tiny bit more 'edge' or 'magic' that will elevate images and make each image sweeter." ~ he/she who shall remain nameless

To my way of picture making thinking, if a picture maker is wishing for a lens that gives his/her pictures a "bit more edge or magic"/ "sweatness", then, iMo (and experience), that picture maker must be making some pretty lame pictures. Or, as Sir Ansel was said to state:

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

All of that written, that is not write that (portraiture as an example) there are lenses that might be better suited than other lenses for a given use. But even that idea is predicated upon the picture maker's picturing intent. As in, the intent to depict a subject as he/she really is or depict him/her in an idyllic representational manner.

In any event, if one is depending upon lens "magic" to make one's picture(s) "sweeter", iMo, one is relying on a "gimmick" rather than unique personal vision to float his/her boat.

*I use this example, not to denigrate the maker thereof, but rather as an excellent example of lens "magic" thinking.

# 5730-32 / the new snapshot (gas stations) ~ making sense

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

A FEW ENTRIES BACK, I WROTE, re: my gas station pictues:

"...I believe that my hesitency to embrace this project is the fact that I do not have a clear-in-my-head project intent. That is to write, that, were I to be pressed to write an artist statement, re: this project, at this point it would be a rather rambling, un-focused statement."

That statement incited a response form Thomas Rink:

"Is an artist statement or a written concept really required? Visual aesthetics does not work on a conceptual (language) level - a picture says more than a thousand words...so, is an artist statement essentially no more than a means to combat our fear not to "make sense" to others?

I have forever been an advocate of/for the artist statement. Whenever I have felt compelled to write / speak in defense of the artist statement, it has usually been as a response the idiotic opinion that a picture that needs words is a failure. That written, let me be a bit more specific about my feelings, re: the artist statement.

First and foremost, iMo, an artist statemnt should be, as the saying goes, short and sweet. And, it should refrain from attempting to "explain" anything about the photo(s) which accompany the statement other than to inform-avoiding pretentious artspeak-a viewer about what instigated the picture maker's desire to make the photo(s). In other words, never, ever put thoughts in a viewer's mind about what the photo(s) "mean".

As an example, an artist statement, re: my gas station pictures, might read something like this...

THERE USED TO BE MEN (AND WOMEN) IN COVERALLS
(WITH GREASY HANDS)

While driving with a friend, I noticed the need to get some petrol. As we approached a "new fangled" gas station cum mini maxi mart, the thought occurred to me that, in my life time, the manner in which I/we got petrol had changed considerably.

As a result of that change, the landscape has, in many places, become littered with relics of the places where we used to get petrol. Many of these relics are abandoned, a few still sell petrol and a few have been repurposed for other business pursuits. In any event, the fact is that most of these "traditional" gas stations have literally disappeared.

While I have pictured some "traditional" gas station remains, I have not been able to picture the men and women in coveralls (with greasy hands) who have completely disappeared from the gas station landscape inasmuch as one no longer needs to interact with a human while getting petrol.

After reading the above artist statement, it is then up to a viewer to "make sense" of what the pictures "mean" to him/her self. To engage in deduction, speculation, and fantasy based upon what he/she brings, life experience and knowledge, to the viewing. Or, as Paul Strand stated:

"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.

# 5726-29 / kitchen sink•around the house ~ a little mystification as a relief

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED BY MIKE JOHNSTON ON TOP, under the heading of The Way Photographs Should Look, "What way do you like a photograph to look?"

My answer is in 2 parts, albeit in 1 sentence. (1)Since there is no way photographs should look, (2)who gives a rat's ass how anyone but the picture maker cares about how his/her photographs look.

Although it is worth noting that many a viewer of photographs have expressed how he/she would like another picture maker's photographs to look. You know what I mean ... the ubiquitous statement, "I wish he/she _______ " (insert directive of your choice, as in, cropped the scene differently, added more/less saturation or more/less contrast, etc.).

If you really want to know how someone thinks a picture should look, ask him/her to show you some of their pictures. And, if he/she does so but also starts to explain with words how they think a picture should look, tell him/her to shut the f... up cuz his/her pictures should "say" all there is to "say" about the subject.

In the 3 picture panel below, aka: triptych, there are 2 pictures which reflect my straight approach to making picture and how I like them to look. The 3rd picture has a bit of art sauce applied, which is not normally my cup o' tea. However....

"We got tired of the sameness of the exquisiteness of the photograph . . . [referring to the exact rendition of detail which is all-revealing.] Why? Because the photograph told us everything about the facts of nature and left out the mystery. Now, however hard-headed a man may be, he cannot stand too many facts; it is easy to get a surfeit of realities, and he wants a little mystification as a relief..." ~ Henry Peach Robinson

(embiggenable) • iPhone