# 6879-81 / commonplaces-things • kitchen life ~ uncommon beauty

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

I WAS SEARCHING FOR A SPECIFIC STEPHEN SHORE QUOTE. Didn’t find it. However, in my search I came across this (an excerpt), written by Christy Lange, from a section-Nothing Overlooked-in the book STEPHEN SHORE:

This was a new conception of the landscape picture….Each image is so sharp and detailed that it seems to have infinite centers of attention, or none at all. ‘If I saw something interesting, I didn’t have to make a picture about it. I could let it be somewhere in the picture, and have something else happening as well. So this changes the function of the picture-it’s not like pointing at something and saying, “Take a look at this”. It’s saying, “Take a look at this object I am making”. It’s asking you to not savor something in the world, but savor the image itself .”….Shore saw how the photograph imposes order on the scene or simplifies the jumble by giving it structure’.”

At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, this description of one of Shore’s pictures, Beverly Boulevard and La Brea Avenue, could easily have been written about most of my photographs inasmuch as, as mentioned in my last entry, I rarely make pictures that ask a viewer to “take a look at this”-aka: the literally depicted referent(s). Rather, I ask viewers to “take a look at this object I am making”-aka: the print in and of itself and the form depicted there upon.

Ya know, like in this entry’s pictures; for instance, I am not asking any one to “savor” the, as the wife calls it, clutter in a corner of my work room. Rather, my hope is that a viewer might “savor”, or at least appreciate / recognize, the form (Shore’s “structure”) I have attempted to illustrate as depicted on the surface of a print.

That is to write that I do not see so-called traditional beauty in the quotidian world around me but that I do believe that I make “beautiful”, visually interesting photographs thereof.

# 6878 / travel • common places ~ size matters - why I dislike nosey people

(embiggenable)

THERE ARE THOSE WHO VIEW MY PHOTOGRAPHS and come to the conclusion that I make pictures of people, places, or things. That’s somewhat understandable inasmuch as there are, in fact, people, places, or things in my photographs. That’s cuz, with the medium’s intrinsic relationship with the real world, it is very difficult to make a picture that does not include people, places, or things, or, evidence thereof.

That written, I rarely make a photograph whereby the making of which was incited by the depicted, literal referent. In fact, in most of my photographs, many viewers are confused, re: what exactly is it that I was making a picture of? That being the case, it is ever my hope that such viewers might experience a momentary revelation which enables them to see what I was actually making a picture of…

…to wit, a literal / actual depiction of how I see the world. And, to be precise, I see segments of the real world in random convergences of line, shape, space, color, and value. Elements that, when isolated from a particular POV and within a photographic frame create form. Form which can be pleasing / disturbing / agitating / confusing (take your pick) but, to my eye and sensibilities, always visually interesting. An interest which derives, not from what is literally depicted but, rather, from how it is depicted. Although, the depicted referent and the depicted form are inexorably joined.

So, all of that written, you might ask what does this have to do with size matters….?

… the size that matters is photographic print size. That is, if a picture maker’s intent is to depict form, a print must be able to be viewed in its entirety all at once. That’s cuz, the form to be seen in a photographic print can not be broken up into individual parts. And that’s cuz, whatever the “parts” of a photograph might be, they must work together as as an integrated whole otherwise the form falls apart.

That being the case, I would suggest that, while there is no one-size-fits-all print size for the viewing of form, there is a you’re-standing-too-close print viewing distance-dependent upon the size of the print-if a viewer wishes to discern the form to be seen in a print. That written, the “right” print size for the viewing of form must be determined by the viewing distance restraints of the viewing venue - a viewer must be able to stand at a distance from a print to allow for viewing its entirety all at once.

RE: nosey people. I hate it, at gallery viewing of my photographs, when viewers get nosey. That is to write, when they get their noses to close to a print to ever discern what my photographs are about. I have often thought about drawing a chalk line on a gallery floor to indicate the “proper” viewing distance. And, to enforce the idea, greet the gallery goers baseball bat in hand and letting them know that stepping over the line gets them kneecapped. Maybe even reinforcing that edict with a medic in attendance and an ambulance parked outside the gallery door.

@ 6868-77 / travel ~ excelsior, you fathead

birthday cannoli ~ (embiggenable)

Brooklyn ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown~ (embiggenable)

my kitchen + Brooklyn sink with window ~ (embiggenable)

EVERY YEAR-FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS-THE WIFE and I go to Cooperstown, NY where the wife has an annual conference. While she attends the conference, I play golf and hang out around the very upscale hotel on the lake. The trip also coincides with her birthday so we always go out for a nice meal. This year we also went to NYC / Brooklyn for a couple days before heading to Cooperstown (the home of the Baseball Hall of Fame). All of which brings me to the point of this entry…

….I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANY MORE

To be precise, the “this” in question that makes me mad as hell is any utterance such as:

It's fantastic for the things it's meant for and designed to do, but it's mainly a communication device. It can be exasperating as a camera.…they”-iPhone files-“fall far enough short of the best "real" cameras that ultimately they're just not terribly satisfying…”

iMo, those who make such utterances are; a) those who have not made the effort to understand the in and outs of how to use the iPhone photo making capabilities, b) those who are not using the RAW capture capabilities or c) don’t know how to process RAW files for maximum results, d) those who, like the commentator quoted above, are using older generation iPhones, and, e) those who are gearheads who make photos that are tack-sharp with saturated color and high dynamic range but are, nevertheless, rarely worth a second glance.

Now, to be certain, I am not proposing that an iPhone “camera” is ideal or well suited to every picture making task or that it can “satisfy” every picture maker’s aesthetic. However, that written, I am emphatically emphasising that it is perfectly capable of producing photographs that are as good-that is, expressing the intent of the photographer-any other picture making device.

Any one (me, being a prime example) who has used a wide variety of cameras-8x10 / 4x5 view cameras, medium format cameras, 35mm cameras, Polaroid cameras, and the like-knows that every camera has its own distinct peculiarities, both in their use and their rendering results. However, the only thing that matters to the picture making artist is that any given camera helps in producing his/her picture making intent.

All of the above written, just let me declare that, in a “perfect” picture making universe, I wish that picture makers would just pick whatever camera device is best for them and their intent and vision-if they even have one-and then keep their fucking yap shut and concentrate on making pictures that “satisfy” their eye and sensibilities. I might not like their pictures but that sure as hell it won’t be because of the camera they used.

FYI, during the 6 day trip I covered a lot of ground, picture making wise. l returned with 25 “keepers” which spanned multiple photography genres: landscape, street, people, night, and still life. All of the pictures were made with my iPhone 24 PRO Max camera device set to produce RAW files. And, to my eye and sensibilities, the results were very satisfying and, BTW, the “cmaera” served all of my picture making intents very well, thank you very much.

# 6863-67/ travel ~ lookin at pictures that ain’t photos

THE WIFE AND I DROVE TO NYC YESTERDAY to attend an opening reception at the Society of Illustrators in midtown Manhattan. Had dinner nearby in a Turkish restaurant.

Total time for both endeavors, 3.5 hours. Total parking cost, $60.00US. Definitely worth the price cuz our car really enjoyed its first elevator ride.

After 2 nights in Brooklyn-went to Apple store, nothing was free-with family, it is off to Cooperstown for 4day, 3night stay. The wife has a conference. I’ll play golf. Parking is free.

# 6857-62 / common things • common places • discursive promiscuity ~ A Milk Cow Is Not a Black Helicopter

pages / spreads from my upcoming book, The Ravings of a Mad Diarist ~ all photos (embiggenable)

Inso far as photography is (or should be) about the world, the photographer counts for little, but insofar as it is the instrument of intrepid, questioning subjectivity, the photographer is all.” ~ Susan Sontag

I INTRODUCE THE SONTAG QUOTE AS ENTRY INTO the idea of visual vs. verbal thinking as it relates to the…well, dare I write…concept of conceptual photography.

Re: visual vs verbal thinking, the ultra simple definition: verbal thinkers do most of their thinking through inner dialogue whereas visual thinkers think in pictures and spatial relationships. While people aren’t exclusively one or the other, most tend toward one or the other.

That written, I can write that I am decidedly a visual thinker; my head is, and always has been, filled to the brim with visual images. As an example, when asked for walking/driving directions I can not remember the names of streets but I can give a very detailed description of the suggested route’s landscape. Ya know, like, take the 2nd right turn past the picket fence at the yellow corner house and proceed up the rise to…and so on.

Consequently-and I think, logically-the fact that I think in pictures, call them images, and spatial relationships, it is no surprise that I was drawn, from a very early age, to the practice of making pictures, aka: art. So, that established, moving on to conceptual photography…

During my high school-all boys Jesuit institution-days, we were assigned summer reading. The books were almost exclusively of the “classic” literature variety with a few notable current works thrown in - I guess they wanted to make sure we did not spend the entire summer on the beach with a horde of sweet sixteen-ers.

In any event, I skimmed and CliffsNotes-ed my way through the assignment, barely surviving the fall semester writing assignments about the assigned books. My “problem” with the books was due to the fact that the subsequent writing assignments were intended to be a deep dive into meanings, metaphors, allegories, and the like to be found, discovered, revealed in the books. And, no matter how I tried, I could simply not find such things, aka: concepts. Or, perhaps I just did not perceive any advantage to recognizing those things. To my visually constructed thinking, they were all just stories.

That written, I have the same “problem” with conceptual photography. To my visually constructed thinking, photographs are “just” pictures. When I look at a photograph, the very first thing I see is a picture. Cuz, ya know, pictures are a visual construct. And, in order to make a photograph you do not use a typewriter, you use a light recording device that produces an actual thing that is meant to be seen, not read.

Which this suggests to me is that, if you want to say something about something, then talk or write about it. Use words. Write a book, write an essay. Hell, write a post-it note. Any of which would be better at communicating / conveying a concept-most often psychological / academic in nature-than using a medium which is intrinsically suited to show us something about something.

ASIDE am I alone in thinking that making a picture of an actual real world thing as a metaphor for something else is kinda oxymoronic? Kinda like the title of an essay, re: conceptual photography, I read long ago - A Milk Cow Is Not a Black Helicopter And That’s a Fact. END ASIDE

My Conclusion: Photography is a visual medium. Photographs are meant to be seen cuz, in the best of cases, a photographer’s questioning subjectivity about the world is primarily directed in the cause of showing us how he/she sees the world. And, for me / my eye and sensibilities, my pleasure and joy. re: viewing of photographs, is in seeing how the world looks when photographed, not only by me but also when photographed by the (unique) vision of other photographers*.

*iMo, re: Sontag’s “the photographer is all”; I agree with that sentiment inasmuch as the most interesting / engaging photographs are made by photographers who bring their unique, personal vision to bear in the making of their photographs. However, for my eye and sensibilities, it is, and always will be, the tangible results of that vision, aka: a photograph, that is the “all”.

# 6856 / ~ something about something

(embiggenable)

THIS PAST WEEK I PAID A VISIT TO the George Eastman House, aka: the George Eastman Museum, in Rochester, NY - the home of Eastman Kodak Co. which still exists in a somewhat ghost-like form of its former self. And, FYI, they still make film.

While at the museum, as I moseyed through one of the galleries-the Collection Gallery-I experienced a modified semblance of awe and distinct appreciation as I viewed original prints of photographs made by Stieglitz, Stiechen, Atget, Adams, Arbus, Negly, amongst other notables. Then I moved on to the New Directions: Recent Acquisitions exhibition in the Project Gallery wherein I tried, really tried, to get some kinda grasp on some photographs…

…acquired by the museum over the past five years and showcase significant developments in photographic practice….Throughout New Directions, the photographic image figures as a tool to fortify—but also unsettle—ideas about history and identity…While some of the artists embrace photography as a documentary medium, others develop strategies to destabilize the authority of the image. Some work to explicitly make visible the myriad ways that the past shapes the present. As instruments of power, archives become platforms to be challenged, subject to reinterpretation and reconfiguration. Found and appropriated materials offer practical, but also critical, approaches to reflecting on contemporary life and the status of images in the digital era.

…however, try as I might, a grasp of any kind was, at best, elusive, at worst, not possible. That’s cuz the pictures were; a) visually un-engaging, and, b) so “conceptually” driven in their making that, ironically, the concept was virtually indecipherable without a zillion word art-speak “explanations” which, mercifully, were not included with the exhibition. FYI, I write “mercifully” cuz I most emphatically do not go to an exhibition of visual art to read what are essentially an academic thesis about “concepts” that are of interest to academics or, even worse, interesting to psychologists.

Being, at times, a glutton for punishment, in the museum gift shop I purchased an expensive hardbound book, A MATTER OF MEMORY : PHOTOGRAPHY AS OBJECT IN THE DIGITAL AGE. I did so knowing full well, forewarned as it were, that it was a “scholarly” work.

However, the book is illustrated with a large number of photographs by 35 picture makers, each accompanied with a short essay about the picture maker’s conceptual intent. My hope was that with another attempt to get a grasp on “significant developments in photographic practice” I might be able to get at least a scintilla of insight into the academic world’s fascination with conceptual picture making.

Despite my earnest attempt, I yet again was left in the dark and dealing with a nasty bruise from repeatedly banging my head against a stone wall. Best as I can tell, some people get a kick outa dancing on the head of a pin.

# 6846-55 / common places/things • travel ~ fleeing the country

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

SUNDAY DAWNED RAINY AND FOGGY. Plus, the wife was away and I was bored. So it made absolute sense to grab my passport and go to a city in another country to make some pictures.

Visited a church. Walked the length of a street. Ate in a Polish restaurant-beet consommé w sour creme , kielbasa, sauerkraut, potato pancakes. On the placemat there was a bit of wise advice:

Remember, vodka goes good with everything …. especially vodka.

# 6838-45 / common places/things • flora ~ Spring has arrived

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

a garden figure made from old tools

….photographic images tend to subtract feeling from something we experience at first hand and the feelings they do arouse are, largely, not those we have in real life. Often something disturbs [ed. aka, pricks] us more in photographed form than it does when we actually experience it.” ~ Susan Sontag

Yep.