#6445-50 / common places-things • rist camp ~ it's my body and I like most of it

all photos (embiggenable)

ON T.O.P. MIKE JOHNSTON RAISED THE IDEA OF bodies of work in which he noted the Fine Art world’s affinity for referent / technique themed collections of work. In the photography art world many of the recognized “greats” are known for such thematic bodies of work. Some of those greats have created multiple bodies of work but those bodies of work are also, more often than not, created around a referent based theme or technique / “style”.

Joel Meyerowitz is a good example of different bodies of work created by a single photographer; he started as an accomplished small camera BW street photographer then migrated to an 8x10 view camera and began making color landscape-ish photographs of his summer life on the Cape. That work made his chops as one of the three “fathers” of the new-color, new-topographics genre. He went on to create more bodies of work of other places he inhabited / visited, Tuscany and St. Louis, but each with the same vision / “style” of his initial Cape Light work.

In my picture making, Fine Art wise, I take a rather hi-bred approach to creating bodies of work; for the most part I just continue along my discursively promiscuous ways-picuring any thing, any where, anytime that pricks my eye and sensibilities-and then sorting it out, after a fashion, afterwards. That is, recognizing that I have, over time, photographed enough similar referents which grouped together can create a thematic / coherent body of work.

That written, if you view my WORK page, there are only 4 bodies of work that were undertaken with the intention of making a body of work-poles, decay, art reflects, and picture windows. Each were started with an initial flurry of picture making and I have been adding to them on a here-and-there, now-and-again basis ever since. FYI, not represented on the WORK page is a recently all-at-once, over a week or two, created body of work, porches of my hometown, which will be posted soon.

All of the written, after realizing over the past that I have, rather belatedly (understatement), not understood that my discursive promiscuity work is my most important body of work. And, that buried in that work are over 10K pictures with the Adirondacks as its theme.

The work , as I now realize, is mashup of people, places, and things but, taken together, present a tremendous sense of place. That belief is the result of showing my Adirondack Survey book-60 photographs-to a few local people who have responded with a surprisingly enthusiastic and delightful appreciation of the work. One couple in particular, our recent Lake George dinner hosts, is worth noting.

At my wife’s insistence, I brought the Adirondack Survey book along to dinner with no intention of showing it to anyone. However, after a tour of their owner-built house, during which I notice some very impressive original art of their walls, I decided to show them the book.

Separately, they both viewed the book. Their reactions were overwhelmingly-to me-positive and, for lack of a better word, educated, Art appreciation wise, inasmuch as they both took the time to “study” each and every picture-all 60 of them. The husband stopped dead on one page declaring, “We have to have a print of this for a wall in our house.” The wife had a similar reaction to another picture-that is, 2 pictures sold on the spot with the possibility of a 3rd. They both also asked if they could get a copy of the book.

All of that written, the comment that I appreciated the most was when the husband was looking over his wife’s shoulder, as she viewed the last few pictures, said, “We just yesterday were driving home from the Finger Lakes through the Adirondacks and I can’t believe how much this work reminds me of that drive.” To which the wife responded, “Me as well.”

In any event, next week I will be pitching this work-with the book and a 20 print folio-to the Exhibition Director at The View in Old Forge here in the Adirondacks. Wish me luck.

the husband's choice

the wife's choice

# 6441-44 / kitchen sink •rist camp • common places ~ behind and beyond

all photos (embiggenable)

in Bolton Landing

yes, there is sink in Rist Camp

TOOK A 50 MILE DRIVE FOR DINNER WITH SOME NEAR-to-Rist-Camp friends. Dinner was at a husband and wife owner-built home in trendy Bolton Landing on Lake George. A good time was had by all.

Lake George, a summer tourist hot spot, is the place where Alfred Stieglitz and his paramour Georgia O’Keeffe spent summers on Stieglitz’s father’s large estate-staying not in the lakeside villa but rather in a modest farmhouse on the estate. It is where Stieglitz made his famous Equivalents photographs. In case you are not familiar with the photographs, they are photographs of the sky / clouds,

In the making of his Equivalents photographs Stieglitz maintained that these works were a culmination of everything he had learned about photography; he “wanted to put down my philosophy of life—to show that my photographs were not due to subject matter—not to special trees, or faces, or interiors, to special privleges—clouds were there for everyone.”

As photography historian Sarah Greenough wrote:

The Equivalents are photographs of shapes that have ceded their identity, in which Stieglitz obliterated all references to reality normally found in a photograph”…by doing so ”Stieglitz was destabilizing your [the viewer’s] relationship with nature in order for you to think about nature, not to deny that it’s a photograph of a cloud, but to think more about the >feeling< that the cloud formation evokes.

Additionally, art critic Andy Grundberg wrote:

Equivalents remain photography’s most radical demonstration of faith in the existence of a reality behind and beyond that offered by the world of appearances. They are intended to function evocatively, like music...[E]motion resides solely in form, they assert, not in the specifics of time and place.”

Now, to be truthful, I present this entry not only as a history lesson, re: the medium and its apparatus, but also to reiterate my picture making M.O.—that is, my photographs are meant to suggest something behind and beyond the visual appearance of the quotidian world-not only the surprising visual form that can be extracted from the ordinary but also a hint of my philosophy of life.

That written, have no doubt about it, the making of my photographs is not concept (aka: content) driven. It is driven my my desire to create interesting visual form as manifested in, ya, know, a picture.

However…on the other hand, some might consider form as a rather ethereal / intangible apparition rarely perceived or experienced whole cloth in situ. And, iMo, it is only on the surface of the photographic print that form becomes something “real”. But, even then, for many the perception of it is most often a rather elusive idea, aka: concept.

So, inasmuch as the point of my photographs is not about the their literal referents but, rather about something behind and beyond that offered by quotidian world appearances, I especially like and appreciate this exchange by Stieglitz and a viewer of one of his Equivalents photographs…

Viewer: Is this a photograph of water? Stieglitz: What difference does it make of what it is a photograph? Viewer: But is it a photograph of water? Stieglitz: I tell you it does not matter. Viewer: Well, then, is it a picture of the sky? Stieglitz: It happens to be a photograph of the sky. But I cannot understand why that is of any importance.

# 6437-40 / Rist camp • common things ~ a weird sense of obligation

in the ADIRONDACKS ~ all photos (embiggenable)

Rist camp

at the Jersey Shore

Rist camp

µ4/3 camera

THE CAT AND I ARRIVED AT RIST CAMP ON TUESDAY. The wife arrived on Thursday evening for 4 day stay then back to work on Tuesday. A pattern she will keep until the last full week when she will stay the week. Life is good.

Last week at the Jersey Shore, I lamented the notion that I felt that, after 30 years of visiting the shore, I had photographed every thing there is to photograph at the shore. Turns out that there were more than a few things that pricked my eye and sensibilities. And, as I sit here at Rist camp, it turns out that I feel the same way, re: photo making possibilities in and around camp. Nevertheless, I am certain that there will be plenty of picture making possibilities.

That written, a strange thing happened as I was packing for camp; for some reason I can not fathom, it occurred to me that I should bring my µ4/3 camera and kit to camp.

Perhaps it was just a twinge of nostalgia for my former picture making M.O. However, on the other hand, I had a feeling somewhat akin to guilt, re: inasmuch as I have made so many good pictures with that gear, it seemed as though I was obligated-lest I be considered to be an ingrate-to make some more good pictures with the the gear. Weird, no? Although, not exactly Don-old Trump weird.

In any event, I brought the gear along, but….there is a downside to using it; I need the full processing power of PS to process the files. That’s something I do not have access to here at Rist camp cuz, as I have mentioned previously, my very old-in-the-tooth laptop no longer supports any version of PS. Which means I can shoot but I can not process and post.

All of that written, it will be a modified return to yesteryear-a real camera hangs on my body-but with the iPhone always at the ready. Real camera file processing to come upon my return to home.

# 6434-36 / common places ~ from that to this

Rist Camp

Jersey Shore porch

Adirondack porch

I SURVIVED ANOTHER 6.5 HOUR / 420 MILE THRU THE NIGHT drive-Jersey Shore to home-on Saturday. Next up today is a very pleasurable 1.25 hour drive thru stretches of Adirondack wilderness to Rist Camp where I will spend the next 5 weeks.

The difference between the 2 vacation spots-although I actually reside in one of these vacation spots-could not be more dissimilar. One, iMo, is an urban / suburban megalopolis custerfuck-otherwise known as New Jersey-the other is the largest wilderness preserve, AKA. the Adirondack Park-which, in fact is larger than the state of New Jersey-east of the Mississippi River.

In any event, let there be no doubt, re: on which porch I would rather “vacation”.

# 6431-33 / stone harbor • common places-things ~ how and what you see is what you get

All photos ~ (embiggenable)

SITTING HERE THIS AM HAVING COFFEE AND FRESH CANTALOUPE STARING at the picture in this entry. A thought, which has guided my picture making since forever but which I never really put into words, emerged into my conscious mind and it occurred to me that I should put it into words.

35 years ago (or more) I read the book Einstein’s Space and Van Gogh’s Sky-co-authored by a physicist and a psychologist in which they try to meld the two domains of knowledge and experience to explain “reality”. FYI, it is NOT an easy read. Nevertheless, near the end of the book, the authors delve into the idea that there are two kinds of art; Fine Art and Decorative Art. I took this to mean-as they wrote-that Fine Art is meant to challenge / agitate the viewer’s visual senses whereas Decorative Art is meant to “entertain” / sooth the viewer’s visual (emotional?) senses.

The authors’ definition pretty much matched my thoughts inasmuch as I divided art into 2 categories as well; Fine Art, grounded on the classic art elements of art-color, value, line, shape, form,, texture and space, and, Calendar Art, grounded on the principle of the “pretty picture”. That written, while I have often adopted a rather dismissive attitude toward Calendar Art, I do, in fact agree with the book’s authors that both types of art serve very valid ends-ya know, ya can’t always be wired. Sometimes ya gotta just relax.

So, all of that written, let me get down to the subject at hand, photography-wise…

… Unique amongst the visual arts is the medium’s intrinsic relationship with the real world. ASIDE I am writing about “straight” photography END OF ASIDE Consequently, most “serious” amateur picture makers concentrate on making pictures-highly detailed / technically “perfect” / by-the-rules-of very specific people, places, things, AKA: referents. Their pictures are always very literal depictions of their chosen referent(s). Although, that written, many will add exaggerations and embellishments-color/saturation/contrast/eye bleeding sharpness-in order to distinguish their pictures from those of non-serious amateurs, AKA: the snapshot crowd.

It is also worth noting that these “serious” amateurs, if not obsessed with a very specific referent, will most often concentrate on making pictures with one specific type of referent as their referent of choice.

iMo, this defines the Decorative Art crowd, Photography Division. Next up is the Fine Art crowd, Photography Division…

…. These straight picture makers also depict highly defined and recognizable people, places, things, although rarely, if ever, employing exaggerations and embellishment in their picture making. And, in my experience, they rarely give a shit about the referent in their pictures other than it’s possible appropriation as a vehicle for creating interesting, engaging, captivating form. Their special skill in creating form is that, unlike standard photographic composition which can be created in situ by following the “rules”, form can not be created in the picture making wild; it can only be seen and then skillfully-or more likely, intuitively-appropriated / captured and then presented on the flat field of a photographic print.

It is worth noting that much Fine Art photography bears a remarkable resemblance to non-serious amateur snapshots (a topic for another entry). Or, at least it appears so to the Decorative Art crowd.

In any event and all of the above written, to my eye and sensibilities, the genius of so many picture makers who are enshrined in the Fine Art level, Photography Division-take your pick; Avedon, Evans, Carier-Bresson, Shore, (Robert) Adams, Frank, Eggelston, et al-what they all have in common, despite their seemingly disparate referential depictions, is their ability to make photographs with interesting, engaging, captivating visual interest / form.

CONCLUSION: Fine Art-wise wise, it’s not about what you photograph, it’s about how you photograph what you see.

# 6464-66 / travel • Jersey shore ~ my burden to bear

36 HOURS WITHOUT SLEEP, throw in a 430 mile drive thru the night and my first day at the Jersey Shore was a “recovery” day. Making photographs was not at the top of my to-do list.

That written, after 30 years of Jersey Shore summer “vacations” (not my idea of a vacation), I kinda feel that I have made pictures of every thing there is to make pictures of. And, inasmuch as what was once a “quaint” summer cottage place to be, over those 30 years the place has been turned into-thanks to the neauvo-riche and good ol’ America conspicuous consumption-little more than a grotesque upscale suburban enclave.

Boring, boring, boring and not a lot of referents that prick my eye and sensibilities.

# 6459-62 / people • foilage • sink • picture window ~ philistinish pleasures

645 medium format camera / transparency film ~ all photos ~ (embiggenable)

µ4/3 / square format

iPhone / square format

iPhone / full frame

8x10 view camera / color negative film

IN A RECENT T.O.P. ENTRY MIKE JOHNSTON prattles on (and on and on and on), re: that whatever a picture maker’s intent, meaning-wise, a viewer will make of it whatever they want, influenced by what mental / emotional makeup he/she brings to the viewing. A postulation which is totally dependent upon the idea that a photograph is capable of possessing / communicating a meaning. An idea that I-and many others-reject.

Unfortunately, iMo, the art world has, over time, reached a point wherein content-what a piece of art “says”-is valued over form-what a piece of art looks like. Me?… I subscribe to K. B. Dixon’s idea that:

The contemporary fine-art establishment is a coalition of vested interests. They are not doing the medium any favors by relegating the idea of “visual interest” to the scrap-heap of philistinish pleasures. In a photograph, as in a painting, the photographer wants to see something he wants to look at. He does not want some ancillary item—some half-baked idea of intellectual profundity.”

Call me a philistine but I much prefer visual interest in a photograph-or any art form-over “intellectual profundity”. Or, to put in another way, I believe a photograph is meant to be seen, not “read”. I want a photograph to hit me in the eye like big pizza pie cuz that’s amore. If you wanna read, get a book.

I believe Susan Sontag got it right when she wrote:

Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy… the very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness.” ~ Susan Sontag

I also think she got right again when she wrote:

Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art.

That’s cuz I believe that, if you want to suck the life out of a photograph-or any piece of art-try turning it into words instead of letting it seduce and captivate your visual senses.

FYI the pictures in this entry are meant to represent the fact that there is no “magic” format for creating interesting form. No cropping was employed in processing / editing these photos - full frame only.