# 5813-16 / a book - sample spreads ~ character not caricature

covers ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

MADE A COUPLE BOOKS, BOTH titled, AUTUMN 2021 character not caricature. One copy is 10x10, the other is 8x8. Both are hardcover. Each book is being printed at different POD sources. I am eager to see if there is much difference in printed quality.

The STATEMENT page reads as follows:

Character not Caricature

"There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described I like to think of photographing as a two way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing it as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both.</i>" ~ Garry Winogrand

"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

# 5810-12 / kitchen life • landscape (civilized ku) - the pleasureable act of seeing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone / PORTRAIT setting

(embiggenable) • iPhone / PORTRAIT setting

IN THE LAST ENTRY REFERENCE WAS MADE TO SUSAN SONTAG'S declaration, re: art criticism. That critics should "show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."

Consider one such effort-from Sally Eauclaire in her book, the new color photography-to follow that directive:

"Jenshel's works demonstrate photography's potential in the romantic, picturesque mode. The formal play is relaxed. The forms unfold gradually but ineluctably, while colors shift into delicately nuanced and often improbable variations. Such melifluous features prolong the pleasureable act of seeing, caressing imagination while reviving subconscious yearnings for paradisiacal worlds of milk and honey." Len Jenshel

CAVEAT It should be noted that Sally consulted with me-on matters re: photo techniques / mechanics-during the writing of her book. She had little, bordering on none, knowledge about how photographs were made, camera technique / printing materials and technique, et al. Needless to write, that upon receiving an advance copy of the book, I was delighted to find my name in the Acknowledgements on the very first page in the book. END OF CAVEAT

The above excerpt-which I really like-from the book is representative of most of Eauclaire's critiques in her book, all of which are mercifully free of photo-world jargonisms. On the other hand, it could be suggested that her writing is chock full of artspeak jargonisms and 2-dollar words. However, whatever anyone might feel about the actual words, the fact of the matter is that she consistently writes about photographs from the perspective of "the pleasureable act of seeing" and a picture's capability of "caressing [the] imagination" - an erotics of art, indeed.

Even when Eauclaire addresses things photographic such as camera formats, she does so with a literary touch:

"Len Jenshel and Mitch Epstein seem to function like 'Aoelian harps' responding when strummed by the exceptional confluences of the worlld's appearance. Using hand-held, 6x9cm cameras, they are able to cruise fluidly in search of their subjects, reacting with greater rapidity than a large format camera would allow...Jenshel and Epstein shoot intuitively and omnivorously, navigating through reams of subject matter with the mobility of fighter planes in search of an appropriate target."

All of the above written, I find it refreshing to read about the medium of photography and its apparatus / photographs written by non-photographers. That is, writers / critics who come from the greater Art World rather than from a specific segment-Photography Division-thereof. It is also why, for the most part, I like showing / exhibiting my pictures to non-photographers cuz in both cases non-photographers are much more apt to see a picture for what it is rather than searching for meaning and/or viewing it through the fog of photo gear / technique.

# 5807-09 / civilized ku • kitchen life ~ I am what I am and that's all that I am - Popeye the Sailor Man

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IT IS WHAT IT IS AND THAT IS ALL THAT IT IS.

In her essay, Against Interpretation, Susan Sontag wrote:

"The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art.... more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."

Sontag suggests that, in the field of art criticism, content, aka: meaning, has taken precedence over form. Roughly translated, my understanding of that assertion is that finding the meaning(s) in a work of art is more important than what the work looks like. And, according to Sontag, that quest for finding meaning, re: the interpretation of work of art, "...is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of 'meanings'." Hence her statement (with which I emphatically agree):

"...interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.....[I]n place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art....to recover our senses. We must learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more."

All of the above written, you might wonder what my point is....well, it's really quite simple. After years of struggling with the "meaning" to be found in my pictures-even to the point of, is there any meaning in my pictures?-I have arrived at a point where I quite emphatically believe that the visual arts, especially the medium of Photography and its apparatus, are meant to be viewed / experienced for their visual quality / characteristics / merits and the feelings-not the thoughts-that they incite. That is to write, the sensory / sensuous pleasure they bring to the act of seeing, by means of the elevation of form over content, aka: meaning.

To that point, consider this...I do not know the context in which Oscar Wilde offered up the following, an opinion which I find particularly pertinent, not only to Sontag's point, but to the manner in which I practice my picture making:

"It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."

# 5802-06 / landscape • kitchen life • kitchen sink • around the house ~ a more subtle look at things Autumnal

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

YOU MAY HAVE READ / HEARD THE DESCRIPTIVE MONIKER about one picture or another that it is a photograph about photography. Most would think that descriptor to be rather tautological cuz, duh, of course a photograph is about photography, right?

<p>Answer: Wrong. In the Fine-Art World, Photography Division, that phraseology is used to describe a picture that was made utilizing / emphasizing one (or more) of the medium's unique characteristics. For example, its inherent relationship to/with the real world. Or, the medium's ability to capture / "freeze" a precise moment (or a tiny fraction thereof) in time.

The aforementioned characteristics are well known , in one degree or another, to just about everyone who makes pictures. That written, there is one characteristic of the medium that few picture makers, especially many who are engaged (and should know better) in the pursuit of making fine-art, are aware of...that the work product-a photographic print-is a flat-as-a-pancake thing that lives in a 2D world.

Sure, sure. Everyone knows that a print-or a screen on a digital device-is as flat as a pancake. However, very few picture makers think of a print as a 2-dimensional thing. As a matter of fact, most "serious" picture makers attempt to create (think so-called leading lines) something that a 2D print does not have - the missing 3rd dimension, aka: depth. In other words, instead of utilizing one of the medium's characteristics, they strive to contravene it.

To be certain, I am not suggesting that the "illusion" of depth is not possible on a photographic print. However, my point is that, iMo (and I am not alone in this), one of the primary differences that distinguish art from fine-art, Photography Division, are those pictures in which the medium's 2D characteristics are made readily apparent-to those who can see it-by the picture maker's intuitive ability / skill / creativity to see the literal referents in his/her select section of the real world-imposed by his/her framing-as non-literal 2D visual properties which can be arranged / organized on and across the flat field of a photographic print....

"This recognition, in real life, of a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values is for me the essence of photography; composition should be a constant of preoccupation, being a simultaneous coalition – an organic coordination of visual elements." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

I also believe that, in order to recognize and appreciate Fine-Art photography, a viewer must learn / know how to look at a photographic print by seeing beyond its literal representation. That is, seeking to see and feel a sense of balance created by a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values, aka: an organic coordination of visual elements. And, FYI, in my experience, when making or viewing a picture, I almost always feel it before I see it. When I feel it, I know that what I am seeing is something else.

"I believe that a spectacular photo of something ordinary is more interesting than an ordinary photo of something spectacular. The latter is about something else, the former is something else." - Jim Coe

ADDENDUM I believe the key to being able to see / feel a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values, aka: an organic coordination of visual elements, is the idea of "soft eyes.", the effortless combination of both peripheral and foveal vision. With soft eyes, you let your eyes physically relax. Instead of focusing on one thing (your "featured" referent), you allow that thing to be at the center of your gaze, while simultaneously taking in the largest possible expanse within your full field of vision in order to increase your awareness of everything going on around your selected referent.

# 5788-5801 / landscape ~ it all depends on how you look at it

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • Canon PowerShot G3

OVER MY YEARS OF ENGAGING WITH THE MEDIUM OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND its apparatus, I have come to several conclusions. In no particular order, some of them are:

1. I prefer pictures wherein the picture maker is showing me something as opposed to the pictures of those picture makers who are "expressing" themselves.
2. There are no "rules" for making good pictures...(as Sir Ansel said)..."There are only good pictures."
3.It ain't what you picture, it's how you picture it.
4. Re: technicals / mechcanics, it ain't rocket science.
AND
5. Re: aesthetics; notice (observe), select (frame) + organize (visual elements within the frame).

Re: # 5...notice, select+organize is not rocket science or, for that matter, any kind of science (aka: rules) at all. Rather, this is where Art is made and, iMo, the best Art, Photography Division, is made with the harnessing of intuition, experimentation and feel(ings) in the cause of making pictures that just look "right"*. ASIDE note the emphasis on the word "look". That's cuz photography is one of the visual arts, the product of which is meant to be viewed (looked at). END OF ASIDE

*Re: the elephant in the room...what the hell does "just looks right" actually mean? Answer: whatever the hell any given picture maker or picture viewer decides / wants it to mean. That's called subjectivity - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. So, in a sense, anyting goes.

That written, some people's feelings, tastes, or opinions are more influential than that of others. Gallery directors, museum curators, photo editors, and the like have the power to determine which pictures are exhibited / seen / collected / sold. Hell, many is the time that my feelings, tastes, or opinions, when acting as a photo competition judge / juror, have been the great determinator. While it is true that in many cases, there can a general consensus , good or bad, regarding specific art work, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will also be a significant number of those who disagree with the consensus.

In any event, when it comes down to an individual's work, the only feelings, taste, or opinion that matter are those of that individual, re: his/her own work. If that work meets his/her intention(s), then that work must just look right.

# 5798 / kitchen sink ~ can you see what I see?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

As far as it goes, this statement from Elliot Erwitt is a reasonable idea:

"To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place...You can find pictures anywhere. It's simply a matter of noticing things and organizing them. ~ Elliot Erwitt

AS I READ / UNDERSTAND ERWITT'S STATEMENT it seems that he is suggesting that, when one is out and about (anywhere) with a picture making device, with eyes and mind wide open, one is most likely going to notice things, picture making fodder wise. At which point it becomes a matter of organization, acka: composition, and then releasing the shutter. With the exception of a picture maker in pursuit of a very specific picture making objective-say, a white fire hydrant illuminated by the late day sun-that is a reasonable description of how many picture makers might work.

That written, the manner in which I work differs in one important aspect...I do not notice "things", rather, I notice "organization". That is, my eye and sensibilities are first pricked by arrangements (the organization) of things."Things" being best described as the relationships of line, shape, space, color, light and shadow, patterns, texture of a select segement of the real world independent of what might be perceived as the referent, aka: subject, of my picture.

In the case of today's picture, the select segment of the real world was that of my kitchen sink. What first pricked by eye and sensibilities was the strikingly intense-especially when viewed against the grey of the sink-color and texture of the bacon and noodle, followed immediately by their spacial and linear relationship to each other and the drop of water, the spot of warm directional sunlight and the repeating pattern, top to bottom, of arching bands of light and dark. All of this "noticing" happened within the span of 2-3 seconds.

However, here's the thing, while I can sit here now and write about what I saw, the fact of the matter is that I did not consciously think about those things, aka: the visual elements, at the moment of seeing them and then making the picture. The only way I can describe it is that I "felt" it. And, most likely, if I had thought about it, I would have missed getting the picture cuz that little spot of warm directional sunlight was gone in a flash.

In any event, some might view today's picture as a picture of a piece of bacon and noddle in a sink. But, of course, I saw and pictured much more than just that.

# 5794-97 / landscapse (ku) ~ a simple walk in the woods

ONE OF MY FAVORITE AUTHORS-HE WAS ALSO A radio / tv personaity and a performing humorist / raconteur-had something to say, re: photography / photographers:

"Of all the world’s photographers, the lowliest and least honored is the simple householder who desires only to 'have a camera around the house' and to 'get a picture of Dolores in her graduation gown.' He lugs his primitive equipment with him on vacation trips, picnics, and family outings of all sorts. His knowledge of photography is about that of your average chipmunk. He often has trouble loading his camera, even after owning it for twenty years. Emulsion speeds, f-stops, meter readings, shutter speeds have absolutely no meaning to him, except as a language he hears spoken when, by mistake, he wanders into a real camera store to buy film instead of his usual drugstore. His product is almost always people- or possession-oriented. It rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens. What artistic results he obtains are almost inevitably accidental and totally without self-consciousness. Perhaps because of his very artlessness, and his very numbers, the nameless picture maker may in the end be the truest and most valuable recorder of our times. He never edits; he never editorializes; he just snaps away and sends the film off to be developed, all the while innocently freezing forever the plain people of his time in all their lumpishness, their humanity, and their universality." ~ Jean Shepherd

iMo, this observation could be, perhaps should be, the cornerstone/ foundation of understanding what it takes to become a "truest and most valuable recorder of our times".

Think about it.