The technique of art is to make objects "unfamiliar," to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object: the object is not important. ~ Viktor Shklovsky
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
BEEN KINDA DISTRACTED, BLOG WISE OVER, the past 2 weeks or so. Making and buying stuff for Xmas gift giving, working at staying emotionally connected to a Covid Xmas, making pictures, Xmas day itself and, amongst other things, buying a new car.
Interesting thing about the car...inasmuch as I have been working on my seeing red body of work, we acquired a red (not just any old red but rather an extra-cost option crystal metalic soul red) car - the first non-black car we have owned in over 15 years. However, the choice of red was not due to my recent seeing red work. The choice was dictated by the idea that, if we were to buy a car made by this particular maker, the car color would have to be that maker's signature color.
In any event, lest I slide down a pool-table, shed-building, diet-story rabbit hole, what follows is a bit about photography...
At some point over the past couple weeks I came across a guy writing about a photograph and whether it might be, theoretically, a picture he would hang on his wall. One consideration was based upon the idea that the picture had a lot of depth. An idea that has always set off a clamor of wrong-answer buzzers in my head because...
surprise, surprise (to many)... A PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINT HAS NO DEPTH. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS A FLAT AS A PANCAKE, PAPER THIN 2-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT.
Why does the idea of "depth" in a photographic print get me so riled up?, you might wonder. Consider this...
"Photographs that transcend but do not deny their literal situation appeal to me…..You know you are seeing such a photograph if you say to yourself, "I could have taken that picture. I've seen such a scene before, but never like that." It is the kind of photography that relies for its strengths not on special equipment or effects but on the intensity of the photographer's seeing. It is the kind of photography in which the raw materials-light, space, and shape-are arranged in a meaningful and even universal way that gives grace to ordinary objects." ~ Sam Abell
So here's the rub. Most "serious" amateur picture makers, especially those who claim to be making "fine art", have no concept of what the bold-highlighted sentence in the Abell quote means. As a concept, they are, most likely, unaware that such a concept exists. That is, other than the conventional so-called "rules of composition". Consequently, their "concept" of a good picture revolves around the idea that the depicted referent is "the thing" - an idea which drives then to pursue and picture referents which are culturally proscribed as beautiful referents in and of themselves.
To be fair, if that is what floats their boat, good for them. However, what really gets under my skin is their nearly absolute distain for pictures-pictures which excell in the "light, space, and shape" 2D arena-which depict quotidian / "everyday" referents. iMo, the reason for this distain is, quite simply, due to the fact that thay can not see such a picture for what it is - that is, again quite simply, a 2D object which displays "light, space, and shape arranged in a meaningful and even universal way that gives grace to ordinary objects."
Quite literally, they can not and do not see the arrangement of light, space and shape-most often independent of the the thing depicted-because they have been taught, one way or another, that "the thing" that a picture is about is the straight forward, literally depicted referent. Consequently, that is all they see.
To my way of thinking (and seeing), mores the pity for these lost in the dark picture making souls cuz the truly liberating thing about getting beyond the grasp of culturally proscribed beauty is the fact everything in the world is the raw material for the making of good pictures.
crossing Lake Champlain ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone (copy photo)
(embiggenable) • iPhone (copy photo)
I HAD BEEN CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM ENTRY, re: my last entry about Admas sucks, but decided not to do so. Then a coupled comments appeared which I felt required a response. So....
Prior to those new comments, my desire for an addendum entry was driven by the fact that I neglected to be clear, in my previous entry, that I was not suggesting that Sir Ansel was a "great" color picture maker. In fact, I have never been a big fan of Adams' B&W work. Although, I have been fortunate enough to have stood in front of a number of Adams original prints-most at the George Eastman Museum-and one would have to be blind not to recognize and appreciate the stunningly beautiful objects, aka: photo prints, he created.
new comment #1: John Sparks wrote that Adams' color pictures "....don't suck, but also don't have the drama/impact of his B&W work. He also wrote that Adams had some color blindness, a notion that rings a bell with me.
my response: Up to point, I would agree with the idea that Adams' color work is less dramatic than his B&W work. However, that is the quality that I like about Adams' color work and a quality / characteristic Adams pursued in his quest to find / develop a "color photography aesthetic"...
Adams believed that "...it was impossible to get a truly 'realistic image' [with color photography]" and, as a result, "a concept of psuedo-reality developed in both professional and amateur work." He also wrote that "The Creator did not go to art school and natural color, while more gentle and subtle, seldom has what we call aesthetic resonance."
Adams' concept of a color photography "psuedo-reality" was based upon the emphasis placed upon, by color picture makers of the era, "smashing, garish color ....a bebop of electric blues, furious reds, and poison greens". He had no desire to venture down that path so it should come as no surprise that he pursued the making of color pictures which evinced a more "realistic"-Adams always placed the word in quotes-representation of a "more gentle and subtle" natural color.
new comment #2: Christine Bogan wrote "It is a question of Taste. Why Not discuss with Mike Johnston your Personal experience and Knowledge?"
my response: The easy answer to that question is to suggest that you read Elephant Tongue and Hypnotized Chickens
I have included a sampling of Adams' color pictures-quick iPhone copy photos-from the book Ansel Adams~In Color. Pictures which I would suggest dispel the idea that his color worked sucked. In fact, as far as I am concerned, if I were required to have an Adams' picture on a wall in my home, I would rip out a page from the color book and frame it rather than display an original Adams B&W picture.
Cuz, as Christine Bogan wrote, "It is a question of Taste."
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
I WROTE RECENTLY THAT, AT TIMES, I CAN GET ANNOYED by items I encountered on the interweb, especally on photo sites. Items that I find to be specious, uninformed and/or out-right wrong-headed. A recent case in point:
"Ansel Adams sucked at color, in life as well as photography." ~ Micheal Johnston
Johnston dropped this comment in an entry wherein he was championing his never-ending case for a monochrome only digital camera. That is, one that-with a lens-does not cost as much as a decent used car. I have no horse in that race, however, I can not let his comment about Adams and color photography-do not have any idea what he meant by the idea that Adams, color wise, "sucked in life"-go by without a response....
....if all you know about Sir Ansel is his B&W oeuvre-both his prints and his Zone System-then you only know half the story. In fact, for over 40 years of Adams' picture making life he wrestled with the color medium-aesthetics and techniques. It is estimated that he made 3,500+ color pictures-transparencies-very few of which were ever printed. His commercial and editorial color work for corporations such as Kennecott Copper, Anaconda Mines, Eastman Kodak Co. (more than a dozen Coloramas) and the Polaroid Corp appeared in publications such as Life, Vogue, Horizons, Fortune and Arizona Highways.
Much of Adams' color work was underwritten / subsidized through his long-standing relationship with both Eastman Kodak and the Polaroid Corp. He took their films out in the field, pursued his color picture making fancies and submitted technical notes and evaluations to product development technicians in both companies. Nice work if you can get it.
While I could go on and on about Adams and his color photography, you would be better served by acquiring the book, Ansel Adams ~ In Color. The book has 55 beautifully reproduced color pictures-currated by the preeminent photographer Harry Callahan-and a very informative Introduction exploring a brief history of color photography and Adams' life of exploration of it.
Maybe Santa will leave a copy under Michael Johnston's Xmas tree. While he could read/view it sitting down, he should eventually be able to stand corrected.
(embiggenable) ~ iPhone using RTRO camera app
(embiggenable) ~ iPhone using RTRO camera app
(embiggenable) ~ iPhone using RTRO camera app
RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT back in the day when Polaroid TIME ZERO film was available, I probably-I never counted them-made 3>4,000 pictures using one or the other of my 4 Sx70 Polaroid cameras (still have them).
Most of those pictures could be categorized as "family" snapshots. On the other hand, a fair number of them were made for commercial / editorial assignments and as TiME ZERO/SX70 Polaroid art. A quite in vogue genre which, after the SX70 was no longer availabe-TIME ZERO continued to be available-drove the prices of used SX70s to stupid levels. I was fortunate enough that, with the exception of my first photo store bought SX70, I picked up my other SX70s at flea markets-pre internet / ebay /et al-for no more than $20US each.
In any event, I was truly depressed-well, at least bummed out-when TIME ZERO film slipped into the annals of photographic history. That written, I have managed to save all of my SX70/TIME ZERO pictures in 2 huge (approx. 20x30inch) plastic bins (with cover). They are all just chucked in there willy-nilly which is a perfectly acceptable form of archiving TIME ZERO prints.
All of that written, I have come across an iPhone app-RTRO from Moment-which produces a reasonable representation of TIME ZERO film. That is, except for one big exception - color rendition. I have created a work-around for that exception in the form of a saved custom Photoshop CURVES setting which gets a file in the ball park, TIME ZERO wise.
So, while I can produce an image/print with a pretty good look and feel of TIME ZERO film/prints, The thing I really miss is the whirl and mechanical noise of a print being ejected from from an SX-70 camera and then watching the print develop in your hand.
there is nothing on tv ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
seeing red ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
FYI, I HAVE UNDERTAKEN A PROJECT TO UPDATE, REORGANIZE and SLIM DOWN my site's WORK page. While I have begun to update a few bodies of work, I have yet to settle on a manner of presentation and, just as important, to decide which bodies of work I might eliminate.
In any event, today's entry contains a few pictures from my seeing red work. Pictures which have not been previously displayed as part of that body of work. And, in culling through my picture library I have been surprised by the number of new candidates for inclusion in the seeing red body of work. I have also been surprised by the number of different picture making situations-urban / natural world landscapes, kitchen sink, people, still life-in which I have seen and made pictures of "red". And, I do find it a bit strange that there is no other color around which I could build a similar body of work.