W9th / Avenue of the Americas ~ Geenwich ViIlage / NYC, NY (click to embiggen)
snowy Saturday ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)
warm Sunday ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the ADiorndack PARK (click to embiggen)
art ~ Manhattan / NYC, NY (click to embiggen)
subway riders ~ Manhattan / NYC. NY (click to embiggen)
late afternoon light ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (click to embiggen)
That signature was obtained while talking with Waters during a totally serendipitous encounter with him in Baltimore. I had gone into a rather funky "gift" shop in the Fell's Point neighborhood and when I went to the cash register to pay up, lo and behold and much to my utter astonishment, there was John Waters manning the checkout. As it turned out, Waters was in the shop helping a friend, something he did on a fairly regular basis.
The shop was empty of patrons so we chatted a bit and, of course, I asked him for an autograph. Whereupon he reached under the counter and produced a can of Aqua Net - left over from the Hairspray movie production - and offered to sign it for $10., money which he donated to a local charity. I paid up and got the can.
Gander Mtn ~ Cicero, NY (click to embiggen)
sausage ~ Cicero, NY (click to embiggen)
Team Austria ~ Lake Placid, NY (click to emgbiggen)
sink rack ~ Au Sable Forks, NY (click to embiggen)
That written, the jury is out regarding whether or not I will continue with making iPhone pictures in any serious way.
back scratcher (click to embiggen)
Montreal cafe (click to embiggen)
night swim (click to embiggen)
the photographer (click to embiggen)
pool drama (click to embiggen)
the glance (click to embiggen)
Andy Warhol's couch (click to embiggen)
red coat (click to embiggen)
As juror for this exhibit, what am I looking for in an image? In a word: everything. I want to see well designed photographs that have depth, strong structure, good light—and within them a spark of life .... What don’t I want to see? Images that are contrived, forced, synthetic or derivative. Images where software or hardware have made the picture .... The aspiration of this exhibit is high: To place on the walls of the gallery a collection of images that cannot be easily memorized. A set of photographs so strong and subtle in their compositions that they irresistibly stay in the mind of the viewer.
The pictures presented in this entry are my response to Abell's criteria. In choosing these pictures, I have focused on Abell's request for pictures that; 1. are not "contived", 2. are not dependent upon software / hardware to "make" the picture and 3. exhibit a "spark of life". A proscription for straight photography if ever there was one.
The pictures chosen are as straight as pictures com. Nothing was posed or staged. The pictures were processed for only such things as minor color balance, tonal balance and the like. Nothing has been added or subtracted retouching wise. And, to my eye and sensibilities, they all seem to have a spark of life.
I'll discover what Abell thinks - in or out. In either eventuality, I'll let you know.
lost found / iPhone picture ~ New Hartford, NY (click to embiggen)
umbrellas ~ Manhattan / NYC, NY (click to embiggen)
However, the problem I will have to overcome in order to make more iPhone pictures is more difficult that it might sound. That is, I always have 2 cameras on my person when I am out and about and, when a picturing opportunity pricks my eye and sensibilities, my habit / instinct is to bring one of those cameras to my eye.
Other than pure smart phone toting snapshooters who, in most cases, don't own an actual camera, most serious amateurs religate their smart phone picturing to capturing referents deemed not worthy of employing the big gun or as a mere recorder of unimportant places and things. However, in my case, there are no unimportant referents once one has prick my eye and sensibilities.
In any event, I am headed out for another hockey weekend away from home during which I concentrate on looking for "unimportant" referents to picture with my iPhone.
water bottle / wine glasses ~ Manhattan / NYC, NY (click to embiggen)
... I wanted to include images that had some magic and spontaneity — images that are poetic and playful, and not so carefully considered or contrived.
To begin, I will ignore the fact that the word "contrived" has many synonyms - forced, strained, affected, put-on, phony, pretended, false, fake - which are less complimentary and, in practice, most often used to describe unfavorably a given subject. I'll give the juror the benefit of the doubt that it was used in a more postive manner of speech - to form or create in an artistic or ingenious manner.
Moving on to the word considered and writing specifically about the pictures selected for the exhibition, what makes the juror think that any picture submitted or selected for the exhibition was made without careful consideration? Without a picture making strategy front and center in the picture maker's mind? I mean, seriously, does the juror think that any picture maker with the intent to make pictures worthy of hanging on a gallery wall (dare I write, "art") does so without some form of due consideration?
That written, regarding the words contrived and considered, perhaps the juror is guilty of only a poor choice of words and not at all guilty (my sincere belief) of any malicious intent.
In any event (and to get the core of my synaptic event), the words magic / spontaneity / poetic and playful, when used antithetically to the idea that "contrived" and "considered" pictures can not express or evidence such qualities is, iMo, ridiculous. Unless one is addicted to the idea that only those pictures which titillate and/or pander to the viewer's desire to be entertained by obvious "artistic" effects and manipulation, I find it difficult to believe that a viewer who is willing to invest a little time and thought, beyond the mere emotional reaction to a picture viewing experience, will not be rewarded with the discovery of qualities of magic or spontaneity or poetry or playfulness, singularly or in concert, in straight pictures which do not any evidence visual manipulation and/or effects.
CAVEATS: All of the foregoing should NOT be consider to be (nor is intended to be) a criticism of the juror's integrity, preferences or the execution of the juror's responsibilities. Nor should it be understood as a criticism of the pictures selected for the exibition inasmuch as it most assuredly is not so intended.
Rather, my intention is merely to present a counterpoint to the juror's (seeming) idea that contrived and considered are the antithesis of magic / spontaneity / poetic and playful.
