# 5670 / (OT) ~ fun, fun, fun

(embiggenable) • iPhone

DEPENDING UPON ONE'S POV, I HAVE found myself in the somewhat enviable situtation of having 2 automobiles that are, to say/write the least, fun to drive. Both are turbos tuned for performance. One-the Abarth- even has twin intercoolers. Both have sub-6sec. 0-60 times.

I have always had an interest in automobiles-I've had my share of motorcycles as well (still have one)-with "sport"-leaning performance. It never made any sense (to me) to drive a vehicle with the utility and character of a toaster or the float-like-a-boat comfort of a 50s American-made land cruiser. On the other hand, hyper-sports cars-Porsche, Corvette, et al-never made sense to me either. What's the point of driving a vehicle in which a driver can use only 50% (or less) of its potential.

Point of fact, my Abarth can, and has, kept up with anything a typical Porsche can throw at it on the tight, twisty-bit, up-and-down roads we have here about. With its lowered (nearly) track tuned suspension and brakes, unassisted rack-and-pinion steering, low-restriction/tuned dual exhaust (which emits an emphatic, high-pitched, Italianesque wail) and a manual transmission mated to a high-output turbo motor-the wife calls the car "very mechanical"-it is not surprising to know that an Abarth is Michael Schumacher's (8-time Formula One Driver Champion) daily driver.

That written, the Abarth ain't for everybody inasmuch as the car responds with absolute immediacy and precision to every driver imput-steering, throttle, braking-and, again with absolute immediacy, lets the driver know the results, good or bad, of that input. Make a mistake and the car lets the driver know that "forgiveness" is not part of its vocabulary. To drive the car near or at its potential-the point at which the uninitiated tend to soil themselves-requires unwavering attention to detail. All of which is something that I call "fun".

FYI, the Soul Red Cystal Metallic Mazda is also a "driver's" car - AWD, sport-tuned suspension, 250hp turbo motor and steering with good where-the-rubber-meets-the-road feedback. Unlke the Abarth, it has a luxury-level fit and finish interior-lots of leather and stitching-packed with amenities and impressive level of quiet. It is also equipped with just about every currently available safety device / technology (including a heads-up display). While quite responsive to driver input, it goes about its business with a-by comparison to the Abarth-more "relaxed" character. One might characterize it as a more "civilized" alternative to the Abarth but, nevertheless, very capable of hustling through the twisty bits or cruising the interstate equal with aplomb.

In any event, the 2 vehicles offer an wealth of driving riches / fun and it's often difficult to choose which one to drive - the one with the white wheels or the one with black wheels. And, I am not ashamed or embarrassed to admit that on a nice summer day, the choice to drive the Abarth with the top rolled back and the Beach Boys Little Deuce Coupe / Fun, Fun, Fun, etc., blaring on the sound system, is a no-brainer.

# 5665-69 / around the house•kitchen sink ~ looking forward to getting out of the house

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

AIN'T BEEN DOING MUCH THE PAST WEEK or so other than getting my 2nd Covid vaccine and following the sunlight around the house. Although with temperatures warming and having the 2nd shot, I hope to start getting out more and making some pictures away from the house.

That written, it ain't pretty out there inasmuch as we are close to entering the so-called mud season. Nevertheless, I'll give it a shot, or, maybe 20 shots (or more).

# 5661 / civilized ku ~ fighting the good fight

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

A FEW THOUGHTS PICKING UPON A COUPLE recent entries, re: the vision thing and the rather insipid look-at-a-picture-for-2-minutes "experiment"....

I have never actually timed-I do not carry an egg timer around with me-how long a viewer might look at my pictures. However, I am aware of the fact that most viewers-at an exhibition or viewing one of my photo books-do tend to stop and stare when confronted with one of my pictures. I attribute this tendency to several reasons...

I am working on putting together a new photo book titled, Irritants. The tentative artist statement reads (in part):

BY VIRTUE OF BEING in the right place at the right time, my eye and sensibilities are pricked by a seemingly intuitive awareness of in suti form-an alignment of line, shape, space, color and value. And, as dictated by my eye and sensibilities, the more complex the relationships amongst those visual elements, the better.....Inasmuch as my pictures are the result of a prick-a type of an irritant-it is my intent in the making of those pictures to create as much visual energy as possible across / within the 2D field of my prints. The purpose of which is to “irritate” and keep engaged a viewer’s eye and sensibilities, dancing and caroming across the surface and confines of the image field.

Key phrases: 1)...create as much visual energy as possible across / within the 2D field of my prints., 2) The purpose of which is to “irritate” and keep engaged a viewer’s eye and sensibilities and 3) quotidian surroundings.

I am convinced that the visual energy that I try to pack into the frame of my pictures, taken together with the quotidian referents, is why viewers stare at my pictures. The visual energy tends to keep a viewer engaged if for no other reason than his/her eye is looking for a place to land. To get off the dance floor, so to write. And, chances are good that he/she is also trying to figure out why he/she spenting time viewing a picture-one that does not resemble what they have been told is a good picture-with such a mundane, aka: quotidian referent. Again, if for no other reason that to fathom why I would make a picture of such a referent.

Lest you think that I am employing a consciously derived strategy to gain and hold a viewer's attention, that is most definitely not the case. My pictures' visual characteristics are the result of simply following the inexplicable and intrinsic dictates of my vision. That is to write that I simply picture what I see, aka: what intuitively and naturally pricks my eye and sensibilities (regardless of whether I like it or not).

FYI, I used the phrase confronted with one of my pictures cuz, at first glace, my pictures do tend to challenge many viewer's preceived ideas (prejudices) about what constitutes a good picture. That written, I do not harbor the conceit that my pictures cause every viewer to jettison their "conventional" ideas, re: what makes a good picture, but I am trying to do my part to open a few minds on the idea of what makes a good picture.