# 5978-80 / still life (kitchen sink • kitchen life • decay & disgust) ~ what's in a name?

(embiggenable) - 1/2 found, 1/2 made

(embiggenable) - a still llfe picture

(embiggenable) - a straight photograph of a segment of the real world.

IT HAS BEEN A WHILE-A COUPLE YEARS?-SINCE I HAVE MADE a decay & disgust picture. I attribute that situation to the fact that the wife has been exceedingly diligent in making sure there is a deficit of decaying referents for my picture making fodder. However, since she is over 2,000 miles distant, suffice it to write that when the cat’s away the mice will play. In any event, I have a few thoughts about the picture label still life.

The decay & disgust and kitchen sink pictures were made 2 hours apart. Judging from my experience in the photo world, both pictures would be considered to be still life pictures. That is so even though the making of those 2 pictures could not be more different. To wit, call me a dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist cuz, iMo, the decay & disgust picture is the only of the 2 that is worthy to be called a still life picture and that is due to the fact of the difference in their making.

I’m guessing that 40-50% of my commercial picture making was comprised of still life photography. That is, pictures that were made with total control, much like a painter, over the creation of the image. Starting with a blank canvas-some sort of background-and, piece by piece, add elements to create a pleasing arrangement and then add lighting to taste. There were times when this process happened over a couple of days-involving a couple people-cuz props had be acquired, a set constructed and lighting tests run.

While the decay & disgust picture was put together in a hour or so, every item in the picture was chosen and arranged by me. Even the lighting was chosen by me inasmuch as all of my decay & disgust pictures are made in the same setting on cloudy days.

On the other hand, the kitchen sink picture-like all of my kitchen sink pictures-is a found picture. I had no hand in selecting the pictured items nor in their arrangement (really, I never touch a thing in the sink prior to picturing it. Really. Honest Injun.) And the lighting is the light that was falling on the scene at the time that I noticed the arrangement.

Consequently, I do not consider the kitchen sink to be a still life picture. To my way of thinking, it is, more accurately, a straight photograph of a segment of the real world.

# 5975-77 / picture windows • landscape (civilized ku) ~ setting a few things straight

on the campus of SUNY Plattsburgh ~ (embiggenable)

I had the green light to make a picture ~ (embiggenable)

why don’t we do it in the road? ~ (embiggenable)

THIS ENTRY FALLS UNDER THE HEADING OF dispelling misconceptions.

item 1 - In light of quite a number of recent entries which featured pictures under the heading of around the house (to include kitchen life / sink), some might assume, incorrectly, that I don’t get out and around much. While I do get out and around quite frequently for a wide variety of reasons, there is something about the cold (and dreariness) of winter that works against my out-of-the-house picture making.

Be that as it may, yesterday I ventured north to see a photography exhibit, North by Nuuk: Greenland after Rockwell Kent, at the Burke Gallery on the campus of SUNY Plattsbugh State College. It was also a meet-the-artist event. The work was sorta decorative art documentary / photo journalistic in style, which is not to write that it was not very high quality. FYI, more on the artist later.

In any event, after a few errands I headed home and along the way my eye and sensibilities were pricked by a couple scenes, so I made a couple pictures. One was made from the driver’s seat of my car, for the other picture I got my lazy ass out of the car. Proof positive that I do, in fact, get out and about.

item 2 - I have been writing, some might think nattering, quite a bit about the notion of fine art. As a result, some might also think that I am thinking very highly of myself and my pictures, or, that I am setting myself up as an oracle or arbitrator on things fine art, photography wise. To be perfectly clear, if anyone is holding those notions, let me write here and now that you are wrong.

Simply put, I am merely offering my opinions on the subject, the intent of which is to stir up some thoughts and opinions on the subject from readers of this blog.

That written, I have some experience, re: my thoughts on the subject of fine art photography. For a period of time I was a contributing writer / critic, re: fine art photography, for the national fine art magazine, The New Art Examiner (long gone). Specifically, they assigned me to review various photography exhibitions (solo exhibitions) around the North East. I enjoyed doing so until it became excruciatingly obvious (to me) that people were taking my opinions way too seriously. As in, what I wrote could seriously effect, pro or con, a photographer’s career.

When I came to that realization, that was the end of that endeavor. I had absolutely no intention or desire to assume the mantle of the maker or the breaker of anyone’s career. After all, it was just my opinion. I was not speaking / writing ex cathedra.

And, FYI, whether of not my pictures are fine art pictures is not for me to judge. I’ll leave that decision up to gallery directors and the like.

# 5965-74 / detritus & undergrowth ~ only time will tell

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

ONE WAY TO GET AN IDEA ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE fine art (or not) is to submit a representative selection of your work (from body of work) to an art gallery in response to a request for submissions for consideration for a solo exhibition.

The pictures in this entry are pictures that I submitted this week to an art gallery in response to a request for work for consideration for a solo exhibition. The title of the body of work is detritus & undergrowth. Now I wait for a month to find out if I make the cut.

FYI, the body of work has been created , with only a casual sense of dedication to making such pictures, over the past 20 years. FYI, my son (the Cinemascapist) referred to the making of the pictures as my Jackson Pollack period.

In any event, while we are on the topic of fine art, I thought I would pass along my thoughts (a Baker’s Dozen of them) for your consideration, re: whether you are capable of making fine art photographs. To wit, you might not be on course for making fine art photographs if…

you think that circle of confusion is feeling you get when you view William Eggleston’s photographs

you think that a focus ring is how a focus group sits

you think that a proof print is what you show the doorman at a discotheque

you think that a darkroom is a room in your house were you draw the shades and take a nap

you think that an enlarger is a device you buy at a sex shop and use in a dark room

you think that museum glass is only found in the doors and windows of a museum

you think that the fixer is a mean-looking mob hitman

you think that fine art is what you say when Art asks you how you’re doing

you think that contact sheets is what you do when you get in bed

you get itchy fingers every time a new camera is introduced cuz…

you still can’t shake the idea that a “better” camera will make you a better picture maker

you don’t have a photo quality printer but you do have 3 or more lens for your camera

you have uttered the word microcontrast more than once in your life

# 5959-5964 / around the house • landscape ~ on the subject of subject matter

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I HAVE A THEORY, THAT I BELIEVE IS BORN OUT BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, that it is nigh unto impossible to make a photograph, one that is considered to be fine art, of a subject that is considered to be one of conventional beauty.

If I had to assemble a body of work (of my pictures) wherein the subjects are considered to be representative of conventional beauty, I would have no trouble doing so. And, I am certain that that body of work would be well received in a camera club presentation and garner plenty of likes on social media sites. I can also write with the same degree of certainty that that body of work, or any picture therein, would never be considered for display in a fine art gallery.

The reason I believe the aforementioned to be true is relatively simple….the Fine Art World believes, iMo rightfully so, that a piece of art-please remember that we are considering photographic prints-in which the Content (meaning) is unambiguously obvious has little capacity for stimulating the intellect. In addition, such a picture incites little curiosity regarding why the picture maker made the photograph cuz, duh, the subject matter makes unambiguously obvious the answer to that question.

Whereas, most fine art art begs the questions, why did the maker create this object (please remember, a photographic print is an physical object in and of itself), and, what is the maker trying to tell me, the viewer?

The answer to those questions (and/or any number of other questions that might arise from the viewing of a photographic print) need not be akin to a PHD dissertation on art theory or the meaning of life. In fact, iMo, the answers are best when they are short and sweet, leaving the viewer to fill in any of the blanks. That’s cuz photography is a visual medium and in many cases too many words spoil the broth.

In any event, all of the above written, whatever the answers, the important thing is that the questions are asked and curiosity is aroused.