# 5616-18 / around the house•kitchen sink•nartural world ~ a return to the scene of the crime, as it were

faux Polaroid ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

faux Polaroid ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

THE FOLLOWING QUOTE FROM RICHARD KALVAR makes me a little crazy / perplexed...

"A photograph is what it appears to be. Already far from 'reality' because of its silence, lack of movement, two-dimensionality and isolation from everything outside the rectangle, it can create another reality, an emotion that did not exist in the 'true' situation. It's the tension between these two realities that lends it strength."

...and I could go down a long list of the crazy / perplexed whyfors however, instead, let me deal with what attracted me to the quote....

I have spent a fair amount of time ruminating about a picture's "silence, lack of movement, two-dimensionality and isolation from everything outside the rectangle." The result of that mental effort is that I believe those aforementioned characteristics of a picture are one of the medium of photography and its apparatus' most unique characteristics in all of the visual arts.

That is to write, nearly every photograph stops time inasmuch as it "freezes"-snatched from the stream of time as we perceive it-a very short-duration segment of time. The result, when viewed as a print, is what some, to incude me, might consider to be a static schematic of that particular and isolated moment / segment in time. And, assuming the picture was made by a picture maker with the intent to capture what he/she sees-to include the literal and figurative vision thing-the fact that the pictured moment in time is freed from the "distractions" of "reality"-sound, movement, surroundings, et al-the viewer of the picture can devote as much time as he/she wants to in order to "discover" what the picture is about.

That written, I am not so certain that the static schematic "create[s] another reality". Sure, the photographic print is a "real" thing and it, most definitely, is not the "real" thing depicted on the 2D substrate but I think one has to engage in a bit word parsing, re: reality, to get to the idea of another "reality".

Although, if one looks at the idea of differing realities from the picture maker's perspective (and this quote comes from a picture maker), it is possible that, inasmuch as he/she experienced both realities, there can be an emotion that results from the viewing of the static schematic which differs from the emotion experienced at the moment of the picture's making.

I can attest to the 2 separate experiences / realities idea cuz it has happened to me over and over again. While I picture "things" to which my eye and sensibiites are intuitively attracted, the fact remains that I rarely spent any time at the moment of picture making to appreciate / contemplate that which I have pictured.

That is due to the fact that, for the most part, I have little, if any, interest in the thing(s) I picture. My interest is to be found in what those things look like when pictured. That is, the static schematic. The thing I could and do contemplate for hours and do so again and again over time.

# 5607-09 / people•ku•natural world•landscape ~ I look, I see, I picture, therfore I am

man with Sanshin ~ Naha, Okinawa / Japan - c.1967 (embiggenable)

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

"The process of photographing is a pleasure: eyes open, receptive, sensing, and at some point, connecting. It's thrilling to be outside your mind, your eyes far ahead of your thoughts....Part of it has to do with the discipline of being actively receptive. At the core of this receptivity is a process that might be called soft eyes. It is a physical sensation. You are not looking for something. You are open, receptive. At some point you are in front of something that you cannot ignore." ~ Henry Wessel

I CAN ONLY ASSUME-WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ASSURANCE- that just about everyone gets pleasure (of one sort or another) from the process of photographing. I mean, why even bother if there ain't no pleasure / joy / satisfaction / positive vibe involved in the activity?

That written, I am also certain that whatever sense of pleasure may be derived from the act of photographing, any specific pleasure is dependent upon the motivations of the picture maker him/herself. After all, the medium and its apparatus provide a broad landscape for satisfying a wide range of pleasure seeking....there are those who revel in the "pleasure" of acquiring / using and "mastering" gear and/or, likewise, technique. Then there are those who seek to "express" themselves or elucidate the viewer, re: the "meaning" of various referents.

And then there are those, much like me, who indulge in the act of photographing simply to see what something-any thing and/or every thing-looks like when photographed (as presented / expressed on the 2D surface of a photographic print).

That is, the making of a fairly stict visual thing. No expression of my "innner self", no "meaning" or "message", no technical / technique driven tour de force. Nope, none of that stuff. I just want to make prints that are visually interesting, capitivating and involving to view. Not cuz of what is depicted but, rather, how it is depicted.

For me, the idea of receptivity, aka: soft eyes, is paramount to my way of seeing. I rarely go out and about "looking for something" but, that written, I am forever-I am convinced that propensity is preternatural-looking and, seemingly, my thinking does not get in the way of my seeing. My eyes are ahead of my thoughts.

Consequently, throughout my entire life, I have consistently found myself "in front of something I cannot ignore".

# 5606 / ku•landscape•natural world ~ the act of pointing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

"One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. [...] The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." ~ John Szarkowski

IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT JOHN SZARKOWSKI SUGGESTS THAT a work of art, in this case a photograph, is comprised of 2 primary ingredients...a thing pointed to and a pattern created by a pointer. He also suggests that the viewing of such a photograph could be comparable to an "adventure of a tour" accompanied by "pleasure and a sense of enlargment". And, the way I read it, Szarkowski implies that a really good photograph-with a thing pointed to and a pattern created by the pointer-can capture a viewer's attention / interest but, in a very real sense, leave a viewer wondering about why he/she is attracted to that photograph...is it the thing depicted or the manner in which the thing is depicted that has drawn the viewer in?

I can write with authority-based upon my actual experiences-that I have encountered quite a number of viewers of my pictures-at a gallery openings of my pictures or showing someone one of my photo books-who have run smack dab into such a dilemma. Simply written, they are confronted with a picture of a thing, a thing which they can not begin to fathom why I (or anyone) would make a picture thereof. That written, what really confuses them is the fact that they feel unexplainedly attracted to the picture.

Most often heard at such a juncture is, "I don't know why I like this picture(s) but I do." A statement which I consider to be a very high compliment indeed cuz I truly believe that I have zapped them with my "secret weapon", the "hidden"-to their eyes and sensibilities-pattern I have created on the 2D surface of my print. That is, a concept of which the average viewer has no conscious knowledge or perception.

And, have no doubt about it, it is at this point in such an encounter that I make absolutely no attemp to try to explain the concept of a "hidden" pattern on a 2D surface to the viewer. The reason for that is simple, the viewer has "felt" something in the picture in addition to what he/she has "seen" and I have no desire to practice confuse-a-cat psychology. Not to mention the fact that I am not about to tell a viewer-who is confused as to why he/she likes the picture-why he/she likes the picture cuz that's for the viewer to figure out.

# 5570-77 / civilized ku•ku (landscape) ~ brain locked

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

"I often find photos in the most ordinary places. Many of the subjects are nothing special either. They are just the beautiful things all around us that we don't make the effort to see truly … 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

THE WIFE AND I GOT WAY FOR A BIT to a little cottage on Blue Mountain Lake in the central Adirondacks. Since it is well into the off-season, we had the lake and village all to ourselves. Which was just how we had hoped it would be.

I realize I have beena bit of a slacker, posting wise, over the past little while. While I have been making lots of pictures, I seem to have developed a sorta brain lock, re: posting pictures without words. Which is what I have done-pictures with words-for the last 12-15 years.

Over those years I have offered for consideration a heap of thoughts, re: the medium and its appartatus. Lately, it seems there is little or nothing left for me to write about. And the last thing I want to do is to start repeating myself. So, I have been thinking about ways to get around this brain lock.

One idea is to start adding selected quotes from photographers from my huge "library" of found quotes. Most of those quotes were copied and pasted into my "library" cuz they tend to relect my ideas about the medium and its apparatus. And, interesting enough, quite often when I select a quote to use in an entry, that quote causes me to reflect upon it and, in doing so, I come with something to add to the expressed idea. So I'll probably give it a try.

#5567-69 / ku•natural world ~ ya see what ya wanna see

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

APPARENTLY PATRICK KAVANAGH DID NOT HAVE a very high opinion of Irish policemen or at least of their artistic sensibilities....

"There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman." ~ Patrick Kavanagh*

Policeman aside, I believe I get the point Kavanah was trying to make....everyone does not "understand" art. And, I might add, I am somewhat sympathetic to his POV inasmuch as I subscribe to the idea that 50% of the planet's human population is, in fact, below average. A de facto condition which explains a lot of questionable goings on. However ....

....when it comes to "understanding" art, there is, iMo, a lot of room to move cuz even a confirmed dimwit squating amongst the classroom rubble of lunch buckets, golashes and spent spitballs can "appreciate" a piece of art based upon his/her simple "understanding" that he/she likes the color red or cute puppies or whatever. And, in that same classroom, an Academic Lunatic Fringe twit can put his/her "appreciatiation" and "understanding" into a 10,000 word blather composed of obtuse artspeak, flapdoodle and green paint. A writing that no one can understand.

Personally, I have always considered photographs to be a sort of Rorschach test, a belief which was reenforced by the words of the Rock Man (a character from the movie The Point):

"Say, babe, there ain’t nothing pointless about this gig. The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. You dig?

Then, of course, Susan Sontag had/has a few words to add to the conversation:

"Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy... The very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness....Standing alone, photographs promise an understanding they cannot deliver. In the company of words, they take on meaning, but they slough off one meaning and take on another with alarming ease."

All of that written, my thoughts on the idea of "understanding" art, or specific piece of art, is that there is little to understand. What, iMo, is more important is how a particular piece of art makes a viewer feel. And, hopefully, if that viewer is a curious and thoughtful human being, he/she might strive to understand / identify how and why a particular piece of art instigates that experienced feeling.

* Irish poet and novelist, 1904-1967

# 5544 / civilized ku•natural world ~ "this is not an acid trip"

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THERE'S A HIGHLY RECOMMENDED-BY ME-PHOTOGRAPHY SITE, DON'T TAKE PICTURES, that is part of my photo site visiting rota. I like / recommend the site cuz, iMo, it does a nice job of showcasing contemporary photographs without tipping over into the dark-side, aka: the academic lunatic fringe.

One of the site's semi-regular features, RULE BREAKERS ~ "I never want to see another picture of ________." is usually quite entertaining. Today's entry speaks quite directly to me inasmuch as the author addresses subjects near and dear to my way of thinking, picture making / viewing wise.

Check it out.

# 5538 / natrual world•flora ~ sorta same as it ever was

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ON A RECENT ENTRY, # 5532 / Here we go again, A COMMENT WAS LEFT by Markus Spring...

"Hmm, AI in image processing doesn't really attract me..."

Markus went on to explain why AI image processing does not attract him. ASIDE my rsponse to Markus is in no way to be considered as a rejoinder / contrarian response cuz it is not.END OF ASIDE.

Since my dawn of picture making time, I have avoided any thing that might be considered as an "automatic", aka: not controlled by me, function or accoutrement. As an example, from day one, I always used a handheld light meter, normally with a spot metering attachment. None of that who-knows-what-it's-doing in-camera metering for me.

When I adopted digital picture making, I continued to be a control freak ... RAW format only (none of those crappy JPEGS for me). As I worked my way up the ever-improving sensor capability's ladder, I worked my ass off processing my image files to obtained my desired result. Not because I wanted to but cuz, given the shifting state of the art, I had to.

So, my embrace of Ai-based picture making-together with an, at first, skeptical embrace of JPEG image files-could be considered by some who know my history as a rather strange development (might be a pun there).

But here's the thing. I have come full-circle to a point of same-as-it-ever-was, picture making wise. To wit, back in the analogue days,you chose your poison (color film / paper), made an exposure, took the result into the darkroom and made a print, using the very limited range of control available to do so, and lived with the result. Which is not to write that the result could not be a very nice color print cuz, most often it was.

Compare that to my current picture making M.O. I have picked my poison (an iPhone), make an exposure (Ai hard at work), open the jpeg in my "darkroom", make a few minor adjustments (work-arounds, side-steps, "tricks", flat out ignoring some conventional processing wisdom), make a print and live with the result. Which is not to write that the result could not be a very nice color print cuz the result is always> remarkably close, if not not perfectly matched, to my desired result.

And, have no doubt about it. My desired result, print wise, conforms to a very high standard. Back in the analogue days, my C prints were very often perceived to be dye transfer prints-in large part due the fact I printed with condenser-head enlargers, not diffusion-head enlargers.

My digital era prints are produced to mimic the best qualities of analogue era C prints. Soft detailed highlights and deep but detailed shadows with smooth tonal transitions and "clean" natural color. Prints are sharp but not state-of-the-art (so called) eye-bleeding sharp. In short, a pleasing / easy to look at picture.

CAVEAT All of the above written, it should be understood that, while it might seem that I just breeze my way through some quick and easy picture making steps, especially at the prcessing stage, that is simply not the case. I bring 30 years of Photoshop image processing skills and experience to every image file I process.

There is no question that the iPhone Ai gets me remarkedly close to where I want to be (90% of the time), it still requires a significant amount of applied skill and knowledge, Photoshop image file processing wise, to achieve my desired end result. To be sure, it is not rocket science level wise but most certainly it is not click the button / move the slider wise simple.END OF CAVEAT