# 6883-86 / common places / things • people ~ on the subject of magic

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED TO WILLIAM EGGLESTON THAT the design of most of his pictures seemed to radiate from a central, circular core, he responded that this was true, since the pictures were based compositionally on the Confederate flag. This response, in the opinion of John Szarkowki, was…

“…presumably improvised and unresponsive, of interest only as an illustration of the lengths to which artists sometimes go to frustrate rational analysis of their work, as though they fear it might prove antidote to their magic.”

Re: rational analysis - it is the provenance of art critics and academics to delve into the rational analysis-the techniques-and the art theories-the aesthetics-employed in the making of any given piece of art. In most cases the rational analysis is intended to assist a viewer of any given piece of art in more fully understanding, aka: the ability to “interpret” and discover meaning (aka: content”)-and appreciating it. Or, in some cases, to assist a viewer in recognizing that a piece of art is actually a piece of crap.

In any event, whatever the merit(s) of rational analysis might be to some, one prevalent demerit, iMo, is the constant ascription to artists-PhotographyDivision-of consciously / deliberately using techniques and aesthetic devices in the making of their pictures. An assertion that is based upon the ignorance of critics and academics who, for the most part, are not practicing and/or accomplished artists themselves. That is to write, that based upon their voluminous technique and art theory expertise, they are predisposed to miss the forest for the trees.

Re: magic - To continue with the “forest” metaphor - the most interesting picture forests-in this discussion Photography, Fine Art Division-are germinated and fostered by picture makers who tend, on the whole, to understand that art theory and technique-other than what they need to make their vision visible-are nothing more than a hill of beans in their world.

iMo long-considered opinion, their “magic” springs fully formed and, seemingly, unbidden from their innate, personal vision-literally and figuratively how they see the world. Simply written, it’s all about the pictures…

“Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.” ~ Paul Strand

All of the above written, and getting back to the idea of fearing that rational analysis “might prove antidote to their magic”… I get it. Breaking down one’s vision-in this case, so called “magic”-into its individual components might, like Humpty Dumpty after the fall, be never able to be put back together again.

That’s cuz true vision is not formulaic. It is not a collection of parts glued together to create a operations manual. Rather, vision, like a photograph itself, it is an organically synthesized whole that is somewhat akin to magic-i.e. possessing the power of apparently influencing the course of (picture making) events by use of mysterious forces.

So, iMo, it is best to embrace the magic and go with its flow.

PS 2 new galleries - POLES and EYES DOWNCAST - on my WORK page.

# 6879-82 / kitchen life ~ who could have imagined?

All photos (embiggenable)

IN MY LAST ENTRY I WROTE ABOUT THE MATURATION of the medium, c.1970s, a key element of which included the realization of its unique and intrinsic relationship with, and as a cohort of, the real world wherein any thing and every thing was color-ed and considered to be referent acceptable. Or, as Szarkowski wrote…

“… [an] encompassing motif [that] is itself so broad and hopelessly unformed, with so many aspects, angles, details, sotto voce asides, picturesque subplots, and constantly shifting patterns-and none of this clearly labeled…”

This casting aside-by the fine-art picture making crowd-of the then conventional what-is-appropriate-subject-matter wisdom was, iMo, a very belated-case in point, re: hidebound, insular thinking-recognition / realization of the picture making practice employed by the ubiquitous, next door snapshot-ers ever since the advent of the earliest amateur, handheld film cameras. Snapshooters who-as an English writer observed in 1893-

“… run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? … They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera focused, the shot is taken! There is no pause … To them, composition, light, shade, form, and texture are so many catch phrases…”

As photographers, Fine-Art Division, pursued / explored this expansive picture making possibility landscape, the pictures they produced tended to have-to the casual viewer-the look of amateur-ish color snapshots. And, in an almost humorous, historic recurrence, the response-from “serious” amateurs and photo critics alike-to this sea see change was a nearly word-for-word repetition of the aforementioned 1893 “run rampant” observation. Case in point, Szarkowski’s introduction of the William Eggelston’s Guide exhibition / book was greeted by the then “traditional photo world with outright derision and scorn: “must be a joke”, “a put-on”, “can’t be serious”, etc., etc. Quite obviously, Szarkowski had a different opinion:

“… such pictures often bear a clear resemblance to the Kodachrome slides of the ubiquitous neighbor next door … it should not be surprising if the best photography of today is related in iconography and technique to the contemporary standard of vernacular camera work, which in fact, is often rich and surprising. The difference between the two is a matter of intelligence, imagination*, intensity, precision and coherence.”

Szarkowski recognized that what was happening at the time; a significant group of phorographers where striving to break free of conventional picture making “wisdom”, all the while in pursuit of creating a distinct art form with a unique visual syntax.

an ode ~ (embiggenable)

*I never imagined that my kitchen would be such fertile ground for picture making. On the other hand, once I began to make pictures therein, I continued to do so cuz I could, if I kept my eye and sensibilities open, imagine that a world of unknown picture making possibilities might just be lurking therein.

I believe that what one is drawn to-or chooses-to photograph is a creative act-innate or conscious-of one’s own unfettered imagination.

# 6876-78 / people • places • things ~ beggining of the end or end of the beginning?

(embiggenable)

I RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FOR A Call For Entries for the 13th Annual Photography Exhibition, aka: FRESH 2024, presented by the Klompching Gallery in New York. What does FRESH look for? FRESH looks for the very best examples of new contemporary fine art photography. We’re looking for single bodies of work with a consistent vision and originality—photography that is FRESH!

The notification, which put an emphasis on the idea of “new” fine art photography with a consistent vision and “originality” or, in their words, photography that is “fresh”, kinda got to to thinkin’. That is, to be precise, along the lines of, have we reached the end of photography (fine art division)?

CAVEAT to be perfectly unambiguous, I am not proposing that the making of photographs with the intent of creating fine art is at an end. What I am questioning is whether it is still possible to make fine-art photographs that are “new” (aka: “fresh”). And, for purposes of this topic, it should understood that I, above any other consideration, believe that a photographs is the embodiment of the act of selective seeing. END OF CAVEAT

Let me start with my perspective, re": the medium of photography (fine art division); after a century of meandering around the visual arts landscape searching for an identity which would “legitimize” it as a recognizable medium of expression-separate from the other visual arts-with its own, unique vocabulary / characteristics / conventions, it attained a level of maturity during the 1970s when it embraced its unique and intrinsic relationship with, and as a cohort of, the real world wherein any thing and every thing was considered to be referent acceptable.

And, the practioners of this new way of seeing, did so, without apology or reservation, in full-blown color. They were not bound by the rules. Rather, they were interested in how they, as unique individuals, saw the world….

“Preoccupation with private experience is the hallmark of the romantic artist, whose view is characteristically self-centered, asocial, at least in posture, anti-traditional….[they are] different in spirit and aspect from that with which we are familiar in the [romantic] photography of the past generation … photography which has tended to mean the adoption and adaptation of large public issues, social or philosophical, for private artistic ends … generally expressed in a style heavy with special effects, glints and shadows, dramatic simplicities, familiar symbols, and idiosyncratic techniques … [the new work is] uncompromisingly private experience described in a manner that is restrained, austere, and public…” ~ John Szarkowski

While Szarkowski’s words are to be found in his essay-describng Eggeleston’s work-in the William Eggeleston’s Guide book, he could have easily been describing the work of the veritable hordes of contemporaneous fine art picture makers-and those who have followed in Eggelston’s (tripod) foot prints (and continue to do so). That written, here’s my point…

… I have not seen any evidence of a “new” way of seeing. iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, the maturation of the art of selective seeing-restrained, austere, and public- which emerged en force in the 1970s continues to be the foundation on which the medium can rest its claim of being unique amongst the visual arts and the de facto manner in which most fine art photography is made.

That written, despite the fact that what was once a “new” way of seeing is no longer new (can you make something new / fresh from something old?), iMo, it is still not only the best and only manner in which to see the real world, but also the best way to the making of surprising fresh pictures. And, even though it has been said that every thing that can be photographed has been photographed, that does not mean that every thing that has been photographed cannot be seen afresh.

So, no. I do not believe we have reached the end of photography. Then again, maybe we are just beating on a dead horse while waiting for the next new thing to come roaring down the tracks.

# 6873-75 / picture windows • still life • fashion ~ it's a window, as I see it

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

IT IS MY FIRM AND CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, in the straight photography world, a picture can be viewed as “a window through which one may better know the world” (Szarkowski). Although, Winogrand might state that a picture can be viewed as a window through which one may better know “what something will look like photographed”. Szarkowski most likely would not have disagreed with Winogrand inasmuch as he also stated that … “the factuality of a picture, no matter how convincing and unarguable, is a different thing than the reality itself. Much of the reality is filtered out in the static…image, and some of it is exhibited with an unusual clarity, an exaggerated importance. The subject and the picture are not the same thing”.

All of that written, one could be led to the question of what exactly is a photograph? There are many possible answers to that question but most “serious” photographers-according to Szarkowski-tend to cluster around one of two possibilities; a photograph is either “a window through which to better know the world (an exploration)”, or, a photograph is “a mirror reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it (a self expression)”. However….

…iMo, the very best photographs are both a window and a mirror. That’s cuz a photograph that exhibits a high degree of convincing and unarguable factulality is able to help us better know the world when the captured image is the result of a picture maker’s unique manner of seeing, aka-his / her vision (literally and figuratively). That written, and to clarify my thoughts on the matter, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, The best photographs-as described above-are those that stand on their own two visual feet, AKA-their appeal to the visual senses.

Too many picture makers try way too hard to imbue their photographs with meaning. “Artistic” techniques / effects and accompanying artspeak are the primary evidence thereof. A picture never be just a picture. I.E. a thing that gives pleasure to the eye, what Sontag called the erotics of art.

In order to be “understood”, the purveyors of such pictures seem to insist that their pictures must be viewed as stand-ins for something else; a symbol, a metaphor, or a sign that reveals a hidden and invariably “deep” meaning. Ya know, like an apple for instance…is it a symbol for love, ecstasy, fertility and abundance, or, if your mind is of a certain bent, an apple core sliced in half represents the vulva. Take your pick. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that an art theorist / historian / MFA / critic and the like will have a zillion other possibilities.

In any event, all that decipher- the-meaning stuff requires thinking. And, just as the advice goes, re: don’t think when making a photograph, I apply the don’t-think idea when viewing photographs. That’s simply cuz I want to see and feel what a photograph has to offer, aka: what the photographer saw as he / she sees it. Inasmuch as photography is a visual medium, I want my eyes to do the investigating, not my intellect.

Call me simple-minded, but that’s how I see it.

# 6870-71 / common things • around the house • decay ~ recuperating

HAVEN’T BEEN AT MY COMPUTER FOR A FEW DAYS while recovering from a very nasty icy sidewalk fall. However, Also haven’t been inclined to make any pictures but I did spend some time making Lego flower arrangements. And while I was wiling away the time, I did receive a notice that one of my photographs was accepted into a REMAINS-themed exhibition.

# 6868-70 / common places / things • still life ~ are ya diggin'my yakity axe?

the 2 Andys, Warhol and Carnegie - Pittsburgh native sons ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF YOU FEEL I AM YAKKING ON a dead horse, re: color photography. This entry will be my last thoughts on the matter. That is, at least until something on the interweb gets my knickers all in a twist again.

In any event, let’s start with this:

“What reinforces the content of a photograph is the sense of rhythm - the relationship between shapes and values….And this organization, this precision, will always escape you, if you do not appreciate what a picture is, if you do not understand that the composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.” ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

If you understand what a picture is-that “composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.”-then you will also understand that color/colors in a photograph is but one of many possible visual elements that contribute to an organized whole. It is not, like any other visual element (including the literally depicted referent) in a photograph, the end all and be all of a good photograph. Think of it like a great guitar riff in a song. That’s good stuff but it’s only a part of a good song.

That written, there are picture makers who are very adept, consciously or intuitively, in selecting segments of the real world in which color/colors plays a significant supporting role in the organizational whole. And, iMo, the practitioners at top o’ that heap are those who see color and capture it with a deft touch. They are the direct opposite of what I label as color scream-ists.

In the case of my picture making, I seek to create pictures wherein color/colors are an important visual element but in manner that does not draw undo attention to itself. They are just a part of the whole. And, I want the whole to be what the picture is about.

That written, I do not consciously think about color/colors when I am making a photograph. Rather, I picture what pricks my eye and sensibilities, intuitively trusting that my vision will direct me to getting it right.

Kinda like Chet Atkins sang - hear it here:

I'm confessin' I never took a lesson, all my notes are a matter of guessin'
Hopin' they'll come out in some kinda manner that'll make the yakety sound
So if you're in the mood and your feet start tappin'
And you feel laid back and your hands start clappin'
Then I'll have done what I wanted to from way back
You're diggin' my yakety axe

# 6864-67 / common things • still life ~ good is as good does

WITH ALL OF THE ATTENTION GIVEN TO COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY, most notably on TOP, I must admit to being rather flummoxed, aka: confounded, or, simply confused, re: the idea of what is color photography and/or who is a color photographer?

It would be simplistic to write that / everyone who makes photographs with a device or materials capable of rendering reasonably accurate colors of the real world-as seen by a healthy human eye-is; a) making color photographs, and, by reasonable extension, 2) a “color” photographer. However, it would seem that in some quarters, just making color photographs is not enough to qualify one as a “color” photographer.

Apparently there is some other criteria that must be meet in order to be consider as a color photographer”. And, therein is where my confusion resides.

iMo, making color photographs makes one a color photographer. To my way of thinking, it is as simple as that. However…..

….I believe it to be indisputable that there are good color photographs and…gasp…not-so-good color photographs. iMo, the difference between the two is very easy to identify. A good color photograph is, quite simply, first and foremost, a good photograph.

My definition-influenced by my bias(es)-of a good photograph is summarized by this Cartier-Bresson quote:

“To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition in a fraction of a second the significance of an event, as well as the precise organization the forms that give that event its proper expression. And this organization, this precision, will always escape you, if you do not appreciate what a picture is, if you do not understand that the composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.”

I would substitute the phrase moment in time for the word event (a moment in time could include an “event”). However, that written, to my eye and sensibilities, the overall form seen in a photograph derives from the organization of the visual elements-line, shape, space, color and value-as framed and presented in the photograph. That organization is, in essence, balancing act. All of the visual elements must conspire to create a congruous whole-congruity determined by what the photographer wishes to express.

And, when it comes to color, I think it important to understand that the colors as presented in a photograph are just one visual element of any number of other visual elements that might be found in a good photograph. In my experience, I have found that color photographs that are saturated with color-or color(s) that has been over saturated-for color’s sake tend to slide over into the category of kitsch and dreck.

ASIDE Nevertheless, kitsch and dreck rarely fail to elicit fawning praise from the unwashed masses. cuz, ya know, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. END OF ASIDE

All of the above written, I would guess that therein could be found my definition of what constitutes a good color photograph and that a photographer who makes good color photographs is a good photographer. Although…

…I’ll stick with the idea that there is no such thing as a good color photographer, or for that matter, a good monochrome photographer. iMo, there are only good photographers as defined by their making of good photographs of any variety.