Moldy lemon • click to embiggenIn the book on being a photographer ~ DAVID HURN in conversation with BILL JAY, David Hurn states:

For many people the word beauty is associated with the predictable - pictures previously seen and already in their memory banks, cliché images of sunsets, small fury animals, pin-up, postcard views, and so on. For me, most great photographs displaying beauty reveal a sensation of strangeness, not predictability, a kind of shock non-recognition inside the familiar. They are the opposite of clichés: they have a quality beyond the visually obvious. But even if it is difficult to define, beauty still lurks behind the scenes.

In some things, I am a creature of habit and familiarity - I like the familiar comfort of a favored couch and the emotional warmth of my house/home. There is some music and musical artists I can listen to over and over again. I have favorite foods and beverages of which I never tire. And, of the zillions of fine restaurants in NYC, there is one in particular that I return to again and again. And, of course, there's the wife.

On the other hand, I have learned to appreciate the idea and experience of strangeness. That is to say, strangeness as defined in the dictionary -

...unusual, extraordinary, or curious; odd; queer ... estranged, alienated, etc., as a result of being out of one's natural environment ... outside of one's previous experience; hitherto unknown; unfamiliar...

In some quarters and in some things, I am considered to be strange. If I have heard it once, I have heard a zillion times from one of the wife's very good friends, "Mark, you're strange." The remark is at times instigated by something I have said or done, but, on occasion, it is incited by the viewing of one or more of my pictures.

More often than not, the uttering of that comment is a result of her reaction to my pictures of things she would never have thought to picture or to be interested in seeing pictured. Upon hearing that comment, I take it as high praise indeed, in part because I sense that she is befuddled by, but nevertheless curious about, her own interest and reaction to those pictures and referents.

Now, that said, I don't think that she spends any after-the-fact time pondering her interest in / reaction to my pictures, or, for that matter, even the pictures themselves. But then again, to my knowledge, art and/or the making thereof are not in the forefront of her daily concerns. My stating so is in no way a criticism, it is just an assumption based upon my observation of her personal priorities and preferences.

However, all of the preceding said, what I find truly strange is why so many who profess to be art-inclined/involved are so put off by or uninterested in the strange - those who cling to and embrace, in both their picture making and picture viewing preferences, the familiar, the predictable, and the cliché. Pictures that are not a challenge / threat to their way of seeing and/or thinking, especially so to their notion of beauty.

Some of those so inclined have stated that I seem to go out of my way to deliberately pictures thing that are odd or strange just to be "different". Nothing could be further from the truth...

... I picture what I picture simply because I see beauty in that which I picture, even though when viewing my pictures I am struck by the thought of how strange it is to find/see beauty in what I picture. Even to me, my pictures strike me as strange inasmuch as I don't fully understand why I find/see beauty and interest in such curious, odd, and, beauty wise, hitherto unknown and unfamiliar referents.

And that makes me think. Think about the world and my relationship with/to it. It takes me out the comfort zone of cultural / societal conventions and reassurances. In large part, that is because I sense a beauty in things beyond the obvious / conventional - something, even though I can not fully grasp / understand it, that is behind or beyond the mere surface of things.

IMO, James Agee stated it - the idea of getting beyond the obvious - best:

In the immediate world, everything is to be discerned..with the whole of consciousness, seeking to perceive it as it stands: so that the aspect of a street in sunlight can roar in the heart of itself as a symphony, perhaps as no symphony can: and all consciousness is shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel* radiance of what is.

Assuming that one believes that "to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is" - to put it another way, dealing with what is as opposed to the imaginary or revisive (wishful thinking) - is a worthy endeavor (and of in-estimable value in living a fruitful life), then, IMO, there is no better art medium than that of photography, with its inherent relationship with the real, to help one recognize the cruel radiance of what is.

*re: the world "cruel". IMO, in the use of that word, Agee meant cruel in the rigid / stern / strict sense of the word - not the causing or marked by great pain or distress sense of the word. I have arrived at this conclusion because the very next word he uses is "radiance" - meaning brightness or light ... warm, cheerful brightness.

Rain, treeline, mist ~ Keeseville, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen

Neighbor's backyard ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenSven W (no link provided) left this comment on civilized ku # 2198:

I've mentioned it before, but I really like the "luminous clarity" I've been seeing in Mark's recent images....

my response: In fact, Sven has previously made this comment, re: "luminous clarify" in my recent pictures. I must admit that I am at a loss to say why he sees this characteristic in my recent pictures inasmuch as my camera, lenses, RAW converter, and PS processing work flow has not changed.

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, it is because I have been making a number of my recent pictures under bright/sunny Spring light. That light is distinctly different than that of the just past Winter season. That and the fact that bright Spring color is bursting out all over the place.

Now I'm curious. Has anyone else noticed anything different about my recent pictures?

Empty lot ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenI haven't posted for a few days for a couple reasons.

First, I am quite busy working for a client who, upon prepping to start a new professional practice, has contracted with me to create a logo, design and supervise the production of his business identity materials (announcements, cards, stationary, etc.), design and produce his website, and create and manage a 2 month / 3 newspaper + web media advertising campaign. He has also purchased 8 of my pictures (24×24 inch) for his office walls. In addition to handling the printing and framing, he has also hired me to hang, not only my prints, but all of his existing art and certificate stuff as well.

All of which must be complete and in place by May 25th.

Second, I have spent/wasted some time thinking about how to respond to a comment which was intended to be left on a recent entry. That comment has not appeared on the blog for 2 reasons: 1) any comment which contains links is automatically withheld pending my approval and this comment had links, and, 2) I decided to handle the comment by simply deleting it, something I have done only a couple times over the past 5 years.

Why did I delete it?

Simply because I am sick and tired of responding to comments in which the author puts words in my mouth (so to speak write). In this case, the author also put words in the mouth of another commenter. Additionally, the comment contained statements / assertions about my position on some things, picture wise, which were simply in direct contradiction to matters about which I written repeatedly.

Either the commenter didn't read those entries or has chosen, for whatever reason, to simply ignore them. In either case, the commenter was woefully misinformed in his put-words-in-my-mouth comment and I am not going to waste my time addressing such comments. I've got too many other constructive things to do with my time, like, say, pick my nose and then count the boogers.

All of that said, I want it to be understood that I encourage and welcome comments which take issue with my various POVs, but ... only when a commenter takes a substantive and informed position relative to my actual (as opposed to assumed) POV on a topic. Not on the POV of whether or not I am an arrogant asshole.

BTW, here's a good read on why, when viewing a picture, having some knowledge about the place (and time) of that picture's making (in order have a more complete appreciation and understanding of that picture) is inherently a good thing.

Margaret Street / DO NOT ENTER ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenOne of the picture blogs which I visit almost daily is More Original Refrigerator Art. I do so simply because I like the way he sees things.

He - I knew his name at one time but have since forgotten it (and he doesn't make it easy to find) - is a man of few words but many pictures. So it's not surprising to me that he recently mentioned a thing called Wordless Web - a simple easy-to-use bookmarklet thingy which allows a viewer, with the click of the Wordless Web icon on one's Bookmark bar (just drag and drop it from the Wordless Web link), to eliminate all of the text on a site/blog and display only the pictures to be found thereon (FYI, the text can be restored just by reloading the page).

Here's what the developers of Wordless Web have to say about it:

Wordless Web is a simple browser bookmarklet that removes all text from any website with just one click. So the only thing left for you to see are the site’s pictures.

No text also means no context. You're free to enjoy the images in their purest form, without names, labels, definitions, or purpose. It makes the pictures we see across the web more mysterious and open to interpretation of our own imaginations.

Try Wordless Web on your favorite sites and see how it suddenly transforms your experience.

I like this bookmarklet a lot. Not that I will exclusively view sites/blog with it, but it's great for, as Joe Friday might say, "All we want are the facts, ma'am", or in this case "pictures". Which, like a gallery-based exhibition, allows a viewer the opportunity to get inside a picture makers head without words getting in the way.

Not that words are not helpful when viewing pictures, they most definitely are, but in a gallery exhibition the only words are usually an Artist Statement which comes at the beginning of a gallery viewing experience. After pursing such a statement the pictures can then viewed with a context and perspective offered up by the artist. Of course, that statement is meant as only a guide of sorts, not as a proscriptive directive on how any viewer must view and interpret the pictures on exhibit.

All of that said, and as Mikey stated (and IMO), "Try it. You'll like it."

Street corner ~ Plattsburgh, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenA comment, left on my recent civilized ku # 2193-94 entry, by Ulrik F. T. stated in part (choosing to ignore his ad hominem-ism, nice guy that I am):

... there is nothing inherently good about an image rooted somewhere/sometime imo

my response: I emphatically disagree with that opinion - some might even state that it is an uninformed opinion (but I won't go there) - if for no other reason than the fact that every picture, by the very nature of the medium itself, is rooted, intentionally or not, in place and time. In the making of a picture we "stop" / capture/ time and invariably represent a person(s), place, or thing. Hell, between EXIF data and GPS technology, we can know exactly at what time and in what place a picture was made.

However, leaving those technical considerations aside, every picture ever made (or will be made) was also rooted in the societal / cultural construct of the time/era in which it was made. A picture is as much a societal / construct as it is a visual / physical construct.

Consequently, a viewer of a picture, knowing where and/or in what era that picture was made and possessing at least a rudimentary knowledge of that place and its societal / cultural paradigm, has a much greater ability to understand and appreciate that picture. In other words, the more you know, the more you can know (ain't knowledge grand?).

IMO, the time and place rooting to found / seen in a picture, whether it is transmitted via the written word or visually within the picture itself, is inherently a good thing. In fact, a very good thing.

Buildings ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, civilized ku # 2193-94, John Linn wrote:

Looking at you post this morning was a bit of jolt considering my post last night. Your comments and observations make me want take down the picture, after all is is not a favorite anyway.
I have to say I am often drawn to details in trees and clouds and water, so the resulting image is more about texture, light and color rather than providing the viewer the experience of "the scene in front of me."

my response: John, I viewed the picture in question early this AM before you made your comment. My first reaction was, "nice". While, IMO, I don't consider the picture a stand alone grand prize winner, I do believe that it fits very nicely in your growing If you want to see, you have to Look body of work, which, IMO, is beginning to evidence real promise.

It's quite possible that, within the totality of that body of work, you will end up with an interesting sub-genre body of work of "details ... more about texture, light and color" pictures. One which, if exhibited as a cohesive body of work, would be visually rich and interesting.

So, I would advise against taking it down or thinking it to be a sub-par individual image. Rather, think about it as an interlocking piece of your picturing puzzle.

Spring buds ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenSpring buds with vehicle ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenThis AM, when looking out of my bathroom window, my eye and sensibilities were pricked by what became the Spring buds picture. After getting a camera, the one with the 45mm lens (90mm 35mm equiv.), I made the picture of what first caught my eye - the spring buds on the trees. I used the 45mm lens because it allowed me to capture just the spring buds, which were the first-glance object of my attention.

Upon viewing the picture on the camera's LCD, and after a quick bit of picture making introspection, I grabbed the camera with the 20mm lens (40mm, 35mm equiv.) and made the Spring buds with vehicle picture. A picture which I realized, almost immediately, was much more to my liking. After processing the 2 pictures, I was even more certain that I had made the right decision.

How so? Well, let me refer back to the words of Stephen Shore from his essay Form and Pressure, as found in APERTURE ~ Winter 2011):

... I was aware that I was imposing an organization that came from me and from what I had learned: it was not really an outgrowth of the scene in front of me ... I asked myself if I could organize the information I wanted to include without relying on an overriding structural principle ... Could I structure the picture in such a way that communicated my experience of standing there, taking in the scene in front of me? ...

IMO, the Spring buds picture was made, in Shore's words, as a result of my "imposing an organization that came from me and what I had learned". It was, in my words, a bit of a "camera club" picture - one that, in many guises and derivations, I have seen before. And, I simply didn't feel that the picture "communicated my experience of standing there, taking in the scene in front of me".

So, I grabbed the camera with the 20mm lens, waited for a vehicle to enter the scene, and made the second picture.

That picture is much more to my way of seeing. A manner of seeing that is neatly summed up by Robert Adams, in his essay, Making Art New (to be found in his book, BEAUTY IN PHOTOGRAPHY):

Currently a great deal of energy is being invested in attempts to push photography into unusual areas ... (but) the only thing that is new in art is the example: the message is, broadly speaking, the same - coherence, form, meaning. The example changes profitably, I think, because the span of our attention is fleeting, our imaginations are weak, and our historical perspectives are short; we respond best to affirmations that are achieved within the details of life today, specifics that we can, to our surprise and delight and satisfaction, recognize as our own.

The first picture could have been made almost anywhere similar foliage can be found and at almost any time since the advent of color picture making. Whereas the second picture is dated by the vehicle and it also has a sense of place as evidenced by the street and houses - all things that can be "recognized as our own". And, much more important to me and my eye and sensibilities, it more truthfully represents "my experience of standing there, taking in the scene in front of me".

Some "serious amateurs" who live and die by the adage, "Simply", might state that I would do better with the first picture because it directs the viewers attention to the Spring buds whereas in the second picture the Spring buds are "lost" in all of the extraneous details. To which I would respond (in my own words) with the notion of Shore's statement:

This was a new conception of the landscape picture, one in which the details themselves - their density and abundance, rather than the entirety - were intended to be the focal point or subject. Each image is so sharp and detailed that it seems to have infinite centres of attention, or none at all. "If I saw something interesting, I didn't have to make a picture about it. I could let it be somewhere in the picture, and have something else happening as well. So this changes the function of a picture - it's not like pointing at something and saying 'Take a look at this'. It's saying, 'Take a look at this object I'm making.' It's asking you to savour something not in the world, but to savour the image itself."

That notion mirrors my idea of the print as a thing - something to be savoured in of itself, independent of (but, nevertheless, simultaneously with) the referent(s) pictured there on. And, IMO, there is nothing which compares to a print when it comes to communicating coherence, form, and ultimately, meaning.

FYI I have disabled the CAPTCHA thing - the enter these letters thing in order to submit a comment. It seems some were having trouble with it. So now you just comment and publish.