ku # 519 ~ decide what you're making

Lilacs, birch, & Jay Range • click to embiggenA couple commenters, and who knows how many others, took a bit of umbrage the other day when I quoted a comment from Joe Reifer's blog. Specifically, it was this little ditty:

... if you make a beautiful picture of a clearing winter storm in the Sierras, it's almost certainly junk (in the artistic sense) ...

Just because I quoted this idea doesn't mean that I agree with it. The fact that a lot of what is being made, photography-wise, is Decorative Art, not Fine Art, does not make it "junk". It's true that a lot of it may be cliche ridden, schmaltz-y, obviously (and intentionally) imitative, and, as some always point out, meaningful to the person who made it, but, IMO, that still does not make it junk. It's not Art, but it's not junk.

That said, the part of the quoted comment that I do agree with is this:

A serious artist making serious art shows a new way, demonstrates thoughts not thought before, makes what is essentially a philosophical argument .....

Even in my basic agreement with this notion, I would issue caveats regarding "new way" and "thoughts not thought before" in as much as "it has all been done (and said) before". All Art is derivative in the sense that all Art; a) builds on / evolves from what came before, and, b) relates to / derives from the culture in which it is created.

The best of Art may, indeed, address a given subject in a "new way" and address thoughts and ideas from a "new" perspective, but, ultimately, the best of Art addresses what it means to be human and, therefore, addresses "timeless" thoughts and ideas about the human condition.

IMO, this is what separates the wheat from the chaff - Fine Art from Decorative Art - in the world of art, especially so in the visual arts. Art is so much more than what strikes the eye, AKA, the illustrative. Art is at least as much about what strikes the mind and soul as it is about what strikes the eye, AKA, Art that illuminates. The best of Art incites, not just passion, but thought and, by extension, discourse about meaning and truth. Art that stimulates something other than just the pleasure centers of the human psyche.

Much has been written lately about photography that suggests that what is pictured in a photograph (the referent) is not nearly as important as what is implied in a photograph (the connoted). As an example, Jeff Wall has opined that it is vitally important to avoid, at all costs, picturing anything that you actually care about lest the referent take precedent over the connoted. This is an excellent example of the academic lunatic-fringe thinking that has dominated a large segement of contemporary Art world. Although, it must be said, that is probably a legitimate notion when one is making Art about Art, which is essentially what Wall is doing.

All of that said, and with the exception of pseudo-art made solely for commercial gain, I would suggest that there is a lot of art out there - most of it Decorative, and just a bit of it Fine.

picture window # 10 ~ no talking!

Covered bridge in Jay • click to embiggenI came away from this weekend with an embarrassment of riches, photography-wise - the result of twice fleeing the house while the wife was doing her DIY thing. FYI, I will not be asking her to give up her day job.

A couple days ago, I mentioned a piece by Joe Reifer wherein he wrote about "going deeper" into the depths of what inspires us to carry around these little boxes that leave an imprint on film or sensors .... In my response / entry on the topic I addressed part of what I think it takes to go deeper in the picturing process, but, when I stated that Joe had been kicking around some thoughts that were also on my mind, the thought of his that I was/am most interested in is:

I started participating in this modern new fangled photography blogging thing because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Somehow I’m still rolling with it. The very existence of all this verbal photography food has created a strange sort of dependence on the Words Words Words. Maybe we don’t need all of this jabber ....

Like Joe, I started doing the "modern new fangled photography blogging thing because it seemed like a good idea at the time". And, by and by, it has proven to be a reasonably good idea but, of late, I too have been questioning "all this verbal photography food", Although, I am not questioning it from this dumb-ass brain-dead POV (a comment on JR's blog) -

It’s all so much pontificating and ego blather ... Writing about photography is meaningless ... Writing about visual art defeats the whole purpose of why visual art exists, which is to inspire the viewer on a personal level, specifically without words.

According to that wacky theory, all anyone can do is look at photographs with the dictate of "NO TALKING!!" (here is where I imagine one of my grammar school nuns - stern expression, arms folded, one foot tapping, ruler in hand while I am writing 1,000 times, "I must not talk about photography."). No, that idea is pure bullshit.

I am questioning it strictly from a personal perspective, as in, I have been writing about photography for the better part of 2 years now and, in doing so, I have worked out - with a little help from my friends - many of my ideas, questions, and issues that I have had about the medium, its possibilities, its vernacular, and its potential for "meaning".

After 2 years, I feel as though I am running out of things to write about, at least as far as my own personal curiosity and gratification are concerned.

By that, I do not mean that I have figured everything out, that I know it all. Far from it. I have, however, arrived at at place where I am, with some degree of confidence, able to think about the medium from a more "informed" perspective and apply that thinking to my picturing in a manner that I was not able to do in the past. This "thinking" has also enabled me to be more discerning in my recognition and appreciation of good photography (my own and that of others).

All of that said, I feel that the time has come for me to really focus on my picturing and my pictures (please note my recently stated desire to launch a photo-only site). Not that I am about to stop photography word blogging ... but ... as I mentioned, I am running short of notions and ideas from a purely personal interest. Soooo ...

I sit at the ready to answer and/or address any questions, notions, ideas, postulations, etc. that any of you might have a personal interest in, unless, of course, all of you already know it all. In that case, please fill us in.

Any questions?

Update on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 12:00PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote: "I think a fair number of people have followed a similar trajectory. Blogs like The Landscapist provoked discussions with a much broader audience than we were used to. We learned a little or a lot (probably the writers most of all), but there's a law of diminishing returns. One comes to the realization that some issues will never be (and shouldn't be) settled, certainly not by talking alone. They are just things that are worked out for each photographer by making photographs.

But blogs are nice for sharing, as well as for learning. How about more focused blogs on single projects with fewer issues? Writing could be copious or occasional or non-existent, with input from readers or not. One could aim for something closer to reading a photography book than a magazine, which by nature lacks the "deep" that Joe and Mark and others are looking for. It might not work for everyone, but I'm thinking of giving it a try."

ku # 518 ~ a delightful surprise

opposits attract • click to embiggenRecently, I mentioned that I have been looking around the web for some photo blogs worth reading / looking at. While doing a google search for a photo blog that I thought I knew the name of, I ended up on this site - the blog of a painter who lives on the fringe of the Adirondack region - instead.

Imagine my surprise when I was greeted by paintings of scenes close to my home with which I am very familiar and some of which I have pictured in a strikingly similar manner. Yoi and double Yoi - I didn't know whether to cry or wind my watch and you could have knocked me over with a feather.

In any event, if you peruse Takeyce Walter's paintings, when you come to Birch and Maple Trees, you will notice that it has a SOLD sign. As soon as it arrives at my house, Birch and Maple Trees and my Cascade Lakes Blackies will be framed side by side in a single frame and placed in our newly renovated bedroom.

I also believe that Birch and Maple Trees will not be last of my purchases from Takeyce Walter.

picture window # 9 ~ keep on pushing the button

Chaise lounge and leg lamp • click to embiggenJoe Reifer has been kicking around some thoughts that have also been on my mind recently.

On his blog entry, Going deeper may require more abstract excursions, Joe states that "Outside the morass of online photography talk there must somewhere lie something more pure and true .... I’ve hinted before with some abstraction at my dissatisfaction with the state of photography on the internet .... So how do we go deeper than normal? Delve into the depths of what inspires so many of us to carry around these little boxes that leave an imprint on film or sensors or glass plates or whatever? .... "

Leaving aside the modern-era internet stuff and, for that matter, the photography stuff, his question is nothing new for an Artist of any era or persuasion. I think any Artist is perpetually consumed by the idea of delving deeper and arriving at something more pure and true. I am reasonably certain that Joe knows this to be true.

By sheer coincidence (or is it?), I came across this comment by John Camp on an entry at The Online Photographer:

There is this terrific worldwide urge by people to make art, as a way of demonstrating their value, and most of what almost all of them make is junk. I'm sorry, but if you make a beautiful picture of a clearing winter storm in the Sierras, it's almost certainly junk (in the artistic sense), because the thoughts behind it are essentially technical and retrospective .....

Ansel Adams photos are now a technique, readily replicable by anyone with a good camera, a couple weeks of experience at the Santa Fe Workshops, and some time to linger in the mountains. Taking the photos isn't hard; thinking of taking them was the hard part .....

A serious artist making serious art shows a new way, demonstrates thoughts not thought before, makes what is essentially a philosophical argument .....

Art photographers, or any serious photographers, for that matter, IMHO, have to decide who they are and what they're doing, and make it plain ....

Photos are just the easiest thing, for the moment, and attract the people who want to apply a technique to something and then call that something art. It's not; it's just more internet junk.

This is basically the same thought as Joe's with an answer - decide who they are and what they're doing - thrown in. Joe has suggested something similar as potion for what ails him - Your normal sources are not going to cut it. The internet is not going to cut it. This may take wandering around the middle of the desert for a few days to figure out. Maybe a few weeks. Probably longer.

IMO, he's answered his own question. But, I'm not entirely certain that it's the whole answer.

Because "photos are just the easiest thing" to make, I believe that an essential ingredient for getting out of the what's - it - all - about - Alfie conundrum is to simply picture your way out of it. Make lots of pictures in a short period of time without thinking about it all that much - just picture what you "see" and feel. Make a bunch of work prints and then go into the desert, take the time to really look at them and think about it. And, oh yeah, bring some Chimay,

Think of it as tinkering and just fooling around. Trying to "force it" with purely "abstract" thinking alone just doesn't cut it. Even though I really dislike NIKE and just about everything they stand for, I have to say that "Just do it" is a really valuable piece of advice.

here's Johnny

An inimitable cohort with the real • click to embiggenWe all know that photography has a special relationship with the real and, at times, is fully capable of capturing the truth of things.

The medium and its tools are uniquely equipped to capture those instantaneous and fleeting moments in time when life gives us ever so brief glimpses into the nature of things that otherwise, in the course of daily life, might elude us.

The camera, in the hands of an ever-vigilant photographer, can cut through the misty fog of human emotion to reveal, with stunning clarity, that which lies beneath the surface of things - truths that many choose to avoid or ignore.

That is the power of the medium.

And, it is also a great tool for capturing precious family memories that can be cherished for ever and ever and ever and ever in very large mural-sized prints ..... on a wall .... in the living room .... under track lighting .....

picture window # 8 ~ Walking down Main Street, gettin' to know the concrete

A picture window in a picture window • clickto embiggenA few days ago, while looking for an Eggleston Tricycle picture to link to, I came across a blog by the name of Condition Uncertain.

What caught my attention was the masthead title of Like A Brown Bird Nesting In A Texaco Sign with a subhead of "An intoxication comes over the man who walks long and aimlessly through the streets. With each step, the walk take on greater momentum; ever weaker grow the temptations of shops, of bistros, of smiling women, ever more irresistible the magnetism of the next street corner, of a distant mass of foliage, of a street name."--Walter Benjamin.

As if that wasn't enough to pique my interest, there was also this quote, "Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen." --Robert Bresson, which was followed by ""Like a brown bird nesting in a Texaco sign, I've got a point of view" is a line from the Silver Jews song "I'm Getting Back Into Getting Back Into You." This blog is a slice of my point of view.

I was hooked. If someone were trying to suck me into an identity theft / money scam / nefarious scheme, the person (Mark Burnette) who had set this little web up had sunk the hook deep into where I live. I just had to explore deeper in the bowels of what, IMO, has turned out to be a very interesting ... well ... uhmm ... I'm not really sure what to call it, but, whatever it is, it is interesting.

Mark Burnette has created a blog that is one part photography, another part poetry, another part song lyrics, another part glimpse of southern life in these here United States. And, when it's all put together, what you end up with is a pretty damn immersive experience. It's not something that I can take in in large doses but it's is fun to return to again and again and pick up in small bits and pieces.

That said, I find that a lot of the photography - especially that of the landscape in and around Mark's home territory - is a genuinely honest and interesting look at life "as it is". There is a distinct nod to Shore and Eggleston in his pictures, but Mark has managed to avoid being a copycat clone of either.

All in all, it appears to me that Mark Burnette, like the brown bird nesting in a Texaco sign, does have a point of view that makes visible what, without him, might perhaps never have been seen. I hope he continues to walk long and aimlessly through the streets, to delve deeper into that state of intoxication with even greater momentum and that he gives us more of the ever more irresistible magnetism of the next street corner, of a distant mass of foliage, of a street name as he sees them.

PS one caveat - Mark needs to figure out how to make smaller pop-up images - most are way too big to fit on anything but a 40 inch display.

man & nature # 10 ~ variables #2

Rustication • click to embiggenOn uesterday's entry, Tom Frost (AKA, Stu Newberry?) called for a reality check of sorts when he opined, "Uh, chemical photography is "immature" in the sense that people's ability to use it (the RAW conversion for you digital people) varies tremendously. Also, I don't think anyone would expect the same results from Velvia vs Kodachrome or Tri-X vs Bergger BPF 200, not to mention the variables in development. Oh, and don't forget, then there's the printing..."

He has a point but it seems that he missed my point - sure enough, there were/are variables aplenty in the film capture domain. Although, it should be noted that the variables with color photography are severely restricted to the choice of what film to use. Unlike its BW film counterpart, color film processing is pretty much a by the book / numbers affair. A little push here, a little pull there with E-6 chemistry was possible but not so much with C-41, but, again unlike BW film, those 2 chemical processes were just about the only choice you had.

Be that as it may, my point was/is this - your results from color film, negative or positive, were determined by the film you used, NOT by the camera you used. If you wanted the Velvia look, you used Velvia in any camera of your choice and, viola, you got the Velvia look. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax, Leica - pick a brand, any brand and you still get the Velvia look. The same holds true for Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Vericolor, Ektacolor, etc. - what you use is what you get no matter what camera you use it in.

That's the standard / consistency I am referring to.

To a lesser extent, this also applies to BW film domain as well - sure there are a zillion film / developer / paper combinations that can be used to obtain a wide range of results, BUT, in each and every case, you started with a known quantity, i.e., a film / developer / paper with known characteristics (no matter what camera you used the film in) from which to do your voodoo magic.

In the digital capture domain there has been a huge paradigm shift - the camera itself determines the color, dynamic range, hue and saturation, contrast / tonal characteristics, etc. of your image capture. So, in a very real sense, one must be both educated and aware of these differences between various camera brands (as well as the differences even within different models of the same brand) when making the choice of what camera to use.

In the digital domain, the camera is no longer a relatively neutral mechanical device. Each and every camera adds its own flavor to the mix.

And god help you if you choose a RAW converter that doesn't work well with your camera flavor - as an example, ARC in particular doesn't seem to work well with a number of camera brands, or, at least, with a number of camera brand models. I and many others have noticed that some manufacturer's propriety RAW files, when processed in ARC, exhibit a characteristic called "watercoloring". A condition in which colors tend to smear and get blotchy much like watercolors do on paper.

The biggest part of these problems is the fact that every camera manufacturer has its own proprietary file format. IMO, this serves only the camera manufacturer as a purely marketing device, not the picturing public as a picturing device. That is why I fully support the idea of DNG - a "universal" format that promises at least some level of "consistency" from which the individual can then go to town in the digital darkroom to create any possible result that their heart might desire.

Then, and only then, will the photographer be truly free from the dictates of what software engineers (and film engineers / chemists) think our pictures should look like.

civilized ku # 84 ~ happy birthday

A night out • click to embiggenYesterday was the wife's birthday so it was off to a local eatery for some celebratory grub.

There were 2 things of note: 1) While phoning around yesterday AM to see what was open, I was advised by all the places that were open to make a reservation. My first inclination was to ask if they were joking - a Tuesday during mud season is not exactly the height of tourist time. Nevertheless, I went along with them and made a reservation. Of course, when we arrived, we were the only ones in the place. Thank goodness we had reservations.

And, 2) On a more positive note, it great to find that more and more restaurants are using locally grown/raised produce and meats. One 3rd generation farm in particular is finding a niche of growing specialty vegetables - fiddle ferns, oriental vegetables, and so on. "Organic" poultry, free-range cattle, and local game are also becoming more available as well.

All in all it just feels good knowing that while you are enjoying a fresh and tasty dinner you are also supporting a small scale local economy.