urban ku # 174 ~ entre chien et loup

Entre chien et loup • click to embiggenOft critical of my words and pictures, I was slightly taken aback by Paul Maxim's comment on urban ku # 173 - "... another wonderful photograph. Isn't that interesting.... It must mean that your photographic tastes and mine do coincide somewhat - they're just offset in time by about 25 years or so!

Without delving too deeply into what Paul meant by "photographic taste", I would label his 'taste' as primarily wrapped up in the picturesque side of things, photography-wise. I base this hastily drawn conclusion on his photography as displayed on his website.

Now, before anyone goes all ballistic about the word picturesque' being used as an insult, let me state that I am having an interesting exchange of ideas with Straun Gray about 'the picturesque'. We are contemplating notions about 'the picturesque' - most specifically, can 'the picturesque' move beyond, as Straun opines, "mere beauty - or, at least, the superficial, dismissable beauty of the romantic landscape canon."?

In a nutshell. both he and I believe, at least provisionally, that it can. More on that later.

But, back to Paul Maxim's new found appreciation of my pictures (at least those of 25 years ago or so). In our exchange of ideas, Straun directed me to an online discussion about the photography of Harry Cory Wright, specifically his Journey Through the British Isles work.

In the comments about Wright's pictures, I found this item which I think applies directly to Paul's appreciation of my older pictures: "they're not unmemorable to me ..." (Wright's pictures) "I can easily visualise several of HCW's images of the North Norfolk coast that mean as much to me as any I've seen of Glen Coe. But I was born and brought up here, his images invoke feelings that are deeply embedded in my past ... This has now been worrying me all day, as I just don't understand the reaction this is getting." (HCW pictures are being described as banal, mundane, unmemorable, etc.) "Is it just that I have a connection via this particular landscape of North Norfolk?"

In the case of my pictures of Rochester, Paul has a connection to them derived from having lived there and hence some 'local knowledge' of the place. Without a doubt, he has drawn upon this understanding of the place to help him appreciate these pictures more so than he does my contemporary images.

I find this very interesting because I don't see any difference between my earlier photography and that which I am making today, other than subject matter, of course. However, I do suspect that Paul has very little 'local knowledge', culturally or topographically, of my current environment.

Is that Paul's 'problem' with my contemporary pictures - no local knowledge?

The commenter above also asked; ""If an image requires the viewer to have knowledge or understanding of an area to respond emotionally to it, does that lessen its worth? Does it cease to be art and become a curiosity or keep sake for those affected?"

On that forum, most of the answers to that question were like this one - "... if a photograph requires intimate knowledge of its location in order to be evocative then in my opinion it has to some extent failed. Surely one of the definitions of a truly great photograph, or any other kind of artwork, is that it will move you without you needing to know much of its backstory.", and, "My view is that it certainly does lessen it very significantly as a work of art ..."

Apparently, according to the consensus on this forum, and, quite frankly, on most photography forums, "great / good / memorable" photography requires a referent that as many viewers as possible immediately recognize as a "known" quantity. By "known" I don't just mean that the referent is a known thing but also that the referent is rendered in a "known" style or manner - which is to say, the ubiquitous 'picturesque' landscape vernacular.

As my grandson Hugo says, that's "poop on a stick."

If one's artistic aim is to pander to the masses, then the "known" in all of its various guises is the way to go, but, for me, the result of that way of picturing is, in fact, "poop on a stick".

IMO, and I am not alone, the best Art is that which deals with the "unknown". With the field of Art, and for that matter most things in life, I am not interested in the slightest in hearing, reading, seeing something that I already know. I want the Artist to tease and challenge me with something that at first glance confuses, befuddles, or challenges my perception of things, visually and intellectually / emotionally.

In Art, as in life, I am interested in expanding my 'local knowledge', not reinforcing, ad nauseam, that which I already know.

PS - For those of you who might be wondering, I have not linked to the forum discussion from which I extracted the aforementioned comments. In our exchange of ideas, Straun Gray wrote that "I don't think it would be fair to critique that conversation in public", and I will respect that caveat.

Update on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 09:48AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment:Mike Odonoghue wrote: "As far as I can see photography can only address the "known" if you agree that "seeing" is "knowing" or "understanding" as in "I see." ... Perhaps "unknown" means something like a Voyager Mission where the camera is pointed at something no one has ever been near before. If Photography cannot address the "unknown" — perhaps the Photographer can address something s/he doesn't know or start a process which will lead "who knows where", but that's all I can agree to."

my response: see urban ku # 175

Update on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 01:33PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Struan Gray wrote: "Despite a love of postmodern froth and contemporary arts across a wide spectrum I still hanker after formal aesthetics and an unfashionable visual excitement in my own photography. I therefore like the idea of being stuck squarely between the two opposite poles of established nature and landscape photography: the sublime and the purely beautiful.

This is the traditional place of the picturesque. These days, "picturesque" usually means a clichéd tweeness, but the original movement was an attempt to see the beauty in untidy, textured, human-influenced landscapes. I would like to extract that nugget of meaning and apply it to my own work.

So I'm proud to be picturesque. Happy for my viewers to leave their 'wow's at the door. Trying to find a place for reflective contemplation of the familiar in a photographic world that seems dominated by the visual equivalent of cheap thrills and easy listening.

scary weird

basking in the 'glow" • click to embiggenThis Saturday evening entry may seem like a 'proud grampa' boast, but it's not really intended to be so. Rather, I am curious to know if my grandson Hugo - he's 42 months old - is a bit of an anomaly or if he's just plain average in this day and age.

Hugo stays at out house every other weekend - we love the time spent with him and mom & dad love the 'time off'. Hugo loves it here so much that mom & dad don't tell him it's a Papa weekend until I'm on my way to pick him up because, if he knows too much in advance, he stands at the front window for hours looking for Papa. So, it seems everyone is happy with the arrangement.

That said, this picture was taken this AM. In his young life, Hugo has access to 4 computers - 2 at his house, 2 at ours. He started sitting at the computer (at his house) to watch movie trailers about 2 years ago. At that time he mastered the return key which functioned as the 'play again' button. He also learned the volume keys as well.

His primary use of the computer now is watching videos on YouTube - mostly power rangers, transformers, and spiderman. After he turns the computer on, he knows how to start Safari and go to YouTube on the 'favorites' bar. Because we have entered 'power rangers' in 'search' on YouTube previously, he has mastered typing a 'p' in the search window and hitting the return key after the phrase appears in the window, which takes him to a list of videos.

He also uses this 'p' search technique when he gets, as he puts it, 'lost' on some video tangent.

He knows how to click and drag or use the up/down scroll keys to peruse the various offering and select the ones he wants. He uses the 'back' arrow in the browser window to backtrack, the volume keys, the pause key (to stop a video, come find me to show me something "really cool"), click and drag the progress slider to go back to see a segment again, amongst many other basic computer skills.

About 8 months ago he started in on video games - not kid's games, no, not for him ... it was Grand Theft Auto and some kind of Ninja fighting game. Now he's up to Hulk, War of the Monsters, Power Rangers and a few others. Some how he has learned how to navigate through many levels of set-up options to set the games up exactly how he wants them. Add to that his uncanny both-handed dexterity on the control thingy - all the buttons and levers - and he can occupy himself for hours.

As I am typing this entry, he is downstairs entertaining 3 college freshmen and 1 high school senior with his video game prowess. (Aside: Normally seizure girl (home on Spring Break) and her friends would be out and about on a Saturday night but the roads are so totally iced over that driving a car is more playing a demolition derby video game than we would like.) They are amazed.

Hugo's a very smart kid but I am assuming that there are others out there like him, computer / video game wise. But I am also assuming that there are a lot who aren't.

Now, my question is this - I am I witnessing the start of the new haves / have nots world. A world of kids with early-age unfettered access to computer technology vs. those kids who do not have that same access?

His early-age skills seem very weird to me. The idea of a new age of haves / have nots scares me.

PS lest anyone think otherwise, Hugo is not just a 'pinball wizard' - we went downhill skiing today as well.

urban ku # 173 ~ the big yellow father

Kodak tower and my studio • click to embiggenOne of the special 'features' of the good old days, photography-wise, is that with which I am reacquainting myself as I scan some older 8×10 color negatives - f**king DUST.

FYI, in the good old days, a standard item in my darkrooms - I had 3, one for film loading, one for film processing (color & bw), and one for printing (color & bw) - was an industrial-size (about 5 ft tall) cylinder of compressed nitrogen with a pressure regulator and spray nozzle. Dust didn't stand a chance with that kind of 'dust-off', but, if you didn't set the right spray pressure, neither did an 8×10 negative - a negative could be literally ripped in half with too much spray pressure. Believe me. I know.

And, FYI, PS dust and scratch removal / digital 'ICE' is a very poor substitute for nitrogen in a tank. Those software 'solutions' to dust and scratch removal all depend on image blurring, which, in my book, is no solution at all. That's why, when I made the leap from high-end P&S digital cameras (sealed body = no dust on the sensor) to dslrs, I went with Olympus - their in-camera dust buster has been and is a perfect solution to sensor dust. I have yet to see a single dust particle on an image file.

In any event, today's picture is for Paul Maxim who opined on yesterday's picture; "Just wanted to say how much I like the river image. For those of us who once lived there, it's just so typically "Rochester" (and I don't mean that in a bad sense). You can literally feel the humidity. How long ago was this taken?"

Thanks, Paul. The picture was taken circa 1981-84. I can't pin down the exact date because my camera's EXIF data was erased from internal memory 'card'.

Today's picture is of the Kodak tower / corporate headquarters. Also depicted is my first 'solo' studio - note the big white air conditioner on the right. That window, the 2 to the left, and extending back to the 2 windows on the alley side of the building was my studio space. The picture was taken from the roof of the building (the Smith Gormley building) that housed my 'new' studio and loft living space.

This little NW corner of downtown Rochester - 1 block long, 2 blocks wide - was comprised of mostly empty (but not abandoned) old loft buildings. 2 photographers,including me, had studios in Searle Building. 1 photographer had a sort-of studio and illegal living space in another building. I felt there was a pent up demand for artist lofts - studios and legal loft living spaces - in the Rochester community. So, with the permission and support of the Smith Gormley building owner, I renovated the building - 6 stories, 72,000 sq. ft. - creating 20 lofts, all of which were leased before the renovation was completed.

The building had 7 photo studios and a variety of other artist and artisan studios. Everyone lived in their space. It was an exciting time - we were truly urban 'pioneers'.
A Smith Gormley loft • click to embiggenWithin a year, the neighborhood had 3 music/dance clubs and 2 restaurants. It didn't take long after that for the big developers to notice what was going on and today in the St. Paul Quarter (as it is now known), the Smith-Gormley is one of the original loft-style apartment buildings in downtown Rochester, and, with its position at the heart of the St. Paul entertainment district, remains a sought-after address.

It still amazes me that I started it all.

FYI & urban ku # 172 ~ unstuttering love

Genesee river and falls • click to embiggenLast evening, in a 'minor' inebriated state (the wife worked at home and women kept calling me all day long), I stumbled upon the Sundance Channel and William Eggleston and the Real World, part of a week long series of films about photographers presented under the banner of Lives in Focus. Much to my chagrin, I discovered that the series started on Monday and continues through this Friday. I can't believe that there wasn't an internet 'buzz' about this series and I can only hope that reruns are in order.

The photographers profiled are; William Eggleston, Robert Mapplethorpe and Sam Wagstaff, Helmut Newton, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Peter Beard, and Tina Barney. That's quite a spectrum of talents and genres. The Eggleston film was done in a handheld cinéma-vérité style (each film in the series was done by different film makers) that really complemented Eggleston's photography and his approach to picturing.

And, it is his approach to picturing that struck me the most, in as much as I came to a 'I am not alone' realization - even though Aaron thought that Eggleston looked like someone with alzheimer's walking around with a camera. But, as always, it's the pictures that matter and Eggleston's are absolutely amazing.

"The banal, then, is still banal, but now it's engrossing. I suppose this must be seen as progress, but Eggleston's belief has been and remains that what the resolutely high-minded call banality is the stuff of life itself. It is where we live -- but not only there. Much has been made of Eggleston's oft-quoted statement "I am at war with the obvious." Here he is, not atypically, saying a good deal less than he means. Eggleston loves the obvious -- he hates, and is indeed at war with, the idea of it, the contempt in which it is held. He sees what's in the gutter but also looks up to the heavens. As Malcolm Jones, an unusually perceptive critic of Eggleston's work, has observed, "He addresses the meanest objects with unstuttering love." ~ Stanley Booth/salon.com

even more FYI - today's picture is from a scan of an 8×10 color negative.

nfscd # 4 - jonesing

Rebuilding the rust belt • click to embiggenYou have probably noticed that I have been posting a number of 'blasts from the past' (aka, 'nfscd'). There are a number of reasons for this.

First and foremost, as I have mentioned, I have had to address the issue of 'sorting' all kinds of stuff as part of my office move. In the process, I have (once again) found how amazingly difficult it is to get rid of some stuff that's been hanging around for eons. Stuff that seems of little significance to others but, nevertheless, seems to have some kind of hold over me. Most probably that hold involves memories but don't discount the fact that I hang on to some things just because I like the way they look.

Another reason is simply because, of late, there seems to have been little interest in discussing Art. Maybe there has been interest in 'reading' (my page loads and visits are inching upward) what I have written on the subject, but there has been little response in the way of comments.

So, I have decided to keep it 'light' for a while. I refuse to indulge in pixel peeping, gear talk, and techno babble, as many other blogs do, in order to generate more comments. Who amongst you wants read comments about Canon vs Nikon vs Pentax vs Olympus, noise numbers, pixel counts, etc., especially when those comments are based on little more than personal likes and dislikes. Boring.

In any event, today's picture is an illustration for a magazine article about 'rebuilding the rust belt'. It's a Polaroid image transfer, hand-colored with Marshall oils and pencils, on Arches (ARCHES - Le choix des artistes depuis 1492) watercolor paper.

Polaroid image transfers (and emulsion transfers) are, of course, about to become a 'lost art'. I'm really having a hard time accepting the fact that an entire genre with so many creative possibilities is about to disappear, especially one that was so handmade intensive. I fully embrace digital and all of its creative possibilities but I am really jonesing to get involved in a photo process that requires touching something other than on/off buttons and a keyboard.

And, maybe that's related to memory as well. I would think that, if you've never done any handmade photography - wet darkroom, alternate processes, peeling apart polaroids, etc. - and therefore have no memory of it, you certainly can't miss it. You would also probably have no desire to do so.

What a pity.

nfscd # 3

Self promotion pieces • click to embiggenI was the first photographer in Pittsburgh to dive into the digital darkroom with a Mac/Apple IIci and Photoshop 2.5.

The IIci has a 25mhz processor and a 40mb hard drive. It maxed out at 128mb of RAM. FYI, at the time, 1 Mb of RAM cost around $50 so my IIci maxed out at 32mb of RAM. Processing speed was a tad slower than a snail on downers.

Photoshop 2.5 didn't even qualify as a pale imitation of its present self - the first stab at layers, limited masking, no image previews, (to see the effect of a filter, you had to apply it and then wait - sometimes wait and wait and wait - up to 10 minutes or more with some filters. If you didn't like the result, undo it and start again.), and, BTW, only one undo ... Even back then PS had powerful, pre-press capable color editing tools but I also used Painter because it had superior brushes, masking and layer blending capabilities and files could be moved back and forth into Photoshop.

In any event, making photo-based illustrations like Waist Knot and Cafe Society was a long and tedious process which was why, after a long day of photo editing, I turned off the work software and got lost (on occasion, until the sun came up) in the world of MYST.

nfscd # 2

Dancing and leaping • click to embiggenBack in the days before Photoshop, creating pictures like 'dancing and leaping' was a long and demanding process. In this case, our intrepid subjects, Rod Woodson of the Pittsburgh Steelers and a dancer from the Pittsburgh Ballet, were required to leap, jump, twist, turn and generally contort their bodies every which way over and over and over again.

In today's PS universe, a photographer can work with each subject individually in order to capture the 'perfect' body language and then paste the 2 separate images together in PS. Back in the stone ages of the analog photography world, it was necessary to keep shooting and shooting until the photographer felt he 'had it' in the can. Notice, I said "felt he had it", because there was no way of knowing for certain that you 'had it' until the film came out of the soup.

The difficulty / challenge of getting 2 subjects to get the right body language at the same instant is, well, difficult and a challenge. In this case, a series of pictures for a Pittsburgh tourism campaign, the degree of difficulty was mitigated by the fact that I was able to photograph a professional athlete and a professional dancer who were, in a sense, just 'doing their thing(s)'. I can't even imagine what it would have been like if I had to use models who would have had to fake it.

Just thought you might like a glimpse at life before faking it has become the way to go.

now for something completely different

Seemed like a good idea • click to embiggen

For about 29 years, during my commercial studio days, I spent what was probably an inordinate amount of time photographing women. There were a number of reasons for this proclivity.

1) I enjoyed it. 2) I was really good at it, so there was a never-ending stream of women to my studio door. 3) Eventually, a significant portion of my paid client work was 'fashion' work. And, 4) I really enjoyed it.

This picture was just for fun and for the model's book. I don't remember all the details but I do know that the green 'thing' was a chunk of the goo from which nerf products are made. At the time, I was working on an annual report for the company that made nerf products and during a shoot at the factory, one of my assistants grabbed this 'spillage' from the floor. It ended up hanging around the studio and during this shoot, it seemed like a good idea to paint it green, add teeth marks and a little 'blood'.

What else can I say? To paraphrase Little Charlie and the Nightcats - Sometimes, when you're thinking with the wrong head, some ignorant stuff seems like a damn good idea.