a mixed bag of f2.8

civilized ku # 229 ~ Refelction, NYC • click to embiggen
ku # 630 ~ Yellow leaves • click to embiggen
civilized ku # 230 ~ Railing • click to embiggen
man & nature # 249 ~ Car mirror • click to embiggen
civilized ku # 231 ~ 128, NYC • click to embiggen
civilized ku # 232 ~ Taxi, NYC • click to embiggen
man & nature # 250 ~ Picket fence • click to embiggenThomas Ruff stated in an interview:

I always want to take the medium of photography into the picture, so that you are always aware that you are looking at an image – a photograph,’ he says, before continuing, ‘so, in the picture I hope you can see two things: the image itself, plus the reflection – or the thinking – about photography. I hope it’s visible. I’m an investigator, and it is as if I am investigating the grammar of photography.

Since day 1 of The Landscapist it has been stated - righthand column, About This Website -that I am interested in .... photographs which, whatever their visual merits, instigate thought and discussion about the medium of photography. What interests me most about the medium is its unique characteristics amongst the visual arts, re: the vernacular (grammar) of photography. In other words, photography's characteristics as a visual language.

Or, to be stated even another way, photography that goes beyond pictures as entertainment.

Basic to investigating / understanding the medium on a "deeper" level - I might say on a more robust and richer level - might be to read the book by Steve Edwards, Photography - A Very Short Introduction. Chapter 4, What is a photograph?, and Chapter 5, The apparatus and its image, are especially helpful sections.

Chapter 4 deals primarily with signification - the notion of the construction of meaning as determined / influenced by signs. Think of "signs" as symbols - something used for or regarded as representing something else - and the idea of symbolic meaning.

In a very real sense a photograph is a sign in and of itself. It is something that is used for representing something else - it is not the thing pictured, it represents the thing pictured.

How a photograph represents the thing pictured (the referent), that is to say, how it attempts to suggest or construct meaning is very dependent upon how the picture maker uses the apparatus of the medium and also to a large extent upon the viewers understanding / interpretation of that apparatus and its application.

Apparatus implies technique, not only the technique employed by the use of equipment but also by the technique employed by the use of the medium's other characteristics (read Chapter 5) - its relationship to/with the real/actual, the detail - the facts of things, the frame or the act of selection, the vantage point or POV - what's in, what's out, and time - revealing what is otherwise concealed within the flux of movement.

I mentioned all of this simply because I am employing new apparatus in my picture making.

Equipment-wise that is a new lens with a "normal" field of view used with a wide-open aperture.

Other of the medium's characteristics-wise, this equipment apparatus requires that I modify my act of selection (the frame) from its previous wide-angle field of view MO which is not as easy as it might be thought to be.

Detail is also quite different from my previous MO in the sense that only a very narrow part of the thing pictured is rendered in detail. The rest of the thing pictured is, quite obviously out of focus.

My picturing POV (the vantage point), which was normally stand-up-straight, eye-level but is now much more bend-over, squat-down, look-up, and look-down in nature, has changed considerably. I am now considering a stretching regimen as a kind of picturing accessory.

An interesting and entirely unanticipated result of all the new apparatus has been to employ a framing device that is often quite cock-eyed in nature. Don't ask me why because it is a surprise that bears a bit of consideration that has yet to be undertaken.

BTW and FYI, it seems to be worth noting at this time that my picture's much commented upon black edges and corner vignette are apparatus that I have been employing to draw attention to the frame - the act of selection. It is also intended to emphasis the fact that one is viewing a picture - as Thomas Ruff states, looking at an image - and that the picture, as a thing, should not be confused the thing pictured.

All of that said, I am picturing my ass off with my new apparatus. Mostly because it's fun but also to try and get a handle on what the hell - and why - it is that I am doing.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Paul Morris]

I often use a deliberately-restricted set of options to 'trick' myself into more imaginative picturing. This started as a means of escape from an early creative rut, but quickly became my primary MO.

For example, if you think 'this scene just demands a wide angle' but all you've got with you is a telephoto, you simply have to come up with a different way of picturing that scene.

You can lose a lot of potential images this way, but my attitude is that the more imaginative images gained as a result more than make up for this.

I think this principle can extend just about any art form. A composer who chooses to write a string quartet deliberately works with a smaller pallete than they would when writing for a symphony orchestra, for example.

Is this cheating? I think not. I would say it's just a case of bringing out the ideas that were already in one's head, but needed a little encouragement to emerge!