civilized # 2259-62 / ku # 1160 ~ it's how one sees the world

Part of an office window view ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
Foliage covered house ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
Patio conversation ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Camping/fishing gear ~ Bog River Flow / Low's Lake - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Birches seen thru pines ~ Bog River Flow / Low's Lake - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenApropos a new endeavor I will be announcing in the next few days, I would like to address the notion of vision, as in having an identifiable approach to making pictures. That notion may include the idea of style but it goes well beyond that idea and into the realm of motivation, intent, and how one sees the world, literally and figuratively.

IMO, to my eye and sensibilities, the most interesting pictures on the planet are those made by a picture maker with a vision. His/her work is unified by a personal approach to seeing. An approach than is not gear / technique driven - although a specific vision is most often mated with specific gear and technique - but rather, is driven by a picture maker's desire to explore / investigate a referent / theme and, consequently, illustrate (the pictured results) that process for the purpose of illuminating (to his/herself and the viewers of his/her pictures) his/her individually unique thoughts, feelings, and other notions/ideas related to the specific referent(s) and/or themes which drive the picture making pursuit.

Conversely, to my eye and sensibilities, the most boring pictures on the planet are those made by a picture maker who bounces from one type of gear to another and one technique to another - most often in pursuit of series of one off / one note "hits" which, when viewed within the context of the collective body of work, are so diverse in 'vision' as to, ultimately, be vision-less. This type of picture making is that which is most often pursued by 'serious' amateurs who are in pursuit of the phrase, "great picture", or collecting as many "like" notations as they can accumulate.

CAVEAT: Once again, let me reiterate - if the pursuit of one off / one note hits is what floats your picture making boat, I sincerely hope that you successfully stay afloat, with wind at your back, for the rest of your picture making days. Sincerely, have at it with all your heart/soul and enjoy the ride.

In any event, there has been an ongoing discourse about the so-called digital picture making revolution. Is there a revolution? If so, what is it and where is it going? Has digital picture making had an effect on picture making or is it just a new means of doing the same old thing? Is the medium moving forward, backward, or just treading water / staying in place?

I have my thoughts on much of the matter but I won't go into it here. That's reserved for the new endeavor I will be embarking upon shortly. However, in the interim, I will mention one thought on the matter ...

... IMO, the most obvious result of the digital picture making era is the fact that more pictures are being made by more people than even before. Without taking the time to look it up, it has been stated that, over the past 4(?) years or there about, more pictures have been made in that time frame than had been made in the entire history of picture making prior to that recent time frame, starting from day 1. Whatever the specific recent time frame involved, that's a staggering number of pictures which have been made, primarily due to the fact that "everybody's a photographer now".

That said, once an individual has acquired a digital picture making device - camera, cell phone, iPad/iPod, etc. - there is no theoretical limit, imposed by cost, to the number of pictures one can make. That fact was illustrated by Svein-Frode in his recent comment wherein he wrote (in part):

... Very rarely do I plan a shoot or theme. Rather I just carry cameras everywhere and fire away whenever I feel inspired.

Carrying cameras everywhere and firing away whenever I feel inspired, is on the whole, how I picture - I do, however, often picture to theme. I also suspect that MO is how many other picture makers work, even those given to pursuing a theme/vision. It's form of 20fourby7 (make note of that phrase) picture making, always being on, re: picture making opportunities.

Of course, the result of always being on is a boatload, really big boat, of pictures. And the thing about those pictures - pictures made with a constant vision - is that no matter the referent depicted, the vision behind / driving the always being on MO is almost always readily apparent. No matter how many pictures, covering even a very diverse number of referents, such a vision-inspired picture maker might make, one can always identify the individual vision associated with his/her pictures - see one such example HERE, one of many I could direct your attention to.

All of that said written, IMO, vision in picture making is paramount in the making of truly interesting / involving pictures, no matter how many pictures one makes in the course of a day/ week / month / year / lifetime.

Stay tuned for further developments, new endeavor wise. And, BTW, did I mention I'm looking for interesting bodies of work? The submission desk is open for business. Especially for always being on (but not limited to) bodies of work.

Comments

[Svein-Frode]

To clarify. While themes most often happen by accident, there is definetly a theme to my image making as a whole. I seem to be attracted to certain kinds of subjects, and in one sense I'm partly in a rut as I continue to make the same kinds of pictures over and over again, yet in another sense a manic collector of certain subjects/situations/emotions. But as an amateur, my main theme is plain and simple: Document my life in pictures so less is forgotten of the people and places I've expreienced.

However, you touch upon many interesting points well worth pondering over. Time is limited, and I haven't managed to fool myself into thinking that creating a great body of work can be done while I still work 60 hours a week in my day job and spend quality time with my family. To really be an artist something has to give and the calling has to be strong, and even then, the chance of success is pretty darn slim. Personal success/achievement ignored in this context of course.

While I do enjoy the portfolios of great photographers like say Gursky and Cartier-Bresson (to extreme opposites of the spectrum), I can also enjoy single images from so called serious amateurs. It really doesn't matter to me, because more often than not, it's all about subject to me, and not so much about the conceptual idea.

To calrify, what I enjoy most about your work Mark is the depiction of the Adirondac area. You have both some great single images that I really like, and a collection of images from the same area has made me feel like I know the place. Also, I enjoy your candid and thoughtful writing. But your fine art portfolios don't appeal to me as much. While some great single images are to be found there for sure, none of the themes/subjects you have concentrated on interest me very much. So even though you clearly have both vision and style, that really doesn't help much unless it attracts an audience (not saying that you don't, just saying that if I had vision and a style, my subject matter could still bore the hell out of everybody).