civilized ku # 90 ~ more on "plain seeing"

Folating things in a pool • click to embiggenA couple comments from Friday's entry, wherein I offered up the idea of plain seeing as a means to creating more meaningful pictures, touched on what I feel are related issues.

The question - If the plainly shown is the best way to draw connection to an underlying message, does one not run the risk of looking for meaning in every plain photo? (from Martin Doonan) - and the comment - Ruskin is not talking about "plain seeing", but rather plain retelling of what one saw ... there is nothing plain about seeing for Ruskin; he says 'see clearly' which is a skill he feels few possess. (from Mark Meyer) - that I feel are related have to do with a bit of confusion about what I meant by plain seeing.

Let me be clear from the outset that I agree with Mark Meyer when he states that seeing clearly is a skill that Ruskin believes few possess. Although, to address Martin's question, IMO, many a snap-shooter is capable of making pictures that are full of meaning (both for themselves and others) because most often they picture from the heart something that is important to them. And, lacking any art training or pretensions, they almost always picture in a rather plain manner. Anyone having any doubts about this should acquire The Art of the American Snapshot, a book from the traveling exhibition (of the same name) from the National Gallery of Art. I also wrote about it here And, PS - I don't think finding meaning in shapshots places you in the lunatic fringe.

That said, on to seeing clearly / plain seeing. I believe that plain seeing is a skill that is hard to come by as seeing clearly. And, while I agree that there is a distinction between them, I firmly believe that there is also a connection as well.

In order to see clearly one must approach the notion of seeing as free as possible from the affectations and preconceptions / expectations of the cultural paradigm of which one is a part. Unless one is possessed of a preternatural sense of seeing clearly (highly doubtful), one must discover the art of it by just seeing without feeling like you know the answers - notion that I would label, plain seeing.

Think of it as if there were a pane of glass between yourself and everything you picture. Do you think you would have a better chance of seeing clearly if the glass were clean and clear or if the glass were streaked with grime and dirt? Now think of cultural affectations, preconceptions, and expectations as grime and dirt. This idea is similar to that expressed by Eugene W. Smith:

Most photographers seem to operate with a pane of glass between themselves and their subjects. They just can't get inside and know the subject.

Dirty glass is a barrier to getting inside and knowing the subject.

I also that seeing clearly is an after-the-fact discovery for the photographer. For virtually every photographer who is making a body meaningful pictures, there was a process of discovery, of learning, about their chosen referent. The work we see is the work that results from an extended examination by the photographer of a referent that they now know something about - most likely only after a period of learning, the pictures that we usually don't get to see. Know any birds that fly right out of the shell?

My contention is that one can only arrive at seeing clearly by first employing plain seeing - a state of unaffected receptiveness, thinking without falling asleep - as a means to getting inside and knowing the subject.

In should also be understood that by plain seeing I do not mean picturing without a sense of photographic aesthetic. The best of plain seeing is manifested in the form of plain telling (the print) which may appear to be snapshot-ish and artless, when in fact, it is anything but a snapshot.

My pictures are often described as mere snapshots - meant to denote a failing. Comment such as, "looks like the shutter was tripped accidentally", or, "looks like you were shooting randomly - I don't know what the subject is" I intentionally cultivate that impression for reasons having to do with finding beauty and meaning in what our culture calls the "mundane", the "everyday". I want to create a plain telling that is as free of artistic barriers as possible.

However, what I do know about my pictures, is that, to the educated eye, they display a subtle and rather sophisticated sense of design which creates a sense of cohesiveness from what seems to be a disparate conglomeration of elements. Those who have a grasp of the mediums formal characteristics known that things that appear to be "random" are actually quite deliberated.

What I have found to be very interesting about this approach is that it is very successful at conveying meaning to the 2 ends of the viewing public spectrum - those with absolutely no understanding of Art at one end and those who do at the other end. Both seem to easily intuit and connect to what I am saying. Some go "deeper" than others but all seem to understand at least a part of the meaning I try to put into my pictures.

Equally interesting is the fact that those who have trouble connecting with / understanding/ appreciating my pictures is almost exclusively the domain of the "serious" amateur photographer. The ones who expect exactly what our cultural paradigm expects of its "art" - to be spectacular and to reinforce its conventional notions of beauty and the photographic "rules".

To conclude, I believe that seeing clearly comes from first engaging in plain seeing. They are indeed "different" notions but are, nevertheless, inexorably linked. Like Ruskin, I believe that the fruits of seeing clearly are best expressed (told) in a plain way - prints free of obvious technical excesses wherein the hand of the artist maybe subtly manifest - but never as the point of a picture in and of itself - in order to draw the viewer to what really matters most in the best of Art - meaning. And, yes, the ability to see clearly and tell plainly and do so deliberately, is a precious ability possessed by a relative few.

man & nature # 20 ~ the big picture

The whole picture • click to embiggenThis is the entire scene that I encountered on Thursday from which I pictured yesterday's entry.

Yesterday's picture was not the only image I made of the scene. There are 2 more, one of which is quite "idyllic". I'll get around to posting it soon although, I must state, that it is my least favorite of the group. Even though it is plain seeing, it still leaves me a bit uncomfortable with its stunning beauty - it has the look and feel of a Hudson River School painting.

man & nature # 19 ~ imagine that

Rainbow in light rain • click to embiggenOnce again, the ever popular question, "How can I make better pictures?", has come to the forefront on a couple blogs / websites. Most notably so on Craig Tanner's Radiant Vista whereon he has a podcast, Finding the Heart of Your Work. The podcast is a somewhat delayed response to Joe Reifer's Going deeper may require more abstract excursions entry of May 22nd.

These two ruminations are seemingly related to part of the standard online forum mission statements which claim to answer the questions posited by means of having your picture(s) critiqued on their forums. Unfortunately, the critiques thereon are almost exclusively biased towards technique and gear which is of very little help (if any) in answering the question posited by Joe Reifer regarding how to make more meaningful pictures.

What most on these critique forums fail to realize is that there really isn't any easily canned prescribable dictumm for making meaningful pictures. The fact is, it is totally dependent upon the type of person you are. Things like, but not limited to; are you curious? are you aware? are you empathetic? are you interested in figuring things out? are you capable of seeing things anew?

Instead of thinking about gear and technique, think about this:

The greatest thing a human soul ever does in this world is to SEE something, and tell what it SAW in a plain way... To see clearly is poetry, prophecy, and religion, all in one. - John Ruskin

I agree whole heartedly with this idea and, IMO, the key to making meaningful pictures is expressed in the phrase, "tell what it SAW in a plain way". Too many people with cameras are too wrapped up in trying to make pictures that look like ... well ... pictures. By that I mean, they are trying to make pictures that look like what they have been told - either by online critique-ers, how-to books, or even well intended gurus - are good pictures. If they succeed in accomplishing that goal all they make are an endless stream of look-a-like homages to what they have seen before.

IMO, a good pictures doesn't look like a picture. It looks like what I see or, more accurately, when viewing the work of others, what they saw. It simply looks like seeing. The more closely related to plain seeing, the better. As many have opined, the best Art most often has the appearance of being effortlessly made.

Plain seeing draws attention only to the visual referent (the subject), not the photographer and by so doing, plain seeing helps the viewer establish an easier connection to the connoted (the implied, or, if you will, the meaning). To wit, the illustration does not get in the way of illumination.

And, consider this, with its intrinsic characteristic as an inimitable cohort with the real, no other visual medium can see as plainly as the medium of photography. Imagine that. What a coincidence.

civilized ku # 89 ~ a photograph is not a painting (in so many ways)

The hot dog guy • click to embiggenRe: yesterday's entry, Joe Reifer wrote: "... here's the rub: most individual photographers cannot sell 200 prints at 20 bucks through their website or through a local show or gallery. Unless a photographer is somehwhat well known or very savvy at marketing (preferably both), I bet most photographers couldn't GIVE AWAY 200 prints through their website ... Also, if you're shooting for the $5,000-10,000 range and upwards, 20×200 participation will be frowned upon by the elite galleries."

Joe has 2 good points. The first involves selling prints on one's website / blog and he is correct in pointing out the difficulty in doing that. Unless one has a truly large regular audience, the chances of selling a large number of prints is rather minuscule. When attempting to market anything in quantity, both the size of the potential market and how much of that market you can reach are vitally important.

That's where gallery representation comes in to the equation. A good gallery will make the photographer's work known to a large audience of potential buyers and, by extension, in doing so, endorse the work with the backing of their reputation. As Joe also points out - "Many 20×200 editions sell really well because of the reputation of 20×200, not because the images are brilliant." True enough.

His second point, re: frowned upon by the elite galleries, seems to also be true enough. I am at a loss to understand this position.

Case in point: My son, Aaron - the Cinemascapist has been having a great deal of success getting gallery shows. Over the past year, the "quality" of the galleries has steadily improved to the point where he now has a show planned in a first tier NYC gallery. Both exposure and sales have resulted but, suffice it to say, more sales would be nice.

Especially in light of the very high cost of doing a gallery show. In the classic business model, money needs to be invested in order to generate a return. And, in my experience, most gallery owners, while not being entirely callous, just sort of expect the photographer (after being granted the privilege of being given a show) to show up up with $6-7,000 of ready to hang prints in tow, So, if one is not independently wealthy, where does that money come from?

If a sales venture, ala 20×200, is able to generate much needed cash flow for an artist, where's the harm in that? It's kind of like saying, to use a sports analogy, if you spent time toiling in the minor leagues, we're going to hold that against you to the point of making it difficult to get to the big league. Assuming that a photographer, in a 20×200-like endeavor, is not selling gallery-edition quality prints - the absolute best of papers printed to the absolute highest standards - or gallery edition size prints, where is the harm in that?

Maybe the high-end galleries (and their customers) want to insist that all their artists being starving artists. You know, to enhance the suffering for your art mentality. Nice marketing ploy if you can get it.

But what really really bugs me about this "frowned upon by the elite galleries" thing is that it seems that the high-end Art world still has not come to grips with (or simply refuses to) one of the medium's inherent characteristics - the ability to produce an endless number of "originals". No, that world is still locked into the scarce commodity mentality of the medium of painting.

Sure, this is how they keep prices high, but does that mean that an artist must struggle financially during their early years? Does that mean that collectors won't buy unique gallery edition prints - very limited editions, printed to absolute highest standards - just because there are a relative handful of non-gallery edition prints available?

A photograph is not a painting. It is possible for the work of a photographer to be seen, appreciated, and owned as an "original" print by a wider audience than the work of a painter. The viewing of "originals" need not be limited to museums, galleries, the homes of private collectors (fat chance), or books.

I applaud the fact that 20×200 is exploding the scarce commodity mentality that drives the elite galleries. IMO, what the Art world needs now is more 20×200 ventures - more outlets that reach a broad audience which appreciates photographs as Art but is not bound to the scarce commodity mentality as an integral part of that appreciation.

And, to be brutally honest, what the Art world needs even is more quality photographers with the guts to confront and buck the scarce commodity system of the "elites".

man & nature # 18 ~ simple economics

Barn and storm clouds • click to embiggenOver the past year or so there have been a fair amount of ongoing online discussions about print pricing - prices are too high / absurd, prices are too low / absurd, make only 6 prints, make unlimited prints, etc. is the general gist of it. Maybe for most, the conversation is rather moot in as much as they won't be selling prints at any price or in any size edition.

Since I am anticipating a gallery show or two (hopefully), I have been thinking about print pricing. Some may recall from a previous post that I tentatively plan to sell my decay & disgust prints - 30×30 inch image on 48×48 inch paper - for in the neighborhood of $1,800. Now, to some, this might sound like an absurdly high price but consider the economics of the deal.

The print itself will cost approx. $250 to make (from a very skilled print maker) so, doing the math, we are now talking about $1,550. Still sound like a lot? From that number, a gallery will take a 40-50% cut leaving (at 50%) $775 for me. Still sound like a lot? I will typically incur about $50-$70 of in-house work print costs getting the master file ready to send to the printer. And, realistically, add to that another $100 of general amortized overhead expense.

At this point, I am left with approx. $600. Now, think about that - if my desire is to be a self-supported artist, by which I mean to be able to fully support myself and my art, I would have to sell at the very least 100 prints a year. Even with very good gallery representation, IMO and experience, that would be a tough nut to crack.

It's no wonder then that those photographers who have at least a bit of a high-end reputation price their work in the $5,000-$8.000 range, which, if you don't do the math, sounds absurd, right? But, if you do the math, it helps explain why so many artist photographers are also working some kind of day job.

All of that said, my pricing objective is going to be similar to that of 20×200 - their math goes like this; 3 different sized numbered print editions (small @ $20×200, medium @ $200×20 , large @ $1,000×2. 3 editions = $10,000.

The concept is proving to be very successful. Last week's photograph has nearly sold out - there is only 1 large print left unsold. That's $9,000 of print sales in 1 week. That, my friends, is amazing. And, what I like most about the concept is that, @ $20 for a small-edition print, virtually anyone an be a "collector".

I don't know what the math of 20×200 is - the artist / gallery split, but, judging by the apparent success of the concept, they are on to something here. What the results indicate is that there is a demand for a given photograph at the low end, the middle, and the high-end (albeit, in this case, the low high end) of the market thus rendering the conversation about how to price one's work - low cost / high print numbers vs high cost / low print numbers - relatively irrelevant.

Do both.

man & nature # 17 ~ tower of babble

4 porches in the rain • click to embiggenYesterday, my ire, which was directed at SquareSpace, stemmed from the fact that the upgrade caught me entirely by surprise. To be fair to SS, they had posted an announcement somewhere in what, to me, are the bowels of the Administration section of the blog software - a place that I visit rather infrequently. There really is no need for me to go there on any kind of regular basis.

Even if I had visited that section, found the upgrade notice, and click through to read it, what I would have found was a typical PR/sales piece about how great things are along with a long list of new and improved features - something that I may have glanced at but not really paid a lot of attention to. As far as I am concerned, The Landscapist is chugging along just fine, thank you, and I don't really have any plans to change anything at the moment so all of the swell new stuff just doesn't matter to me at all.

At the very bottom of the announcement was this little bit:

As always, clear your browser caches to ensure you receive the updated code. If you experience problems (and there will be some small problems!) — please write in immediately.

Of all of the info on the announcement, this bit is all I care about. One would think that this little bit would be the first thing on the announcement, in bold type, maybe screaming red in color. One would think that an email blast to every SS subscriber might be in order. One would think that, if a change is being made that will effect everyone, every means available would be used to be certain that everyone knew about.

To be certain, I am, and have been, happy with SS. They respond in good time and good fashion to support issues. I like their sense of design and utility in the templates that they offer. The ability to customize their templates is pretty easy for a non techno/code/geek person. All in all, to repeat, I am very happy with my experience with SS and would recommend them to my friends and neighbors.

That said, my ire regarding this issue is a more general one regarding the entire software industry. An industry that seems to think that the end users of their products have nothing more to do with their time a than to track and implement - "implement" is a sorry understatement for the amount of time and effort involved in many cases - an endless stream of upgrades, patches, fixes, etc.

Simply put, the software industry has us running non-stop like hamsters on a wheel. Have you ever owned anything in your life that requires / required the constant attention, maintenance and cost that software does? Think about it. Is there anything you own that owns you as much as software? And, like compliant protoplasmic slugs, aka, good little consumers, we just lie there and take it.

picture windows # 16 ~ KMA, SquareSpace

rain on window screen • click to embiggenSquareSpace has given me a very unpleasant surprise this AM. They have launched a new version - radically improved - that doesn't work at all with Firefox and only partially with Safari (both on a Mac).

So bear with me for a bit while I wait for an answer from their support. I can post using Safari but it won't let me create a thumbnail (amongst many other problems) with pop-up so there is no large image of this picture to view.

I can't believe how fucked up this is but then I have to say that I expect nothing more in the wonderful world of software. The world where software developers, large and small, have adopted the working premise of "don't worry, be crappy" - just foist whatever crap they have on the end-users and let them deal with the problems and an endless flow of "updates" and "patches" that attempt to make things "better".

In any event, I'll add a pop-up image as soon as I am able. In the meantime, here's a quote to accompany today's entry -

Life isn't perfect, but then photography isn't either. Indeed photography's imperfections are becoming all too familiar. Often now we hear that there are too many photographs, that we are buried in them. Growing accustomed to the burden of this accumulation has made it difficult to imagine what photographs we might still need. - Peter Galassi

I really like the notion of "what photographs we might still need". Do we really need an additional accumulation of pretty landscape pictures? Does that never-ending accumulation of pretty pictures desensitize us to the pictures that we really need - pictures that attempt to connect us to the real, not the fanciful? Pictures that require us to think rather than those that lull us to sleep (so that we can dream The Dream)?

Update on Monday, July 21, 2008 at 06:33AM by gravitas et nugalis

update: after waiting a couple hours for a response, I have been told to empty my browser cache to see if that eliminates the problem. It has and now I am able to try and figure out all the new stuff that is different from before. And, no, there is no legacy option.

One more reason why a paper Landscapist is looking better and better.

The New Adirondack Vernacular

Postcards from the woods • click to embiggenI have been reading Adirondack Vernacular, The Photography of Henry M. Beach. Beach was one of many, albeit very prolific, native late 19th / early 20th century Adirondack photographers. This book is by the same author, Robert Bogdan, who wrote Exposing the Wilderness: Early-Twentieth-Century Adirondack Postcard Photographers, another book in my collection.

Nearly every village and hamlet in the Adirondacks at that time was home to at least one picture maker. They were usually jack-of-all-trades, photography-wise. In addition to the landscape, they pictured people, towns, industry, events, and just about anything else from which they could make a buck. The result is a treasure trove of photography from that era, most of which is still hanging around in area museums, libraries, and private collections.

The sheer quantity of pictures can make one wonder if there has ever been a region of the US of A that has a more picture-documented past than the Adirondacks. In all likelihood, this stems from the convergence of 2 events - the newly developed ease of photography at that time which coincided with the opening up of the Adirondacks to a veritable flood of tourists.

In an effort to capture the tourist dollar, many a photographer offered a line of Adirondack picture postcards. I have a very modest collection of Adirondack postcards, some postmarked as early as 1911. Amongst the postcards, my favorites are those that have been mailed, replete with all manner of messages - some short and sweet - Having a fine time. Wish you were here. Others much more wordy, like the one posted here whereon the writer not only writes small but also strings the sentences around the edge of the card.

The reason that I like these used postcards is that the written messages are so utterly timeless. Many of the pictures, despite the differences from today in dress and transportation, are timeless as well. Lots of people - locals and tourists - doing then exactly what they are doing in the Adirondacks today.

Soooo ... I just can't leave this alone. After noodling it around in my head and on the computer for a while, I am fairly certain that something in the manner of what you see here is how I want to present a sizable chunk of my Adirondack photography. I very much like the sense of same as it ever was that derives from the then and now juxtaposition of the old and the new.

I also am intrigued by the idea of writing many of the messages myself - directly on to a blank postcard back on the prints. In fact, there are quite a number of possibilities .... time to get back to the noodling. And, tomorrow, it's off to an auction that lists a nice collection of vintage Adirondack postcards as an auction item.

Update on Monday, July 21, 2008 at 01:08AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote: "... There might well be something gained by printing much larger than actual postcard size; it would certainly clue the viewer in to your message. I see only one problem: you'll have to abandon your beloved square."

my response: I am still wrestling with the details of how I approach this concept, but one thing is certain - I will be printing the postcard component large than life-size. Currently, I am printing them at 9 inches wide.

As for my beloved square, I am leaning towards the postcards as an "addendum" of sorts to my square prints, printed on the bottom border of a large print - 48×60 inch paper, 30 inch square image, postcard front and back printed side-by-side (approx. 5×8 inches each) centered underneath the main image.