PICTURE ONLY GALLERY LINKS
The life without the APA pictures are here
The The Forks ~ there's no place like home gallery is here
The ART ~ conveys / transports / reflects gallery is here
The Decay & Disgust work/book is here
The single women selects/book gallery is here
The picture windows selects/book gallery is here
The kitchen life selects gallery is here
A 10 picture look at Tangles, Thickets, and Twigs ~ fields of visual energy is here
After barely recovering from our 1400 mile road trip to Washington, DC, it was off to New Haven, Connecticut for a wedding. And, being a glutton for driving punishment, I invited one of the wedding guests from Italy, Giuliano - the groom is from Italy - up to our house for a visit. So tomorrow it's off to Albany to pick him up.
Giuliano is a young man on a mission to jump start a career in picture making. He approached me at the wedding reception and we had a long chat, starting with his questions about my cameras. During the conversation, he mentioned that he was not returning to Italy for a few weeks so he could spend time in NYC checking out the photo scene (before moving on to Texas where he is meeting up with his girlfriend - a member of a dance troupe performing in Texas) and it wasn't long before, he realized that he could not pass up the opportunity to spend some time with The Landscapist and The Cinemascapist.
FYI, the camera strap with candle picture: I have often heard from some the words, "It looks like your camera shutter went off by mistake", spoken while viewing some of my pictures. Although, most times, those words are followed by, "I like it. Don't know why, but I like it."
However, in this particular case, the shutter release was indeed inadvertently activated. A sort of cellphone-butt-dialing picturing equivalent. Nevertheless, I like it. Don't why, but I like it. And, the auto focus placed the focus exactly where I would have placed it had I actually been in control of the picture making event.
As seen while walking in the Capitol Hill District - more wisdom from the man who advised us to Fart Proudly.
I've been missing in action, blog wise, for the past week while moving about the East Coast.
Even though I was fully equipped to blog-on-the-road - new Macbook Air and all - the way it turned out it seems that the only time I wasn't on the move was when I had collapsed on a bed after a day of non-stop moving. FYI, I'm still on the road and find myself sitting poolside - hence a bit of time to post an entry - watching Hugo and Jace (his hockey line mate) swim while the wife is attending a conference/seminar. We're only 2 hours from home so I'll get to sleep in my own bed tonight.
While Washington, DC was our primary destination - we visited the Capitol Bldg. / Congress, the White House, a number of Museums, dinner with our Congressman at the Democratic Club, and also attended a Pittsburgh Penguin / Washington Capitals hockey game - amongst other stops, we also visited Philadelphia to see the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall.
Along the way I managed to make a fair number of pictures, some of which I will be presenting here on the blog. Many of the pictures I made were of the memory-snapshot variety but I always strive to make pictures of my travels which give a sense of place without being generic postcard travel pictures. I believe I have succeeded on this trip but I'll let you be the judge of that.
The Monkey Typewriter
Theory Hypothesis Theorem* says that if a certain number (large, often considered infinite, depending on who's saying it and what number they can think of randomly) number of monkeys were given typewriters and a really long time, they could write the works of some random famous writer such as Shakespeare, Dickens, et al. However, as a group of mathematicians have deduced, the time frame required for a bunch of monkeys randomly banging away on an equal bunch of keyboards to produce the works of a random famous writer is longer than the anticipated existence of the universe. Hence the theorem's stated outcome has a probability of essentially ZERO.
*What was once called the Monkey Typewriter Theory is now considered to be a theorem because; 1) it is not a theory because it is not an explanation for a body of evidence with predictive power, 2) it is not a hypothesis because it is only an almost untestable statement, and 3) it is a theorem because it is a deduction from other simpler logical statements/truths.
FYI, 2 random thoughts, as found on the internet, for your consideration, re: the Monkey Typewriter Theorem:
from a monkey: Gugjvhfu'ohƒkih;ohout98u[9u8yplfhw;khfuhpip2out[olkuefhl uehf2u3[r49uo[rhkuahedkqwhioj23oej[o34roi354ithoi ho3ihhelpimtrappedinathoughtexperiment0o'jihug ygouf7idd65d65y5diy5dyidipojklugy6r86754354qwadxhblk\p ==-8096rtrdghokp0i09yu
from a random comment as modified by me:
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and twitter+facebook is nothing like Shakespeare.
What in the name of all that's picture making does the MTT have to do with the price of picture making stuff, you might wonder?
Well, as I am prepping pictures for a new book, re: my kitchen sink pictures, I was drawn to the idea of random chance. As in, I don't arrange any of the referential material found in my kitchen sink, I just picture it as I find/see it. That written, of the tens of thousands of times - I've lived with this particular kitchen sink for 4,927 days and counting - I have stood in front of the sink, my eye and sensibilities have been pricked to the point of fetching a camera and making a picture on less than 30 occasions.
Therefore, I have come up with my very own Monkey Picture Making Theory, To wit, it requires only a couple of monkeys randomly putting things in a kitchen sink over a period of ten years or so to create a few arrangements which, in turn, gives rise to a few pictures akin to those made by a famous picture maker (Irving Penn, Edward Weston, Jan Groover, et al).
Of course, in my MPMT - which, quite obviously, has been tested and proven correct - the monkeys are imaginary. Although, the wife and I could conceivably be considered to be the monkeys inasmuch as we're the ones putting the stuff in the sink. And, we both like bananas.
Anyone out there have any other proof, vis a vis your own picture making experience, which supports my Monkey Picture Making Theory?
In the past on a number of occasions, I have written in defense of the artist statement. On the other hand, I have also written about my distaste, re: the academic lunatic fringe to include their artspeak fetish which exhibits itself in so many BFA/MFA artist statements.
Since those various writings, nothing to change my mind on the subjects has reared its head. However, recently there has been a surfeit of BFA/MFA fine art picture maker's artist statements - ones which read more like exercises in self-psychoanalytic therapy - that are starting to grate on my nerves. To paraphrase a sentence from a movie review, their (the picture makers in question) picturing endeavors track like therapeutic journeys (follow your dream of self-actualization) instead of transcendent excursions (just dream!).
In defense of artist statements I have, vehemently at times, rejected the dumbass idea that a picture which needs words is a failure. You know, a picture is worth a thousand words, but ... don't ever actually put any of those words down on paper cuz if you do, well, you know, then the picture is a failure.
However, IMO, if a picture is worth some number of words, then I want to hear/read them. And that holds true whether the words are about the picture maker's a priori motivations and/or intentions or the postmortem words of a critic re: the work itself. In both cases, even though I will have formed my own word thoughts by viewing the work, the words of the picture maker and a critic can and often does expand my appreciation and understanding of the work in question.
That written, it is my considered opinion that an artist statement should be both concise (employing an economy of artspeak-free words) and address the picture making process more than it does the psychologic analytical mental state of the picture maker.
To wit, if I am viewing a body of work comprised of hauntingly beautiful environmental pictures of elderly women, I would appreciate knowing that the picture maker is haunted by memories of his/her now deceased grandmother who raised him from his/her infant years after his/her birth parents fled the country after embezzling millions of dollars from a local charity, never to be seen again. However, while it might be true that such a picture maker has quite a number of personal issues to work through and even though making pictures may be one way to do so, I would nevertheless much prefer that she/he keep that stuff between her/him and a real therapist.
The motivation for the picture making endeavor is useful information in many ways, but the rest of the deep soul introspection, IMO, does little at best if anything to expand my appreciation for the work and is just a high-falutin' example of reality tv-like pandering to emotional voyeurism at the worst.
I woke up this AM without a thought of straying from the straight and narrow, straight picture making wise. However, seemingly the next thing I know I am making a picture with my iPhone, something I have done only once previously - a Xmas day selfie using my brothers's Xmas gift to me with the intent of sending the picture to him.
I made the iPhone picture as a result of the desire to picture the passel o' cameras sitting in our front hall. The only digital camera I had at hand to make the picture without removing one from the bunch was my iPhone which, of course, isn't a camera cuz it's a phone. The more I thought about using the phone to make a picture, the more it appealed to me and my long standing like of crappy cameras and the pictures they make.
To wit, is the iPhone picture making capability "crappy"?
I have made my share of crappy pictures using crappy cameras, most notably various Polaroid cameras which produced pictures which were; 1) small, 2) not very sharp, and 3) color and tonal quality which were unique to Polaroid film and varied depending upon the particular Polaroid film (and camera) used to make the pictures.
Turns out, at least in the relatively dim light in which I made the picture, the answer to the crappy question is neither here nor there.
The results were not good enough to use as a good quality picture. On the other hand, while it displayed some crappy camera characteristics (grainy, sorta soft, blown highlights with an odd look) they were not so pronounced as to constitute a true crappy picture - a kinda betwixt and between sorta thing.
IMO, to deliver true crappy pictures, the files require a fair amount of processing in order to bend the results closer to crappy-ness. Sorta like I did in making a Polaroid-like result.
That written, I don't think I'll very often think of my phone as a picture making device. That's true in large part because I don't go anywhere without at least 2 cameras from my passel hanging from my shoulder.
I've come to a point on this blog wherein I feel I have very little left to write about the medium and its apparatus. That's because over the past 5-6 years or so I've written volumes on the subject and I'm not in the mood to rework the same old ground.
In the past when I made an entry, I almost always posted a picture with some form of commentary of the medium and its apparatus. At this point, since the well has gone dry, re: writing on the subject wise, and even though I keep on making plenty of pictures, I seem to have a mental block, re: posting pictures without words on the subject. Consequently, I am taking a lot of time between entries. That is until I finally decide the hell with it and post some pictures without much in the way of the medium and its apparatus commentary.
As a result, visits to this blog have fallen off, not drastically but noticeably. Comments from visitors have also fallen off as well.
And, to be perfectly honest, I have never really figured out exactly why, in the past, visitors kept returning to the blog. Was it the pictures? Was it the commentary? Was it a combination of both? I have no answer to those questions. So, the question arises, what the hell do I do with this thing now?
The blog has never been much about gear and I sure as hell don't want to go there even if the photo blog-o-sphere loves nothing better than commenting endlessly - and, IMO, ad nauseam - about gear. If the medium was all about gear, I'd sell all I have and start raising exotic chickens to wile the time away. Although I could make pictures and raise exotic chickens, but I'm not sure how the wife would feel about the chicken part.
Another blog road I have no desire to venture down is to turn the blog into a personal diary with pictures. I have a pretty interesting life but I'd much rather spend my time living it than writing about it. And hopefully, visitors to this blog probably have their own lives to live and really don't need to know all that much about mine. That written, a little bit of the diary thing has crept into the blog, well run dry wise, and I want to nip it in the bud before it goes any farther down that road.
Most certainly, I have arrived at a point where I would much rather make pictures than write about making pictures. After all, for me, the medium and its apparatus are all about the pictures but ...
I do like hanging my pictures out there for others to view and blogging is one of the ways in which I do that. So, for the immediate future, I'll re-start posting a picture a day. Words probably not so much. Although, I do have a treasure trove of quotes from others - notable and not so well known - which I can use to provide at least a modicum of written food for thought.