diptych # 28 ~ city mouse, country mouse

Deep Stationary / Arnold's ~ Queens, NY / Keeseville, NY (in the Adirondack Park) • click to embiggenFYI, an Aesop Fable The City Mouse and The Country Mouse

Making pictures is a very simple act. There is no great secret in photography...schools are a bunch of crap. You just need practice and application of what you've learned. My absolute conviction is that if you are working reasonably well the only important thing is to keep shooting ... [K]eep working, because as you go through the process of working things begin to happen. ~ Elliott Erwitt

PS. anyone have any idea what the hell "deep stationary" is?

diptych # 27 ~ the camera in action

Street scene / 2 views ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenIn response to my entry, kitchen life # 42 - wherein I took another swipe at the academic lunatic fringe (MFA division), John Linn wrote:

.... you seem to detest the "MFA crowd" but at the same time you seem miffed not to be embraced by them... or am I getting that wrong?

my response: Yeh, you've got it wrong on 2 counts: 1)I don't detest the MFA crowd but, I am regularly annoyed by those from the segment of that crowd* who seem to enjoy nothing more than hearing the clacking sound of their keyboards as they type densely obtuse tome-like verbosities, the point of which is to blow their horn, o-what-a-smartie-pants-am-I wise, and, 2) I can honestly write - absolutely, positively, unequivocally, beyond the shadow of a doubt, make no mistake about it - that I have no desire to be embraced by that crowd. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Negative to the 10th power.

That written and as most already know, I am neither a fan of the pretty picture crowd and, as I have most recently made abundantly clear, nor am I a fan of the lunatic academic fringe crowd. Amongst many reasons for the irritation (for me) engendered by those two disparate groups is one very annoying (to me) thing that those two groups have in common - their near crazed / slavish obsession with apparatus.

Of course, keeping in mind that there are two different meanings for the word "apparatus", each group is obsessed with a very different type of apparatus.

The pretty picture crowd is much taken to prattle on endlessly regarding the first definition of the word "apparatus" ... a group or combination of instruments, machinery, tools, materials, etc., having a particular function or intended for a specific use, AKA: gear. On the other hand, the academic lunatic fringe crowd is equally obsessed with the second definition of the word ... any system or systematic organization of activities, functions, processes, etc., directed toward a specific goal, AKA: concepts and conventions.

It's hard for me to decide which of these two crowds is more annoying to me in this respect. In either case, after listening to / reading any of either crowd's blathering, my first reaction is to say/write, "Show me the pictures and let's see what they have to say." I mean, hey, isn't that what it's all about?

In most instances, after viewing "the pictures" from either group, I find them to be wanting in either meaning (from the pretty picture crowd) or in visual interest (from the academic lunatic fringe crowd).

That written, and "the pictures" aside, I do find it easier to avoid being annoyed by the pretty picture gearhead crowd by just ignoring online camera fanboy forums. On the other had, when it comes to pursuing an interest in more satisfying pictures, it's hard to avoid encountering ALF/MFA stuff like this ....

... (the) division of objects between two frames is a constant reminder of and reference to the apparatus that produced the image. The cinematic effect created by an object that continues into the adjacent print further emphasizes the fact that we are observing the camera in action ...

Say what? I mean, I get it but how many times do I have to read/hear redundant pointy-headed verbiage to state the incredibly obvious? Seriously, is there anybody out there who does not know that pictures are made by a picture maker using a camera? How often does one need to experience a "constant reminder" which "emphasizes" that he/she is viewing a picture made by a camera ("in action")?

The somewhat frustrating thing for me is that, when (and if) I am able to work my way through all of the artspeak excesses, flapdoodle, and falderoi, it's not unheard of for there to be some interesting bits of information / insight therein. I just wish they'd use plainer language to get to their point.

*To be perfectly clear on the matter, not all MFAs are lunatics

diptych # 26 (kitchen life # 39-40) ~ explanation entry, Part 2 - I'm not going down that road

Cutlery + tea package / tea package + cutlery ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenAs mentioned in my previous explanation entry, Part 1, I mentioned a number of reactions, re: David S. Allee's Frame of View pictures and exihibition. # 1 that list was that I need to get my work circulating. That reaction was instigated by my pondering of the notion that, if my picture windows sample book had arrived at the door of the Margan Lehman Gallery before Allee's Frame of View portfolio (or whatever he submitted), would I be the one to have an exhibition?

IMO, the answer to that rumination is, "No".

There are a number of reasons for that supposition, but I'll mention just 2 (I'll mention another in tomorrow's Part 3 entry): a) my sample book is devoid of artspeak, and, b) Allee's pictures, unlike mine, are very window frame/framing oriented.

Allee's emphasis on his pictured framing devices really helps to ram home and make obvious the idea of, as the Press Release states, "the illusion of a two-dimensional picture plane", aka: his tromp l'oeil trope. While this was obviously his intent, it is precisely what I don't particularly like about this work - it is just too flat out visually obvious. On the other hand, that very obvious trope is most likely exactly what the gallery owner / director liked.

However, no matter how much art sauce they pour on that content / turkey, I ain't buying it.

When talking about his picture making M.O., Stephen Shore stated:

Because of the resolution of working on an 8×10 view camera, I found that I did not have to thrust the viewer's face into something. If I saw something interesting, it could be part of larger picture that has a number of points of interest. It changes the viewers relationship with an image. It is not framing one thing but creating a little triangular world that the viewer can move their attention around and explore.

I have have ranted and raved on quite a number of occasions, re: the picture making dictum of to simply. In most cases, but certainly not all, I see it as a prescription for dumbing things down. Not wanting to go there, that is one reason why most of my pictures are rather densely packed with visual information.

In the case of my picture windows work, I employ the same tromp l'oeil" visual trope as Allee. The difference is it is not as obvious because I have given the viewer much more room to move around and explore the entire two-dimensional surface* of the print. I do so because my work is not just about "the view" of the outside - it's also about the inside, both visually and metaphorically.

The visual aspect is visually obvious. Perhaps for some, the metaphor is not - the interiors of the rooms I picture can, if one is so inclined, be considered as a symbol of the interior / inner life of the individual wherein he/she tries like hell to make things comfortable for one's self. It's the way of the world, no matter how different those attempts at comfort might be.

But, of course, no matter how inner-sanctum safe and comfortable the inner self might be or feel, there is always the outside world to consider. An exterior reality which is always viewed and considered through the framework he/she has constructed for one's self.

All of that written (I could go on and on but I don't want to tell anyone how to think about my pictures), I am certain that it all can be "translated" into artspeak. And, if it were, the work just might stand a much better chances of impressing a "big-time" gallery director.

On the other hand, I'll close with a few words from Edward Burtynsky (you should read his refreshing direct and simple artist statement):

When one looks at my images, I want it that you don't need a text beside them but the communication is all encoded in the image. To me that is what the power of an image can be. What I saw happening in a lot of postmodern work was that you need to have the text, needed to know the concepts before the work could make any sense. Separated from the text, the work could not support itself. You had to be educated in the visual arts, the movements, and other things, to understand. I didn't want to go down that road but wanted to feel the work could contain all the ideas.

Right on.

*In the gallery Press Release, wherein the artspeaker seems to be impressed by the fact that "Allee transforms three-dimensional views ... into the illusion of a two-dimensional picture plane ...". Don't these self aggrandizing / see-how-educated-I-am artspeak buffoons realize that every three-dimensional view ever pictured by any and all picture maker(s) is "transformed", by means of the intrinsic characteristics of the medium and its apparatus, into an actual two-dimensional picture plane?

Update on Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 10:54AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote: "... is that your wife in that image? Some people referred to that person as a man, but my gut says that it's your wife."

my response: That's no lady, that's my son, AKA The Cinemascapist.

diptych # 25 (kitchen life # 37-38) ~ explanation entry, pt. 1

Fruit + scissors / scissors + fruit ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenAs I was working my way through my explanatory entry, re: picture windows ~ this is a quiz, I arrived at the conclusion - after writing a zillion words - that there was no way the explanation could be accomplished in a single entry. So, without further ado, it's on with part 1 ...

The genesis of the quiz entry is to be found in an email from my son, the cinemascapist. In that email, he provided a link to an NYC gallery exhibit, Frame of View, by David S. Allee. His only comment (tongue-in-cheek?) other than the link was, "he stole your idea".

While I do not for a moment believe my idea, aka: my picture windows work, was in any way stolen, plagiarized, or in any fashion associated with Allee's pictures. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable similarity between his pictures and mine. However, that written, there is also a difference inasmuch as, on the whole, Allee's window pictures are much more window frame centric than are my window pictures.

Be all of that as it may, what kinda got me going was the exhibition press release wherein there is artspeak aplenty ...

"... shifting perceptions of reality ... transforms three-dimensional views into the illusion of a two-dimensional picture plane ... historical debates between pictorialism and straight photography ... recontextualize and reexamine ... challenge the viewer to reconsider what is in front of them ... the changing perception and definition of images, photography, reality, and illusion..."

My first reaction was that I needed to get my work circulating. My second reaction was that the press release was pretty accurate description of my picture windows work. My third reaction was that I could never have written an similar artspeak laden statement about my work. My fourth reaction was that, before I get my work circulating, I need to find an artspeak ghost writer who can fashion artist statements for all of my bodies of work - I mean, hey, you gotta play to the market if you wanna play.

That written, my fifth and most important reaction was to create a blog entry wherein it was my intent to instigate a reaction to my picture window work - a reaction from you, the readers of the landscapist, whom I believe not to be from the academic / BFA / MFA world. Or, in other words, from other picture makers as opposed to the concept-is-everything crowd.

Not that concept is a bad thing. My various bodies of picture making work are undertaken with, at the very least, a hint of concept involved.

However, for me the pictures are the thing - I strive to make pictures which draw the viewer in, first and foremost, for what is seen, i.e., the print itself. Hopefully, once the viewer is drawn in visually, he/she can be further drawn in in the cause of discovering / discerning meaning. Meaning which is, of course, related to concept.

All of that written, I'll wrap up part 1 with a question (not a quiz). Actually, 2 related questions:

question 1) - would you have thought as long and hard about my picture windows if I hadn't requested that you do so?

question 2) - how much do you contemplate, beyond the visually obvious, any pictures which you view?

FYI, part 2 is in the works.

diptych # 24 (civilized ku # 2451-52) ~ an Act of Congress and a sad tale of betrayal

Unobtainium 1 and 2 / chicks with cameras • click to embiggenFriday was a Red Letter Day (rød dag, röd dag) and a day which will also live in family lore infamy. Let me explain ....

PART 1 ~ the backstory

... it all began a little over 2 yeas ago when I had my first taste of Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve 20 year old Straight Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey (click on the red Family Reserve label to read about it). As a long time bourbon drinker, having sampled many a fine example of that particular expression of the distiller's art, I knew I had come upon one of the finest examples of the type. Of course, at $40.00USD a shot, I kinda figured it might be something special.

So, a day or so later, I visited our little hometown liquor store and requested that they get me a bottle. It only took about of month of scrounging and begging for them to find out that any of the Van Winkle bourbons are extremely difficult to obtain and the 20 years old was the rarest / hardest to find of them all. There was some mention of having to be on the "original" Van Winkle liquor store list or all hope is lost.

I expanded my search to NYC only to find the same story. Those few stores which carried Van Winkles had absolutely none in stock and, just to keep it interesting, would have none until the next release date (only 1 or two releases a year). That date is usually around early to mid September but, if you aren't in the store the day it arrives ... well .... once again, all hope is lost.

"Never give up hope" is my motto, so I encouraged my local store to keep on searching. Lo and behold, late last autumn (2 years after my quest began), they received a call from a distributor informing them that 1 bottle of the 12 years old Special Reserve was available. Did they still want it? They immediately called me and, needless to write, I said "yes". While the 12 yo (rated a 98 by the Beverage Tasting Institute) is not the 20 yo (rated a 99 by the Beverage Tasting Institute, the # 1 rated bourbon in the world), it ain't shabby by any stretch of the imagination.

PART 2 ~ an Act of Congress

A little over a month later, I'm talking with my friend, the US Congressman. He's telling me about drinking - at the Irish Embassy with the Irish Ambassador - an incredibly good Irish Whiskey. In turn, I tell him about my quest for the unobtainium 20 years old Van Winkle bourbon. He then tells me he's good friends with the office-next-to-his Congressman from Kentucky and that he'd be happy to make an inquiry on my behalf.

Long story short, it turns out that the Representative from Kentucky is the Chairman of the Bourbon Caucus. That's the caucus which meets in the Kentucky Congressman's office in order to drink Kentucky Bourbon. That said, one phone call to the owner of Van Winkle and a bottle of the 20 years old unobtainium is on it's way to me.

Ain't it good to know that US House of Representatives can get some business done? Although, my friend is a Democrat.

PART 3 ~ the sad tale of betrayal

To be perfectly clear, the bottle in question was on its way to the wife's office because the Congressman did not have our home address handy at the time of the deal going down. That was no problem - the wife does tend to come home every evening after work and barring a roadside ambush, what could go wrong?

Answer: On the same day that the bottle arrived at the wife's office, the Congressman's son, who had just passed the Bar Exam and was now a certified attorney and an official associate in the firm, was summonsed to the wife's office (along with the other attorneys and partners) to have a bit of a welcome-to-the-party meeting. The wife arranged her office furniture around her office fireplace, a fire was lit, and drinking glasses for a toast were obtained and .....

.... need I go on? Sure, why not.

There, sitting in plain view on the wife's desk was the very rare and nearly impossible to obtain without an Act of Congress bottle of Van Winkle bourbon ... need I go on? Well, why not? Because ....

.... to be perfectly honest, the betrayal - forever to be known as The Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve 20 year old Straight Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey Affair - was reasonably restrained. Only about 3-4 fingers worth were actually consumed (as evidenced by the picture above) and to be honest, I can live with that (even if I wasn't there to collect 40 bucks a shot). Really. Does a guy with almost all of his $250.00USD worth of rare Van Winkle bourbon still in the bottle really have anything to bitch about?

The wife thinks not.

PART 3a

However, that was not the end of the wife's give away Marks' stuff day. After moving on to that evening's Annual Chamber of Commerce Awards and Recognition Dinner (see the chick's with cameras picture), I won a raffle prize - 2 nights in any North American La Quinta Inn & Suites of my choice.

But, before the glow of my winning had begun to ebb, there was the wife, winning certificate in hand, giving it away to one of the very lawyers who had been sucking up my booze that afternoon in the wife's office .... in a comfortable chair .... in front of a toasty fire.

With that in mind, I took the bottle of 20 years old with me today when I went to pick up Hugo. I'm gonna try like hell to never let it out of my sight again.

diptych # 23 ~ delicate light and color

Fresh snow / delicate light ~ near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenEven though I've busy prepping for the PBS arts shoot, I have been out and about scouting for a location for the I'm-a-picture-maker see-me-making-a-pictures footage. Since the scene in the fresh snow / delicate light picture in this entry has made an appearance in one of my life without the APA pictures - the subject of the arts segment - I think it would be an appropriate location for the aforementioned footage. Especially so, now that there is a picturesque fresh blanket of snow on the landscape.

That written, the temp is going down into the below-zero teens tonight. Here's hoping it warms up a bit for the shoot. More so for the video equipment than my cameras and general welfare.

diptych # 22 (rain # 56-57) ~ it's party time

Canal's Discount Liquor Mart ~ Cherry Hill, NJ • click to embiggen

diptych # 21 (civilized ku # 2445 / art reflects # 29) ~ back in the saddle .... again

Through the looking glass ~ Old Montreal / Montreal, Canada - • click to embiggenOk, I confess ... I was only in the saddle, posting wise, for 2 days and then I dismounted and went to Montreal for 3 days. However, I've climbed back into the saddle and I'm ready to ride once again.