civilized ku # 858 ~ a clarification

Avocado ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenFYI, my regular blogging schedule has been interrupted over the past couple days by the disruption of having 10 house guests roaming around our premises. It is further disrupted by today's prep for a 2PM departure for a 400 mile drive to Williamsport, PA. where I will spent tonight, Wednesday, and Thursday AM just hanging out while the wife attends a seminar. Then it's on the road back home where another couple house guests will be awaiting our arrival (for a 3-day stay).

Nevertheless, I will have daily entries beginning tomorrow AM. There probably won't be much else to do in Williamsport what with the Little League World Series only on tap during the month of August. But, hey, if there is anyone within the sound of my voice who resides in or around Williamsburg, just give me an email jingle and maybe we can get together.

That said, and before my 2PM departure, I did want to answer a question from Larry that read:

.... I noticed some entries back that you made a point of referring to the chef as gay. Why was that an important observation that needed to be shared with your readers?

For reference, this is the part of the entry that Larry was inquiring about -

.... The dinner that followed was also very enjoyable, especially so because having 2 chicks (the wife + 1 house guest) and a gay guy (who is a NYC chef) around the house makes for great eating with very little involvement in the prep, cooking, and cleanup from me. Sitting around sipping some wine or a bourbon while others are busy as beavers is a very pleasant way of getting things done.

my response: in no way did I think that referring to the chef as "gay" or, for that matter, the women as "chicks" needed to be shared with my readers.

That said and within the context of the entire entry, what it was my intent to share with my readers was a satirical poke at social/cultural gender/sexual stereotyping. And, I should like to point out for those who didn't "get it", social/cultural gender/sexual wise, I played the role of the fat and lazy male chauvinist/sexist pig.

There was no intent to injure or insult, with the exception, of course, of real live male chauvinist/sexist pigs who, IMO, need all the insults they deserve.

PS to Larry - I'll be responding to your other question in tomorrow's entry.

civilized ku # 792 ~ wherein I almost wax poetic about Sir Ansel / on seeing

Carrot peelings • click to embiggenOver the weekend while we were having a birthday dinner with The Cinemascapist and family, we noted that the hotel bar & grill / pub (very much ground level, sidewalk front, glass walled, open to the public, part local hangout) in which we were eating only had wi-fi for registered hotel guests. I thought it a bit odd but the The Cinemascapist did not because, in his words, "wi-fi is outdated ... you don't need wi-fi because everybody has an iPhone so nobody needs no stinkin' wi-fi."

Say what? Even assuming that he meant that everybody has a so-called "smart" phone, the simple fact of the matter is that not everybody has one. Not by a long shot.

But, that matter aside, what I later got to thinkin' was that, re: electronic media generation wise, so many picture makers' picture viewing - both of their own and those made by others - is done, almost exclusively (and, most often, alone), on a screen of some kind or another. However, I don't care how big, how hi-def, or how impressive the screen might be, the simple fact of the matter is, for most picture viewing purposes, looking at pictures on a screen is a vastly inferior substitute for looking at printed pictures.

A host of other printed picture viewing considerations aside, one of the primary reasons that is so is because viewing pictures on a screen denies the tactile reality of printed pictures as objects / things in and of themselves.

Two examples thereof:

1. A few entries ago, I posted 2 of my Polaroid pictures. I deliberately did not create a pop-up link to bigger versions in order to preserve at least a modicum of the "real" Polaroid viewing experience - what I would call the "preciousness" of their diminutive size.

However, what can't be conveyed on screen is the tactile sensation, in the case of manipulated Polarods, of the "brush strokes" - actually surface indentations caused by whatever instrument one uses to push the emulsion around - that are part-and-parcel of the viewing experience. In addition to that sensation, there is the simple pleasure of holding a small Polaroid print in your hand and, in social circumstances, passing it around for others to hold and experience. And, perhaps, to engage in some lively real "live" chat regarding what you see and feel.

2. I sure that most of you have seen plenty of Sir Ansel's pictures online / on a screen. But, if you have had the experience of looking at an actual print of Sir Ansel's work, you understand that his prints are, in and of themselves, objects/things of incredible beauty (no matter what their actual referent might be). My first such in-the-flesh experience with an Adams' print almost caused me to pee my pants, not to mention the fact that I wanted to physically caress the print and/or shed my clothes and rub it all over my naked body and ............

That said, and other than my oft-stated advocacy for making prints and/or photo books of the results of one's picture making endeavors, I bring this all up as an addendum to the recent entry on photographer's block.

IMO, it is much easier to slip into a state of photographer's block if your own pictures are stashed / hidden away on a hard drive and if your looking at them is limited to on-screen viewing. There simply is no substitute, improving your vision/seeing wise, for printing them and putting them, at least those you consider to be the best thereof, on a wall for viewing.

And let me be perfectly clear about printing them and putting them on a wall. Relatively "quick and dirty" proof prints, printed out on a relatively cheap and simple photo printer, hung on a wall with tape or tacks, will fill the bill quite nicely. The point is to get them on a wall for you (and anyone else who might be interested) to look at and reflect upon on a relatively constant basis.

Think about it. If you don't respect the results of your own picture making endeavors - however developmental / experimental / works-in-progress they might be - enough to bring them out of the (digital) closet and into the real world / tactile light of day, how can you expect anyone else to ever take them seriously.

A question - have you outed any of your pictures? That is to say, out of the digital domain and into the real picture viewing world. If not, why not?

civilized ku # 775 ~ a beetist mandala

Beet juice stains • click to embiggenIn light of the recent entry about right-brain / left-brain notions, civilized ku # 766, I am very curious about what side of the brain you use when making pictures. Or, since the brain rarely uses one hemisphere of the brain totally independent of the other, it would be more correct to ask which side of the brain is your dominate side?

Do you even know? Have you ever taken a LB/RB test? There are a zillion of them to be had online.

While I'm curious, how much does your LB or RB hemispheric dominance effect how you make pictures? And, do you think that your LB or RB hemispheric dominance effects / determines what you prefer to picture?

civilized ku # 772 ~ the American "Dream"

"Fried" chicken • click to embiggenIt has been stated that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (American philosopher George Santayana).

In a 1928, the Republican Party used a campaign advertisement touting a period of "Republican prosperity" that had provided a "chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot".

In 1929 we got the Great Depression.

civilized ku # 758-9 ~ Wódka

Borsch ~ Stash Cafe - Old Montreal, Montreal, CA • click to embiggenWhile in Old Montreal this past weekend, the wife and I had dinner at Stash Cafe, a restauracja polska, on rue Saint-Paul Ouest. Our very tasty dinner included borsch, bigos, krokiety, placki & roast of wild boar. And, of course, some Wódka - because, as the menu and place mats state:

Everything tastes better with Wódka. Including Wódka.

civilized ku # 750 ~ Creepy beets for halloween

Beets ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 710-11 ~ the one that almost got away

Froglegs ~ Wanakena, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenJust prior to the serving of my plate o' frog legs, the wife put her hand on my forehead to see if I had a temperature. It was her clever non-verbal way of saying that, after noticing I had left my camera(s) in the car, I must be feverish or something because I rarely go anywhere without a camera.

In fact, while getting out of the car, I had made a decision to leave both of the cameras in the car. Don't know exactly why I decided to do that but I do know that a thought did cross my mind that nothing of interest was going to be seen or happen in the decidedly nondescript bar/restaurant we were about to enter - The Pinecone Restaurant (as seen across the river in the previous entry).

However, when the attractively presented plate o' frog legs (with deep-fried "pinecone" mashed potatoes) was served and after demonstrating to the wife how frog legs could walk, dance, do calisthenics (jumping-jacks in particular), and how they could sit on the rim of a plate with their legs crossed, I just had to go out and get a camera.

All of that said, it wasn't until near the end of the meal that the wife noticed one of the frog legs on the floor. Don't know weather he/she was trying to escape or just taking a walk and fell but I managed to retrieve him/her, dust him/her off, and dispatch him/her to join his/her brethren.

civilized ku # 625 ~ après dinner

So many choices, so little time ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenContrary to the usual situation, some of the wife's Jersey family have come north instead of the other way around.

Did I mention that they like to drink? Or, for that matter, that my heart reverted to A Fib just before they started arriving? Not that I think that there is a connection .....

FYI & BTW, the grappa is rue-flavored. Prior to its purchase I had no idea what rue - the white leafy stem visible in the bottle - was. Now I know ...

Rue (Ruta) is a genus of strongly scented evergreen subshrubs, native to the Mediterranean region ... Rue has been used internally as an antispasmodic, as a treatment for menstrual problems, as an abortifacient, and as a sedative... it is very bitter.

I assume one of the reasons it is in the grappa is because, all by itself, grappa is not bitter enough - WRONG.