FYI ~ A career in photography

For those of you out there who are contemplating leaving their day job for a full time career in photography, might I suggest the rather eclectic and little practiced speciality field of Photo with the Parrot.

Here's what i know about it - one day in the early 80s, the X, the kids, and I were in NYC visiting a friend. We all went to Little Italy during the St. Anthony (of Giovinazzo) festival. The place was mobbed but we were able to get into the restaurant our friend wanted us to experience. It was a decidedly relaxed establishment replete with a rather large all-black clad mama mia who roamed the premise singing (accompanied by a very handsome and swarthy young guitarist).

The crowd were well into their cups and much revelry was in evidence. In short, a good time was being had by all when, in the front door, came the gentleman, his parrot, and his Polaroid cameras. Even with all the din, it only took one pronouncement of "Get yer photo with the parrot." to set off a near frenzy of eager patrons.

At $3.00 a pop, he was raking it in as fast as his SX-70s could spit 'em out. He seemed to have an endless supply of Time-Zero film and, more importantly, the parrot seemed to be on some kind of parrot-downers. It was remarkably calm in the clamor and high-jinks that surrounded it. I kept waiting for it to rip off some inebriated patron's ear, but it just went calmly about its business with a remarkable amount of patience and aplomb.

While everyone else was having their picture taken with the parrot, I offered the photographer double his regular fee if I could take his picture with the parrot (and my kids). He, of course, obliged.

After his stint in the restaurant, he went out into the street where he was again mobbed by eager patrons. As best as I could tell, this guy was raking in at least $100 an hour. Not bad at all in 1980 dollars.

Also, as best as I can tell, here's the formula for success - several Polaroid cameras, lots of Polaroid film, locations with large gatherings preferably with readily available liquor and beer, a well-adjusted parrot (or maybe 2 - keep one in relief), and lots of patience with intoxicated patrons.

Oh yeah, and don't forget the hat and sweatshirt.

FYI ~ an invitation

Grass, stumps, snow • click to embiggenOver the past 18 months or so since The Landscapist has been around, I/we have blithered, babbled, blathered, and bloviated about many topics, photography-wise. For me, the exercise has served to expand, refine and define my thoughts, not only on the medium of photography in general, but also on what I'm doing with the medium in particular. It also seems that some of you have benefited from or at least enjoyed the experience as well.

While I am not at the point where I want to say "Thanks very much. It's been fun. Hope to see you around someday", I am at the point where I have made some decisions about what to do with the 700+ pictures that I have created over the last 4 years and that endeavor is going to take quite a bit of energy and time, at least a portion of which I am going to have to borrow from that which has been devoted to The Landscapist.

This does not mean that there won't be daily entries or that The Landscapist will be slowly fading into the sunset. What it does mean is that, for the purpose of ensuring that neither the former nor the latter happen, I am extending an invitation for Contributing Writers.

There are plenty of you out there who are smart cookies and pretty damn good photographers to boot. How about coming out of the shadows and sharing some of your thoughts, ideas, questions and pictures with The Landscapist audience. And a damn good audience it is - I have been delighted with the intelligence, curiosity and civility of those who hang around the place. My appreciation and thanks to all.

Send me an email if you are interested.

FYI ~ a speaking engagement

Front page news

I'm working feverishly on my Jan. 2nd presentation to the Schenectady Photographic Society. The pressure is on because my appearance has been pre-described / critiqued as a "wonderful presentation". No sweat, though. I expect to deliver nothing less than "wonderful".

The topic will be Photography's Reality Effect" - the idea that was developed to describe the ideological effect of a system of representation that is sometimes confused with a literal copy of reality. The reality effect has to do with the way viewers experience how a certain appearance of reality, (in the case of photography) presented on a 2-dimensional surface, becomes intensely conscious.

In the best of cases, what is shown then appears extremely authentic and close to life. Sometimes you even have the impression that you could never perceive it so clearly in real life. An effect that most certainly results from the transition from sensory apprehension to consciousness, which gives the viewer the opportunity to see such appearances at once more analytically and more emotionally.

The point of the presentation will be to discuss how, using the reality effect, a photographer can create photographs that can lead viewers to a 'truth' - or perhaps many (subjective or objective) - that can be arrived at no matter the 'truth' of the actual depicted subject itself.
Parking lot nightmare • click to embiggenStraight or constructed, the best photography still needs to deliberately and creatively play with the reality effect in order to create pictures of meaning that get beyond documentation.

This should be fun. If you're anywhere in the neighborhood (mapquest directions), you should stop in. Just tell them I invited you.

testing ... Testing ...

... using my new iPod touch

FYI ~ an unexpected treat

I'm off to NYC for a day of gallery crawling with Eric Fredine. I have never met Eric in the flesh althought he and I have corresponded about the subject of photography - his, mine, or that of anyone - over the past few years. I respect his work and his opinion so I am very much looking forward to the day.

Although, it does feel a bit like a blind date.

As always, I'll let you know about what's happening now in world of photography NYC-style.

FYI ~ last minute gift ideas (for kids and adults)

Books about the 'truth' • click to embiggenXmas day is fast approaching and I'm certain that some of you must be needing last-minute gift ideas. So, thanks to the wife who brought these delightful books to my attention, I thought that I would pass along these great reads - for adults and children alike - about everyday-life truth and realism.

FYI ~ how's your ontology doing?

My projects - a 'warning' from the wife • click to embiggenOK class, today's assignment is to read this little ditty.

In truth, it's not really a 'little ditty'. It's a long-ish essay that is written in some (at times) rather obtuse academic-speak but please don't let that discourage you from reading it - just open up a dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com) and dive in.

The reason I encourage you to read this piece is simple - just about everything you need to know about photography as an Art form is contained in this essay. Really. I'm not kidding around. More than a month's worth of fodder / food for thought for journal entries on The Landscapist can be had in this ultimately interesting and challenging piece of writing.

Update on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 11:25AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote; "Bedford takes three pages to say that there's no good art criticism of photography because art critics--including himself--don't understand it. I'd pretty much agree. (Of course, I happen to think most photographers don't understand it very well, either.)"

my response: I also happen to think most photographers don't understand it very well, either.

urban ku # 150 ~ you can email, but, you can't hide

An ugly 'truth' • click to embiggenI occasionally get email comments about topics / entries on The Landscapist. There is no problem with that but don't let that make you thing that I won't use my 'Sunshine' prerogative in order to shed a broader light of day upon the thing.

That said, here's an interesting take on the a pile of steaming stinking meadow muffins entry -

I have to say that this entry has gotten Ray and I talking quite a bit and all we do is come up with alternate questions.

The first is: "When did photography become art?"

Let me go back and say that Ray believes that the gist of the matter is that: using Photoshop and other means to modify an image that was taken alters said image - and thus, the image is not a true "photograph"... a true "photograph" would be created when one set up their camera at 4 am - to capture the correct light, choose the right lens for the shot ... click - develop - print and voile you have a photograph.

His belief is that photographers of old would adjust their images in the darkroom - and that to a certain degree was "cheating."

So the thrust is that technical advancement has undermined photography.

OK - so another question of mine - or a corollary to the original is: wouldn't the use of a lens or filter then also be a technical advancement that undermines true photography? Wouldn't all photography have to be taken from a box with a couple of holes in it? - and anything else would be "art photography"?

In your blog - you are discussing an article that: The author, the painter and gadfly art critic Peter Plagens, wasn't really asking if the entire medium of photography was dead. No, whether he meant to or not, he was really inquiring if that segment of the medium known as 'straight' photography - 'the last art form to be tethered to realism' was dead.

He's a painter, you say. This is a statement regarding oil painting from a person on the web who is a oil painting purist: Stop looking at modern art and stop loving it. Modern bright colors and hue contrasts destroy the subtle vision of the painter who risks to study classical painting in our time.

Original oil painters ground mineral and then mixed them with a drying oil. The Flemish technique (1400's) is the first true "technique" developed - it includes a 7 layer process that is considered by purists of the art - "the only true way to create a painting." - complete with: Before each new layer the canvas (ideally dried during 7 weeks) is carefully wiped with a half of an onion (in order to prepare the dried surface to absorb better) and then with linseed oil.

All the new advancements of pre-mixed paint are aberrations to some - but certainly, this isn't the thought of the majority.

Another thought that Ray and I discussed was, "If you're camping in the woods and need to make a fire. A purist would demand that you hunt for two rocks - which when struck together would spark and thus, ignite your kindling. Others may choose to pull out their Bic and light the thing. You have created a fire, it's still warming you, you can still cook by it, it's still creating the same ambiance as the alternate fire would. The importance of the act is determined primarily by the person lighting it...."

In my opinion, lighting a fire with rocks is a neat trick - but, it's the fire (outcome, deliverable, art) that is of the most importance. (end of email)

Any comments, of the non-email variety?