kitchen life # 41 / civilized ku # 2480 ~ as seen around the house

Remains ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Stems ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenWhen last I wrote about rhopography and megalography, I wrote as an explanation:

Rhopography relates to the portrayal of objects which lack immediate significance - the basic mundane objects that surround us in our daily environments. Megalography relates to the depiction of ‘importance’ and themes in the world which represent 'greatness'.

I also wrote that I am much more a rhopographer than a megalographer - that is to write, I like to make pictures of the everyday / commonplace as opposed to grand/iconic referents. In doing so (in the manner in which I do so), I attend to the world ignored by the human impulse to create 'greatness'. That is, to attend to, in the cause of exploring what ‘greatness’ tramples underfoot, that which is excluded or passed over.

I follow this picture making path - in part, but not exclusively - because I truly believe we live in a culture which exhibits a fetish-like pursuit of 'greatness', aka: the next big thing, and ignores the unassuming material base of life. In that pursuit, many (most?) live a life of constant boredom, killing time as it were, while looking / waiting for the next big 'rush'. As a culture and as individuals, we are the poorer for it.

IMO, picture making wise (as well as life) ....

... the enemy is a mode of seeing which thinks it knows in advance what is worth looking at and what is not: against that, the image (of the unassuming material base of life) presents the constant surprise of things seen for the first time. Sight is taken back to a vernal stage before it learned how to scotomize the visual field, how to screen out the unimportant and not see, but scan. (from an essay, Rhopography, Megalography, and Chardin)

Just thought you might be interested to know how (and why) I see it.

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.

kitchen life # 36 ~ mélange / election by tradition + intuition

A mélange in a bowl ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenFrom the introduction (as linked in yesterday's entry), by John Szarkowski, to the book William Eggleston's Guide:

Photography is a system of visual editing. At bottom, it is a matter of surrounding with a frame a portion of one's cone of vision, while standing in the right place at the right time .... [B]y means of photography one can in a minute reject as unsatisfactory ninety-nine configurations of facts and elect as right the hundredth. The choice is based on tradition and intuition - knowledge and ego - as it is in any art, but the ease of execution and the richness of the possibilities in photography both serve to put a premium on good intuition. The photographer's problem is perhaps too complex to be dealt with rationally. This is why photographers prowl with such restless uncertainty about their motif, ignoring many potentially interesting records while they look for something else.

civilized ku # 2432-35 / kitchen life # 35 ~ holiday whitening with holiday reds

Red pepper in zip lock bag ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
B-ball hoop ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Red truck ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Red sleigh ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Red ribbons ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOne of the benies I get from reading Aline Smithsoon's LENSCRATCH, in addition to viewing the interesting pictures from a wide variety of picture makers, is Aline's regular mentions, re: picture exhibition submission opportunities. While I am not a fan of submitting pictures to picture competitions, I often enjoy viewing the final selections thereof.

My favorite form of group picture exhibitions is the type Aline often conducts / publishes on L E N S C R A T C H - every submission is accepted / published. Her most recent exhibition, the 2012 LENSCRATCH Holiday Exhibition, can be viewed here. I did not participate in that exhibition but I have in others, to include the next exhibition, YOUR FAVORITE PHOTO FROM 2012, which will be published on January 1, 2013.

All of that written, the reason I bring up the topic, picture competitions, is because most competitions are conducted around a specific theme-based submission criteria. I have taken to using some of those individual themes as a guide for viewing my picture library with the intention of identifying individual theme-based bodies of work which are "hidden" within my library of nearly 5,000 pictures and counting.

That viewing M.O. has surprised me by the number of unintentionally created bodies of work there are lurking within my total body of work. And, by identifying them, I am now able to organize and work toward intentionally expanding those bodies of work.

As an example, I never set out, with the deliberated intention, to create a body of work entitled Rain. However, over time I have, in fact, made lots of pictures in and of the rain. While I made those pictures as a result of my picturing what I see M.O., to be honest, I never thought of those pictures as an individual body of work which was independent from my total body of work. Nevertheless, the Rain pictures have emerged, by dint of theme-based viewing of the pictures in my library, from the total mass of my picturing endeavors as a legitimate stand alone body of work.

FYI, that written, it should be understood that I have worked on several bodies of work which, from day two, were undertaken as intentionally created individual bodies of work. Good examples of those would be; single women, decay & disgust, pictures windows, art reflects, and tangles. However, please note (as written), I began to pursue these bodies of work in earnest on day two, not on day one, because ....

(I usually found that if I had a preconceived idea for a project it wouldn’t amount to much. Discovery — an aggressive receptivity, if you will — of what is in the landscape provides the inspiration for new ideas. ~ Richard Misrach)

... while it has often been stated / written that, in order to be successful in one's endeavor to make good pictures, one should choose a referent one cares about and then set about picturing it, IMO, there is a better way to go about selecting a referent for in-depth investigation, picture making wise ....

There's a whole world out there and, therefore, a whole world of picturing possibilities. Although, from that nearly endless array, a few picturing possibilities might enter one noggin based upon familiarity and culturally conditioned habitual thinking, IMO, one might be better served by spending a fair amount of time and effort picturing anything and everything within the range of one's environs and regular daily life. And then ...

.... after amassing an extensive number of pictures, take a long look at the results to see what, picturing without thinking about it, pricked your eye and sensibilities. I'd be surprised if something doesn't stand out, seemingly unbidden, like a sore thumb, screaming for continued attention.

My previously mentioned bodies of work were conceived on (symbolic) day one when, as I was picturing anything and everything, my eye and sensibilities were pricked by something which, in a very real sense, came as a surprise to my rational / conscious picturing mind. That is to write, I wasn't born wanting to picture decay, tangles, or picture windows (et al). Rather, I discovered those picturing interests by mucking about, picture making wise, all over the place on a wide picturing landscape.

(symbolic) Day two dawned when I awoke to and clothed myself in picturing possibilities hitherto unimagined.

Anyone out there tried looking, theme-based wise, at your work to find "hidden" bodies of work? And, if you have an ongoing body of work, how did you come upon it?

kitchen life # 34 ~ Doubting Thomas

Tray with stuff ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenA while back, John Linn asked if I was making any progress on the magazine project. The short answer is, "Yes".

The biggest issue was making a workflow which allowed the making of an ebook and a print book from the same files. That task is pretty much in the bag although there are still a few items to work out - nothing tricky, just time intensive. That written, it's time to line up some pictures for the project.

To that end, I am requesting submissions. IMO, there are quite a few Landscapist follower picture makers out there who have work which meets the criteria I am interested in. Pictures which could be edited down to small bodies of work comprised of 8-12 pictures. Pictures which are unified by referent or continuity of visual style or ways of seeing and presentation.

Some of you may be under the impression your work isn't "good enough" but, in fact, I'd like to be the judge of that. However, if I don't see it - a body of 8-12 pictures - I can't make an informed opinion on the matter. So ....

... don't be a Doubting Thomas, re: your pictures. Email me a few samples from a small body of work or a link to same.

civilized ku # 2404 ~ unlike Mitt Romney ...

Zeronine-Moon and Edison-Ron ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen.... our cats know big bird - our 24lb. turkey - is dead and soon, they'll be feasting on the remains.

Happy Thanksgiving - may you all have many blessings for which to be thankful.

civilized ku # 2377 ~ cleaning up

Miscellaneous floor crud ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen