civilized ku # 2110 ~ different referent, different time / same kind of place, same kind of picture

Cornelia Street and Broad Street - Plattsburgh, New York 2012 ~ by Mark Hobson • click to embiggenOne week ago, on civilized ku # 2099, Paul Bradforth (no link provided), while critiquing The Landscapist, also offered up a comment about some of my pictures ... ...

I can’t quite ‘get’ the point of portraying things obsessively ‘accurately’ if that means making an ‘accurate’ picture of a very dull day, which to my mind accounts for quite a few of the pictures I see on your blog. Beautifully processed, for sure, but in the end, for me, ‘accurate’ shots of dull days.

I have absolutely no problem with Paul offering up an opinion about my pictures and this entry is in no way meant to refute / contest / or otherwise diminish his opinions. He stated it how he sees it and that is exactly the way it should be.

That said, I felt a bit of explanation (for those who might be not aware of it), re: my predilection for making beautifully processed pictures of dull days / scenes, aka: the banal / the everyday / the mundane. And in doing so, I'll use a Stephen Shore picture and what has been written about it, to include some of his words / thoughts about his picturing.

Beverly Boulevard and LaBrea Avenue - Los Angeles, California 1975 ~ by Stephen Shore

I have long admired the work of Stephen Shore. Shore is one of the seminal pioneers of modern era color photography (I recently had the pleasure of meeting Shore at one of his exhibits). His pictures have been described (IMO, quite accurately) as deadpan images of banal scenes and objects in the United States.

Shore's work came to my attention, along with that of many others, during my work with Sally Eauclaire on her book, the new color photography. The Beverly Boulevard picture, from his work/book Uncommon Places is a well known Shore picture. My picture, Cornelia Street and Broad Street (made yesterday on a visit to my cardiologist), certainly has the look of Shore's picture but, in fact, Shore's work is only one of many influences upon my picturing MO and I have been going my own way for many decades.

That said, like Shore and most of the new color and new topographic picture makers, I am most interested in making pictures which find beauty in the banal. To that end, my "beautifully processed" pictures are, visually wise, part and parcel of drawing viewers into my pictures and inducing them to stay around for a longer look, hopefully to see/discover at least some of the beauty I find/see in the banal/everyday/mundane*.

In any event, consider this bit of info, re: Shore's picture and, in a broader sense, much of his work:

... Shore saw how a photograph 'imposes order on the scene or 'simplifies the jumble by giving it structure'. There's so much readable information, but few conclusions to be drawn about this place.

This was a new conception of the landscape picture, one in which the details themselves - their density and abundance, rather than the entirety - were intended to be the focal point or subject. Each image is so sharp and detailed that it seems to have infinite centres of attention, or none at all. "If I saw something interesting, I didn't have to make a picture about it. I could let it be somewhere in the picture, and have something else happening as well. So this changes the function of a picture - it's not like pointing at something and saying 'Take a look at this'. It's saying, 'Take a look at this object I'm making.' It's asking you to savour something not in the world, but to savour the image itself." ~ from the book, Stephen Shore

My pictures are most often quite "dense" with an abundance of details. Picture makers, especially those who hold the adage, to "simply", to be sacrosanct, often ask me what in the hell my pictures are of/about. My answer is always the same - they are first and foremost about the print, aka: the object, itself. Then, and only then, are they about the pictured referent(s).

IMO, the viewing /perception of my pictures as beautiful objects is what directs the viewer to the notion of the beauty of the pictured referent(s) to be seen in my pictures. To my eye and sensibilities, the beauty of my prints (and those of the new color / topographic picture makers) and the beauty of their referents are co-jointed and inseparable. While each aspect - the object and the referent(s) - can be viewed and appreciated separately, it is only when they are holistically considered that the magic of the medium comes into play.

Comments, anyone?

*This approach of presenting "beautifully processed" pictures/prints works like a charm with non-photographer / picture maker viewers of my work. Not so much with photographers / picture makers who do not see in my pictures what they have been told is a good picture.

civilized ku # 2012 ~ profundity and the tableaux vivant, expanded edition

The Goat ~ by Jeff Wall • click to embiggen

BACKGROUND: This past Sunday, at the wife's urging - "he looks so much like his dad, take a picture for me" - while we were attending an all-day hockey tournament, I made the the netminder picture. It is a picture of my grandson, Hugo, who had decided to play in net for one of his games and, truth be told, he did look a lot like his dad (a full-time net minder) at the same age. So, never one to deny the wishes of the wife, I made a few pictures.

The first few pictures were made while Hugo was playing warm-up ball-of-tape hockey with a couple of his teammates after which I was fully prepared to say that was that, picture making wise. However, the 3 older kids seen in the netminder picture appeared on the scene and, recognizing Hugo, hung around and struck up some sort of a conversation with him. So, more for me than for the wife, I made a few more pictures.

The rest of the story: Sunday evening, while I was looking at the pictures during the RAW conversion stage, my attention was drawn to the aforeposted variant of the scene. For reasons I did not understand at the time, I found the picture to be somewhat disquieting in a sort of edgey kind of way. FYI, "edgey", as defined by the urban dictionary as, "Watch out, something is about to happen." or, as Sam Hames put it (in yesterday's comments), "... the tension is visible, just at this moment. What happens next?"

One of my first impressions was triggered by the expression on Hugo's face*, one which I can not recall ever having seen before, and those of the other kids, especially the crouching one immediately to Hugo's left**. And then there is also the fact that the other kids are quite obviously much older than Hugo and the first things that flashed into my mind were Jeff Wall's tableau vivant, The Goat and, to a lesser extent, the many emotionally unsettling tableaux pictures of Gregory Crewdson.

In any event, as a result of the aforementioned, I found the the netminder picture, as opposed to my on-the-spot perceived reality of the actual situation, to be rather disconcerting / unsettling. The actual situation - a younger kid being surrounded by much older kids - evidenced absolutely no sense of the disquieting / unsettling situation in Wall's manufactured / staged picture, The Goat. Or, for that matter, of the disquieting / unsettling perception(s) of the the netminder picture, as perceived by me.

However, that said, I believe I can state with some degree of certainty that my knowledge of Wall's picture, as well as Crewdson's and those of many others, had a significant influence, in a you-are-what-you-eat kind of way, on my perception(s) of the the netminder picture. Or at the very least, my knowledge of the work of Wall, Crewdson, and others certainly set me up to look for / be sensitive to expanded meaning(s) in the the netminder picture.

Re: expanded meaning(s), nearly concurrent with my first unsettling reaction to the picture was also the perception that the situation depicted in the scene was not threatening at all. In fact, it could be perceived, in light of Hugo's hockey prowess, as form of reverse athlete hero worship****. "Reverse" in the sense that it is more often than not the young who revere / worship their elders rather than vice versa. In fact, 2nd grader Hugo is very well accepted by the 3/4/5th grade cool-guy clique***.

While there is nothing inherently disquieting / unsettling about being accepted by the cool-guy clique, there is, nevertheless a cultural / societal story to be told about the cool-guy/ athlete in-crowd phenomenon. A story which could be perceived as disquieting / unsettling, dependent upon whether one is "in" or "out" and how one uses (or experiences) that in-crowd status.

All of the preceding said, while any of the aforementioned readings / interpretations of the the netminder picture are quite valid, the cool-guy / in-crowd reading is the most true vis-a-vis the actual situation on the ground. However, there can be no denying the ambiguity to be found in the picture. And, after considering my reaction to the picture, I believe it is the ambiguity factor which led to my disquieting / unsettling reaction to it.

Which leads me to the notion of staged / constructed pictures, ala Wall / Crewdson / Sherman / my son, The Cinemascapist (to name just a few), or, for that matter, could-be-read-many-different-ways street pictures, which the the netminder picture most closely resembles (it absolutely was not staged, constructed, or directed in any manner whatsoever) ...

... IMO, the strength of such pictures, even though they are "untrue" (in the sense that they are staged / constructed or moments-in-time presented without or out of context) is their very ambiguity. By the nature of that ambiguity, the pictures can be read in many different ways by many different viewers with each viewer being able to discover a different truth. Despite the specificity of a given scene / referent, the picture made of it can have a generality which can reveal / speak to a number of different truths.

And, IMO, the truth(s) to be found in any given picture is greatly influenced by a viewer's knowledge / total life experience. You are, in fact, what you eat. That is to state, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear predicated upon who you are*****. Picture viewing wise, I believe that, without a doubt, it is true that the possibilities for what one sees /reads in a picture is greatly influenced by one's knowledge and experience, re: the rich and varied possibilities inherent in the medium of photography.

For some (the un-experienced / un-knowledgeable?), a picture is just a picture. For others (the experienced / knowledgeable?), a picture - the viewing thereof and the making thereof - is fertile intellectual / emotional ground for discovery and learning. For them, the possibilities are nearly endless and the rewards and enjoyment thereof are also nearly endless.

an addendum: I do have the ability to view my pictures as though someone else had made them. In case of the the netminder picture, I was able to perceive multiple meanings / readings of the picture as if I possessed no knowledge of its making or the actual on-the-ground situation. That ability is why I am so often surprised by what I see / read in my pictures after viewing the results of my, one could say, seemingly out-of-body picture making efforts.

*Nick wrote, "The goalie looks lifeless or doll-like". John Linn said, "...everyone is looking at him but he is avoiding eye contact".
**Garet Munger (no link provided) wrote, "The expression and posture of the boy hiding in the corner is disquieting as well as what seem to be aggressive postures of the two bigger boys"
***As a matter of fact, Hugo spends a great deal of time with older kids. That is true both in school and especially so at the hockey rink where it would seem that his hockey skills give him the creds to fit in with / be well accepted by the older kids. However, the older kids in the picture, with the exception of the kid in the red jacket costume de rigueur of Saranac Lake "Red Storm" athletes, do not appear to be hockey players.
****Carolyn (no link provided) wrote, "Nothing unsettling about three fans admiring the rosy-cheeked goalie."
*****Unfortunately, there are quite a few spodas ("what I spoda do, massa?") on the planet who can't actually think for themselves, leading them to believe a lot of big-lie "truths". But that's a picture viewing / reading topic for another time.

FYI, tableau vivant (plural: tableaux vivants) means "living picture". The term describes a group of suitably costumed actors or artist's models, carefully posed and often theatrically lit. Throughout the duration of the display, the people shown do not speak or move. The approach thus marries the art forms of the stage with those of painting/photography, and as such it has been of interest to modern photographers.

In recent history the photographic tableau has become a vehicle by which the medium has entered the space of the art gallery. Many photographers now define their works solely as photographic tableaux and declare that they are artefacts, created specifically for the gallery wall. Self-sufficient in nature, the tableau seldom relies on supporting documents. It can be defined as a composition of staged people, often acting out a scenario that has been directly manipulated by the artist, although it can also be used to describe a photograph that does not contain any people but resembles the tableau in form. By its very nature the photographic tableau amalgamates the art forms of photography and theatre.

Teenie Harris ~ an American original / a highly recommended book

all images © Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh

Teenie Harris • click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen
• click to embiggen

all images © Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh

One of the most fortuitous unintended consequences of my time spent living in Pittsburgh, ranking right up there with meeting and marrying the wife, was my "discovery" of the work of Teenie Harris. That encounter took place on the streets of Pittsburgh - specifically in the Strip District (aka: public market) - where, during good weather, a street vendor set up a display of Teenie Harris pictures for sale.

For me, it was love at first sight and I acquired 3 11×14(ish) prints. I don't remember the price but I believe it was in the $20.00US/per print ballpark. Little did I know that Teenie would come to be considered as the most important black picture maker chronicling the lives of black Americans in 20th century America. In hindsight, I should have acquired many more prints but I was hesitant at the time because rumor had it that the street vendor had engaged in some sort of shady deal with Teenie (or possibly his wife) by which he had possession of Teenie's negatives.

That rumor most likely stemmed from the fact that in 1998, the year in which he died, Teenie was in the process of suing, for noncompliance, a person with whom he had signed (in 1986) a management agreement contract. As it turns out, the suit was eventually settled in Teenie's favor and all of the negatives (80,000+) were returned to his estate. In 2001, the negatives were purchased by the Carnegie Museum of Art (in Pittsburgh).

All of the suing / purchase activity came as news to me when I recently came across an advert for Teenie Harris, Photographer: An American Story, an exhibit of 987 Harris pictures currently on display at the CMOA (through April 7, 2012 - and, yes, I will be going to Pittsburgh to see the exhibit). Needless to state, I am extremely pleased to read that the collection, a true photography treasure, is in good hands and is being properly conserved, scanned, and and cataloged.

And, speaking of treasure, I have purchased, and am eagerly awaiting the arrival thereof, the exhibit catalog/book. IMO, the book is an absolute must-have for anyone with an interest in picture making. And again IMO, much of Teenie's work stands on an equal footing with that of Walker Evans, albeit somewhat (but not entirely) different in intent and scope.

All of that said, I will have more to write on the pictures themselves.

FYI, the bottom-right picture of the Tyler family was published - June 13, 1959 - in the Pittsburgh Courier newspaper (the black newspaper by which Teenie Harris was employed from c.1941 until his retirement c.1976, after which he worked for the newspaper on a freelance basis until c.1983). The Tyler family picture was accompanied by the following cutline (caption):

Please Help Them - Mr. and Mrs. Robert Tyler and their six children, who are being forced to move from a tinder-box house at 2817 Berthoud St., are in extreme mental anguish this week because they have no place to move. Can you help them?

civilized ku # 1105 ~ gush-a-thon vs a different perspective

Ann Marie ~ Portrait of a close friend, circa 1982 - Bronica 645 ETRS / 150mm f3.5 Zenzanon Lens / Plus-X film • click to embiggenColor! ... Simply Wow! ... OMG! ... EXCELLENT! - those are just the tip-o'-the-iceberg of gushing admiration expressed for the pictures of Steve McCurry - see a National Geographic McCurry bio with samples - as noted on the recent TOP entry, Speaking of Great Color Photography. That entry linked to a video, re: Steve McCurry as the recipient of the 2011 Leica Hall of Fame award.

However, early on in the course of the chorus-of-adulation responses, there was a somewhat dissenting opinion put forth:

I think McCurry has a great eye for the beautiful, is a master of color composition and no doubt works his ass off. But given the time and resources that NGS has historically provided, how could you not hit a few hundred homers over the course of 30 years?

... to which Mike Johnston replied:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't realize how incredibly obnoxious that comment is.

... to which the commenter replied with a much more detailed missive in which he reiterated and emphasized his opinion (expressed in his original comment), re: "I think McCurry is a great color photographer with a great eye for the beautiful, with beautifully composed and balanced images." He then went to explain in greater detail his original caveat - "... when I look at McCurry's work, and the work of other NGS photographers I see the job in it ..." - a caveat ("the job in it") with which I emphatically agree.

To wit, re: "the job in it", McCurry is most widely known and recognized, although not exclusively, for his work for National Geographic. Is there anyone in photo world or in a significant segment of the world at large who is not familiar with his now-iconic 1985 cover of National Geographic picture, Afghan Girl? That said his work has gained attention in many other publications. As the TOP commenter pointed out, there is no doubt that McCurry "works his ass off" and has been rewarded for doing so.

However, and this is not (in the working professional picture maker world) a bad thing, McCurry has adopted a style of picture making that is "job" oriented. He has most definitely clothed his picture making MO in the Nat Geo way of seeing the world - lavish use of brilliant/saturated color.

Nat Geo has, since it began to print in color - their first all-color issue was in February 1962, always produced a publication which is printed to some of the highest commercial printing production standards on the planet. The magazine's color reproduction is second only to a very few others. And, according to Nat Geo, it was "... the invention of the small, lightweight Leica camera and Kodak's 35mm Kodachrome film" which enabled them to "... publish more color in its editorial pages throughout 1962 than any other major magazine in the country."

It is no coincidence that McCurry's primary film of choice throughout his career to date was Kodachrome. In fact, Kodak honored McCurry's devotion to and successful use of Kodachrome (800,000+ frames over 40 years) by giving him the last roll of Kodachrome ever to be manufactured.

Therein is "the job in it" - Kodachrome (gives us those nice bright colors, gives us the greens of summers, makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah) + Nat Geo + Steve McCurry = a marriage/match made in heaven.

Now, let me reiterate and emphasize, in the commercial/professional scheme of things, this kind of marriage/match is, indeed, a good thing. Careers, fortunes, and fame are very often based upon such a relationship. Kudo's to McCurry for his success in that arena.

All of that said, my issue with (most) of McCurry's work is, in addition to its uniformly bright-color color-saturated Kodachrome look, is that, to my eye and sensibilities, his work is also uniformly shallow - too obvious, too easy to read, and the reading thereof tends to be heavily biased to the visual, the things that sit on the surface of the picture/print. All qualities which are much in demand and, in fact, demanded/required in the commercial / professional picture world. Short consumer attention spans demand pictures that get to their point in the quickest, most unambiguous, easily accessed manner possible.

IMO, McCurry makes pictures which could be made - not copies but pictures with similar visual effect and qualities - by quite a few other professional picture makers who might have been given the opportunities McCurry has enjoyed. That is not to denigrate McCurry's work or accomplishments but, rather, to put it in perspective. A perspective recently offered up on TOP, re: Ernst Hass (from the book, Ernst Haas: Colour Correction:

Ernst Haas is unquestionably one of the best-known, most prolific and most published photographers of the twentieth century. He is most associated with a vibrant colour photography which, for decades, was much in demand by the illustrated press. This colour work, published in the most influential magazines in Europe and America, also fed a constant stream of books, and these too enjoyed great popularity. But although his colour work earned him fame around the world, in recent decades it has often been derided by critics and curators as 'overly commercial,' and too easily accessible—or in the language of curators, not sufficiently 'serious.' As a result, his reputation has suffered in comparison with a younger generation of colour photographers, notably Eggleston, Shore and Meyerowitz.

Paradoxically, however, there was also a side of his work that was almost entirely hidden from view. Parallel to his commissioned work Haas constantly made images for his own interest, and these pictures show an entirely different aspect of Haas’s sensibility: they are far more edgy, loose, complex and ambiguous—in short, far more radical than the work which earned him fame. Haas never printed these pictures in his lifetime, nor did he exhibit them, probably believing that they would not be understood or appreciated. Nonetheless, these works are of great complexity, and rival (and sometimes surpass) anything done at the time by his fellow photographers. ...

One could easily and, IMO, appropriately substitute the name "Steve McCurry" for that of "Ernst Haas" in the first paragraph of the preceding quote.

Whether or not the substitution could be appropriately made in second paragraph, is open to question. IMO, very open to question inasmuch as I have seen little of McCurry's work that is "... of great complexity ... far more edgy, loose, complex and ambiguous—in short, far more radical than the work which earned him fame."

Update on Friday, September 9, 2011 at 08:14PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Colin Griffiths wrote: "On another point, that 1050mm lens you used for the potrait of Ann Marie must have been HUGE!"

my response: a 1050mm lens would have been huge and probably forced me to make the picture through a window from outside my studio. Fortunately, it was actually a non-typo 150mm lens.

a Jackson Pollock moment

Weed/compost bucket ~ by Mary Dennis • click to embiggenIn an email response, Mary Dennis wrote, re: civilized ku # 1037 / Jackson Pollock moments:

I have many Jackson Pollock moments. In fact I had one yesterday morning while looking down into my weed/compost bucket.

Thanks, Mary - your Nature (Discordant) pictures are about as "Jackson Pollock" as things gets. Very nice work.

picture by Deborah ~ object-ification

picture by Deborah • click to embiggenIn the past I have commented upon the idea of printed pictures as objects, in and of themselves - in a sense, independent of what is pictured. That is, the print itself as an object of beauty.

IMO, the making of finely crafted prints is an integral part of making pictures. As Sir Ansel stated, the negative is the score, the print is the performance. I am in total agreement with that statement, to the point of suggesting if you don't make prints, you're shooting blanks, so to speak.

The idea of prints as (crafted) objects recently came to mind when I received an email, with images attached, from a Landscapist follower by the name of Deborah. In the email she stated, The oddest moments cause me to try and capture what I see and feel... Re: the attached pictures, she stated and asked, ... a little goofy, but tell me what you think.

My very first thought was I wished I could views prints of Deborah's pictures before making any judgement. The reason for that thought is based in my belief that, if you really care about what you see and then choose to picture, making a finely crafted print is the ultimate visual expression of your vision - what you saw and how you feel about it and, in the process, creating the oportunity of letting others in on your little secret.

Taking that idea a step further, IMO, making a finely crafted print is especially important if the fancy of your eye is found in the everyday experience of living, or, as Deborah stated, life's "...oddest moments".

Many a picture maker has gotten a free skate based upon just the visual strength of his/her pictured referent alone. Things like sunsets, majestic scenery, cute animals / kids, et al. Any minimally competently made print of such referents can pass as a good picture. IMO, it takes more than that to visually express, in a convincing fashion, your love of the everyday.

And that is why I make my prints to appear as finely crafted objects, an act of objectification. As the dictionary states, to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense.

So, in answer to Deborah's query, re: "tell me what you think", I like your picturing MO but I would like to see more craft and more respect for the medium's expressive possibilities by moving beyond the act of merely recording.

And a question for anyone - if you don't make prints, finely crafted or not, are you a "real" picture maker or just a shooter of snaps?

civilized ku # 859 ~ on the road again

UHAUL - Mom's Attic ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenOK, OK. I know that I have yet to address Larry's question re: my ideas re:place and how they might apply (or not) to my professed unsuitability for picturing single men (FYI, I won't be doing so today).

The reason for not doing so is simple. During my about-to-end visit to Williamsport, I have actually attempted to make a few single men pictures. The wife, while reviewing said pictures on the camera LCD during dinner last evening (at the Bullfrog Brewery - thanks Matt and JB), declared all but one of the pictures to be abject failures. Her primary criticism was my failure to picture the single men as sympathetically as I have pictured single women.

IMO, she may have a valid point and that point speaks directly to my idea that I may not be best suited to make single men pictures that mirror / compliment my single women pictures. That is to say, I can not help but look at women without some element of sex/sexuality as part of the equation but I do not look at men with the same outlook. However, I do not want to delve into that arena just yet.

This evening, after our 7 hour drive home and after I have processed the pictures and spent some quality screen time with them, I'm certain that I will have more to say on the topic of not only the pictures themselves but also how their success or failure might suggest an answer to Larry's question.

1920/30/40/50s American iconic ~ over and over again, but that's OK (in this case)

On occasion, as rare as that might be, I start to think that everything on the planet has been pictured - that there are no more pictures to be made.

This brief illusory rumination most often strikes after spending some time perusing the online photo world where, in fact, most of the pictures presented have, in fact, been made before. While having been made before is not always a fatal flaw, it is (to my eye and sensibilities) when the having-been-made-before pictures in question tell us nothing new. That is to say, not only is the referent very familiar but so is the connoted.

I mention this because during my recent NYC trip, while I visited Mast Books, my favorite art (with a heavy emphasis on photo books) bookstore on the planet - a very small store, on Avenue A between E. 5th & 6th, with a rather eclectic selection of very gently used photo books, I came across and purchased a delightful little gem, Vest Pocket Pictures, Photographs by Julius Shulman. The book features Shulman's early - made in the early>mid 1930s with a Kodak Vest Pocket Camera (a gift on his 23rd birthday) - personal snapshots and intimate keepsakes of family and friends. The 58 pictures in this book - beautiful duotone reproductions printed at 2.5×3.75 inches, only slightly larger than the original negatives - predate, by 13 years, his decision to dive into the picture making world as his lifelong profession.

Now, I must admit that I purchased the book simply because, after a quick glance through it, I was immediately impressed with the pictures (and the reproduction thereof). I did not read any of the text - a brief preface by Shulman and postscript essays by Craig Krull and David Tseklenis. And, to be perfectly honest, the name, Julius Shulman, meant absolutely nothing to me. I just flat out really like the pictures.

I purchased the book and left it at the counter for pickup upon my return from my Chelsea gallery crawl. During that crawl, in one of the galleries, I came upon a print of Case Study House #22, a picture with which I was long familiar (in publications - I had never seen an original print) but not one that I associated with the name of Julius Shulman. I took some time to study and admire the picture but it wasn't until later that evening, while looking at the book and reading some of the text, that I realized Julius Shulman was the guy who made Case Study House #22 - weird eerie coincidence # 2,187 (in my life, experiences like this happen with a somewhat strange regularity).

My first thought was - well, scratch my back with a hacksaw. I didn't know whether to cry or wind my watch. You could have knocked me over with the proverbial feather. My second thought was - man, I really love that little bookstore. It may turn out to be my version, albeit on a much more positive note, of John Prine's the hole in daddy's arm were all the money goes (PS - don't tell the wife).

All of the preceding said and with the the Shulman picture in this entry submitted as prima facie evidence of the fact that not all having-been-made-before pictures are alike, I would like to state that, even though I would guess millions of very similar manifestations / variations on the above picture can be found in family snapshot albums all over the world (although this one is very American), all of these having-been-made-before pictures resonate with me, punctum wise, every time I view one.

I am very curious how many of you, like me, have a picture just like this one in your family album(s). And, if you do, what effect does it have on you when you view it and others just like it?

FYI, re: thinking that everything has been pictured - most times when that thought comes in my head, something comes along (I wouldn't mind having one these pictures on my wall) that disabuses me of that notion.