urban ku # 175 ~ mystagogue

Transient and ethereal meaning on N Water Street • click to embiggenThe lost little altarboy
who never really had it
adrift in a sea of age-old ceremony
celebrating a ritualized trilogy of heavenly hosts.

But even then and there
in the tabernacle of the most high,
rumors of sacramental travesty and betrayal
waifed and wended their way
through the minds and souls of the baptized.

And the initiated pile high the collection plate
with anxious offerings of salvation granting giving and receiving
all the while cavemen lounging on the sands of fear
gazing at a sky of mysterious stars and awesome thunder
wondering if they will survive the lions of the night
and make it to the next dawning of humankind.

I think I might go mad looking
for beauty, meaning and redemption in the heavens
when all the time it is in the sacred and banal dirt
under my toenails -
can I let go enough
to strip away the vestments of diversion and temptation
and revel in the uncertainty and insecurity
of its fecal odor and gritty taste?

These thoughts were in my soul, if not my mind, as I walked North Water Street on a warm summer evening. Thank goodness I had a camera to record it all.

urban ku # 174 ~ entre chien et loup

Entre chien et loup • click to embiggenOft critical of my words and pictures, I was slightly taken aback by Paul Maxim's comment on urban ku # 173 - "... another wonderful photograph. Isn't that interesting.... It must mean that your photographic tastes and mine do coincide somewhat - they're just offset in time by about 25 years or so!

Without delving too deeply into what Paul meant by "photographic taste", I would label his 'taste' as primarily wrapped up in the picturesque side of things, photography-wise. I base this hastily drawn conclusion on his photography as displayed on his website.

Now, before anyone goes all ballistic about the word picturesque' being used as an insult, let me state that I am having an interesting exchange of ideas with Straun Gray about 'the picturesque'. We are contemplating notions about 'the picturesque' - most specifically, can 'the picturesque' move beyond, as Straun opines, "mere beauty - or, at least, the superficial, dismissable beauty of the romantic landscape canon."?

In a nutshell. both he and I believe, at least provisionally, that it can. More on that later.

But, back to Paul Maxim's new found appreciation of my pictures (at least those of 25 years ago or so). In our exchange of ideas, Straun directed me to an online discussion about the photography of Harry Cory Wright, specifically his Journey Through the British Isles work.

In the comments about Wright's pictures, I found this item which I think applies directly to Paul's appreciation of my older pictures: "they're not unmemorable to me ..." (Wright's pictures) "I can easily visualise several of HCW's images of the North Norfolk coast that mean as much to me as any I've seen of Glen Coe. But I was born and brought up here, his images invoke feelings that are deeply embedded in my past ... This has now been worrying me all day, as I just don't understand the reaction this is getting." (HCW pictures are being described as banal, mundane, unmemorable, etc.) "Is it just that I have a connection via this particular landscape of North Norfolk?"

In the case of my pictures of Rochester, Paul has a connection to them derived from having lived there and hence some 'local knowledge' of the place. Without a doubt, he has drawn upon this understanding of the place to help him appreciate these pictures more so than he does my contemporary images.

I find this very interesting because I don't see any difference between my earlier photography and that which I am making today, other than subject matter, of course. However, I do suspect that Paul has very little 'local knowledge', culturally or topographically, of my current environment.

Is that Paul's 'problem' with my contemporary pictures - no local knowledge?

The commenter above also asked; ""If an image requires the viewer to have knowledge or understanding of an area to respond emotionally to it, does that lessen its worth? Does it cease to be art and become a curiosity or keep sake for those affected?"

On that forum, most of the answers to that question were like this one - "... if a photograph requires intimate knowledge of its location in order to be evocative then in my opinion it has to some extent failed. Surely one of the definitions of a truly great photograph, or any other kind of artwork, is that it will move you without you needing to know much of its backstory.", and, "My view is that it certainly does lessen it very significantly as a work of art ..."

Apparently, according to the consensus on this forum, and, quite frankly, on most photography forums, "great / good / memorable" photography requires a referent that as many viewers as possible immediately recognize as a "known" quantity. By "known" I don't just mean that the referent is a known thing but also that the referent is rendered in a "known" style or manner - which is to say, the ubiquitous 'picturesque' landscape vernacular.

As my grandson Hugo says, that's "poop on a stick."

If one's artistic aim is to pander to the masses, then the "known" in all of its various guises is the way to go, but, for me, the result of that way of picturing is, in fact, "poop on a stick".

IMO, and I am not alone, the best Art is that which deals with the "unknown". With the field of Art, and for that matter most things in life, I am not interested in the slightest in hearing, reading, seeing something that I already know. I want the Artist to tease and challenge me with something that at first glance confuses, befuddles, or challenges my perception of things, visually and intellectually / emotionally.

In Art, as in life, I am interested in expanding my 'local knowledge', not reinforcing, ad nauseam, that which I already know.

PS - For those of you who might be wondering, I have not linked to the forum discussion from which I extracted the aforementioned comments. In our exchange of ideas, Straun Gray wrote that "I don't think it would be fair to critique that conversation in public", and I will respect that caveat.

Update on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 09:48AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment:Mike Odonoghue wrote: "As far as I can see photography can only address the "known" if you agree that "seeing" is "knowing" or "understanding" as in "I see." ... Perhaps "unknown" means something like a Voyager Mission where the camera is pointed at something no one has ever been near before. If Photography cannot address the "unknown" — perhaps the Photographer can address something s/he doesn't know or start a process which will lead "who knows where", but that's all I can agree to."

my response: see urban ku # 175

Update on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 01:33PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Struan Gray wrote: "Despite a love of postmodern froth and contemporary arts across a wide spectrum I still hanker after formal aesthetics and an unfashionable visual excitement in my own photography. I therefore like the idea of being stuck squarely between the two opposite poles of established nature and landscape photography: the sublime and the purely beautiful.

This is the traditional place of the picturesque. These days, "picturesque" usually means a clichéd tweeness, but the original movement was an attempt to see the beauty in untidy, textured, human-influenced landscapes. I would like to extract that nugget of meaning and apply it to my own work.

So I'm proud to be picturesque. Happy for my viewers to leave their 'wow's at the door. Trying to find a place for reflective contemplation of the familiar in a photographic world that seems dominated by the visual equivalent of cheap thrills and easy listening.

urban ku # 173 ~ the big yellow father

Kodak tower and my studio • click to embiggenOne of the special 'features' of the good old days, photography-wise, is that with which I am reacquainting myself as I scan some older 8×10 color negatives - f**king DUST.

FYI, in the good old days, a standard item in my darkrooms - I had 3, one for film loading, one for film processing (color & bw), and one for printing (color & bw) - was an industrial-size (about 5 ft tall) cylinder of compressed nitrogen with a pressure regulator and spray nozzle. Dust didn't stand a chance with that kind of 'dust-off', but, if you didn't set the right spray pressure, neither did an 8×10 negative - a negative could be literally ripped in half with too much spray pressure. Believe me. I know.

And, FYI, PS dust and scratch removal / digital 'ICE' is a very poor substitute for nitrogen in a tank. Those software 'solutions' to dust and scratch removal all depend on image blurring, which, in my book, is no solution at all. That's why, when I made the leap from high-end P&S digital cameras (sealed body = no dust on the sensor) to dslrs, I went with Olympus - their in-camera dust buster has been and is a perfect solution to sensor dust. I have yet to see a single dust particle on an image file.

In any event, today's picture is for Paul Maxim who opined on yesterday's picture; "Just wanted to say how much I like the river image. For those of us who once lived there, it's just so typically "Rochester" (and I don't mean that in a bad sense). You can literally feel the humidity. How long ago was this taken?"

Thanks, Paul. The picture was taken circa 1981-84. I can't pin down the exact date because my camera's EXIF data was erased from internal memory 'card'.

Today's picture is of the Kodak tower / corporate headquarters. Also depicted is my first 'solo' studio - note the big white air conditioner on the right. That window, the 2 to the left, and extending back to the 2 windows on the alley side of the building was my studio space. The picture was taken from the roof of the building (the Smith Gormley building) that housed my 'new' studio and loft living space.

This little NW corner of downtown Rochester - 1 block long, 2 blocks wide - was comprised of mostly empty (but not abandoned) old loft buildings. 2 photographers,including me, had studios in Searle Building. 1 photographer had a sort-of studio and illegal living space in another building. I felt there was a pent up demand for artist lofts - studios and legal loft living spaces - in the Rochester community. So, with the permission and support of the Smith Gormley building owner, I renovated the building - 6 stories, 72,000 sq. ft. - creating 20 lofts, all of which were leased before the renovation was completed.

The building had 7 photo studios and a variety of other artist and artisan studios. Everyone lived in their space. It was an exciting time - we were truly urban 'pioneers'.
A Smith Gormley loft • click to embiggenWithin a year, the neighborhood had 3 music/dance clubs and 2 restaurants. It didn't take long after that for the big developers to notice what was going on and today in the St. Paul Quarter (as it is now known), the Smith-Gormley is one of the original loft-style apartment buildings in downtown Rochester, and, with its position at the heart of the St. Paul entertainment district, remains a sought-after address.

It still amazes me that I started it all.

FYI & urban ku # 172 ~ unstuttering love

Genesee river and falls • click to embiggenLast evening, in a 'minor' inebriated state (the wife worked at home and women kept calling me all day long), I stumbled upon the Sundance Channel and William Eggleston and the Real World, part of a week long series of films about photographers presented under the banner of Lives in Focus. Much to my chagrin, I discovered that the series started on Monday and continues through this Friday. I can't believe that there wasn't an internet 'buzz' about this series and I can only hope that reruns are in order.

The photographers profiled are; William Eggleston, Robert Mapplethorpe and Sam Wagstaff, Helmut Newton, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Peter Beard, and Tina Barney. That's quite a spectrum of talents and genres. The Eggleston film was done in a handheld cinéma-vérité style (each film in the series was done by different film makers) that really complemented Eggleston's photography and his approach to picturing.

And, it is his approach to picturing that struck me the most, in as much as I came to a 'I am not alone' realization - even though Aaron thought that Eggleston looked like someone with alzheimer's walking around with a camera. But, as always, it's the pictures that matter and Eggleston's are absolutely amazing.

"The banal, then, is still banal, but now it's engrossing. I suppose this must be seen as progress, but Eggleston's belief has been and remains that what the resolutely high-minded call banality is the stuff of life itself. It is where we live -- but not only there. Much has been made of Eggleston's oft-quoted statement "I am at war with the obvious." Here he is, not atypically, saying a good deal less than he means. Eggleston loves the obvious -- he hates, and is indeed at war with, the idea of it, the contempt in which it is held. He sees what's in the gutter but also looks up to the heavens. As Malcolm Jones, an unusually perceptive critic of Eggleston's work, has observed, "He addresses the meanest objects with unstuttering love." ~ Stanley Booth/salon.com

even more FYI - today's picture is from a scan of an 8×10 color negative.

urban ku # 171 ~ can you say d-e-l-e-t-e?

Misted window and red car • click to embiggenI am reading through P.H. Emerson's Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art thanks to a link to the complete manuscript provided by TOP. The book contains a wealth of very good and timeless advice.

How about this challenge? - The fact of the matter is nature is full of pictures, and they are to be found in what appears to the uninitiated the most unlikely places. Let the honest student then choose some district with which he is in sympathy, and let him go there quietly and spend a few months, or even weeks if he can not spare months, and let him day and night study the effects of nature, and try to at any rate to produce one picture of his own, one picture which shall show an honest attempt to probe the mysteries of nature and art, one picture which shall show the author has something to say, and knows how to say it, as perhaps no other living person could say it; that is something to have accomplished. Remember that your photograph is a true index of your mind, as if you had written out a confession on paper.

Or, having trouble editing your pictures for a book? Here's some good advice - Thus it will be seen how difficult it is to produce a picture, even when we have thoroughly mastered our technique and practice, for, to recapitulate, in a picture the arrangement of lines must be appropriate, the aerial perspective must be truly and subtly yet broadly rendered, the tonality must be relatively true, the composition must be perfect, the impression true, the subject distinguished, and, if the picture is to be a masterpiece, the motif must be poetically rendered, for there is a poetry of photography as there is of painting and literature.

Never rest satisfied then until these requirements are all fulfilled, and destroy all works in which they are not to be found.

There you have it. Now get to work making that one picture, and, of course, delete all the rest.

urban ku # 170 ~ more POD info

Deer Meadows neon • click to embiggenA typical issue with some POD printers goes something like this (from Paul McEvoy); I had a book done with Blurb and I have to say that the quality was really awful. Printing wise it was not acceptable to me ... Pictures were very grainy, on files that had no visible grain. There was a color cast issue ... The paper cover they include with the hardcover was extremely cheap looking.

There is absolutely no question that some POD printers are better than others. Some are a whole lot better. Even though they all tend to use the same equipment, the results can vary greatly. As in all things, attention to detail matters. Some POD printers work on the volume principle, some on the quality principle. And, there is almost always a direct relationship between price and quality.

That said, it is worth noting that a reproduction of a picture will never match the original picture. Traditional offset, sheet-fed printers using the best of modern equipment (to include 8-color presses), techniques (stochastic printing), and high quality paper can come very close to matching an original print. Of course, in order to use this printing technique for a moderate sized book, you will be buying a minimum of 1-2,000 books and you should have at least $40-50,000 to burn.

As I have mentioned before, some of the best POD image quality I have seen in my experience is from shutterfly.com (as long as you turn off their ViDPic[?] effect). They are also amongst the lowest cost POD printers. Where they save on their costs is with paper - decent but not the best in class, and cover and binding materials - again, decent but not the best in class.

To be certain, shutterfly.com's paper and cover / binding is very good. I have had only one problem - on one book, the paper on the inside of the front cover bubbled. I returned the book and they replaced it PDQ without any hassle.

In my experience, if I had to use just one POD printer, it would be shutterfly.com. If they upgraded their service with better / more paper choices and better cover / binding materials (for which I'd be happy to pay a premium), I would use shutterfly.com as my only POD printer.

BTW, FYI - my experience with shutterfly.com and sharedink.com is with RGB jpeg images files saved with the Adobe RGB (1998) color profile.

So, when can I expect to see some books?

Update on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 05:11PM by gravitas et nugalis

questions, questions, questions - there are no bad questions

Jim asks; I was looking at shutterfly and they do not give you recommendations for image resolution and type. Do we size the images to the size we want, at 300dpi, jpeg, adobe 1998 colorspace?

Dennis asks; I'm just checking to see if I understand the strategy:
Each page is a file
Each file is a RGB jpeg in the Adobe 98 space
Is each file sized to the actual size of the physical page? and presumably minimum compression?

So, if I want a 10 inch square page I start with a new file of that size and then place the desired image and anything else (text, whatever) on the page and saved as a jpeg.

Is that it?

answers, answers, answers

Jim / Dennis - each page is a file and that file is 'to size' @300 dpi - 10×10 inch page = 10×10 inch file @300 dpi - always @300 dpi. After placing any size image (or more) where you like on the page, and, after placing text / graphics where you like on the page, save the file as a psd. with all the layers intact (text, images, graphics) as a 'master' for later editing if needed.

When you're satisfied with the result, again save it with all layers intact, then merge the layers and flatten the file and save a 'highest quality' Adobe RGB (1998) jpeg for uploading to the printer's site.

urban ku # 169 ~ flaunt it

Conspicuous internment • click to embiggenDespite the age old admonition that says you can't take it with you, during my recent Syracuse cemetery exploration I was reminded that, if you had it, you can still flaunt it after you're gone. And, if you use enough granite or marble, long after you're gone.

urban ku # 168 ~ memory lane

Oakwood Cemetery - Syracuse, NY • click to embiggenYesterday, I mentioned that, on my recent visit to Syracuse, I went on a hunt in a cemetery for a sculpted German shepherd gravestone that occupies a prominent space in my childhood memory bank.

Limited by time and mud, I was unable to locate the grave marker but I did 'rediscover' another gravestone that I had forgotten - a magnificent polished sphere with rough base sculpted from a single stone. The sphere is literally ringed with many small columns marking other family member's grave.

The nano second that the sphere came into view from a distance, it sent a jolt through my memory bank that was amazingly intense. A flood of additional childhood cemetery walk memories came rushing out - the memories were not very specific but the 'feeling' was a particularly intense experience.

Has anyone else out there had a similar experience - picturing a place from your past that triggered 'feeling(s)' more so than specific memories?