civilized ku # 934 ~ signs of Spring

Spring buds ~ NYS Museum - Albany, NY • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 933 ~ doling out some viscous slashes

Columns and stairs ~ NYS Museum - Albany, NY • click to embiggenIt has been suggested by Dennis Allshouse that "chuck"'s comment, re: that my tulip pictures are "rankly derviative", may have been motivated by my "vicious[sic] slash at republicans". A slash wherein I stated that "....You can search the site until hell freezes over or Republicans start making sense (take your pick - both have the same level of probability)...."

While it may be true that I stand guilty as as charged, re: taking a slash at republicans (is "chuck" a republican?), I plead innocence to the "viscious" descriptor. Although, if these charges were to be brought to a court of law, I would most definitely be entering a plea of nolo contendre.

That said, don't look for a break in the action, re: making vicious slashes at republicans or, for that matter, making the same at democrats. Here in the good 'ole US of America, our political class on both sides of the aisle are offering up very little to be proud of.

However, that said, the republicans have been refining and practicing, for quite some time, the art of the BIG LIE. Examples of such abound, including a most recent case in which the republican BIG LIE approach is laid bare for all to see ...

Recently, on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), eager to prove that the budget debate wasn't just about Planned Parenthood, spent some time on the Senate floor going after Planned Parenthood. He stated (now on the the Congressional Record) ...

"Everybody goes to clinics, to doctors, to hospitals, so on ... Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don't have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does."

As it turns out, factually, only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is related to terminating pregnancies. Factually, over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is related to preventative health care services.

Senator Kyl, when questioned about his 3000% numeric "discrepancy", replied through a staff spokesperson, that ...

"... his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.".

In other words, just make crap up to "support" your position and, if anyone happens to notice that you're lying through your teeth, explain - with a totally straight face - that your statement(s) was "not intended to be a factual statement".

HOLY SHIT!!! How far down the rabbit hole of spewing lies and deceit do you have to be to use that incredulous obfuscation as a credible "explanation" for lying?

On the subject of one of the republican's favorite targets, Planned Parenthood or, perhaps more accurately, a woman's reproductive health, republican Texas House Rep. Randy Weber, when advocating the de-funding and/or elimination of Planned Parenthood, stated:

There’s been research done. ... It actually shows the highest abortion rate is among women actively using contraceptives.”

In fact, there has been research done that found that 54% of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. However that same research also found that among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

If Rep. Weber had done the math on all of the research's finding, he could have made a more truthful / accurate / factual statement along the lines of the actual results of the research - 46% of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Add to that number those who used their contraceptive method inconsistently or incorrectly and it becomes undeniably obvious that "actively using contraceptives" is not related to creating "the highest abortion rate".

In fact, when women actively, consistently, and correctly use contraceptive, they accounted for a very small percentage of abortions.

The research, when viewed in its entirety (not selectively), points to a conclusion that Rep. Weber and his lying / distorting ilk want to avoid - what is needed is not a cut to / elimination of organizations which provide education and services devoted to a woman's reproductive health, but that the more correctly educated and informed a woman becomes about contraceptives and their consistent / correct use, the decidedly lower the rate of abortions.

Consequently, with research that finds that a very high percentage of woman having abortions do not use contraception and that a very high percentage of those having abortions who do use contraception do so inconsistently or incorrectly, the inescapable conclusion is simple - we need more emphasis upon and more support for the organizations which provide education / instruction about and access to various methods of contraception, the correct use thereof.

While I'm at it, here's a "viscious slash" at democrats - where's the emphatic, informed, and direct response to all of this absolute nonsense? Show some fortitude and speak up. And, if you've responded but the lamestream media isn't reporting it, speak much louder and with much more frequently.

Update on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 05:29PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jimmi Nuffin (no link available) wrote: "94% of your blog viewers do not care or want to hear about your political thoughts and/or ideas. Count me among them. In fact I want to go back to the days when the photos didn't have that weird border thing and there were more rocks and twigs in them." - "Not intended to be a factual statement."

my response: how did you do your research?

civilized ku # 932 ~ on with the show

Artist Statement picture • click to embiggenThere was a nice turnout for the ART convey/transport/reflect opening reception on Friday night. It was a very different crowd than the last opening - more art-types, less "locals"-type - which is most likely attributable to the fact that the pictures were not of "local" color.

That said, the pictures generated a lot of interest and comment. The audience was quite captivated by the visual complexity and ambiguity evidenced in the pictures. The crowd seemed to like the fact that the pictures required a fair amount of viewer effort and discernment - much more than just a casual look - in order to understand what they were seeing.

At first glance, what many viewers thought they were seeing - especially those who did not read my Artist Statement prior to viewing the pictures - was either double exposure pictures or "photoshop-ed" pictures. Those observers, upon learning that the pictures were un-manipulated, single exposure, straight out of the camera pictures, returned to re-view and review the pictures from an entirely new perspective.

The gallery goers were also very engaged and fascinated by the reflections created by the glazing. The reflections changed as the gallery light changed from daylight-dominated to gallery-lights dominated. Many suggested that the change in the reflections created an installation art aspect to the exhibit.

In addition to the warm and genuinely appreciative reception engendered by the pictures, the announcement, re: The Forks Portrait Project - 4-6 month project with the objective of picturing every resident (approx. 800 people) of Au Sable Forks and the surrounding area (I'll be delighted to get 200-300), was received with great excitement and enthusiasm. I even secured a project sponsor who will underwrite the cost of getting the word out - a picture postcard in every local mailbox.

BTW, as mentioned, a sizable portion of the opening crowd was not in attendance at the THE FORKS there's no place like home opening. However, many of them were very interested in the book which accompanied that exhibit, so much so that I sold 4 of those books.

FYI, the picture with this entry is part and parcel of my exhibit Artist Statement which reads:

All good art attempts to convey a point of view about the world as seen by the artist. As a result of that endeavor, good art has the potential to transport its viewers into a realm of new revelations, discoveries, and insights. In doing so, good art allows its viewers the opportunity to reflect upon the world and their place in / relationship to it.

As should be evident from the referent in all of the pictures - pictures of artwork - the exhibit is Art about Art. The intent was to make pictures of art in gallery windows utilizing the reflections in those windows to suggest a link between art and the real world. By their semi-transparent and somewhat masking nature, the reflections create a rather ethereal and ill-defined visual impression which obfuscates any distinct connection or easily defined relationship between the art and the world outside of the gallery, leaving it to the viewer to decide /discern what it is they are seeing, both literally and figuratively.

In any event and despite my disdain for exhibiting pictures under glazing, because reflections are an important part of these pictures, I have decided to present the pictures under glass in order to introduce another layer of reflections. In this case, the added reflections will be of the viewers as they look at the pictures. I want them to see themselves in the pictures in order to reinforce the intrinsic connection between and participatory relationship of the artist, the art, and the viewers of that art.

All in all, the exhibit was a big hit. This gallery thing is turning out to be quite a bit of fun and, lest I forget in the warm afterglow of the opening reception, a lot of hard work.

civilized ku # 930-31 ~ layer upon layer

ART convey/transport/reflect exhibit ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenOver the past few days there have been a number of comments, questions, and a few private emails (re: several entries) to which I want to respond. However, as you might suspect, I have been busy getting ready for this evening's exhibit opening. After the opening is over, over the next few days, I will respond to all of those aforementioned comments, question, and emails.

That said, I'm delighted to state that the exhibit prints are on the walls and there will be no last minute picture hanging for this opening. I almost feel as though I can actually relax a bit.

In any event, the pictures in this exhibit, ART convey/transport/reflect, were made with the idea that (from my Artist Statement):

All good art attempts to convey a point of view about the world as seen by the artist. As a result of that endeavor, good art has the potential to transport its viewers into a realm of new revelations, discoveries, and insights. In doing so, good art allows its viewers the opportunity to reflect upon the world and their place in / relationship to it.

As should be evident by the referent in all of the pictures - pictures of artwork, the exhibit is about art about art. My idea was to make pictures of art in gallery windows utilizing the reflections in those window to suggest a link between art and the real world. By their semi-transparent and somewhat masking nature, the reflections create a rather ethereal and indistinct visual impression which obfuscates any distinct connection or easily defined relationship between the art and the world outside of the gallery, leaving it up to the viewer to decide /discern what it is they are seeing (literally and figuratively).

IMO, that is one of the hallmarks of good art - leaving it up to the viewer to decide /discern what it is they are seeing.

In any event and despite my disdain for exhibiting pictures under glazing, because reflections are an important part of these pictures, I have decided to present the pictures under glass in order to introduce another layer of reflections. In this case, the added reflections will be of the viewers as they look at the pictures. I want them to see themselves in the pictures in order to reinforce the intrinsic connection between and participatory relationship of the artist and the viewers of their art.

civilized ku # 926-29 ~ hooky for hockey

The press ~ USA Rink / Olympic facility - Lkae Placid, NY • click to embiggen
The millonaires club / AKA - thte Boston Bruins ~ USA Rink / Olympic facility - Lake Placid, NY • click to embiggenHugo didn't go to school yesterday AM so that he could join me, a friend, the wife, and his dad at the Boston Bruins' practice.

The Bruins came to town late Monday night after their first round / 3rd game Stanley Cup Playoff game against Montreal (in Montreal). For a number of reasons the team decided to spend the 2 day break between games 3 and 4 in Lake Placid. Amongst those reasons was the desire for a bit of relaxation (in addition to their regular workout / practice schedule) away from the crazed hockey fever that grips Montreal this time of year. The team left Lake Placid for Montreal after practice.

Hugo got an autograph from Tim Thomas, the Bruins goalie. The center picture above is Thomas at work. The right-hand picture is Thomas signing his autograph for Hugo. The left-hand picture is of the Bruins huddled around their coach at the end of practice.

And speaking of work, hockey wise, the average salary amongst those huddled masses is approximately $2,400,00 per season/year. Mr. Thomas, for example, is currently making $6,000,000 per season which, according to his season (2010-11) stats, equates to:

a) $1,783.59 / minute (3,364 minutes played), although conditioning and practice adds considerably more minutes.

b) $105,263.16 / game (57 games played) - not including a few pre-season games or the playoffs.

c) $3,531.49 / save (1,699 saves), although who knows how any saves he makes in practice and on-ice goalie workouts.

That's nice work, if you can get it.

an aside - Of course, all of the players are represented by a (gasp) union and they have the freedom to go on strike. I find it very interesting and very telling that Republicans aren't yammering on about and attacking unions when they represent the wealthy as opposed to when they represent the middle and lower class. WAKE UP, AMERICA.

civilized ku # 924-25 ~ "rankly derivative" / standing on the shoulders of giants

McDonald's Drive Thru / birches / posts ~ Wolfe Rd. - Albany, NY • click to embiggenA comment was left on yesterday's entry by that person with an odd obsession, AKA - "chuck" (no link supplied). It read:

Lee Friedlander did tulips in glass. Your effort is rankly derivative, despite the color vs. his B/W.

As always, even in the case of a comment from a nattering source such as "chuck", whenever one (or all of my pictures) is labeled as derivative, I am always curious, at times flattered, but rarely, if ever, insulted by such labeling. Let me explain ...

First and foremost, it should be understood that this entry is not a defense against "chuck"'s statement that my work is rankly derivative. But, that said, I view his comment as an opportunity to bring up the idea of "originality" or lack thereof in the making of pictures.

Without question, those picture makers who are informed about the medium's history and that of its noteworthy practitioners - the great, the near great, and the "merely" good - are keenly aware of the connections / influences / indebtedness they have with all that came before them. Very few of those practitioners have been so egomaniacal as to believe their work is totally original or created in a vacuum without outside influence. Most will readily admit their work is derived in part from their accumulated knowledge of the medium, its possibilities, and the work of its practitioners.

Those same practitioners are also well aware of the difference between being derivative and plagiarism. Work that is derivative is that which is derived from and built upon - most often with new insights and new twists 'n turns - something that came before. Hell, even one of the greatest scientific thinkers of all time, Issac Newton, stated ...

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Plagiarism, on the other hand, is simply the outright copying of something that came before. No new insights, no interesting twists 'n turns, just plain old fashioned appropriation / imitation of the work of another. Monkey see, monkey do.

If one were to look across the current playing field, picture making wise, with an informed eye, there is little doubt in my mind that near straight-line connections can be made from today's great, near great, and "merely" good picture makers directly back to earlier picture makers throughout the history of the medium right back to the origins of the medium itself. To deny that fact is to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the depth and breadth of the medium and its practitioners.

All of that said, I do have one question (the aforementioned curiosity) for "chuck" - to which Lee Friedlander picture of tulips in glass are you referring?

I am not aware of any such picture. After reading your comment, I used the google to search for such a picture and the only thing I could come up was Friedlander's Stems work - a body of work of which I was not aware until I did this search. And, I might add, a body of work that is only tangentially, at best, related to my tulip pictures.

civilized ku # 922-23 ~ the story you are about to see is true

Tulips • click to embiggenApropos of no burning picture making issue in particular, 2 weeks ago, as I was making a tulip picture - the 130mm (260mm - 35mm equiv.) tele variation on the left, it occurred to me to picture it again with my "normal" lens, the 20mm (40mm - 35mm equiv.) Lumix lens.

I initially pictured the tulips using a tele approach because I first noticed the tulips, picture making wise, from a "distant" perspective (from another room). Without question, the tele approach would - in fact, did - represent well what I saw from that "distant" POV. FYI, the low picturing angle also represents what I saw as well - inasmuch as I was sitting when I looked at the tulips.

After processing the picture, I felt a little squeamish in that I had "violated" my normal "normal" lens approach to making pictures ....

an aside - I must state at this point that I am not a single lens nazi. That's true even though 90% (+/- a sukoshi) of my personal / "fine art" picture making is with the same single focal length lens. However, that said, every picture in any of my specific bodies of work, is deliberately made with the same lens. That lens may vary from one body of work to another but it never varies within a given body of work.

.... so, I returned to the scene and pictured the scene from the same (approximate) low angle and line-of-sight POV. Other than the aforementioned twinge of squeamish guilt, I have no idea why I felt compelled to do this little exercise at that time.

Hindsight wise, I believe it had something to do with testing the medium's ability to picture the real with a high degree of the true. Would pictures of a given referent made with different lenses from different camera-to-referent distances impact the ability of the resultant pictures to represent and convey the real/truthful-ness of the pictured referent?

My opinion on the matter has always been that, unless the lenses in use introduce a significant amount of distortion - as an example, using an ultra-wideangle lens to make a portrait with the subject's nose touching the lens, the resultant pictures will convey a very high degree of real/truthful-ness relative to the camera's picture making POV.

In the case of the tulips, in both pictures, the tulips look like tulips. Neither lens / camera POV combination gives a viewer any reason to doubt that they are looking at realistic /truthful pictures of tulips. In both pictures, the medium and its apparatus have done a splendid job of demonstrating and confirming the medium's unique-amongst-the-visual-arts characteristic as a cohort of/with the real.

That said, there can be no denying that the closer POV + wider angle of coverage lens produces a decidedly different visual effect and a concomitantly different affect from that of the more distant POV + tele lens combination. In the case of the former, the picture evidences a more in-your-face look and feel relative to the slightly more "relaxed" look and feel of its more-distant POV + tele lens counterpart. However, to my eye and sensibilities, neither presentation detracts from the real/truthful-ness of the picture's primary referent, the tulips.

That said, for the skillful picture maker, understanding and utilizing the "in-your-face" look and feel approach vs. the more "relaxed" approach (or vice-versa) can be a great asset in conveying or, at the very least, hinting at the implied meaning(s) and idea(s) in his/her pictures.

That is why, for most of my picture making, I take the slightly wide angle approach to picturing. To my eye and sensibilities, that picture making MO puts my primary referent (in any given picture) in visual context relative to its environment. Most often, this MO conveys a slightly - at times, very - cluttered look and feel but that look and feel is exactly how I see the world - a complex and interconnected field of things, thoughts, and emotions.

I have no desire to wallow and/or revel in maudlin sentimentality and romanticism nor to give succor to those who do. In my picture making, I try to adhere to the Joe Friday MO - "All we want are the facts, ma'am" - in the hope that the facts might lead to some truths.

All of that stated, and contrary to how I set out to picture the tulips, when all was said and done, I prefer the 20mm lens variation over the 120mm version.

And, if you're wondering why there are different cameras in each picture ... each camera was on the table next to the tulips but the camera pictured in the 20mm version (on the right) already had a tele-zoom mounted on it. Even though that 4/3rd lens could be mounted (via na adapter) on the µ4/3rd camera (pictured in the 130mm version - on the left), it was easier to pick up the 4/3rd camera and make the picture.

Later, when I decided to make the 20mm version, I had to use the µ4/3rd camera because the 20mm Lumix is a µ4/3rd lens and µ4/3rd lenses can not be mounted on a 4/3rd camera. So, to have a certain amount of consistency, I put the 4/3rd camera in the frame in same place as the µ4/3rd one was in the first picture.

Update on Monday, April 18, 2011 at 05:08PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Martijn (no link provided) wrote: "A quote from an older post (http://tinyurl.com/stinkingevf): "I don't know about you, but I don't need no stinking EVF" ... What is it that I see on the µ4/3rd camera? ;-)"

my response: Martijn, what you see on the µ4/3rd camera is an optical viewfinder ... because I still don't need (or want) no stinkin' EVF. In any event, even if I did want one, the E-P1 doesn't accept one.

Despite your honest mistake, you do deserve special mention for trying to call me on something I wrote nearly 16 months ago. It makes think that somebody's paying attention. ;-)

civilized ku # 921 ~ making pictures

Making pictures ~ Exhibit / NYS Museum - Albany, NY • click to embiggenA few entries ago Dennis Allshouse (no link provided) wrote:

I know you don't like gearhead stuff, but I've searched the site and haven't found any writing on why you moved to micro 4/3rd. Although in a nutshell something along the lines of lighter, more compact, same performance comes to mind. It's just so much easier to talk about the gear than all the other stuff, lol.

You can search the site until hell freezes over or Republicans start making sense (take your pick - both have the same level of probability) but you won't find any writing on why I moved to µ4/3rd. That is not because I deliberately failed to mention it. Rather, it is due to the fact that I never "moved" to µ4/3rd - when I made the jump from P&S digital cameras to dslr cameras, I started with a 4/3rd camera and I consider µ4/3rd as just an extension / another flavor of the 4/3rd format. Although ...

... this entry, this entry, and this entry did herald the acquisition of my first µ4/3rd camera.

I started with a 4/3rd camera for a number of reasons. Amongst them: I would rather gouge my eyes out than own a Canon dslr - that's a personal prejudice not based in any way on their quality or performance; when I made the jump, Nikon - my 35mm camera of choice for 35 years - was seriously lagging the field in a number of ways; Olympus 4/3rd cameras had several things I liked - superb industry-leading dust control and in-camera IS; Olympus lens are regarded as amongst the finest and their smaller size, especially their "long" tele/zoom lenses, mattered to me - my 50-200mm f2.8/3.5 zoom (100-400mm 35mm equivalent) is very compact/lightweight relative to the competition and relatively inexpensive to boot. A comparable lens (focal length and speed) for a Nikcan camera is at least $2,000 and up to $4000 more than my Zuiko.

Re: Olympus - I have come to appreciate the fact that they do not rush out "improved" camera after "improved" camera every time you turn around. Since they first entered the "pro" dslr market with E-1 in 2004, there have only been 2 successors to their top-line camera segment - the E-3 (I have one) and the relatively recent E-5. Some might consider this a weakness of the brand. I don't.

All of that said, what I really like about Olympus is their introduction of mirror-less large sensor cameras - the µ4/3rd cameras. Currently, 95% of my picture making is done with a µ4/3rd camera, the Olympus E-P1 and, if all of the other 12 cameras in my house were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't care at all. E-P1 can use all of my Zuiko lenses but, that said, I love using the compact and relatively fast Zuiko / Lumix prime lenses - the Lumix 20mm f1.7 is almost permanently mated to my E-P1.

The E-P1/Lumix 20mm f1.7 lens combination makes picture making a dream. It's lightweight and unobtrusive. The metal body is as rugged as they get for anything but the most demanding picture making environments. The 20mm f1.7 lens (in conjunction with in-camera IS) allows low-light picturing without having to resort to high ISO settings. And, IMO (coupled with my 45 years of professional picture making experience with 8×10 and 4×5 view cameras, medium-120 format, and 35mm camera equipment), the image quality is superb.

To be certain the 4/3rd sensor format, µ4/3rd or otherwise, does have its limitations. Although, for all but the most obsessive and spec-oriented pixel peepers, when the cameras are used with picture making savvy, the results are simply fantastic.

In fact, I can state that, without a single reservation, I could use the E-P1 for all - pro/commercial and personal/art - of my picturing needs and nary a complaint or excuse would be heard or needed.