counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month
Subscribe
listed

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
Login

BODIES OF WORK ~ PICTURE GALLERIES

  • my new GALLERIES WEBSITE
    ADK PLACES TO SIT / LIFE WITHOUT THE APA / RAIN / THE FORKS / EARLY WORK / TANGLES

BODIES OF WORK ~ BOOK LINKS

In Situ ~ la, la, how the life goes onLife without the APADoorsKitchen SinkRain2014 • Year in ReviewPlace To SitART ~ conveys / transports / reflectsDecay & DisgustSingle WomenPicture WindowsTangles ~ fields of visual energy (10 picture preview) • The Light + BW mini-galleryKitchen Life (gallery) • The Forks ~ there's no place like home (gallery)


Entries from April 1, 2012 - April 30, 2012

Monday
Apr302012

civilized ku # 2187 ~ good beer  

Allagash Curieux ~ The Pour House / Westmont, NJ • click to embiggenLast Friday in my (un)beloved South Jersey, I imbibed an ale ($24.00US / 750ml bottle) by the name of Allagash Curieux (brewed in Maine). It is made by aging a Belgian-style Tripel Ale in Jim Beam bourbon barrels. After 8 weeks of aging the beer is blended back with a portion of fresh Tripel Ale. The result is a beer soft with coconut and vanilla notes, with hints of bourbon.

It's good. I liked it. If you like good beer, as opposed to the recycled urine-style beer favored by most Americans, I highly recommend it.

Thursday
Apr262012

matches # 1 ~ mimeme / mimesis (meme)

Matches • click to embiggenIrving Penn had his cigarette butts and litter, I'm doing matches and related ephemera. Penn pictured in B&W, I'm doing color. I'm purchasing some cotton gloves, don't know what Penn did.

Thursday
Apr262012

civilized ku # 2186 ~ sink circles

Bubbles ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen

...people say they need to express their emotions I'm sick of that. Photography doesn`t teach you to express your emotions it teaches you to see. ~ Berenice Abbott

Wednesday
Apr252012

civilized ku # 2183-85 ~ looking at pictures

1044757-17858111-thumbnail.jpg
Sleeping bag ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17858169-thumbnail.jpg
Peabodys ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17858185-thumbnail.jpg
Koffee Kat ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
In the wide wide world of picture making, everybody wants to know how to make a picture. On forums, blogs, and websites how-to Q&As abound. How-to-"master" x, y, and z books surround us like weeds in a deserted urban lot. Everybody wants to know the "secret" to making good pictures because, as everyone knows, making good pictures is a very complex affair, akin to Rocket Science.

Unfortunately for the terminally confused, everyone should know (if only the how-to industry would let them know) that there really are only 3 simple things, technique wise, one needs to grasp in order to make a good picture: 1) using aperture in conjunction with, 2) shutter-speed, and, 3) focusing. And, yes, those 3 things really are really simple, especially so with today's do-everything-for-you digital domain cameras.

Set the camera to "Auto", turn on the Auto Focus, point the camera at whatever and depress the shutter release. I mean, even my 7 year old grandson can "master" that stupendously difficult feat. In fact, he "mastered" it about 3 years ago. And, FYI, so has the wife.

Of course, "serious" amateurs like to get beyond the "auto" stage of things picturing making and that makes things a little more involved. I hesitate to use the word "complex" because, quite frankly, if it takes one more than a week or two to figure out how to go "manual", maybe one should consider sitting around and watching the telly as a hobby.

All of that said, there is another element to the making of good pictures which gets beyond the mechanics of making technically good pictures - the ability to see. In some cases, that ability comes rather easy / naturally. In others, it needs to be discovered and developed (inasmuch as that is possible).

IMO, the ability to see is the single most critical ability, re: the making of good pictures, to "master". Without it, one is reduced to making pictures with generic and stereotypical / formulaic what-to-picture and "how-to"-picture-it recipes. At which point, one might wish to join a camera club in the furtherance of such "skills".

However, that said, the ability to see which everyone desires to get a grip on is that which one employs with a camera in one's hand. To be certain, that is the desired end point of the picture making endeavor, but in order to get there (if seeing does not come easily or naturally) there is another kind of seeing one must also "master" - the ability to look at pictures and see beyond their referent, aka: content.

As an example, read what Sarah Malakoff - in an interview with Aline Smithson on her blog, LENSCRATCH - had to say about her Living Arrangement pictures (which are not unlike - but different from - my picture window series):

My photographs are examinations of the home as both a refuge from and at times a re-creation of the outside world. In my images, architecture and furnishings appear as uncanny symbols of culture, family, and nature. With the intentional exclusion of human occupants, my subjects spark curious speculation of their own. The private and personal are expressed in part by objects and signifiers which are displayed versus those which are hidden; what is allowed inside, and what is kept out. For example, doors and windows both frame exterior views and keep the elements at bay. Land, weather, and wildlife are ever present on the other side of the wall even as they are brought safely inside in the form of pattern, simulation, and domesticated animals. Ironically, both indoors and out equally project artifice.

These pictures speak to notions of comfort, class, and style as well as universal attempts to control and transcend our environment. Tensions, and often humor, appear between absence and presence, old and new, real and surreal, permanent and transient, genuine and artificial, the domestic and the natural worlds. The desire to resolve these tensions drives the viewer to create their own narrative and imagine possible inhabitants.

Now I am quite certain that there are those who consider Malakoff's statement to be pure unadulterated art-speak crapolla / flap-doodle. Much-to-do about nothing, so to speak. If that's your take on it, maybe Aline Smithson words, re; the same pictures, might better suit your fancy:

Sarah Malakoff's photographs explore the idea of home, but I am drawn to the formal study of spaces that are more than just rooms, they are rooms with elements of quirky expression, each with a surprise twist. I have to admit it, I'd like to hang out in these homes and meet the people who created these spaces. The lack of human evidence makes the work feel like a movie set, ready for the drama to unfold.

In either case (Malakoff and Smithson), both statements are addressing matters which go beyond the mere content /referent to be viewed in the pictures. They speak to ideas, concepts and the feelings instigated via the viewing of those pictures. Those pictures are more than just pictures. They not only illustrate the content / referents to be found therein but also attempt to illuminate ideas and concepts and instigate feeling about the pictured content / referent as well.

IMO, illustrating and illuminating ideas and concepts and instigating feelings (beyond "wow") are the sine qua non of good picture making. Recognizing, or learning to do so, such ideas, concepts, and instigated feelings in one's self - that is to state, getting beyond mere appearances and becoming engaged with what else a picture - is about is the bedrock of understanding what the possibilities of the medium and its apparatus are all about.

That said, what anyone recognizes in picture beyond its content is open to interpretation. In the example cited above, one need not see each and every idea and concept or experience the same feelings as those seen and experienced by the artist and/or her critic. Each individual will see and experience things/feelings which spring from the well of their own personal knowledge and experience and, IMO, that is the genius of good art.

All of the preceding said, I have little doubt about the benefit of seeking out and viewing, with one's mind and feelings fully engaged, good pictures as means to discovering and developing one's ability to see, picture making wise. Think of picture making and viewing as a verbal vernacular (which, in the visual sense, it actually is) - once you grasp the language you can use it to get involved in the conversation.

A QUESTION: How do you look at pictures? And, does that, in any manner, influence the way you make pictures?

Tuesday
Apr242012

single women # 21 / civilized ku # 2181-82 ~ picturing made easy

Single woman / indoor water park ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen1044757-17838181-thumbnail.jpg
Green baby dinosaur ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17838202-thumbnail.jpg
Blue lockers ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
This past weekend it was cold and rainy, so, on Saturday afternoon, the wife and I took Hugo and his Au Sable Forks friend to a small indoor water park. While the kids were sliding and frolicking, I parked my butt in a poolside chair and made some pictures, all the while never leaving the chair. Picture making doesn't get much easier than that.

Friday
Apr202012

picture window # 46 ~ more (non-toilet) Spring light

A picture window ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenWhen asked by an interviewer, “How do you make great art”, Robert Mapplethorpe stated, “If I knew I’d stop.”

Thursday
Apr192012

civilized ku # 2172-80 ~ holism

1044757-17765296-thumbnail.jpg Caution ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen1044757-17765304-thumbnail.jpg
Capitol bldgs ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
1044757-17765324-thumbnail.jpg
Tree ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17765425-thumbnail.jpg
Planes ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
1044757-17765449-thumbnail.jpg
Trinity ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17765460-thumbnail.jpg
Curves ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
1044757-17765659-thumbnail.jpg
Tree ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17765675-thumbnail.jpg
E 4th Street ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17765768-thumbnail.jpg
Red car ~ near Malone, NY • click to embiggen
On civilized ku # 2162 Colin Griffiths wrote (in part):

Over the last few years, I've steered away from "chasing light" ... I've made a determined effort to photographically explore things on my doorstep instead and I've been amazed ... A few years ago, I'd never have believed that I could have found the quantity or variety of beautiful, pleasing and interesting things that I have ... I do believe however, that it's a very personal journey when it comes to trying to share with folk an understanding what we are trying to achieve.

my response: IMO, I do not believe that a "personal journey" is all that difficult "when it comes to trying to share with folk an understanding what we are trying to achieve". In fact, I think it's rather easy.

The "secret" to sharing your personal journey with your intended audience is easy when you present your "journey" as a series of pictures which are intended to be viewed all at once. That is to say, in a book (POD), in a folio, on a web gallery, or, perhaps best of all, on the walls of an actual gallery. Of those 4 possibilities, the first 3 are in a picture makers control. The actual gallery thing, aka: an exhibition, is a decision made by a third party.

In all of those sharing possibilities, a well written (but simple and concise) intro or artist's statement is a must. I have rarely, if ever, encountered any of the above methods of sharing which do not have such a statement/intro. Unless you are intent upon a form of sharing that is a guessing game, communicating to your viewers your picturing intentions and motivations matter.

A case in point - a friend of the wife, who is about as un-artistic as a person can be (the walls of her house are "decorated" with family snapshots, about a zillion dead and stuffed animal trophies, and, to her credit, 1 of my landscape pictures), is given to viewing my POD picture books. To state the least, I am constantly amazed at her almost universal appreciation and like of those books/pictures. In most cases, I get the sense that she is surprised at her appreciation and like of those items, inasmuch as her comments almost always include the statement, "I would never thought of taking pictures of that." I also suspect that, if I were to, from time to time, show her single prints of the same work, her response would be very different.

IMO, no matter how prolific and promiscuous one's picture making might be, treating and sharing them in a holistic* manner is the best way, if not the only way, to go.

*holism: the theory that whole entities, as fundamental components of reality, have an existence other than as the mere sum of their parts.

Wednesday
Apr182012

civilized ku # 2163-71 ~ prolific photographic promiscuity

1044757-17738335-thumbnail.jpg
Pyramid ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
1044757-17738446-thumbnail.jpg
Valves ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17738474-thumbnail.jpg
Restaurant ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17738544-thumbnail.jpg
Construction ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17238763-thumbnail.jpg
Red house ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17738679-thumbnail.jpg
Fishin' ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17738783-thumbnail.jpg
Main Street ~ Malone, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17738810-thumbnail.jpg
Onion rings ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
1044757-17738867-thumbnail.jpg
Les armes ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
It has been claimed that, of all the pictures ever made, 90% of them have been made in the last 10 years. Don't quote me on that because I may have my facts and figures wrong, but they are pretty damn close to what I remember reading somewhere (but I can't remember where).

In any event, suffice it to state, we are making pictures at an incredible rate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that rate is driven by the proliferation of picture making devices, their ease of use and portability, and the negligible cost of making pictures (assuming one doesn't make prints or, if so, not many of them). Making a picture has never been so easy, convenient, and low cost as it is today.

This picturing proliferation is not limited to just the camera phone toting trolls or the soccer moms and teens with P&S cameras who snap away at anything and everything. In fact, the ease / convenience / low cost factor has also created an explosion of picture making within the "serious" amateur crowd as well. The evidence of that can be found everywhere online - photo blogs, photo sharing sites, photo forums, et al.

In my own picturing endeavors, I can reasonably state that I have, over the past 10 years since jumping on the digital bandwagon, made at least as many pictures as I had made in my entire 30+ years professional picturing life. Most of that recent (10 years) digital picture making activity has been devoted to the making of art, not in the cause of commerce.

That said, I have amassed 4,000+ "final" pictures in that time frame. Many of those pictures fall into individual and separate bodies of work but, in fact, most do not, other than in a very broad sense. As an example, about 30-40% of the pictures could legitimately be labeled "landscape" or "nature". That group could be further divided into sub-categories such as near, middle ground, and distant.

However, the balance of my pictures do not fit under any single umbrella other than a very broad label of "observations" - things seen in my daily life. For a considerable length of time, that broad-based body of work, which defies an easy categorical organization, has given me fits of ongoing what-the-hell-is-it? angst.

To wit, the Art World, Photography Division, is much given to the appreciation of - one could even say, "demanding of" - tight and tidy / coherent bodies of work. Prolific and promiscuous bodies of work are not looked upon as particularly worthy of consideration. Such bodies of work are thought to be lacking in a singularly coherent and discernible underlying theme, concept, or consistency of "vision".

In many cases - "serious" amateurs who jump all over the effect / technique picturing landscape, as an example - I'm not certain I would disagree with such an assessment. However ....

.... IMO, in light of the new picture making paradigm - which is nothing if not prodigiously prolific and promiscuous - a new way a thinking about and dealing with pictures called for. That is not to state that the tight and tidy, well focused body of work is a thing of the past. I am certain it will not be disappearing anytime soon. However, I am equally certain that there is a new manner of making, if not thinking about and dealing with, large and categorically diverse bodies of work.

Consistency of vision is not inconsistent with large diverse bodies of work. What is inconsistent with them is trying to view and understand them by employing the traditional / classic way of thinking.

We live in a media saturated culture where we are bombarded with images and messages. Stimulation, especially by means of our visual senses, is all around us. We are told, in our working lives, to develop the skill of multi-tasking. Information comes at us like a runaway freight train. If you can't go with the flow, you might better get out of the way.

Many have learned to swim rather sink in this deluge, some have not been so fortunate. In the Art World, Photography Division, many of the classically trained thinkers, critics, curators, gallery directors, et al are, if not swimming against the current, not exactly embracing it either. My belief is that many of them are not especially thrilled with the idea of (figuratively speaking) trying to herd cats, especially art cats.

I would be foolish to state that the wave of the new paradigm of prolific photographic promiscuity will be swamping the academic, institutional, or gallery world boat anytime soon. Those fortresses are well entrenched and will not loosening their grip on the Art World without a struggle.

In the meantime, a flood of interesting and "vision"-ary picture will continue to be made and make their presence known and, IMO, felt and understood.