civilized ku # 2422 ~ new light, new sight

Xpress Mart ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenWe've had a couple days of sunshine, something we haven't had much of lately. To my eye and sensibilities, with the hard light which homes with sunshine, new shapes, form, and color emerge, turning familiar sights / scenes into a whole new visual incarnation.

Not better, just different - after all, there is no such thing as good/bad light.

squares² # 8 ~ common beauty / beauty in common

• click to embiggenRelative to the recent comment deletion dustup, there's a really good / pertinent read by Bill Jay (scroll down to Confessions of a Feisty Romantic: An open letter).

Bill Jay has been something akin to a role model for me, writing wise (FYI, so has Gore Vidal). Both individuals, in their writings, tended to be rather direct in a "no use prevaricating about the bush" kinda way. However, despite that shared M.O., one had the feeling that Jay delivered his sharp-edged criticisms with a bit more humor-esque warmth (relatively speaking) than did the more acerbic Mr. Vidal, who said of himself, "I’m exactly as I appear. There is no warm, lovable person inside. Beneath my cold exterior, once you break the ice, you find cold water".

In any event, in case you don't read the Jay essay, here are a few excerpts:

.... name-calling .... If a critic engages any issue with concrete, vivid and energetic prose then he/she will be always open to the same charge. I cannot see that any of us can enlarge the debate about meaningful issues, or attack any idea or ideology, or make a stand on any topic without explicitly or implicitly stating that those with whom we disagree are misguided, short-sighted, muddle-headed or corrupt! And, of course, we must accept that our opponents will make the same accusations against us. It is the clash of two flints which produces sparks. And it is the conflict of tough, sharp opinions which generate the light and heat necessary for catalytic changes in photographic direction. Like the flints, the critic's arguments should be brittle and delivered with directed force at each other from opposing directions.

.... the problem with photographic writing today: very few critics are willing to be targets for counter-attacks, so they duck and weave and dodge in a maddening effort to avoid any reader knowing where they stand on any issue. Why would they care whether or not they are "targets"? The reason, I am convinced, is that they do not understand or have not learned a simple fact of professional relationships: the person is not the issue.

.... I dislike "insults". These are words aimed at the individual by name, not at the group mind-set or the issue. There is a huge difference between: "I think your ideas are stupid" and "You are a stupid person".

And finally, a great little bit in which Bill Jay sums up, in his answer to a question, my approach to writing about things picture making wise:

.... Terry Barrett ... [I]n a chapter exhorting and guiding readers who want to write about photography...asks: "Have you refrained from being and sounding dogmatic about your views?"

I hope not, Terry.

Without reservation, I'll second that answer.

civilized # 2416 ~ Il buono, il brutto e il cattivo

Vines on wall ~ Plattsburgh, NY• click to embiggenLast evening, I kinda got sucked into watching a Sergio Leone / Clint Eastwood / spaghetti western*, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The movie has been voted, by users of IMBd, as #5 on the IMDb Top 250 movies list. For whatever it's worth, the movie does not appear on the The National Society of Film Critics' 100 Essential Films list - a fact which could certainly spark a heated debate, re: mass market dreck vs. "serious" films. In any event, it was the title of the movie which got me thinking about making an entry about good art / bad art / ugly art.

First, let me make note of what I consider to be art - to be precise, anything made / created by anyone for the purpose of expressing their thoughts / feelings / on any subject / idea is, IMO, art. I hold to no artsy-fartsy high falutin' dictums regarding what is or is not art. It's all art, highbrow, lowbrow, or anything in between, it's all art. However ....

.... that written, just because it's all art does not mean that there is no distinction between various types of art.

I happen to subscribe to the idea that there are 2 overarching categories of art; Decorative art and Fine art. Each category has its own merits, chief amongst them being (without placing to fine a point on it); Decorative art tends to soothe the mind / emotions and is generally easy to access / appreciate, while Fine art tends to stimulate the mind / emotions and is a bit more complex to address / appreciate.

That written, postulating that it's all art, whatever category it falls into, does not mean that it's all good.

Despite the fact that it is very often suggested that what is good art and, conversely, what is bad art is "all in the eye of the beholder", that notion holds true regarding only an individual's opinion on the matter. And that is as it should be inasmuch as, who is better suited to determine what art an individual might acquire or appreciate (or make) in order to satisfy their very own personal preferences?

an aside: FYI, that is why, when writing about the medium of photography and its apparatus, I most always use the caveat / qualifier, "to my eye and sensibilities".

Personal eye-of-the-beholder preferences aside, there are a host of opinions from a host of sources who hold the keys to admittance into the pantheon of good art. Academics, curators, collectors (who vote with their $$ or $$$$$$$$$$), gallery directors, critics, amongst others, generally concur - although, to be certain, not always unanimously - on what is good art, bad art, and ugly art (IMO, both good and bad art can also be ugly).

Yes, their determinations are based upon their own personal preferences, but those preferences are weighted with in-depth knowledge of and experience with the medium and its apparatus, its movements / genres, and its history (to name just a few obvious considerations). Think what you may, re: these "experts", but the fact remains, collectively, they are the arbiters of the good, the bad and the ugly, Photography Division wise.

It should go without writing, some good art (perhaps a lot of good art) goes unnoticed or even ignored by the system. Even when noticed, the aforementioned arbiters are most concerned with identifying the best of the good over the merely good. It's simply a matter of quantity - not all good art gets the attention it deserves. However, some during-its-time good art which goes unnoticed or ignored, is often given belated recognition if the art has been preserved / archived in some fashion - think Vivian Maier** as an example.

Independent of those deciders is the great leveler, aka: time. Fads and movements come and go, personal preferences (individual and collective) come and go, but ultimately, it is the test of time which is the final arbiter of what good remains.

All of that written, make no mistake about it, in the art world there are arbiters, re: the good, the bad and the ugly, and what they decide matters and carries great weight in that world. They're not perfect, but, over time, they tend to get it right. To deny their existence and influence is pure folly and self-delusional thinking at its finest.

*a nickname for a broad sub-genre of Western films that emerged in the mid-1960s in the wake of Sergio Leone's film-making style and international box-office success. It was used by critics in USA and other countries because most of these Westerns were produced and directed by Italians.

**Yes John, I have the latest book of her pictures, Vivian Maier ~ out of the shadows, and, IMO, it's an absolute must-have for those who love the medium and its apparatus.

ku # 1229 ~ never neverland

Falls / Au Sable Chasm ~ Keeseville, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOn a recent entry, civilized ku # 2410-13 ~ the myth about talent, I deleted a comment left by Craig Tanner. Deleting comments is something I rarely do - deleting only 3 or 4 since I started blogging, nearly 7 years ago.

My reasons for deleting the comment in question were twofold - 1)the comment crossed my tolerance threshold, ad hominem wise. Phrases and statement such as "Hobsonian birthright " amongst others, and, most importantly, 2) Craig ended his comment with a little sermonette and an unsolicited endorsement for a self-help guru (borderline cult) - an action, IMO, somewhat akin to spamming.

Before deleting the comment, I gave consideration to editing out the ad hominem and self-help guru stuff but, quite frankly, the sermonette and self-help endorsement, whatever the merits of his comment, re: talent, just flat out pissed me off.

So, let me be perfectly clear ... Craig, or anyone, is welcome to comment with opposing points of view, re: my points of view. In fact, I encourage and welcome informed and cogent differing opinions. However, the moment a comment veers off course into ad hominem BS, the comment in question gets a one way ticket to never neverland.

civilized ku # 2415 ~ intelligence both acute and supple

Dawn's early light ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenIn the Art world, Photography Division wise, there are generally considered to be 2 types of picture makers - 1) photographers, and 2) artists who use photography. The former tend to make straight pictures predicated upon the actual world, while the latter tend to make concept pictures predicated upon an intellectual idea of one sort or another.

For quite a number of years, especially so since advent of university / graduate level photography departments (the spawning ground of the academic lunatic fringe), concept pictures and their makers have become the darlings of the gallery / museum / collector world. Straight pictures and their makers have, for the most part, been relegated to a minority position / standing, or relatively so.

While my picture making and viewing preference is heavily weighted toward straight pictures, I do have an appreciation for concept pictures which exhibit, visually wise, at least a nod toward the actual world. Amongst many examples of such straight / concept bridging pictures, I'll keep it all in the family and cite my son, the Cinemascapist, and his concept pictures, which despite their theatrical / cinematic visual look, could still be mistaken for the depiction of real world events and referents.

A significant part of my appreciation for straight pictures and their making was put forth by John Szarkowski in his seminal and still relevant book, THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S EYE:

The first thing the photographer learned was that photography dealt with the actual; he not only had to accept this fact, but to treasure it .... He learned that the world itself is an artist of incomparable inventiveness, and that to recognize its best works and moments, to anticipate them, to clarify them and make them permanent, requires intelligence both acute and supple.

As an addendum to that statement, I would add that, when viewing the clarified and permanent results of the efforts of picture makers with "intelligence both acute and supple", it requires intelligence both acute and supple - together with an ability and willingness to step outside of the confines of certainty and the practices of habitual seeing - in order to become engaged with an exploratory path of discovery.

All of that written, it may read like a litany of flapdoodle and green paint or elite/effete pointy-headed folderol, a case of much ado about nothing or making a mountain out of a mole hill (aka: the "simple" act of looking at a picture), but really, isn't that what moving beyond the pretty picture and photography as entertainment is all about?

ku # 1228 or civilized ku # 2414~ thoughts on the word "ku"

Apple orchard ~ Peru, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOK, apple trees are are part of the natural world but apple orchards are humankind made enterprises. So, is this diptych a ku or is it a civilized ku? Or, alternatively, is it just a couple of pictures thrown together for togetherness sake?

A bit of background (I'd use the word "history", but I'd never hear the end of it from the wife), re: the word "ku" - 6 years ago, I explained my use of the word in my picture naming convention here. Since that time, I have come across other notions and ideas of the use of the word, which have expanded my idea of Ku˜, such as this:

This paper presents a design project that explored the practice of “noticing”. Noticing is a way in and through which we are able to understand and create our relationship to space and place. The practice of noticing can facilitate awareness, reflection, learning and transformation. Noticing is a practice that enables us to engage with the concept of Ku˜, meaning “space”, in Japanese. In this project context, Ku˜ is interpreted as a space of potentiality rather than emptiness or nothingness. Engaging with Ku˜ through the practice of noticing can enable a transition from abstraction to meaning. Ku˜ can also be an expression of the ambiguous potential of design - ed: I will substitute "picturing making" for "design" throughout the rest of this writing - investigations: including knowing and the unknown, the limitations and the challenges. To practice picture making in this way is to step outside of the confines of certainty and embark on an exploratory path of discovery. Just as picture making is a way of engaging with space – to enunciate the unknown, to create meaning from the abstract – so too is noticing as a temporal practice of discovery and place making. Through the act of noticing the ambiguous openness of space is transformed into the connectedness of place. ~ from an academic paper, Engaging with Ku˜: from abstraction to meaning through the practice of noticing by Yoko Akama

That written, and of late, I have been thinking about my use of the word "ku" in my picture naming convention. That ruminating was instigated by several notions which have been randomly popping up in my head...

notion 1 - perhaps the word "ku" has become redundant and might better be relegated to use in an general artist statement regarding my picture making intentions.

notion 2 - at one time, I thought the distinction between my pictures of the natural world and those of the humankind made world were important enough to justify the separate nomenclatures of "ku" and "civilized ku". Whereas now, I have come to realize both picturing activities as part of the same act of "engaging with space".

notion 3 - in considering notions 1 and 2, I am leaning toward the idea of just going with simple descriptions, such as today's "Apple orchard, Peru, NY", as the only words accompanying my pictures.

notion 4 - in all of my separate bodies of work, the word "ku" is no where to be seen / read. In fact, other than simple titles for each body of work, there are no other words of any kind accompanying each picture.

Relative to notion 4, I have quite a few picture books - most notably, WILLIAM EGGLESTON 2¼* (highly recommended) - in which there are precious few words of any kind. In the Eggleston book, there is only a title page and a publisher's page (the last page in the book).

There are no intro, artist statement, or art-speak essays. The pictures have no titles or information of any kind. It is one of purest examples of let-the-pictures-speak-for-themselves I have ever viewed.

All of that written, I guess all I am saying is, don't be surprised if picture titles/names on this blog go the way of the Dodo bird - although, I will keep using journal category tags in order to facilitate the viewing of related pictures.

*Yes Virginia, there is a book of Eggleston pictures comprised of just some of his square pictures

kitchen life # 34 ~ Doubting Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

squares² # 7 ~ common beauty / beauty in common

civilized ku + ku ~ in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen