civilized ku # 3014-17 ~ Pittsburgh miscellanea

Jack's corner window ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
Kelly O's Diner ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
rusting bridge girder ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
colorful bush ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen

Quite a few other referents other than urban flora pricked my eye and sensibilities while I was In Pittsburgh.

picture windows # 69 / signs # 12 ~ carrying on

dormer window ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
signs ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
book covers • click to embiggen

During my recent visit to Pittsburgh, I was able to add a couple pictures to 2 existing bodies of work - picture windows and signs / information overload.

FYI, while I have already made a POD book, Signs / The Signifer & The Signified: information overload, I have yet to post, for your viewing pleasure and entertainment, the gallery on this blog. Will do so within the next week.

The picture windows book/gallery can be accessed through the link in the BODIES OF WORK list at the top of this page.

civilized ku # 3013 / diptych # 194 / squares² # 12 ~ "terrible crap"

urban flora ~Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
urban flora ~Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
urban flora ~Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen

I few entries back I wrote about my reading of a-person-not-a-dective-but-functioning-as-one novel and the protagonist's view on the affected art world (aka: the academic lunatic fringe). As I continue reading through the series of books featuring the same protagonist*, I have encountered a number of other of the protagonist's pronouncements on the subject of art, including this exchange with an artist .... When asked, after making an insightful comment on a woman's painting, if he is a "Member of the club" ....

"Hell, woman, I even know the trick words that mean absolutely nothing. Like dynamic symmetry."

"Tonal integrity?" (she responded)

"Sure. Structural perceptions. Compositionally iconoclastic."

She laughed aloud ... "It's such terrible crap, isn't it? The language of gallery people and critics, and insecure painters ...."

After this exchange the artist asked the protagonist what "his words" on the subject of good art might be. His response ....

"Does a painting always look the same or will it change according to the light and how I happen to feel? And after it has been hung for a month, will it disappear so completely that the only time I might notice it would be if it fell off the wall?"

That exchange comes very close to my feelings and thoughts as applied to art in general and photography in particular.

While the surface of a photographic print doesn't change with the light that falls upon it (although the perception of color may) as can the textured surface of a painting, a good photograph (like any good art) has the ability to re-engage a viewer, over time and with repeated viewing, with different perceptions - the prick of one's eye and sensibilities - of a picture based upon the different feelings and emotions the viewer brings to the viewing thereof over time.

IMO, all art is personal - as made by the maker and as seen by the viewer - and breaking down its individual components via the discussion of "terrible crap", iMo, sucks the life out of a piece of art.

Think of it this way .... I've seen some visually amazing and engaging pieces of Lego constructions. Some on a massive scale and complexity. While I wouldn't label them exactly as Fine Art - although some might - nevertheless, they are the result of some individual's very creative thought and execution.

Be that as it may, their artistic genius is in the sum of their parts - quite literally, thousands of parts. The genius is not to be found in the parts themselves. Looking at the individual parts does little to enhance the viewing experience. In fact, by directing one's attention to the individual parts (dissecting it), one stands a good chance of missing the "Big Picture".

iMo, the "Big Picture" is all about how a picture pricks the eye and sensibilities of a viewer well beyond the initial viewing. The whys (often quite arcane / tedious) and the hows (often quite speculative) of it - things so precious the academic lunatic fringe and their cohorts - are, for the most parts, sidebars which, as afterthoughts, may provide the viewer with some understanding of how the how and why of a picture may affect one's feelings about and perceptions of that picture.

However, I never read or think about the hows and the whys until well after a picture or body of work has pricked my eye and sensibilities. Because, iMo, it's all about the picture, in and of itself.

*Travis McGee, the fictional character featured in 21 crime fiction books written - 1964-1980 - by John D. MacDonald. Travis McGee, the character and the novels, have the prototype for many fictional crime fighting characters. On that subject it is worth noting that, with the rerelease of his novels, all of the books have an introduction by Lee Child (nom de plume of Jim Grant), the creator of the character Jack Reacher, a-person-not-a-dective-but-functioning-as-one, and that series of books (20 and counting).

civilized ku # 3012 / diptych # 193 ~ under bridges

Pirates mural ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
under bridges ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen

If I were to be in Pittsburgh and had exhausted all of the urban flora picturing possibilities - don't know how that would be possible other than just saying, "Ok. Enough is enough." - the other ubiquitous referent for picturing making would undoubtedly be bridges or, in my case, under bridges.

Pittsburgh reputedly has more bridges than Venice, Italy. It is known by the moniker "The City Of Bridges". And that is very appropriate inasmuch as, according to a 2006 study, there are 446 bridges in Pittsburgh.

Whatever the number of bridges, there can be no doubt that the opportunity to make pictures under bridges is just around every corner.