civilized ku # 382 ~ damn it - a clarification

Flowers arrangement ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenYesterday's entry, damn it raised a couple responses, not the least of which was the wife's admonition to "don't even think about it" which was followed by some vague notions re: finding an apartment uptown and the sanctity of marriage. But, Anil Rao was far less confrontational in his comments. Re: comment # 1:

1) Why not "exquisite BW pictures" or even just "exquisite pictures?" Would those pictures have been less worthy if they were not made using Hasselblad gear?

To be clear, I used the phrase "Exquisite BW Hasselblad Pictures!" because, within a nano-second or less of seeing the pictures (through the gallery window), I knew without a doubt that the pictures had been made with a Hasselblad camera. I knew this for a fact by drawing upon years of experience of viewing "Exquisite BW Hasselblad Pictures", during which time I became quite familiar with the "signature look" of a Hasselblad picture. And, have no misgivings about it, there is a signature Hasselblad look.

Now, it's is probably more accurate to state that it is actually the signature look of Carl Zeiss optical glass than it is of the Hasselblad camera body/mechanics. Much has been written about the legendary Zeiss lenses, some of it fan-boy ravings but most of it quite accurate and justified. The lens, especially when mated to a two-and-a-quarter negative, deliver a print quality - clarity, sharpness, luminescence, smoothness, tonality - that is unmatched in the picture making world.

That said, my descriptive phrasing re: the pictures in question, was a reaction not so much to the picture's intellectual / emotional expressive qualities but rather to their look and feel as tactile objets d'art - the print, in and of itself, as a thing, a physical object. To wit, an object of great beauty. And, from my experience with such things, it was obvious to me that their tactile beauty was inexorably linked to their Hasselblad-ness.

However, let me be clear on one point. I am certain that the picture maker would have / could have achieved the same degree of intellectual / emotional expression - such as it is to be found in her pictures - by any number of other camera-based means. And, depending upon one's POV vis-a-vis her expression (re: her I/E POV), one might be inclined to describe the pictures as just "exquisite pictures".

civilized ku # 381 ~ damn it

GaleriePangee ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenWhile walking the streets of Montreal's Old City, most notably Rue St. Paul est, we came upon a gallery that had never attracted our attention in past strolls through the area. What caught my attention on this occasion was an exhibit of BW pictures which, upon seeing them through the gallery window, just screamed, loud and clear, "Exquisite BW Hasselblad Pictures!"

So, in we went, and sure enough, the gallery walls were hung with a couple dozen Exquisite BW Hasselblad Pictures. The exhibit pictures were from of Valérie Jodoin Keaton's Backstage body of work and the inkjet prints were supremely, exquisitely, and delightfully drop-dead gorgeous.

Now, I'll admit that I was not familiar with any of the pictured musicians - neither my cup o' tea or my "generation" - but the net effect of the exhibit was to instill in me a consummate desire to dump all of my digital stuff, get me a Hassey with 40mm and 50mm lenses, buy me some color negative film, then buy me a high-end (IMACON?) scanner, and then ... start making me some of them-there exquisite Hasselbald pictures.

civilized ku # 378-80 ~ color, shapes, and texture

Hydrant, ice, and shadow ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Streetscape color, shapes, and texture ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenWhen I am out picture making, my current MO is to be especially aware of life in pictures and relationships opportunities. However, I do keep an open eye / mind for any other picture making possibilities that present themselves to my eye.

Consequently, when a walk through Montreal's Old City yielded not a single opportunity for adding to either of my ongoing series, my eye turned to other things. Shapes, color, and texture seemed to be the thing that was grabbing my attention.

FYI, all weekend, I never took the 20mm f1.7 lens off the camera. And, only on a couple of occasions - when the light required it - did I picture with anything but a wide-open aperture.

civilized ku # 377 ~ pre-game beer

Pre-game warmup ~ Bell Centre - Montreal, CA• click to embiggenWhile the Pens and Habs go through their pre-game warmups, the wife enjoys a pre-game warmup beer.

Great seats. Lousy game. The Pens played like they hadn't played in 4 days, which, in fact they hadn't. The seats, which are season ticket seats owned by one of the wife's client's father, are great. Front row balcony near the corner where the Pens shoot twice is about as good as it gets for me.

If we were to buy season tickets, these are the ones I would want. While the action is not as in-your-face as it would be closer to the ice, the flow of the game and, as a bonus, the sound of the players yakking and squawking and "expressing" themselves is quite readily discernible.

In any event, despite the Pens rather pathetic performance, attending a hockey game in Montreal is always a treat.

Update on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 11:59AM by gravitas et nugalis

It has been suggested - by someone who shall remain anonymous - that the wife "is officially a puck bunny now."

FYI

Since I am still in Montreal - since Saturday's Pens v Canadians - there will not be a picture entry until much later today / this evening.

So far, I have managed to make a couple life in pictures, relationship, and misc round-about-town pictures. There are no specific picture-making plans for today, but, as always, a camera will be hanging from my body.

civilized ku # 376 ~ psychic

Readings $5 ~ E5th Street, NYC • click to embiggenI don't know about y'all but I don't need no stinking crystal ball to know that the future is a scary place. As my friend Scary Joey always says - he pronounces it, sayzz, "Be scared. Be very a-scared".

civilized ku # 373-75 ~ devolving into mindless slugs

NY's Grand Canyon • click to embiggenAn item of note in yesterday's newspaper caught my attention. The headline read - Youth lose interest in blogs. That was immediately followed by - Could it be that blogs have become online fodder for - gasp! - more mature audiences?

The article went on to state that young people - roughly ages 12-29 - are losing interest in long-form blogging and are turning their attention - such as it is - to communication forms that are increasingly brief (and mobile). One 18 year old student, who uses Facebook and Twitter, states that "people these days don't find reading that fun".

The notion that callow and feckless youth, or the nation as a whole for that matter, has been steadily losing interest in reading is not exactly a new idea. However, much like climate change, the pace of that change has been greatly exacerbated / accelerated by man and his inventions.

All of that said, this "brevity" disorder doesn't bode well for the future of picture making / viewing, the notion of reading a photograph:

I feel that photography is becoming like T.V. Many people just want a graphic, easy image. My teacher said that a photo must communicate in less than 5 seconds, the amount of time people look at photos. However, this practice often leaves the "quiet pictures"(according to William Albert Allard) and "the second lookers" (according to Dorothea Lange) out in the cold. To me, "quiet pictures" are like crossword puzzles. But some people do not like crossword puzzles because they it forces them to think. - James Lalropui Keivom

A surprising number of "serious" picture makers - in fact I would posit the majority thereof - are already committed to making, for themselves and preferring in the pictures made by others, pictures that are purely visual in their intent and appeal - photography-lite, so to speak. Pictures that are easily consumed, digested and forgotten.

CAVEAT: much photography-lite is made with the intent of preserving personal memories / experiences. Those pictures, while they might be easily digested, will not easily be forgotten by those who made them and, in fact, are often destined to become the loci and, in fact, the actual foci of many precious memories.

Now, I am not suggesting that there was ever a golden era of reading a photograph. Far from it. In fact and in deed, reading a photograph, a photograph that is/was worth reading, has always been a rather elite (some might say, "effete") activity. It has been ever thus that...

There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman*. - Patrick Kavanagh

But, that said, isn't the arc of human development and evolution been such that the "higher" forms of life are the ones that survive and thrive? Shouldn't we be fostering and encouraging the idea of in-depth analysis / consideration of things (you know, things like life, art, politics, etc.) rather than cursory, faint, and "brief" dabbling - mainly for pleasure and a quick fix - as an MO for modern living?

*I don't know why Patrick Kavanagh chose policeman as an example of the shallow / surface understanding of Art. I would have used the nomenclature, "average smuck" (no matter how "educated"), or words to that effect.

life in pictures # 6b ~ wild at heart - re: reading a photograph

Wild At Heart ~ v3 • click to embiggenThanks to one and all who took the time and made the effort to comment on life in pictures # 6/6a. Your comments were helpful to me in clarifying a number of issues that I had regarding both pictures.

That said, the most clarifying comment was left by Paul Maxim who stated:

... Even if it's only in the imagination of the viewer (of the photograph), the people in the image need to be seen as being 'connected' to the display itself. There has to be something that links the people in the mall to the display. Otherwise I'm left to wonder whether I'm supposed to be looking at the people or the display. There has to be a connection.

In photo # 1, I must admit to having been visually seduced by the little girl in pink but bothered by the fact that she was interacting with the window display. In photo # 2, I both liked and disliked the fact that there were 2 sets of eyes making eye connect with the viewer of the picture but, ultimately, I was bothered that the 2nd set of eyes (on the passerby) was too dominate.

That said, and what I appreciated about Paul's comment was the fact that Paul got it so completely and utterly wrong. His notion that "the people in the image need to be seen as being "connected" to the display", at least so on a visual level, is actually quite antithetical to my concept behind the life in pictures pictures - the fact that so many people are not consciously aware of the ubiquitous, pervasive and, perhaps, ultimately deleterious presence that advertising images play in their daily lives.

If one had taken the time to click on the "life in pictures" link under the Journal Categories section of the sidebar as part of his/her opinion-forming exercise, it should have been readily apparent that none of the pictured "participants" in the pictures were interacting / connected to the eye-contact marketing / advertising referents in the pictures. They were, in fact, seemingly unaware / oblivious to - again, on a conscious level - the eyes of "big brother" that were upon them. Which, of course, is the point of this series.

Thanks to Paul, by having thoughtfully reminded me of that concept (by totally missing it), I have removed the girl in pink picture from the life in pictures works. However, that left me with the dilemma of the 2 sets of eyes in picture # 2.

I actually like the passerby eye contact with the camera - it actually denotes a sense of being observed (as opposed to being oblivious about one's surroundings), if not by "big brother" (advertising wise) then at least by the eye of camera - which makes things really interesting (IMO) because now the viewer of the picture can contemplate (as Paul states, "to wonder") the idea of, not 2, but 3 sets of eyes. Or, even more accurately, 4 sets of eyes when one includes the eyes of the viewer of the picture.

And, that's a big part of the concept behind the life in pictures series - cognitive observation, or, the absence thereof.

However, as mentioned, I was bothered by the visual dominance of the passerby's eye contact with the eye of the camera. Eventually it became clear to me that, with the addition of another passerby and the shifting of the eye contact with the camera closer to the edge of the picture, that eye contact became less dominate and more "complimentary" to the proceedings.

So, with my apologies to the "purists" in the crowd, I put the couple into a third variation I had made - one with just one passerby. A picture that I had previously rejected because it was too un-peopled. IMO, that little PS slight-of-hand balances the picture out quite nicely.

And, Paul - FYI, the point of the life in pictures pictures, especially when viewed as a body of work, is to leave viewers "to wonder" about the connection between the people depicted therein and the eyes of "big bother" that are upon them. So, since the picture left you wondering, you at least got that part right (insert smiley face here).