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 February 1, 2011 - February 28, 2011

Monday
Feb282011

civilized ku # 872 ~ on idiocracies and confederacies of dunces, pt II

1044757-11024857-thumbnail.jpg
Dining room window view ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Yesterday, while pursuing the picture maker blog-o-sphere, I came across a link to an incredibly inane and idiotic (see entry above re: my crankiness) "discussion" about what constitutes a "real" photographer. FYI, I am providing no links to the either of the blogs simply because I don't wish to start a flame war with the opinions I am about to express in ...

Encounter/exhibit # 2 (see above entry for # 1) - Granting that the originator of the idiotic idea that there are "real" photographer as opposed to ... what? ... "unreal" / non-real photographers? ... may simply be the victim of his/her own ineptitude, re: the use of the word "real", I still don't understand what purpose is served by attempting to determine what it is that makes a picture maker a "real" photographer as opposed to ... ??????

I mean, get real. A photographer is a person who makes/takes pictures with a camera (or some other still image capture device).

Assuming that the person in question is an actual human being and not, say, a replicant - although apparently even replicants have a relationship to/with photographs (as a part of creating "memories"), I would conclude that every person who makes/takes pictures with a camera is a "real" photographer.

Perhaps this idea of "real" vs not "real" comes from the idea that, picturing making wise, the wheat needs to separated from the chaff, although, for what purpose I don't know. That, in order to be consider as "real", a picture maker must conform to certain standards (and 11 conditions/characteristics are suggested) that denote "seriousness", that is, a requisite and demonstrable seriousness of intent to make good/great pictures.

In response to this idiotic idea, some have suggested that the difference between "real" and non-real is not the point. That the "real" point is the what constitutes the distinction between good photographers and bad photographers.

However, IMO, whatever the idea, the entire concept is utter hogwash, completely inane, and a total waste of time.

No matter the "real"ness or seriousness any given picture maker may possess, if he/she is making pictures with a camera, he/she is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker's pictures are judged to be "good" or "bad", he/she is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker makes pictures with a M/mickey M/mouse (literally/ figuratively) camera or the latest/greatest techno picture making gadget in the universe, he/she is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter what techniques are employed or what effort it required to make a picture, whoever made it is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker's pictures get noticed or not, he/she is a real photographer.

And, the idea that there are rules, characteristics, or traits that define what is or is not a real / serious / successful / photographer or that those rules, characteristics, or traits are what picture makers should aspire to in order to gain "real"ness, be deemed "serious", or judged to be "good" or "bad" is so far off the mark of what it is to be a photographer that, IMO, it qualifies as little more than senseless navel gazing when, in fact, one should be gazing at the world around him/herself and be making pictures.

In short, just get on with making pictures and, in that pursuit, being the best that you can, want, or need to be.

Really. I'm serious.

Sunday
Feb272011

civilized ku # 871 ~ re: tech talk

1044757-10867737-thumbnail.jpg
Bad peas ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Many thanks to John Linn for his comments re: my pictures:

... I know you do not like to talk technique on these pages but I do admire your craftsmanship and, in some forum, would like to know more about your process of picture making. The depth of tonal quality you achieve in your photos is impressive. I can learn from your approach to subject and composition but I would like to know more.

However, I did not feature John's comments just to bask in the egocentric (to me) warmth of his words. As nice as that is, what struck me about his comments was the fact that I have recently been contemplating the notion of sharing my post-picturing image processing and print making techniques. Not so much if I should do so, but rather, if I decide to do so (I'm leaning in that direction), how to do so.

The other nagging question relative to all of this is all about $$$$ - should I do so out of the kindness and generosity of my heart, or, should I try to make some moola (not to be confused, in these trying times, with "mulla")? In light of the fact that pitcher makin' been bery, bery good to me, not to mention my Catholic mission-baby upbringing, there is the notion of "giving back" but, since I did it all on my own, exactly who is it am I suppose to give back to?

There are no school, institution, guild, trade union, mentor, or other affiliations to which/whom I am indebted. Sure, perhaps a tip of the hat is due to my Uncle Sam who sent me, all expenses paid, to Japan where I first "discovered" picture making, bought a camera, taught myself a bunch of picture making stuff, and eventually made pictures in the service of that same Uncle. On the other hand, I already gave him 2 years of my life, so I consider that debt to be paid in full.

All of that said, I am leaning in the direction of making some $. Not $$$$$, but rather, a little bit of $. That's because: 1) once I start answering technical / technique questions - let's say, on a separate blog - I am relatively certain that it's going to feel just like work. In fact, it will be work, and, 2) in order to do it right, it's going to take time, a lot of time ... be it online or face-to-face.

In any event, within the next 7-10 days, I will be announcing how I intend to implement a series of online and in-person workshops.

Friday
Feb252011

civilized ku # 870 ~ from the 7th floor of the Genetti Hotel

1044757-11004242-thumbnail.jpg
Ross Club (private) and bare tree ~ Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen

Tuesday
Feb222011

civilized ku # 868-69 ~ use caution

1044757-11003734-thumbnail.jpg
Toilet stall ~ Genetti Hotel - Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
1044757-11003839-thumbnail.jpg
Urinals ~ Genetti Hotel - Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
I can state without any reservation, do not enter this restroom - off the lobby and 4th Street Grille at the Genetti Hotel in Williamsport, PA - while under the influence of any hallucinogenic substance.

Seriously. I wasn't in a drug induced state, I was merely shagged out from a 7 hour drive, the last 2 hours of which were night driving on very narrow roads through some very mountainous twisty bits. After we arrived, safe and sound, in Williamsport and I stepped into this restroom, I totally lost my earthly bearings.

I didn't know whether to pee or wind my watch. It was really kinda freaky.

Tuesday
Feb222011

civilized ku # 867 ~ outside in upside down

1044757-10813364-thumbnail.jpg
Ceiling / mirror ~ Red Robin Diner - Binghamton, NY • click to embiggen

Tuesday
Feb222011

civilized ku # 866 ~ buenosdias

1044757-10962869-thumbnail.jpg
Casa del Sol ~ Saranac Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

Monday
Feb212011

civilized ku # 861-65 ~ the good, the bad, & the ugly

1044757-10963242-thumbnail.jpg
102 W 4th Street ~ Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
1044757-10963345-thumbnail.jpg
Miele & Rymsza ~ Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
1044757-10963395-thumbnail.jpg
Rialto Theater ~ "downtown" Canton, PA • click to embiggen
1044757-10977887-thumbnail.jpg
Hoyer's Photo Supply ~ Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
1044757-10977935-thumbnail.jpg
Tree and shadow ~ Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
During my recent visit to Williamsport, PA, I took a walk down 4th Ave. - what appeared to be "Main Street" - for the primary purpose of stopping in at Hoyer's Photo Supply. The wife had pointed out the store as I was driving / negotiating some street construction on the way to our hotel and I thank her for that observation because it gave me some hope that there might be something to do in Williamsport. As it turned out, the walk to Hoyer's provided an opportunity for some picture making that speaks to the best and worst of architectural awareness in the good 'ole US of A.

the Good - as evidenced in the top 3 pictures in this entry, there are those who recognize (and work to restore / preserve it) a good thing when they see it. As is true of most cities, villages, and towns in the good 'ole US of A, there are many buildings and structures which are wonderful examples of a rich and varied American architectural heritage - buildings and structures which have been maintained and preserved by ... let's say ... "educated" owners.

the Bad (part I)- unfortunately, there are many more such buildings and structures that either no longer exist or are in such a state of disrepair that they are beyond salvation. Many of the buildings and structures that no longer exist were victims of that great American movement called "urban renewal" (sometimes referred to as "nigger removal") - a movement that simply wiped out many vibrant communities in physically deteriorating neighborhoods.

Add to that widespread stupidity the neglect and milk-it-till-the-milk-runs-dry mentality / MO of many in the American Real Estate Investor class who purchased what could have been restored / renovated architectural gems and just simply (and literally) ran them into the ground, what you are left with, after the "investors" (aka - blood suckers) get their cash, is, quite literally, nothing.

& the Ugly - then there is that other class of architectural idiocracy, the tasteless renovation morons. The Tree and shadow picture in this entry is a perfect example of how this confederacy of dunces thinks and acts - IMO, these people could fuck up a wet dream. Seriously, what special class of tastelessness does it take to literally coverup (aka - "renovate"), in the most ugly manner possible, a building's or structure's architectural detail and heritage?

All of that said and on a picture making note, I would like to add an addendum, which has nothing to do with architecture ...

the Bad (part II) - Hoyer's Photo Supply store is one of an ever-shrinking example of what used to be a thriving enterprise, the Mom & Pop / independently owned and operated camera/photo supply store. While it is true that many of the online purveyors of camera gear and photo supplies are independently owned and operated, what is also true is that they can hardly be classified as a community-based meeting place for picture makers. Nearly gone are the days when one could walk into a photo store and have a chat with a friendly and knowledgeable salesperson like the one I encountered at Hoyer's. IMO, this is not a good thing.

Certainly, there are many reasons why this state of affairs exists, from manufacturers and consumers who have abandoned the small independent camera store and fled to the big box stores, to the abandonment of the urban shopping district - where most small independent camera stores are located - and the embrace of suburban shopping centers (aka - malls) where the big-box stores predominate, and to the simple fact that most consumers are interested only in price, not service.

That said, one of the most prominent situations contributing to the decline of photo stores is a self-inflicted one, the simple fact that most of them are owned and operated by old fogies. Hoyer's is a fine example of that fact - the staff therein was firmly rooted in the over-45-crowd, if not the over-50-crowd. However, to be more precise, while the over-40/50-crowd may not, in the physical/age sense, fit the exact definition of "old fogie", what I have found is that in many photo stores the management and staff think and act like old fogies.

What I mean by that is so many of the remaining photo stores I have visited are still doing business like they always have. While they have stocked the shelves with update-to-date products, their business model, based loosely on we're-the-only-game-in-town model (or one-of-the-only), is way behind the times. Even though the small photo stores can match the big-box/online prices, what they have failed to enhance and promote is what really differentiates them from the big boys - knowledgeable sales and service, that extra something that many consumers are starting to appreciate in an impersonal and volume-driven big-box/online world.

IMO, photo stores need to add a few knowledgeable digital-age youngsters to their staffs (ever visit a Best Buy?). They need to offer regular self-generated mini-workshop product demonstrations and events (based on digital age how-tos). And, since many of these stores have consolidated their inventories, why not free up some wall space for rotating picture exhibits by local picture makers and even organize and sponsor a few contests / competitions in co-operation with local events and organizations.

In short, traditional photo stores need to create some buzz - Hoyer's has a blog that creates more of a snooze than a buzz, the last entry (nearly 4 months ago) was basically a rehash of some "generic" PDN Photoplus Expo "news" - and start selling what the big boxes don't (and, IMO, can't) offer - heaping helpings of the joy of picture making. It just might be the means to survive for many of the remaining photo supply stores.

Monday
Feb212011

single men ~ birds do it , bees do it, even educated fleas do it ...

1044757-10938060-thumbnail.jpg
Reading and eating ~ Bullfrog Brewery - Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
11044757-10940901-thumbnail.jpg
Cell phone and eating ~ Bullfrog Brewery - Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
1044757-10940947-thumbnail.jpg
Bartender bartending ~ Bullfrog Brewery - Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
1044757-10940982-thumbnail.jpg
Salt/pepper grinder ~ Bullfrog Brewery - Williamsport, PA • click to embiggen
It's finally time for me to respond to Larry's comment re: my ideas about place and reconciling them with my professed doubts about my ability to make pictures for a single men series, i.e. pictures that compliment my single women series.

This response was instigated by Larry's comment ...

... My understanding of your discussion on "place" meant that one was intimately at home in that environment and I would think, the occupants of that environment. That would mean to me that the sexuality of the occupant was of no particular interest, but rather the interest is in expression, gesture, light or color of the subject matter .... [I]t should not matter to your language of seeing and place if you are in your "place" ... How does this inability fit into your sense of "place"? There seems to be a gap here.

my response: In my various ruminations re: place, I was primarily referring to place as a geo/typo-graphic location. On hindsight, perhaps I didn't make that perfectly clear.

However, that is not to disparage Larry's idea of understanding place to include understanding the people who inhabit / frequent a place. IMO, it's possible for the two (IMO) distinctly different understandings to coincide and be influenced by one another and that linkage be made manifest in a picture. Although, that said, I don't believe that pairing is intrinsically linked to understanding place.

Certainly many good pictures of place or of a place have been and can be made without the presence of people being visually or overtly manifest. Conversely, many good pictures of people have been and can be made without place or the place they occupy / frequent being an integral cohort of the understanding of those people.

All of that said and more to Larry's comment, I stated in yesterday's entry that, "I can not help but look at women without some element of sex/sexuality as part of the equation but I do not look at men with the same outlook." That statement, in addition to the fact that I do not believe that the idea of place is intrinsically linked to how one sees people, helps explain why I believe there is no gap between my ideas re: place and my professed doubt re: my ability to make pictures for a single men series that compliments my single women series.

My single women pictures absolutely evidence my looking at and seeing women as sexual beings. Or, perhaps more accurately stated, they are evidence of women whom I find to be sexually attractive, or, in Larry's words, the sexuality of the occupant is of some particular interest to me and the pictures I am making ... CAVEAT: that is not to say that I only look at or see women or any specific woman in a wholly sexual manner. In fact, far from it. Many of the women to whom I am, at first glance, visually attracted often turn out to be (if we, in fact, get to know one another, however briefly that may be) in possession of many other qualities and personal characteristics I also find to be quite attractive and appealing ... consider the wife as exhibit # 1.

It is worth noting at this stage in the proceedings that my pictures of single women - and those single men pictures I would wish to compliment them - could perhaps be accurately subtitled as pheromone-ic pictures. That is, pictures with pheromones as an integral instigating ingredient. And, if that nomenclature fits - and I believe it does - I think it is accurate to state that my pheromone sensing apparatus is totally tuned to detecting female secreted pheromones, including, but not limited to sex pheromones.

All of that said, what I am looking for in a picture maker who might make single men pictures as a compliment to my single women pictures, is a female whose pheromone receptors are tuned to male secreted pheromones, including but not limited to sex pheromones.

However, pheromones / sexuality aside, what I am seeking is a female picture maker who is, like me, a voyeur - that is to say (from the French word), one who sees / one who views or inspects. I am looking for a female picture maker who recognizes and wants to explore (pictorially) her natural inclination to view and inspect single men, just as I am exploring (pictorially) my natural inclination to view and inspect single women.

IMO, re: single women / single men picturing, inasmuch as my picturing objectives are concerned, is very dependent upon both the gender and sexuality of the picture maker and, to a certain extent, that of the pictured.

FYI, the pictures accompanying this entry are the results of first single men picture making activity. I would be very interested in opinions and comments regarding these pictures (and, for that matter, the entire single women/men series), especially as they relate to my single women pictures. As mentioned previously, the wife thinks that the single men pictures, with the possible exception of the Bartender bartending picture, are not the equivalent of / complimentary to the single women pictures.

And, BTW, there have yet to be any interest expressed from any women in picturing single men. Maybe there just aren't any women out there within the sound of my voice with the balls to give it a try.