civilized ku # 860 ~ waiting

Saranac Lake mini mites ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenThe Saranac Lake Mini-Mites waiting around on the 1932 Olympic Arena ice for the official team picture.

civilized ku # 859 ~ on the road again

UHAUL - Mom's Attic ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenOK, OK. I know that I have yet to address Larry's question re: my ideas re:place and how they might apply (or not) to my professed unsuitability for picturing single men (FYI, I won't be doing so today).

The reason for not doing so is simple. During my about-to-end visit to Williamsport, I have actually attempted to make a few single men pictures. The wife, while reviewing said pictures on the camera LCD during dinner last evening (at the Bullfrog Brewery - thanks Matt and JB), declared all but one of the pictures to be abject failures. Her primary criticism was my failure to picture the single men as sympathetically as I have pictured single women.

IMO, she may have a valid point and that point speaks directly to my idea that I may not be best suited to make single men pictures that mirror / compliment my single women pictures. That is to say, 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. However, I do not want to delve into that arena just yet.

This evening, after our 7 hour drive home and after I have processed the pictures and spent some quality screen time with them, I'm certain that I will have more to say on the topic of not only the pictures themselves but also how their success or failure might suggest an answer to Larry's question.

civilized ku # 858 ~ a clarification

Avocado ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenFYI, my regular blogging schedule has been interrupted over the past couple days by the disruption of having 10 house guests roaming around our premises. It is further disrupted by today's prep for a 2PM departure for a 400 mile drive to Williamsport, PA. where I will spent tonight, Wednesday, and Thursday AM just hanging out while the wife attends a seminar. Then it's on the road back home where another couple house guests will be awaiting our arrival (for a 3-day stay).

Nevertheless, I will have daily entries beginning tomorrow AM. There probably won't be much else to do in Williamsport what with the Little League World Series only on tap during the month of August. But, hey, if there is anyone within the sound of my voice who resides in or around Williamsburg, just give me an email jingle and maybe we can get together.

That said, and before my 2PM departure, I did want to answer a question from Larry that read:

.... I noticed some entries back that you made a point of referring to the chef as gay. Why was that an important observation that needed to be shared with your readers?

For reference, this is the part of the entry that Larry was inquiring about -

.... The dinner that followed was also very enjoyable, especially so because having 2 chicks (the wife + 1 house guest) and a gay guy (who is a NYC chef) around the house makes for great eating with very little involvement in the prep, cooking, and cleanup from me. Sitting around sipping some wine or a bourbon while others are busy as beavers is a very pleasant way of getting things done.

my response: in no way did I think that referring to the chef as "gay" or, for that matter, the women as "chicks" needed to be shared with my readers.

That said and within the context of the entire entry, what it was my intent to share with my readers was a satirical poke at social/cultural gender/sexual stereotyping. And, I should like to point out for those who didn't "get it", social/cultural gender/sexual wise, I played the role of the fat and lazy male chauvinist/sexist pig.

There was no intent to injure or insult, with the exception, of course, of real live male chauvinist/sexist pigs who, IMO, need all the insults they deserve.

PS to Larry - I'll be responding to your other question in tomorrow's entry.

1920/30/40/50s American iconic ~ over and over again, but that's OK (in this case)

On occasion, as rare as that might be, I start to think that everything on the planet has been pictured - that there are no more pictures to be made.

This brief illusory rumination most often strikes after spending some time perusing the online photo world where, in fact, most of the pictures presented have, in fact, been made before. While having been made before is not always a fatal flaw, it is (to my eye and sensibilities) when the having-been-made-before pictures in question tell us nothing new. That is to say, not only is the referent very familiar but so is the connoted.

I mention this because during my recent NYC trip, while I visited Mast Books, my favorite art (with a heavy emphasis on photo books) bookstore on the planet - a very small store, on Avenue A between E. 5th & 6th, with a rather eclectic selection of very gently used photo books, I came across and purchased a delightful little gem, Vest Pocket Pictures, Photographs by Julius Shulman. The book features Shulman's early - made in the early>mid 1930s with a Kodak Vest Pocket Camera (a gift on his 23rd birthday) - personal snapshots and intimate keepsakes of family and friends. The 58 pictures in this book - beautiful duotone reproductions printed at 2.5×3.75 inches, only slightly larger than the original negatives - predate, by 13 years, his decision to dive into the picture making world as his lifelong profession.

Now, I must admit that I purchased the book simply because, after a quick glance through it, I was immediately impressed with the pictures (and the reproduction thereof). I did not read any of the text - a brief preface by Shulman and postscript essays by Craig Krull and David Tseklenis. And, to be perfectly honest, the name, Julius Shulman, meant absolutely nothing to me. I just flat out really like the pictures.

I purchased the book and left it at the counter for pickup upon my return from my Chelsea gallery crawl. During that crawl, in one of the galleries, I came upon a print of Case Study House #22, a picture with which I was long familiar (in publications - I had never seen an original print) but not one that I associated with the name of Julius Shulman. I took some time to study and admire the picture but it wasn't until later that evening, while looking at the book and reading some of the text, that I realized Julius Shulman was the guy who made Case Study House #22 - weird eerie coincidence # 2,187 (in my life, experiences like this happen with a somewhat strange regularity).

My first thought was - well, scratch my back with a hacksaw. I didn't know whether to cry or wind my watch. You could have knocked me over with the proverbial feather. My second thought was - man, I really love that little bookstore. It may turn out to be my version, albeit on a much more positive note, of John Prine's the hole in daddy's arm were all the money goes (PS - don't tell the wife).

All of the preceding said and with the the Shulman picture in this entry submitted as prima facie evidence of the fact that not all having-been-made-before pictures are alike, I would like to state that, even though I would guess millions of very similar manifestations / variations on the above picture can be found in family snapshot albums all over the world (although this one is very American), all of these having-been-made-before pictures resonate with me, punctum wise, every time I view one.

I am very curious how many of you, like me, have a picture just like this one in your family album(s). And, if you do, what effect does it have on you when you view it and others just like it?

FYI, re: thinking that everything has been pictured - most times when that thought comes in my head, something comes along (I wouldn't mind having one these pictures on my wall) that disabuses me of that notion.

single women # 8 ~ Hobson + ....

Buying a new cell phone ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenAs the single women series builds some mass, it has occurred to me that a companion single men series would be a nice fit.

However, the problem is I truly believe that making pictures of single men is beyond my ability to pull off. The thing is, I don't know how to look at single men. Not that it would make uncomfortable in any way, it's just that I don't think I know what to look for or, in other words, how to see men.

IMO, seeing men might well be handled better by, you guessed it, a woman. Nothing sexist about it. I just think pictures, made by a woman, of single men would better compliment my pictures of single woman which are, of course, made by a man. So, as you may have guessed by now, I am casting my net for a female picture maker who would be interested in pursuing the subject in conjunction with my endeavors.

For quite a few years, picture makers have been teaming up to make pictures. Most often, pictures that are made by both individuals acting together to produce each single picture in a body of work, as opposed to what I am suggesting - each team member making their own pictures which would eventually be exhibited together. Even though the pictures would be exhibited together, there is no problem with the picture making styles of each picture maker being radically different from one another.

All of that said, are there any interested female picture makers out there who might be interested in such a project? If not, does anyone out there know of any female picture makers who might be interested? If not, will anyone out there with the means - a blog, website, camera club newsletter, etc. - be willing to help me get the word out.

BYW, the female picture maker can be located anywhere on planet earth. At least, that is, as long as there is a readily available supply of single men.

Update on Friday, February 18, 2011 at 05:29PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Larry asked/wrote: "How does this inability fit into your sense of "place"? There seems to be a gap here.

my response: Larry - I don't understand, re: the "gap" you are questioning. If you give me a bit more direction to go on, I'll do my best to give an answer.

civilized ku # 857 ~ "Rosebud"

In the LEFT TURN LANE ~ 8th & W 23rd - NYC • click to embiggenIn his thoughtful comment regarding my entries, re: place (civilized ku # 836/37/38), Matt Dallos stated (in part):

...Have you ever noticed that people who are rooted in their “home” place are often able to capture/understand/interpret other places? It’s almost like connection with a place is some sort of language that we develop; once you understand or are able to interpret that language in one place, you understand it everywhere. I don’t mean to imply that you learn one place and then apply that cookie cutter idea to other places. Rather, once you understand the language of place, you are more willing to open yourself to other place and you are willing to accept the truth of wherever you are...

There haven't been much in the way of comments about the idea/concept of place vs. a place. Perhaps the notion is a little bit beyond the general interest / curiosity of the room, or maybe it's just a bit too esoteric / hippy-dippy for most. Nevertheless, I'll plod onward and see where it goes, in part, because I think that the concept of place is linked to that of seeing. At least, I believe that to be so, re: my way of seeing.

That said, Matt's idea that "connection with a place is some sort of language that we develop" is interesting to me.

First of all, picture making at its best is the use of visual language at its best - while it's certainly true that a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, or picture wise, that sometimes a picture of a cigar is just a picture of a cigar, there are times when, picture wise as in life, a cigar (and a picture thereof) is much more than just a cigar (and a picture thereof).

Roland Barthes' idea of studium and punctum, a picture's dry facility vs. its provoked unexpected emotional response, goes a long way in the cause of explaining the difference between a picture's referent and its connoted. Punctum, according to Barthes, "is a kind of subtle beyond – as if the image launched desire beyond what it permits us to see…"

Now, even though I agree with Barthes' belief that punctum is very subjective and personal, I also believe that an insightful and incite-ful picture that is the result of a picture makers's use of referent selection and how that referent is presented (a visual language) can result in punctum/connoted that is not only personal but also generally universal in its affect. Some pictures makers are just better than others when it comes to making pictures, aka: using visual language, which open the door to some form of "universal" / shared punctum - no matter how personal the initial "prick" might be.

Leaving for you to decide the punctumness of my pictures, I can say that my picture making referent selection, as an integral part of my visual language and an influential component of my seeing, is based upon (as I now understand more fully) a belief that the experience of living life is best summed up in the accumulative effect of living the "everyday" / inhabiting the "commonplace". Futhermore, IMO, it is the everyday / commonplace that roots one to a place and from which one can construct a sense of place. And, it is through having a sense of place that one can best make pictures of place that go beyond the dry facility of a picture of a place.

That is why I make pictures of the everyday and the commonplace, or what many might label as the banal. That is why I intuitively tend to notice and picture the details of a place - i.e. a place's parts - rather than the grand scenic of a place. To my way of seeing (and thinking), a place is the sum of its parts and the best way to see, and perchance to understand, the whole is to see and understand the parts.

IMO, if one hopes and wishes to make pictures of place rather than just pictures of a place, one needs to understand a place. And, to address Matt's question, re: "people who are rooted in their 'home' place are often able to capture/understand/interpret other places", I wholeheartedly agree. Once one develops the insight to "understand" one place, it's much easier to "understand" another place, even if that place is very different from the one you first learned to "understand".

civilized ku # 856 ~ cat nap

Cats ~ East Village - NYC • click to embiggen

Update on Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 04:05PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Techfan (no link provided) wrote: "OK. So where are the pigeons?"

my response: the pigeons were at 8th & W 23rd - see the entry immediately above this one.

civilized ku # 855 ~ after the cats left ...

Kwik Farms ~ Chelsea, NYC • click to embiggen... No, wait. Maybe it was before they arrived. In either event, no pigeons.