picture window # 13 ~ it's still hot and humid

trying to keep it cool-ish • click to embiggenOk, it's not NYC hot and humid, but, everything is relative, is it not?

FYI, this picture is essentially the same view as this picture - the picture that launched the picture window series.

As I have been pursuing this project, and as I mentioned yesterday, an idea for another series came to mind - a kind of picture windows II. While I have been picturing from the inside out, it has occurred to me that picturing from the outside in would be very interesting indeed.

To date, my picture window pictures have been made in places in which I found myself by invitation or work - places of friends and associates, as well as my own home. While continuing on this path, my next step is to knock on the doors of strangers, explain myself and my project, and ask to picture one (or more) of their windows. I don't anticipate too much of a problem with this approach.

I am not as certain that asking strangers to be allowed to picture into their homes would be as well received. On the hand, I think it would be well worth effort to find those who would allow it, especially if they would also agree to be in the pictures.

ku # 521 ~ POV

Blossoming bush • click to embiggenFor whatever reason of late, I have been "seeing" a lot of possibilities lately, photography-wise. I attribute most of this awareness to just the change in seasons. Spring and the life it brings is busting out all over - it's quite a change from the monochromatic paradigm of winter.

All of the possibilities that I am seeing, I see as series of pictures - i.e., bodies of related work. In a way, this comes at a bad time for me in as much as I am fully committed to my decay & disgust and picture windows work - not to mention shaving a few more strokes off my golf handicap - 6 is better than 8). I really don't have the time for a new series or two. So, maybe I can pass along a few ideas for those of you looking for something to sink your teeth into.

The Art world is always looking for a fresh or new and interesting take on things. Sometimes that means a body of work gains attention even though, over time, it will not possess much staying power. Usually that is the case because the 'new take' owes more to technique than content. But, often enough, someone will come along and adopt/adapt the technique and match it to good content and something really worth looking at and considering emerges.

In any event, if I had the time, I'd be putting a ladder (instead of the usual canoe or two) on my car's roof rack. The idea of picturing any number of referents from an elevated POV seems worth trying. To my knowledge, this approach is somewhat novel and, IMO, there quite a few "things" that could be interesting to see, in a series, from that POV.

A POV that is rarely explored - photographers in droves have squatted and/or put their cameras at ground level but only a handful have reached for the sky. And I don't mean picturing from rooftops or upper floor windows. What I mean is an elevated perspective that is visually just a little "off" from usual waist to eye-level height that is so common.

As for what to picture, if anyone likes the idea, pick what interests you .... but .... it's worth keeping this little bit of timeless wisdom in mind:

Everything has it's beauty, but not everyone sees it. - Confucius

Now that I think about, a 10 ft. ladder and a canoe can easily fit on my roof rack.

Update on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 09:57AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: several commenters mentioned that St. Ansel had a car top camera platform from which he pictured various scenes - a fact that I know to be accurate. One commenter, Tom Frost, suggested that therefore picturing from an elevated POV was not "new".

my response: Let me be more precise re: elevated POV - Adams, I'm sure amongst many others, did picture from an elevated POV but what he did not do is create a body of work that specifically focused on that technique. Nor did he, as my picture entry from yesterday suggests, elevate his POV in order to picture in a downward direction - a semi-bird's eye POV.

What I was suggesting was/is simply this - a slightly elevated POV with camera pointed downward towards near/close-in 'intimate' scenes / objects. A sort of look at what's at your feet if you were 10-12 feet tall kind of thing.

FYI, I am not claiming that this idea is "new" in the it's never been done before sense of the word. What am suggesting, though, is that I am not familiar with any bodies of work that specifically exploit this technique - which, of course, does not mean that they don't exist, just that I am not familiar with any.

Victor Bloomfield's link to Dave Beckerman's camera elevation doohickey thingamajig and his pictures using it are much closer to the idea I had in mind. Thanks Victor.

And, thanks for all of your comments and feedback.

still life # 8 ~ it's hot and humid

A little strange • click to embiggen A couple good quotes to think about on a hot humid day here in the Adirondacks.

A Ming vase can be well-designed and well-made and is beautiful for that reason alone. I don't think this can be true for photography. Unless there is something a little incomplete and a little strange, it will simply look like a copy of something pretty. We won't take an interest in it. ~ John Loengard

Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. ~ Anonymous

urban ku # 189 ~ it ain't easy being green

Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenIf not the first, one of the first celebrity photographers - that is a photographer who, while picturing celebrities, becomes a celebrity (think Annie Lebowitz) - was David Bailey - a British photographer who not only captured but actually help create the "Swinging London" scene of the 1960s.

The lead character, a London fashion photographer, in the 1966 movie Blowup was based almost entirely on David Bailey. The movie was writer/director Michelangelo Antonioni's view of the world of mod fashion, and an engaging, provocative murder mystery that examines the existential nature of reality through photography.

In any event, I found this quote from David Bailey:

It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary.

The quote set me to thinking about yesterday's entry, re: "those who lack in mind and sight" - It is entirely possible or, actually, entirely probable that, while there are undoubtedly a lot of people with nothing interesting to say, many people with cameras are making pictures with nothing interesting to say, not because they are shallow people, but because they just can't get past making pictures that they have been told are good pictures rather than picturing what they see.

Now it seems to me that the first step towards picturing what you see is the desire to make pictures that don't look like what every other picture of (insert your chosen referent here) on the planet look like. This just might also be most difficult step as well. I mean, who doesn't want to be loved and one of the steps towards that goal, according to conventional wisdom, is to be ... well .... not too different from the "norm". Being different from what conventional wisdom dictates is the norm just sets up barriers to acceptance or understanding from the masses who believe that they get "safety and security" by adhering to the norm.

So, IMO, if being different as a person doesn't come naturally, it's going to be difficult to be different as a picture maker. It's not easy to defy the prevailing cultural wisdom of what society at large deems to be beautiful or interesting, especially here in the good ole US of A, where an addiction to and preoccupation with the next big thing / spectacle is the prevailing norm.

Shock and awe, flash and dash are the order of the day. Gone from public life - and, I suspect, from a large segment of private life - are the appreciation and understanding of qualities such as subtlety, quietness, delicacy, and introspectiveness. And, worst of all, if it ain't easy to "understand", it ain't worth understanding.

The surface of things is everything. First impressions are the only impression. Nothing, except money, is worth "working" for. Everyone wants to live on Easy Street.

So be it, but guess what - it does take a lot of looking - both inside and out - before you learn to see the ordinary for what it is - the very staff, and the stuff, of real life.

picture window (sort of) # 12 ~ let the howling begin

Covered bridge • click to embiggenWhile reading some quotes about photography, I came across 2 - under the heading of "Anonymous" - that, IMO, are related:

The type of photographs you make, the subjects you single out, reveal the person inside of you.

Of what use are lens and light to those who lack in mind and sight?

IMO, the reason that overwhelming majority of pictures made - by those trying to make art/Art - are trite, boring, repetitious, imitative, smaltz-y, unimaginative ... (pick your own "poisonous" word) is simply because .... (CAUTION: here comes the elephant in the room that no one talks about in the photo blog-o-sphere) .... well, "the type of photographs you make, the subjects you single out, reveal the person inside of you." and, just by taking a look at the state of human affairs, it seems quite obvious that there are lots of persons who "lack in mind and sight".

In a rather ironic way of looking at Art, it could be said that, if the best of Art deals with "what it means to be human" - and, increasingly, it seems that the sine qua non of humanity is avoiding reality - then all those ubiquitous (and brain-dead) pretty pictures of blazing mountain sunsets must be the real Art of our times.

Or, so it seems to me but, then again, maybe I'm just in a foul mood 'cause the Pens didn't win The Cup.

Update on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:20PM by gravitas et nugalis

Hey people - some absolutely great comments from everyone.

For those who are just cruising my pictures or my words, take the time to read these comments.

man & nature # 13 ~ after the rain

Late day after rain • click to embiggenAs Joe Reifer takes a respite from the blog-o-sphere, I have taken to visiting Miguel Garcia-Guzman's Exposure Compensation on a daily basis. I would highly recommend it.

While Miguel does present regular entires about "new finds" that are worth checking out, its his BLOGS SPEAKING PHOTOGRAPHY blogroll that I find very interesting - and, no, it's not just because The Landscapist and Aaron Hobson's blog are on it.

By checking out a couple of the listed blogs a day, I have worked my way through the list. It is a wonderfully eclectic list and rarely fails to produce a daily surprise or two - highly recommended.

man and nature # 12 ~ stare

Green hose and wicker chair • click to embiggenStare.

It is the way

to educate your eye,

and more.

Stare,

pry,

listen,

eavesdrop.

Die

knowing something.

You are not here long. ~ Walker Evans

Update on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 08:15AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Kent Wiley wrote: "She never fails to let us know her P-O-V, does she Mark?"

my response - I can't get no respect. If it ain't Paul Maxim ragging on my ass, it's the wife trying to drag it back into the real world.

picture window # 11 ~ arrogance and self-confidence are not synonymous

Inside and out • click to embigenPaul Maxim has stated, "... Consider some budding photographer who has just taken an image of some mountain, perfectly reflected in a small lake at sunrise ... they feel they've produced something 'special' ... then they read your blog and discover that their picture is merely "Decorative Art" - not to be confused with "Fine Art" that real artists produce (like the Birch Tree Lodge image?).

With this statement, it seems that Paul is suggesting that I believe Birch Tree Lodge, or, for that matter, any of the pictures that I post, is/are Fine Art and that, therefore, I am a "real artist". To which, all I can say is- Man, I wish I had that kind of self-assurance / confidence about what I am and what my pictures are, photography / Art- wise.

The fact is that I do believe that my pictures resemble that of Fine Art, photography division, more than they do that of Decorative Art, photography division. However, the other salient (and, by far more important) fact (reality) is that, in the world of Art, it really doesn't matter what the hell I think they are. Nope, not at all. Not even a little bit.

Being considered an Artist and having your pictures considered Art are not "honors" one can bestow upon oneself. Like it or not, only the Art world at large (or in part) and time can render such judgement. Howl and scream as much as you like regarding the prejudices and strictures of that club (like I do re: the academic lunatic fringe), but the reality is there is no getting around or denying them.

It doesn't matter at all that I/you consider what I/you are creating is "special". In the Art world, what matters most is that others think what I/you are creating is "special". It's as simple as that. Deal with it.

Are part of my desire and effort expended in being "accepted" into part of that world? Yeah, sure. But, am I naive (or stupid) enough to think that achieving this goal is a given? No.

Now, it should be noted that Paul believes that I possess a fair amount of hutzpa - artistic arrogance, in his parlance - but I would have to be possessed by a megamaniacal amount of self-delusional hubris to think that all of my picturing utterances even approach the level of Fine Art, much less, achieve it.