civilized ku # 2236-37 / ku # 1148 ~ date night

Reading the menu ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenEncrusted grilled tuna steak, seaweed, wasabi mustard tarter sauce on wonton chips ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenClouds over Mirror Lake ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenFriday night was date night with the wife.

It couldn't have gone better - nice weather, great food (the wanton thing was insanely good), and, to accompany the dining, a reasonably dramatic cloud and light show. I'm fairly certain that, if the wife had been an impressionable young babe, I definitely would have scored big time.

FYI, the Reading the menu pano picture is a 4 frame stitch with a ton of hand work. All pictures were made with my new E-P2 body + (not new) M.Zuiko 17mm f2.8 lens. Modeling is by the wife, who is forever young and not easily impressed by my very alluring savoir faire and bonhomie-ness (she knows me too well).

cvilized ku # 2233-35 ~ no artistic risk, no art

Flower detritus ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Foot / hand / bed ~ Rochester, NY • click to embiggen
Dead xmas tree ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK• click to embiggenIn the recent entry, civilized ku # 2224, I quoted from Joerg Colberg's essay, Photography After Photography? (A Provocation) in which he stated that "every picture has already been taken". In the same essay, Colberg also asked:

What can you photograph when every picture has already been taken? Well - isn’t it liberating to know that every photograph has been taken already, so now you can really take your photographs?

In the preceding quote, I have emphasized the word "your" simply because isn't using the medium and its apparatus all about making pictures which reflect, not only what you see, but also your own personal way of seeing it? That is, as opposed to picturing what you have been told is a good picture and, concomitantly, how to picture it.

In answer to my question, I would have to venture that, in fact, for most "serious" amateur picture makers, pursuing a form of personal vision is not what the medium and its apparatus is all about. For them, the primary objective seems to be making pictures with which their family, friends, neighbors, and online picture forum and/or camera club associates can identify with the word "wow", or, the phrase "that's a nice picture". To be certain, there is nothing inherently wrong / evil /stupid about that pursuit - it's just that there are those who desire to move beyond that self-reinforcing circle.

IMO, in order for those who desire to advance beyond the "norm" to succeed, they must overcome a number of obstacles, not the least of which is fear, or, more precisely stated, the fear of rejection. That is, being able to explore many picturing possibilities with out the fear of being having your from-the-inside-out work and your psyche rejected,criticized, or outright ridiculed. I mean, as Kermit stated, "it's not easy being me".

In his essay, and IMO relative to "fear", Colberg stated (and I agree without reservation):

Art without a trace of chance, a trace of an accident isn’t art. No artistic risk, not art.

As far I am concerned, finding one's vision is all about taking a risk, going out on a limb, picture making wise. Start making pictures of things you have never made pictures of before, or, for that matter, even thought about making pictures of before. And, just to throw all caution to the wind, make those pictures in a manner you have never done before - like, say, use just a single lens, preferably a fixed focal length lens. If you don't have fix focal length lens, tape a zoom lens to a fixed focal length and resist the urge to remove the tape for about a month or two.

Think of it as playing. In the digital domain playing is cheap, not like film days where playing could get to be very expensive. And, as long as you're playing, also think of it as fun. You've little to lose and maybe, just maybe, a whole lot to gain.

civilized ku # 2232 ~ picturing interruptus

Whitebrook Dairy Bar ~ Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenThe other evening as I was traversing the landscape and making pictures of the lovely light upon landscape (see civilized ku # 2230-31 / ku # 1145-47), my picturing was interrupted by a stop at the Whitebrook Dairy Bar where I enjoyed a soft-serve vanilla ice cream in a cone.

But, as it turned out and is evidenced by the picture of the dairy bar, my picturing wasn't actually interrupted at all.

Update on Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 01:30PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Sven W (no link provides) asked: "Did the fluorescent tubes create any colour cast issues? How do you deal with that?"

my response: the picture is presented with very little color adjustment. There was a very minor amount of global WB and color adjustment (with Curves) applied to the image but no local correction / adjustment for the florescent light.

That's because the outdoor florescent lights had yellow glass which actually created a color balance that fully complimented the warm late day available light. And, IMO, the interior florescent lights didn't cause enough of a visual disturbance to necessitate any color correction / adjustment action.

civilized ku # 2230-31 / ku # 1145-47 ~ a relaxing afternoon and evening

Pool on Mirror Lake ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Clouds / Mirror Lake ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Mailbox & Whiteface Mt. ~ The Flats - Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Barn & sky ~ Jay, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Field & sky/cloud ~ Jay, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenYesterday, the temperature reached 95˚F. And, since I never do anything stupid or ill-advised, I decided that a 3PM round of golf was just the thing to do - walking the course, of course.

As luck would have it, that decision was not so bad after all. Yes, it was hot and humid but there was a very strong and steady breeze - about 1-and-a-half clubs worth, gusting to 2 - 2-and-and-a-half clubs - which kept things, body temperature wise, from getting out of hand. That and about 3 quarts of water.

In any event, when I finished my 3h 20m round of golf (and after taking a parking lot based bird bath with the water left in my water containers), I decided that a nice tall/cool drink was in order, so I adjourned to a local (Lake Placid) bar / restaurant for a gin and tonic (it's, get ready Jimmi Nuffin, the Limey in me). The place was air-conditioned so I decided to eat as well as drink.

Long story, short, I was out on the street about an hour-and-half later. The temperature had dropped a bit (into the reasonably comfortable zone), so I took a stroll about the place and, in the process, made some pictures. I was relaxed - enough to inhibit my inhibitions, re: making pictures which could be mistaken for pretty pictures - and the late day light was nice.

A short time later, I got in the car and headed out of town for home. Along the way, I was seduced by the light several more times. Hence this series of pictures which, FYI, are just like the last series of driving and making late day pictures - presented in chronological order.

BTW, did I ever mention that living in a park really doesn't suck?

civilized ku # 2229 ~ hard drive set up

Field expediency method, illustrated ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenCurrently, I am using a rather unconventional set up for one of my external hard drives. The set up goes like this -

As can be seen, the hard drive which is not in a case is wired to the control board of another hard drive which is in a case, but disconnected. That situation is due to the fact that the hard drive not in the case was unable to mount because of a failed control board in the case to which was accustomed, or so I was told by a tech support guy. A guy who also told me that, in all likelihood, the hard drive itself was not fried.

He suggested that I buy a hard drive case to which I could connect the hard drive and, hopefully, it would mount. Sounded like a good idea but in the interim, I had purchased a new external hard drive to replace the one with the problem.

While waiting for a tech guy friend to advise me, re: which case to buy, the new hard drive arrived. How lucky for me, because 2 days after the new hard drive arrived, I was contacted by a client who needed a 4c ad ASAP (the closing date for the publication was in the past). No problem .... except all of the client's files, to include their logo (which I had designed and created) was on the malfunctioning hard drive.

Desperate times being what they are, I took a chance and a couple of screwdriver uses later, I came up with the arrangement pictured above. And, it worked - the hard drive mounted and all of the files on it were intact. So, there it sits until the new case arrives. At which time, I'll reconnect the in-the-case hard drive and transfer all the stuff from the other hard drive to it - 1 TB of stuff.

BTW, when I was in the army, they used to teach us all of the by-the-book ways of doing things. However, when things got hot (bullets flying and all that), all that went out the window and we were advised to get it done (whatever it was) by using the field expediency method. A method which, at its root, is basically, anything goes, just get it done.

civilized ku # 2226-28 ~ the house(s) that George built

Kodak World Headquarters ~ Rochester, NY • click to embiggenGeorge Eastman's house ~ Rochester, NY • click to embiggenDuring our recent visit to Rochester, the wife and I visited the George Eastman House / International Museum of Photography and Film. The primary purpose of the outing was for the wife to see George Eastman's house and gardens - the International Museum of Photography and Film, not so much. Suffice it to state, the house and gardens were home run (pun intended) hit with the wife.

That said, there's an interesting and somewhat odd story to tell about the house ...

At some point after Eastman moved into the house, he decided that the proportions of the conservatory (pictured above) were all wrong. Wrong to about the tune of 10 feet too short, as measured along the exterior wall on which the elephant trophy hangs (one of his hobbies was to go to Africa and kill things). Apparently this wrongness was enough to drive him a bit batty inasmuch as he decided to move the entire rear half of the house (also pictured above, in part) in order to get his much desired 10 feet of space.

Several contractors told him that he was flat out crazy but, crazy or not, he did manage to find one in Pittsburgh, PA willing to take his money and give it a try - and, speaking of money, Eastman spent $300,000 to build the house and, as it turned out, $750,000 to successfully move the rear half of the house those very precious 10 feet.

I can only imagine him, after the work was completed, sitting in one of those wicker chairs, perhaps listening to pipe organ music which was played for his listening pleasure (it was played every morning as he descended down the stairs from his sleeping quarters), and thinking to himself how absolutely splendid those extra 10 feet were to behold.

civilized ku # 2225 ~ Big Game Meat Snacks

Big Game Meat Snacks ~ Hometown Deli / Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenI've never been tempted, not even once.

civilized ku # 2224 ~ kitchen garbage / out with the old, in with the new

Trash and foot ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOn a recent entry, Photography After Photography? (A Provocation) by Joerg Colberg (on his site, Conscientious), Colberg posits that:

Photography has finally arrived at its own existential crisis ... photography has long been running in a circle. Over the past ten years, it has increasingly become dominated by nostalgia and conservatism. Even the idea that we now need editors or curators to create meaning out of the flood of photographs ultimately is conservative, looking backwards when we could, no we should be looking forward ... Who - or what - can move photography forward, looking forward?

When Colberg suggests that the medium has "become increasing dominated by nostalgia and conservation", he bases that notion (in part and as I read it) on the fact that "every picture has already been taken". "How", he asks, "do we get to use all these new tools to create photography that is not just some new looking variant of the old but, instead, something different, something genuinely new?"

Colberg places much of the responsibility for the medium's current "existential crisis" squarely upon the shoulders of digital photography and the fact of "the idea that we now need editors or curators (who are, in my words, the lunatic academic fringe who have insisted that a picture must be more about art theory and meaning than about what is depicted in order for a picture to be taken "seriously") to create meaning out of the flood of photographs".

There is more to Colberg's essay than I have presented here (you should read it in its entirety) but I want to address a couple of his points which I have mentioned here ....

First, I disagree with his notion that digital photography has created a medium based "existential crisis". As "proof" he cites the work of 2 analog/film-based photographers, Matthew Brandt and Marco Breuer, whom he believes "are attempting to move if not forward then at least sidewards ... trying to escape the narrow photographic confines we’ve built around ourselves".

Leaving aside the merits of their work, IMO, there is little, if anything at all, they are doing in the making of their work which could not be accomplished in the digital domain. However, the fact that they have decided to use film (a nostalgic and somewhat conservative act in and of itself) does not justify in any way Colberg's assertion that "it’s actually in the analog area where artists are producing the most interesting work right now". IMO, as is always the case, it's not how you make pictures, it's about the end result, the pictures themselves.

But that minor quibble aside, I read Colberg's essay at about the same time as I was experiencing my own every-picture-has-already-been-taken crisis. Except, to be honest, calling it a "crisis" is way overstating the case. It was more of an internet-based looking-at-too-many-pictures-which-have-already-been-taken fatigue while in search of new and interesting pictures-which-have-already-been-taken.

I search for such new and interesting already-taken pictures because I know they're out there and like Robert Adams stated in his essay Making Art New:

Although as a practical matter we might wish that art made clear headway ... this tempts the artist to try to slip one over on us, to give us the look-alike for progress - novelty

In the same essay, Adams also stated:

... the only thing new in art is the example; the message is broadly speaking, the same - coherence, form, meaning. The example changes ... we respond best to affirmations that are achieved within the details of life today, specifics that we can, to our surprise and delight and satisfaction, recognize as our own.

I am no fan of novelty for newness sake, but it is with Adam's second statement that I find my basis for disagreement with Colberg's notion that; a) the medium is suffering an existential crisis, and, b) the digital domain is the cause of that crisis. To wit:

a) there are plenty of examples of pictures-that-have-already-been-taken which, using examples of the details of life today, express coherence, form, and meaning. And, it is precisely because of the fact that those details are ripped from life today and that I recognize them as my/our own, that I find those pictures to be both "new" and interesting.

IMO, quite a few regular followers of The Landscapist are making such pictures - Mary Dennis, Juha Haataja, Anil Rao, John Linn, Colin Griffiths, and the More Original Refrigerator Art guy (although I don't know if he follows this blog), to name just a few. FYI, don't be offended if your name isn't the short list because, as stated, I named just a few.

b) it is my opinion that digital photography is not the cause of Colberg's so-called existential crisis. In fact, I believe digital photography is moving the medium away from such an event inasmuch as the digital domain has made making pictures, lots of pictures, very inexpensive. Add to that fact, the fact that so many people have a digital picture making device of one kind or another which makes everybody a photographer.

Consequently, both of these digital domain attributes have led to an explosion of pictures which are ripped from the fabric of life today. Granted, there is a lot chaff to wade through to find the wheat, but, IMO, there are more new and interesting already-taken pictures than there ever were in the analog/film days.

And, IMO, that's a good thing. And a new thing. And a moving forward thing.

Unfortunately, digital photography's discursive promiscuity - as I have labeled it - has yet to surface, in any meaningful way that I can detected, in the curatorial / editorial / art world, Photography Division. If any thing, the digital medium's discursive promiscuity is perceived as negative.
Perhaps that's because, in the curatorial / editorial world, there's just too much chaff to wade through to find the wheat, which makes being a curator / editor more tedious than fun.

Not to mention the fact that digital photography's discursive promiscuity challenges and, IMO, fractures many of their cherished canonical presumptions and beliefs.