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 March 1, 2007 - March 31, 2007

Friday
Mar302007

civilized ku # 16 ~ contemplation?

bathrmdoorsm.jpg1044757-750708-thumbnail.jpg
Spring time lightclick to embiggen
Over on photomusings Paul Butzi has been ruminating over the course of several posts on 'contemplation' and 'contemplative cameras'. At the root of it, the premise seems to be that some cameras create/help foster a more 'contemplative' picturing experience. Paul states, "If our goal is to have our photographic process be contemplative, and some cameras are more supportive of this than others, then it makes sense to invest some time and energy in understanding what features (or synergistic combinations of features) tend to add to the contemplative experience and what features tend to diminish it."

This notion is antithetical to my approach to picturing which is much more along the lines of Nike's exortation to 'just do it'. I find it much more advantageous when picturing to be in a 'receptive' rather than a 'contemplative' state of mind.

I know others feel the same. Consider this email which arrived yesterday with the subject of "?????".

Aaron wrote, 'so am I missing the point or is it just subconscious?

people comment a lot on my photos about things that make sense after I read what they say, but were not true intentions??? is it just something their mind see's or am I really creating it that way, just subconsciously???

example: the 3rd panoramic I uploaded to your site yesterday... someone complimented me on the great composition and juxtaposition of the "strong" boulder on the left and the "weak" fallen birch that takes the right 2/3rds...

I just went into the woods...walked around and saw many good spots, but the one I chose to shoot just "felt" right. I really don't think about composition AT ALL! Is that wrong??? I just like the way things "feel"...like deep down inside...it feels right...whether it be the photograph(ing) or the post-processing?!!'

The thing that gets me is Aaron's question, 'Is that wrong?"

Now Aaron's a photo-neophyte. He has been serious about picturing for only about 6-8 months. His photo 'education' consists of; several conversations with beer (with me), two 5-hour-car-ride photo "seminars' (with me), and most important, thousands of 'just-do-it' exposures. It's worth mentioning that he also spent a couple years during his home schooling apprenticing with me doing graphic design which gave him a huge headstart computer skill-wise.

Aaron can thank his lucky stars that he's learning in the digital domain. Except for the expense of purchasing a good dslr, he was already set up with a high-end digital darkroom and high-level skill set therein. Consequently, he could shoot his a** off and play with post-shoot processing to his heart's content, something he has pursued with a passion (maybe an obsession). Suffice it to say, he has crammed about 5 years worth of my early photographic 'fooling around' into a few short months.

Good for him. And, in answer to the question, No it's not wrong.

That said, my take on the 'contemplative' thing is this - do your 'contemplating' without a camera anywhere in sight. Be 'contemplative' while viewing your own pictures and those of others. Be 'contemplative' while reading about the aesthetics of the medium of photography. Be 'contemplative' while making decisions about what to picture (in a body-of-work/project sense) and how to do it (in a technique/techincals sense).

Then, camera in hand/on a tripod/perched on the top of your head/whatever, go forth and 'just do it' until it 'feels right'.

Frankly, IMO, if you can't 'just do it' and figure out for yourself (with a little help from your friends) when it 'feels right', maybe jigsaw puzzles might just be a better way to past the time. Then, at least when you finish one, you'll know that you 'got it right'.

Thursday
Mar292007

urban ku # 47 - why I'm a postmodernist (sort of)

vacsm.jpg1044757-749255-thumbnail.jpg
Vacclick to embiggen
"I'm no art historian, Bret Kosmider wrote here recently, but I am aware of Straight photography (Ansel and the boys) as a direct response to Pictorialism. Pictorialism died away in the 19-teens replaced by Modernism. There's some debate as to where postmodernism fits into this ...

For those who are interested in such things, it's an interesting idea.

For those who are a bit confused by such matters, it's a change to learn something. So, first a couple very brief definitions (both of which are topics for never-ending discussion and debate):

Modernism - the 'modern' dates from the 18th century Age of Enlightenment with the emergence of and emphasis on rationality, technical progress and the explanatory power of emperical sciences - the basic hallmarks of Western thought and culture. In Landscape Photography, think of Ansel Adams as a consumate moderist.

Postmodernism - literally 'after the modern'. In Art terms, that means just about anything that challenges modern concepts and concerns. Think William Eggleston as a consumate postmodernist.

To further simplify photography-wise, modernist photography adheres to 'rules' and concentrats on 'grand-theme' subject matter. Postmodernist photography rejects the 'rules' and concentrats on 'banal' subject matter. Modern photography is filled with evident warm 'passion', postmodern photography is said to be 'dispassionate' and 'cold'.

Now, to be certain, there was, and is, lots of cross-pollination between the movements. Like life, it's a messy world out there.

All of that said, here's my point. I consider myself to be a somewhat messy, cross-pollinated postmodernist because (a few highlights) -

My photography stands in direct and deliberate contrast to modernist Ansel-Adams-ish landscape photography - I have deliberately rejected his 'grand-landscape' theme in my photographic pursuit of the everyday (considered banal by many). Photo-modernists overwhelmingly reject the pursuit of the 'everyday' under the oft-mentioned banner of 'who cares?', 'so what?', and, 'you can't just take a picture of 'anything''.

My much-questioned and oft-maligned corner vignetting is a very deliberate rejection of the photo-modernist pursuit of technical 'pefection'. Sure, I use the most modern of tools, but I thoroughly reject the notion of 'salvation' throught the pursuit of 'scientific' perfectionism. I obviously haven't spent enough time with lens-comparo charts. Anyone know what the 'best' aperture is on my Zuiko 11-22mm lens is?

My photographs are very often reffered to as 'accidents' by adherents of the modernist photographic tradition - surely, the camera was activated by 'accident' since the subject itself is not worthy of consideration and the 'composition' is so utterly random. Haven't I ever heard about the Rule of Thirds?

And, of course, adherents of photo-modernist photography most often find my photographs to be deviod of 'meaning', at least that's what I infer from the endless stream of 'what's-this-photograph-suppose-to be-about-anyways?' comments which my photographs elicit from them. What am I trying to 'say' anyhow?

So why am I bothering you with all of this personal drivel? Consider this.

All of the preceeding 'becauses' about my pictures can be synopsized in the most prevalent criticism leveled at postmodern photography - that it's all a silly, self-absorbed opposition-for-opposition-sake reaction to modernism. Re-active rather than pro-active. You know, being against something without knowing what you stand for. Little more than affecting the mantle of the 'enfant terrible'.

Bunk.

For some photo-postmodernists, I'm certain that is the case but you can't ignore the fact that postmodernism did not erupt in a culture-vacuum. It was, and continues to be, the honest product of a segement of the culture that, at the very least, questions the perceived foundations/wisdoms of the prevailing paradigm - societal, political, art and otherwise.

It's no mystery to me that photo-postmodernism emerged to prominence on to the world scene in the 70s. You know, right after the bomb nihilism of the 50s, the cultural unrest of 60s and the political mess of the 70s - the duck-and-cover, burn your bra and the flag era.

I lived through that time. While some jumped onto the Peace Train for the party and the free ride, many (a distinct minority of the baby boom, baby generation) did not. They (include me in) were profoundly effected, and continue to be, by the times and the questions. While they may have not known precisely what they stood for, they knew what they stood against. They and their heirs and descendents continue to this day to pursue, in all walks of life, the self-knowledge of what they stand for.

The Arts are no exception. Photography, as the most modern of arts, has been very instrumental in this pursuit. If you will, call it 'postmodern' in its current state. Everything has to have a name, right? But, in my mind, it's just another round in the Culture Wars.

So, when I hear the accusation that, with my photography, I am just being-different-to-be-different (sorta postmodernist), I am tempted to respond, "F**kin' A, man. Bummer. You're stepping on my trip, man. Chill out and free your mind. This is heavy s**t, dude."

Wednesday
Mar282007

civilized ku # 15 - the one-eyed monster

8x10sm.jpg1044757-747547-thumbnail.jpg
One-eyed monsterclick to embiggen
Size matters,or so it seems in the Art world these days, especially in the medium of photography.

I've never been a fan of big prints (see quiet photography), but then again, I always thought that 20×24 inches was big. Now I know better - 12×18 feet is a big print. Sure, I've seen my photography printed to 40×60 inches (printed by Kodak's in-house pro lab using a liquid-gate enlarger) for display in the Kodak Gallery (now gone) in NYC, but those photographs seemed to be big just for big-ness sake, not for any real aesthetic reason.

Then, about 2 years ago, the wife and I were doing a gallery crawl in NYC and we came across the photography of Massimo Vitali. One of his beach scenes, printed to approx. 6×8 feet fried my brain. It just 'worked' in so many ways - from a distance, moderately close, up close, whatever, the effect was varied but no less captivating. It got me to thinking.

So, I thought and thought and eventually, nada, I stopped thinking about it. Then the Jeff Wall thing erupted and, once again, I started thinking. Thinking about BIG.

Then and now, much of my thinking has been done right next to my 8×10 one-eyed monster which is situated within arms length (literally) of my digital darkroom throne. It just stands there, with its silent gaze, beckoning and taunting - although, I swear I can ocassionally hear a faint refrain along the lines of "try getting that from your digital crap", and, "film is not dead, film is not dead...".

In case you're wondering about the 'monster' moniker, it's simple - everything about shooting 8×10 is monsterous. The cost of film and processing, the cost of a high quality film scanner for 8×10, the cost of the processing power to handle really monsterous files, the cost of printing BIG and not to mention the increased size of my bulging hernia.

Fortunately, my investment in the equipment was made years ago. Fortunately because, for example, at current prices, you can either buy 10 8×10 film holders (how many I have) or, say, a Canon 5D body.

Nevertheless, the time has come to pack it up and put it in the car. Not as my primary weapon of choice, but rather so it's there when I'm picturing with my digital crap and I just know that what I'm picturing is screaming,"BIG, really BIG."

PS - not to scare the wife, but...I intend to 'restage' the Which came first? pro-filmic moment, because I want to see it 5×5 feet on the dining room wall.

Tuesday
Mar272007

ku for u

1044757-745447-thumbnail.jpg
Coversclick to embiggen
1044757-745449-thumbnail.jpg
Intro spreadclick to embiggen
At times I feel a bit like Michelangelo - not just because he was often called Il Divino ("the divine one"), but because, like him, I have 'patrons' who are very supportive of my art.

I would be very remiss (and in deep s--t) if I didn't include the wife as my 'Medici Moma'. The roles of Medici Popes though are played by the prez and v. prez of the Lake Placid Convention & Vistors Bureau who, for a number of years, have left it up to me to create and present the public image of our Adirondack region to the world.

Over time, the various tourism guides, ads, trade show booths, et al which I design and produce have come to resemble a personal portolio of my ku photographs - never more so than this year's Summer Guide. So it has occurred to me that for those of you who don't wish to pop the $100 for ku, the book, you could just request a free copy of this year's Summer Guide and have a decent look at my ku in print and judge for yourself if my ku weaves a spell of the place which makes you want to come here.

In about 2 weeks time, you can visit ForeverAdirondack.com and request a free travel guide. Go for it.

Monday
Mar262007

civilized ku # 13 - which came first?

chickensm.jpg1044757-743852-thumbnail.jpg
Which came first?click to embiggen
"My photographs are not planned or composed in advance, and I do not anticipate that the onlooker will share my viewpoint. However, I feel that if my photograph leaves an image on his mind, something has been accomplished." ~ Robert Frank

Saturday
Mar242007

ku # 466

wavyflow2sm.jpg1044757-741685-thumbnail.jpg
Spring break-upclick to embiggen
In a recent email, Brett Kosmider asked; 'I just noticed in the sidebar on The Landscapist you say, "the landscape photography of photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture". Who might that be for you?..."

Interesting question and, as I try to ponder an answer, the notion that keeps coming to mind is a recent statement I made on The Landscapist about there being too many picture takers and not enough picture makers, especially in the Landscape genre.

In that context, I am still looking for candidates for my 'new elite'. I still cling to some of my old favorites - Meyerowitz, Eggleston, Shore, Adams (Robert, that is), et al. I would also include Burtynsky, Sze Tsung Leong, Geoffrey James, Grusky, and other more recent practitioners in my 'old favorites' in as much as they seem to be somewhat derivative of the former.

That said, I'm looking for even newer practitioners. One who strikes my fancy is Nuri Bilge Ceylan, but even he strikes me as derivative, or, as very-very-very-nice-but-I've-seen-it-before.

I admit to being a little jaded these days. Chalk it up to flickr, photo.net, the blogosphere, et al overload... the sheer number of photographs. Where does one begin?

I also admit to being under the thrall of Jeff Wall at the moment. His pictures are so packed with meaning that they are, at first viewing, overwhelming. He is truly making, not just taking, pictures. Viewing his work at MoMA has left me dazed and confused. I want to continue working in the Landscape genre, but want to start making pictures.

To that end, I am searching for the work of others who might be making Landscape pictures, not just taking them.

PS: in my 'dazed and confused' state, I have in no way given up on my 'straight' photography (or the power thereof) or that of others.

Friday
Mar232007

civilized ku # 14 ~ what would Henri Cartier-Bresson have done?

momaposer2sm.jpg1044757-740209-thumbnail.jpg
Informationclick to embiggen
Would H.C.-B. have been content to sit and wait for the 'decisive moment'? Would he have taken lots of moments and then made the most decisive one?

I use to think that Photoshop hadn't changed things too much - it just put the traditional darkroom on steriods. Now, I'm beginning to think that' it has changed everything. To paraphrase the Tyrell Corporation motto - 'More Human Than Human - we can now make pictures that are 'More Real Than Real'.

The man behind the curtainn looms ever larger.

Thursday
Mar222007

urban renewal # 2

unsettled2sm.jpg1044757-738253-thumbnail.jpg
Series Premiereclick on photo to embiggen it
Sometimes the incredibly obvious is difficult to see.

Yesterday, on civilized ku # 13, Ana wrote; "I've always known in an abstract sense that photographers have power -- I've admired a lot of photographs that are either in-studio or set up or manipulated or obviously created in some way. But "knowing" that about other people's work turns out to be different from realizing that I, too, can exercise that power, which I'd simply never had a sense of before."

As a relatively recent newcomer to the photography game, Ana has a bit of an excuse for not realizing that she 'too can realize that power'. I, on the other hand, with 30 years of experience making pictures for commercial clients, not to mention viewing the work of artists-who-use-photography (one favorite, Joel-Peter Witkin, as an example) for about the same period of time, have no excuse for not realizing I 'have the power" to do the same with my own non-commercial picturing.

DUH.

I guess that's one of the reasons I like going NYC, one way or another, it always seems to shake up how I see things.