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, 2012 - March 31, 2012

Saturday
Mar312012

civilized ku # 2144 ~ damn, she's serious

Post No Bills / Bikes by George ~ E4 Street / NYC, NY - • click to embiggen

Friday
Mar302012

civilized ku # 2143 ~ red, white, and blue

Firehose ~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggenHere's an amusing yet somewhat on target take on things, picture making wise - 10 Photographers You Should Ignore. Although, it makes more sense when considered under the title it was originally published on LPV Magazine - 10 Oeuvres Aspiring Photographers Should Ignore - inasmuch as the authors are not taking shots at the listed picture makers so much as they are at the picture makers who mimic The Greats without really understanding what they're parroting.

Friday
Mar302012

picture windows # 44-45 ~ not forgotten

Waiting room ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenGalerie Richard ~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggenIt's been almost 7 months since I last turned my attention to making a picture windows picture.

Thursday
Mar292012

civilized ku # 2142 ~ a coherent cultural consensus of history and aesthetic value

W25 Street ~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggenAperture Foundation gallery~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggenForm and Pressure ~ Stephen Shore / Aperture magazine On another blog which shall remain nameless because the subject of the following inane / ill-informed comment has been stated over and over again, ad nauseum, on many blogs/sites:

...I still contend that art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And your opinion of what is or isn’t art is no more or less valuable than anyone else’s opinion ...

I am sick to death of hearing / reading the zillions of equally stupid variations on this topic - especially prevalent on photo blogs/site. What surprised me, re: this specific comment, was the short but sweet (and amazingly cogent) response by Kirk Tuck:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But art is an entirely different matter. It's a coherent cultural consensus of history and aesthetic value. That's more objective than, "I like anchovies on pizza."

IMO, that response is right on the mark. Lasting meaningful Art, as opposed to Decorative Art, is indeed "a coherent cultural consensus of history and aesthetic value". What is considered Art is not determined by a bevy of twits texting / tweeting, American Idol style, to register their senseless eye-of-the-beholder votes/opinions. Sorry, it's a whole lot more involved than that.

That said, what Art, as determined by "a coherent cultural consensus of history and aesthetic value", one chooses to like or not like, is, of course, up to that person's individual taste and preferences. I certainly have no problem with that concept. The concept I do take issue with is the "eye of the beholder" nonsense which so many who, ignorant of historic consensus (sometimes referred to as "education") and devoid of any sense of aesthetic value beyond "wow", use it to mask their lack of any intellectual and emotional rigor, understanding Art wise.

In my experience, very few "serious" amateur picture makers (relatively speaking) devote any time reading / learning about the medium and its apparatus (apparatus = any system or systematic organization of activities, functions, processes, etc., directed toward a specific goal. In my use of the word, it most emphatically does not mean gear). On the other hand, they do spend a consider effort reading about and festering over hardware, i.e., the tools with which a picture is made. Again, I have no problem with this fact but, if one's intention is to make lasting and meaningful pictures, you're barking up the wrong tree.

In any event, where I am headed with all of this stems from my recent entry, civilized ku # 2110, and a recent issue of Aperture magazine.

Coincidentally, both my entry and an essay in Aperture features the same Stephen Shore picture. In fact, the essay in Aperture (Winter 2011), Form and Pressure (to read the essay, click on "inside" and then click through to the essay), is a brief look into the mind of Stephen Shore, in his own words, about the making of his picture, Beverly Boulevard and LaBrea Avenue - Los Angeles, California 1975. The essay is very interesting and contains a number of points I will refer to in entries to come. PS You should read the essay just to guard again becoming one of those dumbass medium-and-its-apparatus know nothings.

With that background stated, my point is this - if you can't write a simple essay (200-300 words?) about your own pictures (or any specific picture of your own making), without mentioning gear or using the phrase, "I like ...", you most likely don't understand what constitutes a lasting and meaningful picture. And, here's the crux of that matter, if you don't understand what constitutes a lasting and meaningful picture, coherent cultural consensus of history and aesthetic value wise, you'll probably never make a lasting and meaningful picture. Maybe by accident or happenstance you might, but, as to doing so as a matter of course, forget it.

BTW, if your interest in making pictures is not overly concerned with making lasting or meaningful pictures, that's perfectly OK - really, I sincerely mean that. However, in that case, you might want to consider ignoring the preceding. As the saying goes ... never try to teach a pig (even if you're the pig) to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.

Wednesday
Mar282012

single women # 20 (with variation) ~ caught in the act

Gallery receptionist ~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggenGallery receptionist's hands ~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggenOne of the challenges faced in the making of my single women pictures is the notion of stealth. That is to state, I do not want the target of my camera's gaze to be aware of my picturing intentions. In order for the pictures to work, voyeur / voyeurism wise, it is imperative that the woman being picture evinces no evidence of the fact they are being observed / pictured.

An easy solution to this imperative would be to make the pictures with a long-ish focal length lens. Something on the order of my 45mm (90mm, 35mm equiv.) lens. With its f1.8 max aperture, that lens would be well suited to most available light conditions (indoors or out) and it certainly would yield very flattering, almost portrait-like, results. Nice, but not what I'm looking for.

A long-ish focal length lens would not create the up-close-and-personal / intimate perspective I am seeking - a visual feeling of stepping into / violating (in a non-threatening manner) a person's "space". A feeling which would result - at least, that's my hope - in a concomitant sensation (on the part of the viewer of the pictures) of discomfort / ill-at-ease-ness. A feeling generated by the fear of being caught staring.

In any event, to date I have successfully made in the neighborhood of 20 single women pictures without being noticed. Or, if I were noticed, no recognition of that fact was ever demonstrated. I have never been acknowledged, confronted, slapped silly, or reported to any authorities by the objects of my camera/eye's affection. Either I'm good at the stealth thing - aided and abetted by the stealthy-ness of the diminutive / unobtrusive E-P1/2s - or my subjects have a high degree of tolerance / indifference to a creepy old man with a camera.

That is, until subject # 20. Well, not exactly ... I had already got the shot I wanted - FYI, I usually only get one click of the shutter - but was tempted to get another with a different POV to include more of the flower in the background. Unfortunately, as is made plain from the 'hands" picture, my cover was blown.

Fortunately, she was a very good sport. Upon dropping her hands, she had a big smile on her face. It was almost as if we had been playing a game and she had won the last move. I explained my single women series to her and she nodded thoughtfully - after all, she is a receptionist in a photo gallery.

She never made any mention of my first (successful) attempt and I suspect that's because she never noticed. However, if I have an exhibit of my single women work - and I believe I will - the invitation most definitely will feature the "hands" picture.

Tuesday
Mar272012

civilized ku # 2137-41 ~ trees

Trees # 1/ Tompkins Square Park ~ East Village / NYC, NY • click to embiggen1044757-17344264-thumbnail.jpg
Trees # 2 / Tompkins Square Park ~ East Village / NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17344274-thumbnail.jpg
Trees # 3 / Tompkins Square Park ~ East Village / NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17344289-thumbnail.jpg
Trees # 4 / Tompkins Square Park ~ East Village / NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-17344299-thumbnail.jpg
Trees # 5 / Tompkins Square Park ~ East Village / NYC, NY • click to embiggen
My first extended night walk in NYC was primarily for the purpose of picturing trees. The walk did not start with that intention but upon first encountering some impressive specimens - primarily American Elms - in Thompkins Square Park, I was hooked on picturing these towering giants. As an added picturing bonus, the fact that most of the East Village was shrouded in fog added a somewhat ethereal sense of mystery to the scene.

How could I (or anyone) resist such a picturing opportunity? Not me. So I made 16 pictures and the results have me thinking that I have to seriously pursue this idea - pictures of trees in NYC made after dark - to its logical conclusion. Hell, serious wise, I might even use a tripod.

While in the act of making these pictures, I was struck by the irony of the fact that, even though I live in the largest wilderness east of the Mississippi, I have not made a picture of a tree or trees - that is to state, a picture of a tree or trees, not a picture with trees in it - since I don't remember when*. And, in order to continue with this series, the notion of driving 300 miles to picture trees, in a city no less, is also a rather difficult to come to grips with (for me) idea.

*when informed of this situation, Jimmi Nuffin said it was because "I couldn't see the trees for the forest". He may be right.

Monday
Mar262012

civilized ku # 2136 ~ picturing the night away

Construction ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggenWhile in NYC, the weather was downright warm so I spent a great deal of time at night walking the streets of the East and West Village, camera at the ready. Since my tripod was 300 miles away in Au Sable Forks, my appreciation for in-camera IS and fast prime lenses has increased 10 fold.

FYI, Lumix 20mm / f1.7 @ 1/10s / ISO 400.

Monday
Mar262012

civilized ku # 2134-35 ~ it's nice to be home ...

Gallery ~ Chelsea/NYC, NY • click to embiggenChicken ~ Chelsea/NYC, NY • click to embiggen... but a trip to NYC is always enjoyable. Especially so when it includes a day long gallery crawl with a good friend.

Ostensibly, the purpose of the trip was the previously mentioned Artist's Dinner which, as it turned out, was not what I expected. It was not in a gallery, but in a restaurant (very conveniently located just around the corner from my friend's apartment). There were a couple 20×24" Kris Graves (the featured artist) prints on the wall and a print box with additional 11×14" prints for viewing. And, of course, there was the dinner.

Re: "the previously mentioned Artist's Dinner ... was not what I expected" - this should not be construed as a negative comment. We met and chatted up some interesting people, to include Kris Graves, who sat with us during the first couple courses. The evening was very enjoyable, so much so that my friend and I were mildly surprised, after the short walk back to his apartment, to realize we had spent over 4 hours at the event. As the saying goes, time flies when you're having fun.

One of the more interesting aspects of the event was one which is emblematic of the NYC photo gallery scene, at least that part of it as I experienced in Chelsea on Friday. To put it mildly, the photo gallery scene is in a state of flux. Many of the less established galleries are, quite simply, gone. Some the more established ones have downsized. A few of the biggies seem to be carrying on as usual (although, looks can be deceiving). In any case, things are changing.

In the smaller galleries in particular, even the slightest expressed interest in work on exhibit is greeted with a sales pitch - albeit kind and courteous, never "pushy" - which inevitably includes some variation on the phrase, "we can work with you on the price" - one even offered a payment plan. They are not exactly at the point of saying "make us an offer", but there is a bit of a whiff in the air of an eagerness (desperation?) to make a sale.

Make no mistake about it, selling art and making money is, of course, the point of a gallery but the less established galleries are becoming much more transparent in the pursuit of that mission. For the most part, gone is the air of benign aloofness, re: we're ever so sophisticated and ever so above the money fray, that was once the attitude most commonly experienced in art galleries.

Which, all that said, brings me to our artist dinner host, the fine folks from Baang and Burne Contemporary. They are truly fine folks and I really do admire their efforts and ingenuity in the pursuit of finding a new presenting/selling art paradigm.

As best as I understand it, there is no Baang and Burne Contemporary in the physical sense inasmuch as there is no actual gallery space. They are a "mobile" art "event" organization which conducts exhibits and events - such as their Artist Dinner series - at various sites, as opposed to at/in their own overhead-ladened gallery space. I like the idea although I have no idea how "serious" art buyers / collectors are responding to it.

I suspect that, in a world where much art is sold through personal gallery director/owner / buyer/collector relationships, the concept could work as long as the gallery director/owner has a stable of brand name and emerging artist's work in his/her travel case. In the high-end fine art sales world, relationships and schmoozing is primarily what gets it (sales) done. Although, the fly in that ointment is that, while a good web presence helps, nothing (at least, not yet) says "established" like a nice gallery space.

However, that said, one "genius" aspect of the Baang and Burne Contemporary artist dinner series is that, while the events are not exactly "openings" events, a primary part of their purpose is to introduce an artist and his/her work to prospective buyers / collectors. So, in a very real sense, the dinners are an opening like event and the "genius" part of them is that the good folks from Baang and Burne Contemporary have figured out how to have the clients pay for their own food and entertainment.

I'm not complaining, just saying is all.