civilized ku # 2203 ~ an old friend

Rat Fink ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggenThis past weekend, during my wanderings around NY's southern tier, I came across an old friend who goes by the name of Rat Fink. He was looking a little worse for wear but it was great to see him again. And, man, did he bring back a flood of memories.

I number Rat Fink amongst my friends because, while I was growing and festering as a youth during my high school years, I supplemented my newspaper route income by drawing (for a generous fee) various illustrations - bw line drawings only - of Rat Fink, primarily for use as school book covers. Peak season for this economic windfall was usually the beginning of the school year when all of that year's books needed new book covers. Although, it continued throughout the school year as those who had resisted the initial Rat Fink Fever realized that they just weren't cool without some illustrated vestige of Rat Fink.

Looking back on it, I now realize I was probably in violation of some copyright law but, then again, I was definitely a small-change operator. I have no idea whether Big Daddy Roth actually copyrighted his stuff back then. I am certain that I wasn't the only one riding the wave.

That said, I am not sure that my parents overly delighted that all of art classes they sent me to, at the local Art Museum, were finally paying off in my mining of that particular genre.

civilized ku # 2202 ~ reading a picture

Morning sun, oil tank, and other stuff ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenAt the risk of beating a dead horse, I wish to state for the umpteenth time that I consider a picture, in the best of cases, to be more than just a visual record / representation of what is. As Graham Clarke writes in his book The Photograph:

Whenever we look at a photographic image we engage in a series of complex readings which relate as much to the expectations and assumptions we bring to the image as to the photographic subject itself. Indeed, rather than the notion of looking, which suggests a passive act of recognition, we need to insist that we read a photograph, not as an image, but as a text. That reading (any reading) involves a series of problematic, ambiguous, and often contradictory meanings and relationships between the reader and the image. The photograph achieves meaning through what has been called a 'photographic discourse': a language of codes which involve its own grammar and syntax. It is, in its own way, as complex and as rich as any written kanguage and ... involves its own conventions and histories. (all emphasis by the author)

Now, if, for you, all of that reads like academic art theory BS and (again, for you) a picture is just a picture, I have no problem with that. You're not stupid or an idiot - you have just decided to view (not read) pictures according to your likes and dislikes. And, in a sense, consciously or not, you have decided not to learn how to read a picture. Again, I have no problem with that.

I mean, hey ... some people take the time and make the effort to learn how to appreciate a fine wine, a fine bourbon, a fine cigar, or good literature. For some, booze is just a means to get to an altered state and a story is just entertainment. That's fine with me. As I have stated again and again, to each his own and whatever floats your boat - as long as no innocents were harmed in the execution of your choices.

However, for who are interested in expanding their horizons and challenging their expectations and assumptions, it is best to understand that the learning of how to read a picture is an individual / personal endeavor. That is so inasmuch as how much / how in depth one learns about the conventions and histories of the medium and the codes of the language of 'photographic discourse' will influence one's fluency in that language. That said, IMO, however far one digs, some fluency is better, by far, than no fluency at all.

That's because, IMO, when encountering a picture it's much richer to be active in reading it than it is to engage in a passive act of surface-only recognition. Since there is a relationship between a reader and an image and, in large part, because the depth and complexity of that relationship is dependent upon the expectations, assumptions, and, I might add, the knowledge one brings to that encounter, I believe, without a doubt, the picture viewing experience is greatly enhanced by adding the notion of reading to one's picture viewing kit.

I might also add that the act of learning the active act of reading a picture is, in and of itself, a pleasurable endeavor. While it might rightly be considered an academic undertaking, it is by no means a dry and complex area of learning / study inasmuch as doing so involves: looking a lot of pictures (crawling before you walk, perchance to run), both present and past; reading what others have to say about those pictures (to include, when available, what the picture makers themselves have to say about their making); investigating the history of the medium, its practitioners and its movements; and, all of that in relationship to the arts in general and its movements as a whole.

It is also helpful in reading, understanding, and finding meaning in a picture to have knowledge about the era/time in which a picture was made. As an example, consider the New Topographics movement. I find it adds much to my understanding, appreciation, and derived meaning of the pictures (past and present) made under that banner to be aware the cultural and societal era in which that movement had its origins.

IMO, the making of pictures which questioned and ultimately altered the manner in which many approached the making of pictures of the landscape was very much a cultural / societal product of its era. That is to state, the nature-as-a-venerated-'god' pictures of, say, an Ansel Adams, gave way to a more paradigm challenging nature-as-man-altered way of seeing by, say, Robert Adams, hot on the heels of the question-everything era of the 60s and early 70s.

Is it a sure thing to state that the New Topographics movement may not have happened at all where it not for the temper of the times? Maybe. Maybe not. But, in either case, it's worth considering the question and understanding how the temper of that time influenced the making and new found appreciation of such pictures.

And, I can state, without equivocation, that my reading, understanding, and appreciation of the New Topographics pictures, past and present, are significantly enhanced by recognition of the impact and influence exerted by the cultural and societal paradigm in effect in that era and how that influenced the making of such pictures. For me, my eye and sensibilities, and my way of reading a picture, that recognition is also why, in large part, those pictures are much more than mere records of the referents that they depict.

civilized ku # 2201 ~ moldy lemon / strangeness / the cruel radiance of what is

Moldy lemon • click to embiggenIn the book on being a photographer ~ DAVID HURN in conversation with BILL JAY, David Hurn states:

For many people the word beauty is associated with the predictable - pictures previously seen and already in their memory banks, cliché images of sunsets, small fury animals, pin-up, postcard views, and so on. For me, most great photographs displaying beauty reveal a sensation of strangeness, not predictability, a kind of shock non-recognition inside the familiar. They are the opposite of clichés: they have a quality beyond the visually obvious. But even if it is difficult to define, beauty still lurks behind the scenes.

In some things, I am a creature of habit and familiarity - I like the familiar comfort of a favored couch and the emotional warmth of my house/home. There is some music and musical artists I can listen to over and over again. I have favorite foods and beverages of which I never tire. And, of the zillions of fine restaurants in NYC, there is one in particular that I return to again and again. And, of course, there's the wife.

On the other hand, I have learned to appreciate the idea and experience of strangeness. That is to say, strangeness as defined in the dictionary -

...unusual, extraordinary, or curious; odd; queer ... estranged, alienated, etc., as a result of being out of one's natural environment ... outside of one's previous experience; hitherto unknown; unfamiliar...

In some quarters and in some things, I am considered to be strange. If I have heard it once, I have heard a zillion times from one of the wife's very good friends, "Mark, you're strange." The remark is at times instigated by something I have said or done, but, on occasion, it is incited by the viewing of one or more of my pictures.

More often than not, the uttering of that comment is a result of her reaction to my pictures of things she would never have thought to picture or to be interested in seeing pictured. Upon hearing that comment, I take it as high praise indeed, in part because I sense that she is befuddled by, but nevertheless curious about, her own interest and reaction to those pictures and referents.

Now, that said, I don't think that she spends any after-the-fact time pondering her interest in / reaction to my pictures, or, for that matter, even the pictures themselves. But then again, to my knowledge, art and/or the making thereof are not in the forefront of her daily concerns. My stating so is in no way a criticism, it is just an assumption based upon my observation of her personal priorities and preferences.

However, all of the preceding said, what I find truly strange is why so many who profess to be art-inclined/involved are so put off by or uninterested in the strange - those who cling to and embrace, in both their picture making and picture viewing preferences, the familiar, the predictable, and the cliché. Pictures that are not a challenge / threat to their way of seeing and/or thinking, especially so to their notion of beauty.

Some of those so inclined have stated that I seem to go out of my way to deliberately picture things that are odd or strange just to be "different". Nothing could be further from the truth...

... I picture what I picture simply because I see beauty in that which I picture, even though when viewing my pictures I am struck by the thought of how strange it is to find/see beauty in what I picture. Even to me, my pictures strike me as strange inasmuch as I don't fully understand why I find/see beauty and interest in such curious, odd, and, beauty wise, hitherto unknown and unfamiliar referents.

And that makes me think. Think about the world and my relationship with/to it. It takes me out the comfort zone of cultural / societal conventions and reassurances. In large part, that is because I sense a beauty in things beyond the obvious / conventional - something, even though I can not fully grasp / understand it, that is behind or beyond the mere surface of things.

IMO, James Agee stated it - the idea of getting beyond the obvious - best:

In the immediate world, everything is to be discerned..with the whole of consciousness, seeking to perceive it as it stands: so that the aspect of a street in sunlight can roar in the heart of itself as a symphony, perhaps as no symphony can: and all consciousness is shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel* radiance of what is.

Assuming that one believes that "to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is" - to put it another way, dealing with what is as opposed to the imaginary or revisive (wishful thinking) - is a worthy endeavor (and of in-estimable value in living a fruitful life), then, IMO, there is no better art medium than that of photography, with its inherent relationship with the real, to help one recognize the cruel radiance of what is.

*re: the world "cruel". IMO, in the use of that word, Agee meant cruel in the rigid / stern / strict sense of the word - not the causing or marked by great pain or distress sense of the word. I have arrived at this conclusion because the very next word he uses is "radiance" - meaning brightness or light ... warm, cheerful brightness.

civilized ku # 2200 ~ rain

Rain, treeline, mist ~ Keeseville, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 2199 ~ no explanation

Neighbor's backyard ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenSven W (no link provided) left this comment on civilized ku # 2198:

I've mentioned it before, but I really like the "luminous clarity" I've been seeing in Mark's recent images....

my response: In fact, Sven has previously made this comment, re: "luminous clarify" in my recent pictures. I must admit that I am at a loss to say why he sees this characteristic in my recent pictures inasmuch as my camera, lenses, RAW converter, and PS processing work flow has not changed.

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, it is because I have been making a number of my recent pictures under bright/sunny Spring light. That light is distinctly different than that of the just past Winter season. That and the fact that bright Spring color is bursting out all over the place.

Now I'm curious. Has anyone else noticed anything different about my recent pictures?

civilized ku # 2198 ~ good riddance

Empty lot ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenI haven't posted for a few days for a couple reasons.

First, I am quite busy working for a client who, upon prepping to start a new professional practice, has contracted with me to create a logo, design and supervise the production of his business identity materials (announcements, cards, stationary, etc.), design and produce his website, and create and manage a 2 month / 3 newspaper + web media advertising campaign. He has also purchased 8 of my pictures (24×24 inch) for his office walls. In addition to handling the printing and framing, he has also hired me to hang, not only my prints, but all of his existing art and certificate stuff as well.

All of which must be complete and in place by May 25th.

Second, I have spent/wasted some time thinking about how to respond to a comment which was intended to be left on a recent entry. That comment has not appeared on the blog for 2 reasons: 1) any comment which contains links is automatically withheld pending my approval and this comment had links, and, 2) I decided to handle the comment by simply deleting it, something I have done only a couple times over the past 5 years.

Why did I delete it?

Simply because I am sick and tired of responding to comments in which the author puts words in my mouth (so to speak write). In this case, the author also put words in the mouth of another commenter. Additionally, the comment contained statements / assertions about my position on some things, picture wise, which were simply in direct contradiction to matters about which I written repeatedly.

Either the commenter didn't read those entries or has chosen, for whatever reason, to simply ignore them. In either case, the commenter was woefully misinformed in his put-words-in-my-mouth comment and I am not going to waste my time addressing such comments. I've got too many other constructive things to do with my time, like, say, pick my nose and then count the boogers.

All of that said, I want it to be understood that I encourage and welcome comments which take issue with my various POVs, but ... only when a commenter takes a substantive and informed position relative to my actual (as opposed to assumed) POV on a topic. Not on the POV of whether or not I am an arrogant asshole.

BTW, here's a good read on why, when viewing a picture, having some knowledge about the place (and time) of that picture's making (in order have a more complete appreciation and understanding of that picture) is inherently a good thing.

civilized ku # 2197 ~ a great web-based pictures viewing thingy

Margaret Street / DO NOT ENTER ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenOne of the picture blogs which I visit almost daily is More Original Refrigerator Art. I do so simply because I like the way he sees things.

He - I knew his name at one time but have since forgotten it (and he doesn't make it easy to find) - is a man of few words but many pictures. So it's not surprising to me that he recently mentioned a thing called Wordless Web - a simple easy-to-use bookmarklet thingy which allows a viewer, with the click of the Wordless Web icon on one's Bookmark bar (just drag and drop it from the Wordless Web link), to eliminate all of the text on a site/blog and display only the pictures to be found thereon (FYI, the text can be restored just by reloading the page).

Here's what the developers of Wordless Web have to say about it:

Wordless Web is a simple browser bookmarklet that removes all text from any website with just one click. So the only thing left for you to see are the site’s pictures.

No text also means no context. You're free to enjoy the images in their purest form, without names, labels, definitions, or purpose. It makes the pictures we see across the web more mysterious and open to interpretation of our own imaginations.

Try Wordless Web on your favorite sites and see how it suddenly transforms your experience.

I like this bookmarklet a lot. Not that I will exclusively view sites/blog with it, but it's great for, as Joe Friday might say, "All we want are the facts, ma'am", or in this case "pictures". Which, like a gallery-based exhibition, allows a viewer the opportunity to get inside a picture makers head without words getting in the way.

Not that words are not helpful when viewing pictures, they most definitely are, but in a gallery exhibition the only words are usually an Artist Statement which comes at the beginning of a gallery viewing experience. After pursing such a statement the pictures can then viewed with a context and perspective offered up by the artist. Of course, that statement is meant as only a guide of sorts, not as a proscriptive directive on how any viewer must view and interpret the pictures on exhibit.

All of that said, and as Mikey stated (and IMO), "Try it. You'll like it."

civilized ku # 2196 ~ inherently good

Street corner ~ Plattsburgh, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenA comment, left on my recent civilized ku # 2193-94 entry, by Ulrik F. T. stated in part (choosing to ignore his ad hominem-ism, nice guy that I am):

... there is nothing inherently good about an image rooted somewhere/sometime imo

my response: I emphatically disagree with that opinion - some might even state that it is an uninformed opinion (but I won't go there) - if for no other reason than the fact that every picture, by the very nature of the medium itself, is rooted, intentionally or not, in place and time. In the making of a picture we "stop" / capture/ time and invariably represent a person(s), place, or thing. Hell, between EXIF data and GPS technology, we can know exactly at what time and in what place a picture was made.

However, leaving those technical considerations aside, every picture ever made (or will be made) was also rooted in the societal / cultural construct of the time/era in which it was made. A picture is as much a societal / construct as it is a visual / physical construct.

Consequently, a viewer of a picture, knowing where and/or in what era that picture was made and possessing at least a rudimentary knowledge of that place and its societal / cultural paradigm, has a much greater ability to understand and appreciate that picture. In other words, the more you know, the more you can know (ain't knowledge grand?).

IMO, the time and place rooting to found / seen in a picture, whether it is transmitted via the written word or visually within the picture itself, is inherently a good thing. In fact, a very good thing.