A decay potpourri • click to embiggenKent Wiley asked, "I'm really wondering how far you're prepared to go with these decay images. And how far we'll be willing to follow!"

Also, Jimmie Nuffin asked, "Will "The Wife" permit you to leave the rotting food there long enough for it to reach the point of fruit flies?"

Kent, both are good questions and I really don't have the answer to either. However, I can venture a guess to question # 1 - I'm thinking that somewhere around Decay # 40-50, I wmight be calling it quits. That, of course, is only a guess.

My access to decay or my interest in the visual possibilities of decay might have run its course by then. On the other hand, you never know what might rear its ugly head.

As for question # 2 - only time will tell and only you can guess.

Jimmie, you'll have to ask the wife.

Vehicles • click to embiggenQuestion - Is Photography Dead? Simple answer - No.

Taken at face value, the question is ludicrous. Photography - the art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces - is alive and well. Any fool with eyes can see that a trillion fools with cameras are making a zillion foolish photographs a day - just visit flickr for a small daily sample.

But, the question, which was crafted for drawing maximum attention to itself and the article, is not quite a face-value thing. The author, the painter and gadfly art critic Peter Plagens, wasn't really asking if the entire medium of photography was dead. No, whether he meant to or not, he was really inquiring if that segment of the medium known as 'straight' photography - 'the last art form to be tethered to realism' was dead.

If Plagens was using the 'tethered to realism' definition as one that described the whole of the photographic medium then the man is, at worst, a moron or, at best, a disingenous debater with an ax to grind (he doesn't seem to much like conceptual photography) who is using cherry-picked facts to build a specious case (a pile of steaming stinking meadow muffins). Take your pick.

Suffice it to say that the medium has been, since its earliest days, rife with those who, today, we call 'artists who use photography' - the early Pictorialists being a prime example. While Plagens is quick to mention photographers 'tethered to realism' such as Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, Diane Arbus and Robert Frank, he conviently runs out of such examples around the 1970s mark - almost as if the breed of such photographers was a vanishing one. Pure, Unadulterated Rubbish.

In support of this nonsensical notion, he writes that if one were to '[S]tep into almost any serious art gallery in Chelsea, Santa Monica or Mayfair ... you're likely to be greeted with breathtaking large-format color photographs, such as Andreas Gefeller's overhead views of parking lots digitally montaged from thousands of individual shots or Didier Massard's completely "fabricated photographs" of phantasmagoric landscapes. "

Bullshit. I've got news for the man. I was just in Chelsea and stepped into a number of 'serious art gallery(ies)' and guess what I saw? An exhibit of breathtaking large-format color photographs straight - from - the - can (film can) images by Edward Burtynsky, Quarries. Next up was a delightful exhibit, Prabuddha Dasgupta's Longing. BW photography, straight - from - the - can digitally captured and printed, that rival anything the analog world has to offer.

Admittedly, I was in NYC to see Aaron's exhibit which would fall neatly into Plagens' rant regarding '... photography's flight into fable' which he attributes to 'advent of digital technology' (total, un-informed bullshit - see Jerry Uelsmann or Duane Michaels for examples of pre-'advent of digital technology' flights into fable). And, while I didn't see Didier Massard's completely "fabricated photographs" of phantasmagoric landscapes, I did see Alison Carey's Organic Remains of Former World.

Aaron's Cinemascapes and Alison Carey's Organic Remains of Former World are, no doubt, fine examples of 'photography's flight into fable' and 'fabricated photographs'. But to claim that this is something new or purely attributable to the advent of digital is completely ridiculous and totally ignores the history of the medium that is replete, from its earliest days, with a multitude of examples of the tom-foolery he seems to deplore.

Now, if Plagens' point was that photography's flight into fable and that fabricated photographs are in ascendancy in the medium of photography and especially so in the Fine Art world, he have a valid point. But to even suggest that 'Photography Is Dead' (Straight Photography Division) because of this is not only wrong headed, it flies in the face of more than ample evidence that 'photography tethered to reality' (mine included) is alive and kicking. I can barely begin to list the overwhelming number of examples that he conveniently left out - such post 70s photographers such as the Bechers, Meyerowitz, Gursky, Parr, etc. etc. etc.

It should be noted that I am a big proponent of 'photography tethered to realism'. I firmly believe that the defining characteristic of the medium that distinguishes it from the other visual arts is its relationship to the 'real'.
The 'real' deal • click to embiggenDoes that mean that photography can not venture into the realm of fable and fabrication? IMO, I think not and one of the reason that I think not is because much of fabricated flights into fable - many, but not all - still rely on and work with the medium's 'reality effect'.

Aaron's Cinemascapes, as an example, still maintain a sense of the 'real', visually and even more importantly, with the human 'truths' that they illuminate. This also true of the pictures of Jeff Wall, Cindy Sherman, and many others who practice photographic 'fakery'. It is their clever use of the medium's reality effect that draws the observer into addressing the 'connoted' human truths that are implict in their pictures.

Even the photographs of Beau Comeaux (a recent comment contributor here), which veer widely from the 'real' still convey 'truths' and intrigue about humankind's relationship to the night. And, found in his comments here, is, perhaps, a big part of the answer to the Is Photography Dead question.

In his comments, Beau Commeaux wrote; "...the best work I see has idea(s) behind it ... " and I agree completely. I don't give a damn how a picture was made - film, digital, darkroom, Photoshop, special process, 'fabricated' or whatever. As long as it has an 'idea' (about 'truth' and the 'real') worthy of consideration behind it, it's photography at its best in my book.

For those of you who are waiting on pins and needles for my anti-noise freaks rant, I apologise. I got distracted.

A big part of what has distracted me is the Newsweek article, Is Photography Dead? and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the discussion about it on The Online Photographer.

You might want to read the article. Tomorrow's entry will address the topic and I'd love to have a lively disccusion about it on The Landscapist.

Pepper # 1, one week later • click to embiggenThis is actually my green pepper from Decay # 1. I'm glad I didn't toss it. The wife was going to but she asked first. I think I'll hang on to it a while longer, but I can see that I'm going to have to find a decaying space somewhere out of sight and smell.

For those who are curious, I have also posted a picture of the Decay setup. FYI, that's a Majestic tripod for those of you haven't been around for 37 years like it has.
click to embiggenI haven't used it for a long, long time but it's perfect for this series because of the extension arm and the fact that I can leave it in the same configuration ad infinitum. If I could, I'd also bolt it to the floor for the duration but that might just push the wife over the edge.

The Prestone antifreeze counter-weight prevents the whole affair from doing a very expensive face-plant into the decay of the day. I use Prestone because it's either that or a $200 photographic counter-weight.

3 year old heaven • click to embiggenThis past weekend Hugo not only got to attend Saturday evening's Xmas tree lighting / Santa and his wife come to town in a horse-drawn wagon event, but on Sunday morning, we also went to breakfast with Santa at the local firehouse - pure undiluted excitement in a jar for a just turned 3 year old.

Santa obviously booked a room and stayed overnight in Au Sable Forks. Although, he and the Mrs. could have just as easily gone about 12 miles down the road to his home and workshop at North Pole, NY.

Mrs. Claus must have been sleeping in on Sunday morning since she was no where to be found. As far as I know, she wasn't missed either. It must take a strong woman to play such a total second fiddle to her man. How about a rousing round of Stand By Your Man for Mrs. Claus.

In any event, Hugo was thrilled to be awash in a sea of red.

Tree lighting night • click to embiggenThis past weekend, our village held its annual Xmas tree lighting event. There was caroling, cookies and hot chocolate. Santa and Mrs. Claus also came to town on a horse-drawn wagon.

The only, ahhh ... 'negative' was single digital temperatures which tended to make the cookies hard as rocks. Nevertheless, one blown fuse and a grinch who stole Xmas later, the lights were lit and Santa and Mrs. Claus made their grand entrance. Candy canes were flowing like (unfrozen) water and the kids could take rides with Santa in his horse-drawn wagon - small town fun at its best, although Hugo did wonder why Santa didn't bring any presents.

Yesterday, Don wrote: "When I was shooting 35mm years ago I always shot slides. I would have a roll of 36 in the camera and a couple of rolls in my pocket. Because of this I was very careful of what I shot because I didn't want to waste film but today of course with digital it is different ... Today my camera is set for JPEG Fine,Image size large ... which gives me about 294 on my card ... My question is this, yes we can take more shots but by doing this have we lost the discipline. When shooting film we looked for the "shot", took our time composing but today it is shoot, shoot, shoot. Sometimes I think instead of a 1GB card I should go out with a 256mb which would limit me to about 70 images ... What is your feeling on this?"

Personally, I have no real problem per se with 'shoot, shoot, shoot'. That is, unless one is doing so because they are practicing the 'a zillion monkeys with a zillion typewriters' approach to making a good photograph.

That said, I do shoot in a more 'disciplined' manner when I haul out the 8×10, what with the cost of film and processing. When I shoot digital, I do tend to 'work' the subject a bit more but only in relatively small variations and rarely more than 2 or 3 variations at most. Then again, my camera has Live View which allows be to use the LCD to compose just as I would use the ground glass focusing screen on a view camera. I actually don't use this much since the camera also has a Preview Mode that captures an image for viewing on the LCD but does not write it to the memory card.

All of that said, I don't really think the issue is one of 'discipline' relative to the number of exposures made. Rather, I think the issue is one of finding your groove, aka 'vision, and then 'seeing', and hence shooting, become more intuitive and 'on the money' when one ventures out to picture.

FYI, these pictures were made at ISO 1600 on a camera with a 4/3rds sensor (not known amongst the tech-geek crowd for its 'noise-free' high ISO performance). Stay tuned for tomorrow's rant on 'noise' and those afflicted with the no-noise fetish.

Busy scenes
Massive solids
Times Square, NYCI was doing some file housekeeping and I came across some pictures that seemed like they belonged together, some obviously so, others subtlety so. In any event, I would be interested to read what you think about them.

Of late, you may have noticed that I have been drawing upon the tidbits of Brooks Jensen as fodder for discussion. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is that I/we have run through quite a plethora of topics over the last year or so - At vs. art, fine Art vs. decorative art, meaning, truth, studium and punctum, referent and connoted, pretty vs. beautiful, modernism / postmodernism, the work of other photographers, the price of tea in China, etc. The well has by no means run dry, but I am 'coasting' a bit now that the holidays are upon us.

I am also trying to focus much more intently on my Art. Not only the new Decay work, but also editing over 700 of my ku pictures - urban and natural world - down to a strong, focused collection of about 100 pictures. The editing is very difficult - to mix a metaphor, it is a back-breaking mental exercise.

Nevertheless, it's on with the show (and another Brooks Jensen tidbit).

"If your work gains attention because of your extraordinary craft and technique, your fame will be fleeting. Pretty soon, everyone will be able to easily do work that is just as good as your masterpiece of craftsmanship from today. When that happens, your work will have to stand on the merit of its artistic content alone. When 'everyone can do it' is when the artist's role is clearest."

IMO, there is a whole lot of "everyone can do it" photography out there. This phenomenon became especially pervasive with advent of digital capture and 'processing'. Now, just about everyone (with at least half a brain) can make ultra 'clean', ultra dynamic range, ultra sharp, ultra whatever pictures. 'Craftsmanship' is everywhere apparent. The 'artist's role' is not so prevelant.

Which brings to mind yet another Jensen tidbit - "For the first several years one struggles with the technical challenges ... [B]ut, eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. it is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit."

Black Brook • click to embiggenI live in the Town of Black Brook. This is Black Brook as is goes by the bowling alley and around the corner into the Au Sable river.

This section of Black Brook is just around the corner from my house - a wildness close to home. I mention this as a reminder - the Wildness Gallery is kind of just sitting there.

I also post this picture as an example of Brook Jensen's tidbit (from LensWork #50, Things I've Learned About Photography) - "What one photographs says as much about an internal and personal process as it does about an external bit of subject matter ..." - a notion that I've always felt to be true long before I read it by Jensen.

This idea, at it's simplest, goes a long ways in explaining why many take extreme umbrage when their pictures are called trite sentimental dreck or ubiquitous romanticist schlock by those who might be bold enough to venture such an opinion in public. (When I am confronted by such an opinion about my pictures, I just consider the person who uttered it to be a blithering idiot and just let it go at that.)

But, nevertheless, If you're picturing and it's not about an 'internal and personal process', what's the point?