Under construction • click to embiggenWe're making progress on my new office. The room use to be the kids TV / computer / hangout room but since they're both hanging out on college campuses, our entire 2nd floor is being almost totally reorganized.

My current office is reverting to a bedroom. In the new space, everything will be built-in. The alcove on the left has wall-to-wall top and bottom cabinets - plenty of storage for gear, printing paper / supplies, prints in archival storage boxes - and a big deep counter for my printer with 5000K overhead lighting for print evaluation and print matting / framing.

The alcove on the right use to be a walk-in closet. After removing the wall, it is becoming my computer area - wall-to-wall desktop with a drawer cabinet at each end. BTW, it's painted a deep neutral grey in order to facilitate critical color work.

Most of the dirty work is done - knocking down walls, skim-coating the walls and ceiling, scrapping the trim and baseboards, and rewiring the room (back to the panel box). The only pain-in-the-ass thing left is the floor. It has to be stripped before it can be sanded. We're saving that for last.

I hope to be moving in by the end of next week.

Chimney vapors in late afternoon light • click to embiggenEvery once in awhile, we get a combination of atmospheric conditions that cause the 'air' to glow - in this case, a light snowfall, scattered but dense cloud cover, and warm low-angle sun light peeking through the clouds.

The sun light illuminates and tints the snow flakes - also ice crystals when it's really cold - and creates a tinted 'haze' that seems to glow. The effect usually is short-lived. It comes and goes very quickly, especially when clouds are involved. When clouds are in play, the effect can come and go a number of times and even appear in different parts of a scene.

It's an altogether entertaining display made even more so by its infrequency.

Lime and slimey mushrooms • click to embiggenMy fascination with still life photography has many underpinnings, but 2 in particular stand out - 1) the relationship of shapes and forms, light and shadow, and 2) the ability to control those relationships.

In the contemporary era of photographs that present 'posed' people and 'staged' scenes as slices of 'reality', the idea of a 'made' photograph seems neither new nor daring. Although, 'made' photographs have existed since medium's earliest days, one could also venture that, currently, they are being 'made' with a vengeance. One could also venture that prior to this era of 'made'-picture frenzy, still life photography was the predominant genre of choice for 'made' pictures.

I have been making still life pictures for just shy of 40 years. My commercial photo life was comprised of approximately 60% still life photography although almost entirely so for the first 5-6 years (until my skill and talent for photographing people, especially women, emerged, thus launching a sub-career in fashion / people photography - the other 40%).

In any event, I have recently been engaged in which came first, the chicken or the egg ruminations about my skill and ability to control (in 'made' pictures) or recognize (in 'found' pictures) relationships of shapes and forms, light and shadow. I have realized that the 2 seemingly different talents / skills - to control, to recognize - are definitely one and the same.

Although, the fact that they are, on the one hand, one and the same does not negate the fact that, on the other hand, they each required a somewhat separate nurture and development. What I am now trying to recognize is whether or not my initial nurture and development of my still life sensibilities aided in the nurture and development of my subsequent 'found' picture sensibilities.

At my current state of rumination, I am inclined to think that the discipline(s) required of still life photography helped me in developing an overarching 'vision' that has been 'applied' to all of my subsequent picturing endeavors.

So, what I'm thinking is this - anyone else out there who has played with 'made' still life pictures?

If not, anyone out there who would like to play and post in a Still Life Gallery?

Evidence of past lives • click to embiggenI received an email yesterday about a multi-year, multi-school reunion weekend in my hometown of Rochester, NY. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link to see what it was about.

It actually seems like a fun event so I clicked on an Image Gallery link, thinking that it might have pictures from past reunions. Wrong. It was actually 6 galleries, one from each school included in the reunion event, of pictures from the good old days. And there, in amongst some from my school, I came across this picture which includes yours truly.

I have absolutely no memory of the pictured event. I'm totally clue less as to exactly what it was we were trying to convey. Although, there does seem to be an organizing concept of 'signs', not to mention eye wear, white socks and bare calves. I am absolutely certain that, whatever we were up to at that moment, it must have seemed like a damn good idea at the time.

Bat, moth, and butterfly • click to embiggenRecently, Michelle Parent put a link on ku # 497 ~ 99.999% redux to an essay, Art and Communication, by L. Ron Hubbard. I won't even begin to touch on his belief system of Scientology, but his essay addresses the 'what is art' notion from a, if not an original perspective, narrowly defined, but not entirely unfounded, one.

Hubbard's definition of 'what is art' is simple - "When a work of painting, music or other form attains two-way communication, it is truly art."

He goes on to explain, "True art always elicits a contribution from those who view or hear or experience it. By contribution is meant 'adding to it' ... That work which delivers everything and gets little or nothing in return is not art ... While it is quite all right to commune with oneself, one cannot also then claim that it is art if it communicates with no one else and no other's communication is possible."

Hubbard also specifically addresses photography - "... one can ask if a photograph can ever be art, a controversy which has been raging for a century or more. One could say that it is only difficult to decide because one has to establish how much the photographer has contributed to the "reality" or "literalness" in front of his camera, how he has interpreted it, but really the point is whether or not that photograph elicits a contribution from its viewer. If it does, it is art."

Aside: It should be noted that the 'controversy which has been raging for a century or more' has actually been decided quite awhile ago. Photography has been accepted as Fine Art for decades.

Hubbard's position, re: 2-way communication, is IMO a valid one although I find his premise that it is the only criteria on which to determine what is or is not art to be seriously flawed if for no other reason than there is no room in that dictum for art that is created to be merely 'decorative' and 'relaxing'.

That said, It should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed The Landscapist, that I am in complete agreement with Hubbard regarding the value Art that establishes a connection with the viewer that serves as a trigger for 'communication'. In most cases the 'communication' is not an actual discourse between artist and viewer but more of a virtual one in the mind, heart and soul of the viewer.

In addition, in most cases (and of equal importance), there is also an actual communication / discourse amongst the viewers - to include critics - that "adds to" the work in question. This communication can significantly "add to" the understanding, meaning, narrative, and appreciation of the work, so much so, that the communication becomes an integral part of the work itself. It can be said that without this 2-way communication the work could be considered to be lifeless and sterile.

That, of course, is my opinion and it should be taken with Hubbard's admonition: "Art is probably the most uncodified and least organized of all fields. It therefore acquires to itself the most "authorities." Usually nothing is required of an "authority" except to say what is right, wrong, good, bad, acceptable or unacceptable."

Dead dry flowers, tomato and cherries • click to embiggenAs I mentioned once before, my commercial still life roots keep coming back to haunt me - that and my fascination with things as they loose their luster.

WARNING: wherein, in a horrific fit of self-contradiction, I write about painting and how it effects my photography.

Still life-wise, my attention has been drawn to 17th century Dutch painting - not so much the paintings themselves but more towards the cultural underpinnings of the Dutch painters and the appreciative Dutch 'general public'. It has been opined by those who should know (art historians) that two of the philosophical bases from which the Dutch artists worked were: that God's work is evident in the world itself; that, although things in this world are mortal and transitory, no facet of God's creation is too insubstantial to be noticed, valued, or represented.

Caveat: The Dutch Calvinist idea of God and my my idea of God differ considerably.

It has also been recognized that the Dutch projected much national pride in their Art as evidenced by works that glorified their bourgeois culture, their appreciation for material goods, and their enjoyment of the sensual pleasures of life. Despite this preoccupation with the material world, or, more likely because of it (and their Calvinist beliefs), they were aware of the consequences of wrong behavior. Paintings, even those representing everyday objects and events, often provide reminders about the brevity of life and the need for moderation and temperance in one's conduct.

All of that said, I am not setting out to imitate 17th century Dutch still life painting, but I am stuck by the many similarities in the underpinnings of my contemporary photography and those of the 17th century Dutch. I have presented all this in the spirit of the more you know, the more you can know.

OK. Now you can shoot me.

Whirling dervish • click to embiggenThis past weekend Lake Placid was host to the Nature Valley / FIS Freestyle World Cup competition. Most of the world's top Olympic aerialists, men and women, competed in the Saturday night finals. The event will be televised on NBC this coming Sunday (Jan. 27) at 3:30pm. It's definitely worth a look to see the display of extreme / insane aerobatics these athletes perform - not to mention (if they televise it) the nasty / violent face-plant landing by one of the male competitors. FYI, he walked away from it.

Much thanks to Gordon McGregor for his link - on ku # 498 - the real 99.999% problem - to the 20×200 site. The marketing concept of 20×200 is very similar to one that I have been contemplating and discussing for awhile now - one large-sized print in very limited edition (2-4) at a 'high' price, one medium-sized print (of the same image) in a larger edition (15-20) at a 'moderate' price, and one small-sized print (of the same image) in a 'large' edition (150-250) at a very modest price.

The edition numbers and print prices that 20×200 has landed on are: large print edition of 2 @$2,000 ea.; medium print edition of 20 @ $200 ea.; small print edition of 200 @ $20 ea.. Interestingly, if each sized edition sells out, they each yield $4,000 in sales, $12,000 total.

Of the 3 photographers on the site, 1 (a mid-level 'name') has sold out all 3 editions (within 1 week), the other 2 (names that I do not recognize) have generated $4,300 - mostly from small-print edition sales.

I find these results to be very encouraging in as much as they lend a certain amount of credence to the idea that large-edition, reasonably-priced contemporary Fine Art photography will sell in decent numbers. There is, indeed, a market out there that is, for the most part, as yet untapped.

20×200's premise - large editions + low prices x the internet = art for everyone - is very close to the one that percolating in my head. I am delighted to see that someone in the contemporary Fine Art photography world (located in what is arguably the epicenter of the contemporary Fine Art photography world) is finally playing with the medium's inherent ability to make lots of originals.

My brain continues to grind on.