The Jay Range • click to embiggenI'm confused.

One the one hand we are told, photography is a cohort with the real.

On the other hand we are also told, The time was, we thought of photographs as recorders of reality. Now we know they largely invent reality. At one stage or another, whether in shooting, developing, editing or placement, the pictures are manipulated, which means that we are manipulated.

Now, I have never confused a picture of a thing with the thing itself. I fully accept the idea that the picture is a 'trace', a 'representation', or a recorded 'memory' of the thing pictured. And, yes, I realize that making a picture of a thing not only rips the pictured moment from the fabric of the continuum of time but also allows the observer of the picture to see the pictured thing only from a single fixed POV - both of which are decidedly different experiences from observing the thing itself in real time.

And, of course, a photograph, by the intrinsic characteristic of its 'frame' (the edges of a photograph), can present only a small visual 'slice' of the actual world. This stands in contrast to what the human sees - while the human can only focus on a slice of its total field of view, human vision also includes a much broader, albeit 'soft', peripheral vision.

All of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In theory many of them can be considered to be 'manipulations' that 'distort' the observer's perception of the thing pictured. It should also be stated that much academic effort has been expended (and continues to be) and much academic blood has been spilled (and continues to be) creating, defining, arguing, and defending various concepts, ideas, and theories regarding the question of what is a photograph.

IMO, a photograph can be many things, which is why I have a high degree of discomfort with blanket statements like the above regarding 'invented reality' and 'manipulation'.

So, all of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In practice (leaving aside created scenes ala Wall, Hobson, Crewdson, Sherman, et al) I am not so certain how they apply, especially to those photographs that are the result of 'simple' observation.

For instance, even though I engaged in 'manipulation' while picturing this scene (choosing what to picture and how to picture it), today's picture very accurately depicts a real place, the Jay Range, under specific conditions, low level cloud cover, during a real event, an isolated snowfall.

I 'invented' nothing. I did create a print which, because it is a real object, is a new or invented reality of sorts that is, indeed, not the thing pictured and so, by its very nature, it is different kind of thing from the thing pictured. It is an object. As an object, the print has its own 'real' tactile qualities - thick vs thin, smooth vs coarse, little vs big, glossy vs matte, etc. These are 'real' qualities that help define the print's 'reality' as a physical thing.

Now, if the print itself is what is meant by an 'invented reality', I'm cool with that. But, in fact, I don't think that is the intended meaning.

Where I think my problem with the proposition resides with the idea of 'photographs as recorders of reality. I don't think that photographs record 'reality'. I think that what photographs record can be a very accurate 'trace', 'representation', and/or memory of a real thing ('thing' includes people, places, events, etc).

IMO, a real/actual thing is different from the perceived reality of the thing. Not to mention that there may be as many perceived realities of a thing as there are 'perceivers'. Furthermore, I see a photograph that is an accurate representation of a real thing as being essentially 'neutral'. Yes, the photographer has directed the observer's attention to a real thing and the fact that an observer may come to a new 'understanding' - a new/invented perceived reality - of the thing, does not mean that the photograph, in and of itself, has created an invented reality.

In the case of a photograph that is an accurate depiction of a real thing, the creation of an invented reality regarding that real thing is much more the province of the observer than it is of the photographer or the photograph.

And that's why I like photographs that don't function as propaganda for a photographer's perceived realities.

Erratics in the woods • click to embiggenYesterday's entry yielded up a couple interesting responses.

One, from Mike (anonymous), explored a very different meaning than most took from the pictures - ""My Life in Summer Camp" could have been the title of this chirpy girlie essay. Perhaps a little more hardcore than our Girl Scouts, but although armed to the hilt by the US taxpayer, these girls won't get to shoot civilians in the Gaza Strip and the other occupied territories. They will probably just swan around Jerusalem with their weapons spreading unease amongst tourists and other unarmed civilians. It's the boys (as usual and at the same delicate age) who'll move into "harm's way" and will shoot unarmed old men, women, and children. It's the boys who patrol the occupied territories. These girls have chosen to be part of a brutal colonial system which should disgust civilized people. If they had any backbone they'd do well to renounce it as did the many USA youths who protested the USA's military/corporate adventure in Viet Nam."

As I mentioned yesterday, no 2 people respond to a given picture in exactly the same manner, which, IMO, is a good thing. Pursuant to L. Ron Hubbard's theory that "True art always elicits a contribution from those who view or hear or experience it. By contribution is meant 'adding to it'...", every honest contribution can, indeed, add to what we know - about the picture, the artist, the artist's intent, and, in the best of cases, what it means to be human. In that spirit, I applaud Mike's comments and response to the pictures.

The other interesting response was from Robert who opined "How intelligent/genius or whatever do you have to be to throw out a bunch of attack questions ... It's a knee-jerk reaction to other people not seeing the world or judging photographs in the same way that you do."

Actually, as evidenced by the preceding (Mike's response), I was not at all bothered by some 'people not seeing the world or judging photographs in the same way that you (I) do'. No sir, not at all. My agita stems from the subject of Robert's other statement ...

"The reasons for finding a photo ho-hum or average can go on and on without touching at all on how the viewer feels about the subject of the photo."

I do realize that, on photo-oriented blogs/forums, photographers tend to react to pictures as photographers, i.e., more concerned about things technical and technique than what a picture might have to say beyond its obvious visual qualities. Such is the broadly ensnaring trap of a medium that is so intimately connected to and dependent upon things mechanical and technical.

From the standpoint of creating photography as Art, more's the pity.

That said, I am at a total lack of understanding as to how one can call a picture that is laden with so many possible emotional / intellectual punches, 'ho hum' or 'average' no matter how 'ho hum' or 'average' the technique employed to make it, or, to put it another way, no matter how 'ho hum' or 'average' the visual qualities appear to be.

If a photograph (or any Art in general) is intended to be saying something about something worth saying, and the pictures in question most definitely are so intended, what is being said is, in fact, the point of the exercise. The visual manner in which 'what is being said' is presented can certainly be of interest ...

but to dismiss or miss 'what is being said' because the viewer hasn't been bedazzled / manipulated / seduced with obvious and flashy pyro-technicals / visuals is, IMO, indicative of an observer who is "intellectually lazy, emotionally deficient, lacking in human empathy / compassion, divorced from the 'real'" (or some mixture of same).

A couple caveats:

1) Just because a person may be, in some fashion or in some situations, "intellectually lazy, emotionally deficient, lacking in human empathy / compassion, divorced from the 'real'" should not be understood to mean that they are sub-human. IMO, it just means that he/she "have very little to bring to the table of not only viewing (the) pictures but also to the table of what it means to be human." More's the pity.

2) Most photographers are 'hobbyists'. On the whole, they are not trying to "say something about something worth saying", they are just trying to make pretty pictures. For them, the act of making pictures is little more than a pleasant activity with which to occupy one's time. That said, it should be understood that, IMO, as far it goes, neither activity is evil, useless, or a waste of time.

3) All of my comments and opinions about the medium of photography and specific photographs come from the perspective of, as the blog intro states, "photography of 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 ...

So, from time to time, my passion for; 1) the medium, 2) its highest potential, 3) its inherent characteristic as a cohort to the real, 4) and its ability to explore and investigate what it means to be human, will inevitably generate some heat that may be difficult and, perhaps, uncomfortable for some to touch. There is no intent to offend but there is intent aplenty to incite and irritate in the hope that something of value may emerge from the cauldron.

A fact for which I offer no apologies.

Whiteface and the flats in Wilmington • click to embiggenA few days ago I viewed some photographs over on The Online Photographer that I found to be very powerful and profound. I showed them to the wife and she too experienced similar feelings and emotions.

Upon revisiting the TOP and the entry with the link to the pictures (by Rachel Papo), I was surprised, annoyed and even somewhat angered to find a quite a few comments along the lines of "... as far as the photography goes, I think it is very average, if not less than average ... They just weren't very interesting or moving to me at all ..." and "... As for the photography, well its very ho hum ..."

Then there was the person who could only muster this comment, "... It would be interesting to know what type of equipment was used for these photographs ..." as well as the there's one in every crowd (how I want to see it/would have done it) - "Am I the only one that thinks this set would look much stronger in black and white?"

And, speaking of there's one in every crowd, how this from a turd named Max, "There were some really good-looking women there ... yes, I'm a chauvinist. But that's because I'm a man, and not too politically correct at it."

Now, here's where I would very much appreciate your input. Ignoring the gearhead and the 'how I would have done it' comments, not to mention that of the chauvinist pig, what I am interested in are the comments regarding the "less than average / not very interesting or moving" photography comments.

As I mentioned, I (and the wife) found the pictures to be very 'interesting and moving'. Obviously, some others did not. This, in and of itself, is no big surprise in as much as no 2 people respond to a given picture in exactly the same manner, although, I think it can be said that some pictures project a meaning and raise issues, feelings, and emotions that approach, in a given cultural paradigm, the status of 'universal'.

Do these pictures project meaning and raise issues, feelings, and emotions that are 'universal' enough so that only an insensitive boob could miss them? Maybe. Maybe not.

But, ultimately, here's my question for you - is it a prerequisite to understanding and gleaning meaning from these pictures that one must have the experience of a daughter of the same age as those pictured? Or, if not the same age, one (or more) who will be or has been the same age?

Or is a modicum of human empathy together with the photographer's statement that includes "The life of an eighteen-year-old girl in Israel is interrupted when she is plucked out of her environment at an age when sexual, educational, and family values are at their highest exploration point. She is then placed in a rigorous institution, where individuality becomes a secondary matter ... She enters the two-year period in which she will change from a girl to a woman, a teenager to an adult, all under a militaristic, masculine environment, and in the confines of an army that is engaged in daily war and conflict." enough to incite "interest" and/or, at the very least, curiosity?

Does it take a genius to 'see' the difference in the 2 'sisters' pictures on the right? Do you have to have a daughter to imagine the experience of 18 year old girls whose constant 24/7
'Sisters' • click to embiggencompanion is an assault rifle (as opposed to an all purpose cellphone)? Does it take a rocket scientist to understand the extreme differences between cultures and the lives lived therein. Or, how about simply delving into the concepts of ''priviledged', 'blessed', 'there but for the grace of ...'

Do you have to be a commie-pinko-socialist anti-American 'liberal' to understand that our way is not the only way or to realize that there are things out there that we may not be aware of, understand, or that we don't even try or want to understand?

How intellectually lazy, emotionally deficient, lacking in human empathy / compassion, or divorced from the 'real' does one have to be to find these pictures not "very interesting or moving"?

I'm very curious to hear your opinions.

If, as it has been suggested many times both here and elsewhere, what one gets out of picture is directly proportional to what one brings to and the effort invested in viewing picture, then I would opine that those who do not find these pictures "interesting or moving" have very little to bring to the table of not only viewing the pictures but also to the table of what it means to be human.

For those of you out there who are contemplating leaving their day job for a full time career in photography, might I suggest the rather eclectic and little practiced speciality field of Photo with the Parrot.

Here's what i know about it - one day in the early 80s, the X, the kids, and I were in NYC visiting a friend. We all went to Little Italy during the St. Anthony (of Giovinazzo) festival. The place was mobbed but we were able to get into the restaurant our friend wanted us to experience. It was a decidedly relaxed establishment replete with a rather large all-black clad mama mia who roamed the premise singing (accompanied by a very handsome and swarthy young guitarist).

The crowd were well into their cups and much revelry was in evidence. In short, a good time was being had by all when, in the front door, came the gentleman, his parrot, and his Polaroid cameras. Even with all the din, it only took one pronouncement of "Get yer photo with the parrot." to set off a near frenzy of eager patrons.

At $3.00 a pop, he was raking it in as fast as his SX-70s could spit 'em out. He seemed to have an endless supply of Time-Zero film and, more importantly, the parrot seemed to be on some kind of parrot-downers. It was remarkably calm in the clamor and high-jinks that surrounded it. I kept waiting for it to rip off some inebriated patron's ear, but it just went calmly about its business with a remarkable amount of patience and aplomb.

While everyone else was having their picture taken with the parrot, I offered the photographer double his regular fee if I could take his picture with the parrot (and my kids). He, of course, obliged.

After his stint in the restaurant, he went out into the street where he was again mobbed by eager patrons. As best as I could tell, this guy was raking in at least $100 an hour. Not bad at all in 1980 dollars.

Also, as best as I can tell, here's the formula for success - several Polaroid cameras, lots of Polaroid film, locations with large gatherings preferably with readily available liquor and beer, a well-adjusted parrot (or maybe 2 - keep one in relief), and lots of patience with intoxicated patrons.

Oh yeah, and don't forget the hat and sweatshirt.

A medley of decay • click to embiggenAs I continue my still life and decay investigation / exploration, 2 'discoverys' have emerged from the proceedings.

1) Even if I try, I can't get way from visually complex 'compositions'.

2) Since my IKEA clip frame discovery, I have been making a picture, on average, every other day. Nothing new there, but what is new is that I am printing, clip framing, and wall mounting each new picture (and a few older ones) as I go. The realization that I have come to from this exercise is quite an epiphany - I used to think that the print was the thing but I have now come to realize that the print framed and mounted on a wall is an even better thing.

I photographed still life # 6 at around 8:45 this AM. By 10 AM it was framed and wall mounted.

What I am learning from this exercise is that if photography is the art of selecting what to picture (and how to picture it) and thus raising the referent to a higher level of 'importance', putting a framed picture on a wall helps greatly with the next level of 'selection'. Putting a picture on the wall elevates it once again to yet another level of 'importance'.

At this level of attention engendering 'importance', it becomes easier, at least for me, to relate to and 'judge' its ability to 'communicate' in a way that no screen viewing or even print in a portfolio can match.

Get framing people.