alan_zinn

<p>Charles W. <br> I am sorry I have offended you. Your contributions deserve attention and I have been remiss. I am always surprised and delighted with the number of erudite responses to my topics. I have to race to catch up. With two finger typing and a two-fingered mind, I don’t post them to see myself rattle on. I think good topics provoke volleys of discussion that can’t all be returned by the author. They often send me off to Wiki-land. I have definitely read your comments and their replies and gone on to their reference material. In my defense, I feel I couldn’t have added much.<br> AZ</p>

<p ><a name="00dbpD"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6173649">Alan Klein</a>, Nov 29, 2015; 11:38 p.m.</p> <blockquote> <p>We tend to see more in our photos than viewers see.</p> </blockquote> <p>That is fer darn sure!<br> AZ</p>

<p>Julie H.</p> <blockquote> <p>Whitehead-ian 'lure to feeling' (or shimmer of possibility) that is the source/cause of novelty/creativity that is in the air; and in all things and at all times, however mundane. He's looking for something that he feels <em>is there</em>, not something that he's adding to a scene.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> Yes! and expressed so well - off I go to read Whitehead.<br /> AZ</p> <blockquote> </blockquote>

<p>Fred G.</p> <blockquote> <p>“That's why a dialogue isn't really like two monologues. The photographer "owes" it to his viewers to let the work go once he shares it, and viewers "owe" it to the photographer to allow the photographer's work (and through that work, the photographer) to play a role and have a say.”</p> </blockquote> <p> Yes, yes, yes! <br> First thing in a critique, negative space gets cropped off! Dreamy, atmospheric things give us hints there may be alternative “takes” of an image. <br> I am reading about the 20^th C. philosopher Heidegger (Being and Time) now to understand Borges. Slogging through it thus far has entwined these two contemporaries with some of my musings on photography.<br> Heidegger makes a distinction between observing and caring. Just observing doesn’t reflect who you <em>are</em> in an existential sense. You may care, as in “ have an interest”, but do not attach importance to it.. I think art reflects our interests in <em>and</em> our depth of care. <br> I have tried to make a case for the “waiting images” concept: Images comprised of things I care about await me. <br> An endless “atlas” of waiting images gets us back to Borges and the <em>dialog</em> with the book. A bad outcome for this idea is that too many words <em>await</em> . Too many images wait for the viewers (who <em>get</em> it) in the photographer’s renderings of cared about things. Collaborative images <em>await</em> in that sense. Also, <em>found</em> photographs await artists. <br> Borges throughout his work played with the endless permutation of <em>any</em> reality. He expanded small bits of writing and contracted entire volumes to short stories and poetry thereby establishing a dialog. <br> <br> Adriano F</p> <blockquote> <p> “I rarely modify elements of the image (may say never) with Photoshop or something, but I change a lot the light with plugins to achieve what my imagination sees on a image.”</p> </blockquote> <p>You have just described me! Digital is like a second, whole photographic life granted to analog photographers.<br> Julie H. </p> <blockquote> <p>“That displacement, that full-stop, that <em>oh!</em> that happens when/because it won't <em>fit</em>, won't play, won't cooperate with my efforts to <em>use</em> it (and also, thereby, to <em>leave</em> it) are what, for me, make a really good picture.”</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> We both must be thinking of something like a <em>found</em> object - a perfect sea shell. Yours hold everything it needs to be complete. End-of-story.”</p> <p>All the world IS a stage. Street and urban photographs are inescapable dialogs with the viewer. I actively look for character-driven images. Although, in the same way puns are said to be ” the lowest kind of humor”goofy looking expression, gestures and juxtaposed figures can amount to ” cheap shots” . <br> Post-exposure “creative aids” further the misrepresentation. “Film Noir III with a dash of TX grain please.” <br> Phil S. “Kerouacian” </p> <p>Ha! Say that out-loud - <em>and </em> <br> Robert Frankian -<em>and</em>- Ginsburgian . <br> Zen-like pictures are not possible but offer a Cageian challenge. No doubt there have been numerous <em>blank wall</em> attempts to un-photograph. <br> <br> Phil S., Julie H.<br> I’m sure <em>everyone </em>is thinking about Duane Michaels now! He couldn’t <em>wait around</em> for an image.<br> From Wiki<strong>: </strong>First in Michael’s “… series of photos as in his 1970 book <em>Sequences</em>. Second, he handwrote text near his photographs, thereby giving information that the image itself could not convey.</p>

<p> <br> Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges said that every book is a specific and particular <em>dialogue</em>. The dialog of the reader and the book is in every way an <em>authentic </em>version of the book. How readers <em>know</em> the book need not agree with the author. <br> <br> The same could be said for pictures. Are there psychological or symbolic <em>attractors </em>that allow the viewer to leave or question your intentions and see your pictures in a more personal way? Do you actively make pictures that draw the viewer out? <br> <br> Illustrations are pictures without, or at least fewer, unresolved issues. What they are <em>about</em> is explicitly stated. I make that distinction in my work between pictures that decorate or illustrate in a satisfying way and the rest I make to arouse. <br> <br> The picture is from a series of "first frames". The viewer is invited to write the script.<br /><br> <br> “ Every photo is the <em>first frame of a movie</em>. — <em>Wim Wenders</em>.”</p> <div></div>

<p>Fred G.<br> I know you have explicitly stressed the collaborative aspect of your work.. Sorry for the response I gave that overlooked (ignored ) that. I have a new topic that I hope continues with more in the same vein as influences of outcome that make each photographer and photograph unique. </p> <p>AZ</p>

<p>Michael L. Thanks for response. I also found new threads within the topic. <br /> Finding something unique in mobs of people is a special challenge I enjoy that could be likened to FFB as described here. The challenge is being quick enough to capture somebody else similarly enthralled by the antics of the other photographers (everyone on earth with a cell phone) trying for the same thing. <br> <em><cite><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate</a></cite></em></p> <blockquote> <p>“Fred G. I'm trying to flesh out the ways in which intention and individual choice are involved in photography.”</p> </blockquote> <p>I want to toss the ball to the viewer. I am wary of titles and want the viewer to consciously bring something of themselves to the picture - "Title" it in their own mind.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>I like to go out shooting with friends. We are all different in our personalities as well as our work. It is somewhat disconcerting for me when we discover a common scene, but I have gotten to love their always unique renderings. I usually find myself photographing photographers. One of the friends brings his full-size poodle and we share hanging on to it’s leash. He is our Wabi Sabi, guide dog.</p><div></div>

<p>I have taken mostly informal style “publicity” portraits. I try and please people with <em>my </em><em>impression </em>of them. We can only “know” a person in-so-far-as the limits of our recollections of them. Capturing a person’s <em>essence</em> in a single picture or a dozen is futile.<br /> <br /> We all have <em>practiced</em> public faces. We depict our family and intimates as <em>we</em> would want them to appear to the public. It is surprising how soon infants seem to know this and put on a big, toothless grin for the camera. <br /> Certain people’s appearance sets them apart. Pictures of “types” or in some mannerist style is an interesting challenge. I’ve doing a <em>very</em> long-term portrait project. The subjects are asked to think of it as their “book jacket” picture. People who <em>get</em> the project use it to explore some aspect of themselves. The last frame of the shoot is often the “What the hell, lets do it” attempt that turns out best.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Fred G "The artifice—the man-made, crafted character of all this—is in the manufacture of a photo, the making of what gets called a "frozen" moment."</p> </blockquote> <p>Epigram No.1 <br /> <em>A photograph is a conversation about a moment.</em><br> <br /> My most notable advice came 50 years ago when I learned that the photographic print is an object best viewed in the hand. The essential, material “realness” of the printed photograph resonates best with the photographic <em>idea</em>. The instructors I had then were all up-to-date in contemporary trends as well as the history of photography. They taught the beauty of photographic craft but were open to alternate approaches. <br /> <br /> I believe that of all creatures, humans are the only ones who are self-aware. This ability demands to be expressed in some way. We are compelled to affirm our personal <em>realness.</em> Photography allows expressions on every level of human experience.<br /> <br /> For this reason art is more essential to our species success than all other activities. Fingerprints left in clay a million years ago or images of the furthest regions of our universe today are evidence of our realness.</p><div></div>

<p>Arthur P. This has been a rewarding topic. Thanks. <br> <br> Phil S. – Evans quote is best ever RE seeing photography as an additive process of expression. <br> Got in a creative rut? Go to galleries and museums. Study work you usually blow by. Soak up their creative aura. <br> <br> Alan Z.<br /></p><div></div>

<p>I loosened my grip on traditional photography but have not broken free entirely. It is more an additive thing. I now have an art journal where I muse on photography. Digital photography provides an expanded and extended creative life to all of us in ways too numerous to list.<br> <br> When shooting I am more aware of what will become traditional B/W, or some kind of “arted” rendering. I have really broken free from printing, mounting and displaying. I do mostly books. <br> I have a small “Work in Progress” book going at all times where I test images to see how they <em>hang </em>together with others. From the WIP books – I’ve done ten, with around 60 pictures each - themes arise for monographs. I keep several larger, deluxe volumes in the works. <br> <br> I believe there is a well developed instinctual ability we nurture and strengthen all our photographic lives. We just <em>know</em> when a picture is right. “Serendipity” favoring the “prepared” mind expression significantly applies to photographers. I shuffle images around in the editing process and seem to reach the <em>right</em> image before I <em>see </em>it.<br> </p><div></div>

<p>Fred,<br> Me sarcastic?<br> Why aren't you out looking at the eclipse?<br> AZ</p>

<p>Thanks for looking Charles W.<br /><br /> Sontag’s shift of the conversation about photography to a postmodern, Marxist – some say more cynical, style of criticism threw many photographers into a tizzy. I felt she was completely over her head before I came around to understand her aslant point of view a bit. I went to one of her talks. She spoke of her affinity to John Berger whose writing I already admired. Sontag opened for me other interests in a picture to look for. We know close reading of the “text”in <em>any</em> picture reveals things unseen at the time of its creation. <br /> That the text in a picture can be read, was not a new idea. But changing it entirely to suit somebody’s polemical bent was. Her “guns and murder” comments were a sign of the times. “Revisionist histories” were rampant. Long-held beliefs were being shot at. This picture only <em>reads</em> one way. No?</p><div></div>

<p>My last word on the Egg. <br /> I have already stated I’m not crazy about Eggleston’s pictures. What I find in him and other artists whose work I may not even like is that they give me <em>permission</em> to do similar work and examine various creative avenues I’ve been visiting myself. Given permission to move in a new direction (paradigm shift happens) is good. You must choose who you <em>hang</em> with.<br /> Why shouldn’t one seek an affinity with someone of critical acclaim? I respect the critical writing about them. (although, I think Szarkowski's gotten way out in the weeds here) I feel comfortable knowing that I at least <em>get it</em>. <br /> AZ<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Fred G. <br> I can personally verify that Eggleston comment (as quoted by you) express his truly held feelings. I was at an Eggleston opening in Memphis sometime in the ‘80’s. I had never seen his work. I think. he was just touted as important“Southern” regional then. <br> The exhibit was of Pharaonic stuff in Egypt commissioned by someone. In the Q&A, in my view and others, he was very reticent. Annoyingly so. He mumbled vague answers and even got heckled. The work was, as I recall, high key color. I knew what hi-key color is <em>supposed</em> to look like, done well, so for me, he was OK in that respect. I just wasn’t impressed with what <em>he </em>found interesting. To me it looked like <em>records</em>, or something forensic. I viewed “color” as mostly <em>about </em>color at the time.<br> WOW this topic has turned into an Egg-athon! <br> Alan Z.<br> <br> </p>

<p >David B.</p> <p >That’s just it. My friend was known for wicked irony and wit. As I recall, even without further comment his appraisal wasn’t a dismissive shrug. He may have only been saying that there were no “take-aways” and banality as a subject quickly dead-ends.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Charles W. I suppose that a Chinese scholar's rock isn't all that different from Duchamp's Fountain, the urinal.</p> </blockquote> <p>Re-purposing objects to assists “walk around” mindfulness is aesthetically pleasing. Try to think of a beautiful object in the midst of chaos. My <em>things </em>are museum objects. <br /> The challenge is not to <em>think</em> of art. Like saying: “Don’t think of an elephant.” not thinking of one then becomes difficult, “Don’t think of art” in the context of a gallery is also perplexing. <br /> The attraction of DADA-like expression to artists is that novelty alone offers sure-fire arousal. They remind us: “<em>Do</em> think about art. That is <em>not</em> a pipe.” Visual puns and ironies exercise the bored mind. I aspire to make pictures that fall in the places between wit and beauty.</p><div></div>

<p>I was looking over Eggleston’s “Hasselblad Award” book of color photographs with a painter friend. I always sought his opinions about art but felt he held back a little with his regard to photography. He used photos, including his own as reference material when he needed them. I didn’t voice an opinion that might prejudice his reaction to the book.<br /> As he thumbed through the pictures he said: “But, where does he go from here?” Coming from a painter I held in high regard, the comment – more of a musing – was insightful.<br /> <br /> Where does a photograph go from there?<br /> <br /> I think the view of photographic <em>finality</em> pervades art. Other conversations with artist friends came to mind. Photos were, for them, commonly felt as <em>departure </em>points for the <em>art</em> to begin. <br /> Other media do not have the burden of seeming to be a true record of what things <em>really</em> looked like at that moment. We know that to be a myth, (don’t we?) yet we still <em>feel</em> it in a photograph’s unshakable <em>record of the moment</em> mystique.</p> <p>At what point are you <em>done</em> with a picture? Or, at what point are pictures <em>done</em>?</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>FRED G. "As culture evolves, so will art and its definition."</p> </blockquote> <p>That is a most reasonable and useful way to explain the perennial "what is art" question' It gets us faster to the real <em>best</em> answer: "Art is a discussion about itself." Did somebody here say that yet? For me, that is what my pictures, individually and in volumes are supposed to be. I say "Photographs are discussion about the moment."<br /> Beauty" and "aesthetics" doesn't have to come up and muddle things up with "taste", etc..<br /> <br /> In regard to individual success at art expression goes, the "body" of work counts if consistency over a career matters. I think it matters. A number of successful pieces tell us a r<em>eal</em> artist did the work. I've seen, for example a number of Renoir klinkers (maybe fakes?!) Genius fades in and out but nobody notices it for a time.</p>

<p>I have a book of petroglyph photos I did for undergrad American Indian Art History. The hard granite geological formation they were laboriously chipped into made the simplest expression appear monumental. There was never a doubt in my mind that the indigenous hunters who carved them felt the “spirituality” of their efforts and the results. I never use the word “spiritual” for art or anything else – I’ll stick with “ineffable”. <br /> Indigenous art everywhere offers great insights into essential “meaning” in art. Culture-by-culture it was in continuous flux. <br /> <br /> Regarding animals and art, they, of course, are not self-aware and can't express anything but the primal urges of life. Self awareness is essentially human and <em>no </em>other creature is. All so-called <em>definitions</em> of art must include that fact. Anything less is a mere pretty pebble. If nothing else, Art is about our self awareness. <br /> <br /> My art rat’s favorite artist was Seurat. She chewed up Grand Jatte’ for nesting.<br /> <br /> </p><div></div>

<p>Fred G.<br> I'm thinking of Eggelston's "Graceland" Book. Who didn't take those pictures? I guess that was THE point. <br> My view of Karsh is rather cynical. It is probably due to his popularity. Everyone wanted him to do a <em>Karsh</em> of them and he obliged. I LOL every time I see the Kennedy portrait.</p> <div></div>

<p>Fred G.<br /> The “shaving” picture has significant <em>layers </em>of interest. Thanks.<br /> Thinking of the personal art “atlas” idea I mentioned in the “Fools Gold” topic, the kind of things artists put in an atlas say a lot about their work. Atlas art (media) has an affinity with the “scrapbooking” craft and selfies. In the digital graphic media era, we build enormous atlases. Our finished work is <em>seeded </em>both literally and figuratively by our atlases. <br /> These “<em>moment</em> to be determined”, atlas items form our shooting habits. We “pre-visualize” a continuum if we are doing it right. At the same time, the frames <em>not</em> shot are there waiting to be seen - the “expansion” of art with art.</p>

<p><br /> <br /> The I of the beholder.<br /> <em>Ekphrasis</em><br /> I saw this word and could not (would not!) use it in a sentence or even pronounce it. It means to <em>expand</em> on art with art. That may apply to “found” objects placed in certain contexts <em>becoming </em>art. Kind of? NeoDADA or Fluxus or personal art “atlases” fit in somewhere.<br /> You might say that kitschy things like paintings on velvet become <em>expanded </em>versions depending on where they are displayed. Does dis-placement of kitsch items wittily comment on culture, or are they just our sentimental, personal jokes? <br /> Many things look <em>better </em>as photographs for various reasons long expounded on here.<br /> Elvis on velvet looks better as it is. It really says “Elvis”. What more do you want from art? <br /> <br /> “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.”</p>

<p>John B.<br /> I agree that aesthetics and beauty are kind of tail-chaser topics. Discussing aesthetics you ponder your current feelings about your pictures to learn the current language of aesthetics . My kind of aesthetics seeks to recognize in art layers of satisfaction akin to music and literature that makes it <em>intelligent </em>(beautiful?<em>) </em>and a success. I don't even like the work (actual pictures) of my primary influences. That is to say, I would not hang it in my house .<br> <br /> Aspiring to a fluency of both formal and execution of craft skills is a worthy aesthetic challenge for photographers. Degrees of success are always problematic. To violate or falsify aesthetic essentialism/beauty always leads to new avenues of work. It seems to me that, with art, <em>feelings</em> informed by culture produce an ethereal appreciation of a work. In fact, isn’t that part of it? Beauty is feelings that can’t be pinned down. </p><div></div>