After creating a tweed pattern that is semi-convincing, I decided to try a carbon fiber pattern. I decided to share, you know, give back, pour some bits for my dead homies.

Here ya go…

Ok, so I heard someone compare Anna Nicole to Princess Di. How have we arrived at this? Who is in charge that cable news, without anything better to report, used 50% of its air time to the death of Anna Nicole for the two following days? What is our obsession? I think it harkens back to the youth of our country and the quest for individualism. Just like Disney princesses represent everything little girls want to be, Princess Anna is a grown-up, drugged-out, big-boned version. (more…)

What is it about working vacations that holds allure for me? I am not much of a jeweler, but I am learning. Distinguishing different cuts of diamonds is not easy, they are very blingy. While on vacation, I had the opportunity to go to a coin show. As a people watcher, I would reccomend this to arm chair anthropologists everywhere, as it is a facination slice of human strata. As most older currency is struck in precious metals, there is a bit of crossover between the coin dealer and the jeweler. This does not mean that the gradient is subtle. While walking through the hallway at the show, one may see the most hard-core anti-social geek wearing a shirt that reads something in Klingon; in the next moment you may see a woman, dressed to the nines who wouldn’t look out of place in Zurich. (more…)

Why do I keep hearing that I should be producing work that nobody will like. There has been this buzz, I don’t know whether it is just me noticing, or pehaps someone trying to tell me something…but the subject of art and public acceptance has been on a lot of lips lately.

Why would someone work knowing that they were not going to effectively communicate to anyone. Aesthetics aside, there is an urge in connecting with your audience. I have seen work that is compelling, but not pretty; interesting and not even remotely acceptable to the public; not to mention, very engaging work that is more like a car wreck than a field of poppies. I create, specifically photography, because I find the image interesting, and aesthetically pleasing. Sometimes I have to work at an image to change it into what I remember, sometimes it doesn’t reveal itself easily at all. When I am done, it is interesting, and sometimes pretty. I would like compelling and complex over pretty, but I don’t mind flowers.

Where is the line between art as self-indulgence and art as mass appeal? The post-modern movement in art is rife with examples that require not just justification, but a detailed explaination in order to be art. The chewing of blocks of wax, freezing of blood, and the emulation of man goats in ritualistic splendor are not for everyone. Perhaps very few, even Dadaist intentions are at the heart of a 4×8 sheet of plywood–unmanipulated from Lowes–that occupies space in modern museums. I like to imagine the argument between a construction worker and a gallery employee about that piece, perhaps it would decend into name-calling and kicking of the piece by a steel-toed boot. Wow, how would one claim that on an insurance form? “One art - 4′x8′ plywood, $400,000.”

I think that I understand that I should be shooting as if it is for me only, and not for the cookie, but I am simple when it comes to aesthetics. I really do like flowers.

I lurk. I have never been much of a joiner, but I troll. A large part of my time is currently being spent trying to diagnose a problem with my new camera. OK, not really a problem, a “feature” that I may go into later. There are so many photo forums for shooters, editors, snappers, and curmudgeons who incessantly argue about something or other. It is very amusing. At some point the cranks and the noobs will go around about: Survey says… DIGITAL VS. FILM and to a lesser degree Canon vs. Nikon, or even Fuji vs. Kodak.

I would like to weigh in, and this is just my personal experience and doesn’t really reflect what others may think. I don’t think that I would be the photographer that I am without having a digital camera. There is a big difference between what we see and what a camera sees. I didn’t progress with film until college, when I had a class from a brilliant teacher. Even then, progress was slow and the film was black and white.

Oh yeah, B&W Vs. Color.

Shooting 400 iso 35mm in WV, where cloud cover is epidemic, is not a good way to see progress. My first digital changed things. In addition to immediate feedback, I could make leaps forward with teaching photography, which is what I did. If anyone doesn’t believe the best way to learn something is to teach it, try it. Methodology was Memorize/Terrorize. It was very effective. For me.

Feeling confident in trying film again, I skipped 35mm and purchased a Pentacon 6, a medium format slr that is cheap and build like a soviet era tank. Which means that sometimes it doesn’t work, and I am ok with that. It was only about $120 american and I learned how to make a bank transfer to the Czech Republic.

I like shooting with the medium, but I have to admit, it is inconvenient. I shot a few pics at a wedding and didn’t know that a few (most) didn’t turn out, due to a small problem with the B setting. That made me a bit sad, as I really like long exposure, especially night photos. Anyway, that got me to this point. Had I known, I could have reloaded and shot again. I should have used the digital.

As I am not a pro, not used the medium all day, everyday so I am not an expert on the sublties, but for education and convenience, digital is the way to go.