#cbadams

The ‘Inherent’ Loneliness of Chairs and Trees


If a chair sits empty and isn’t photographed, was it ever really empty?” --John Bent

“Sitter” by CB Adams

“Sitter” by CB Adams

 There’s a recent book about photographic “no-no’s” that I haven’t read, but I suspect it includes (or should include) two of my guilty pleasures: one my wife calls my Lonely Trees series, which includes one of my most-liked images ever, and the other, which I have borrowed the title for, Lonely Chairs. This latter series is less well-liked on the interwebs, as if this were any signifier of quality, but which I am drawn to repeatedly. I mostly keep such images to myself, this one notwithstanding.

This image, “Sitter” is the latest lonely chair I have put to film. I was driving down a St Louis street and my eye was drawn to the interplay of light and shadow – the light being especially pleasing, like a spotlight on the chair. By the time I found a parking space and metered the scene, clouds invaded overhead and I took waaaay too many shots before leaving.

I’m not sure why lonely chairs appeal to me, but I know they do to other photographers as well. I’ve seen countless empty chair images made everywhere from Parisian streetside cafes to junkyards. I find a melancholic resonance between lonely chairs and lonely trees, emphasis on lonely. That’s probably the appeal, the sad appeal.

“Sitter” was created with a Pentax SV, 50mm Takumar and Kodak Double X film.

Why I 'Toy' Around With My Photography

“My Bird Girl”This is not the image in the Art Through the Lens show. It’s an “oldie but a goodie” from my catalog, taken with a Holga on cross-processed

“My Bird Girl”

This is not the image in the Art Through the Lens show. It’s an “oldie but a goodie” from my catalog, taken with a Holga on cross-processed

I have a photograph included in the upcoming Art Through the Lens 2019 group exhibition at the Yeiser Art Center in Paducah, Kentucky. I was asked to provide an artist’s statement. This required me to consider — once again — why a good portion of my photographic endeavors involve shooting with plastic toy cameras and then developing and printing my negatives myself. As my relationship with these low-fi rascals continues to mature, so too does my ability to express (sometimes defend) my attraction to them.

Without further ado, here is my latest take on why I toy around with this sub-sub-sub-genre of photography (they asked for no more than 150 words, and that’s exactly what I provided, wordsmith that I am):

I shoot a range of film (and digital) formats from 4x5 to 35mm, yet images captured with plastic toy cameras – 120 format Holgas and Dianas in particular – comprise a significant portion of my portfolio. I am drawn to this low-fidelity, low-tech approach because of its reductionist nature – reduced sharpness, reduced aperture and shutter control, reduced predictability, to name a few. These constraints create boundaries within which I find a rich and rewarding opportunity to render the world. Like poets who work within a rigidly defined form, like haiku, shooting with toy cameras requires discipline while offering a liberating creative freedom. By doing less, these cameras and films challenge me to do more, from taking the image, to developing the film, archivally printing the negative on fiber-based paper in my darkroom, and even to matting and framing. The limits of toy cameras make me a better – and freer – artist and artisan.

When Good Enough Has To Be Good Enough

At the intersection of being a photographer and a father who photographs lies a shot like this.

When shooting a portrait, a photographer faces multiple challenges in terms of the craft of making a photo. When you add the challenges of shooting family in general and an unwilling subject in particular, things get interesting. When you add some additional elements such as a malfunctioning camera (in this case, a fussy Russian Kiev 88 and a film back that scratched the film the entire length of the right side of all frames) and poor lighting (in this case, slow shutter speed and wide-open aperture), things can get really interesting.

What happens when all of the above challenges converge? Well, I got this photo. There is much wrong with this shot, but it’s still a memory and moment that I cherish, despite the imperfections (not the least of which is a slight focus issue). And one of only two salvageable shots from the roll.

It may not be professional. It may not be great. Hell, it’s probably not even good. But it’s still a keeper. Warts and all. And, truth be told, I love the bokeh.

000010320013-Edit.jpg

I Ain't No Chimp

OK. We know that there's a term called “chimping” that describes the habit of taking a picture and then immediately going, “Oh, oh, oh,” like a chimp, while reviewing it on the camera’s LCD screen. I shoot some digital myself, but I don't ooo or ahhh, but I do get that kind of chimp face when reviewing a shot I just took. Can't seem to stop that habit.

On the other hand, there's no opportunity to chimp with a film camera. That's one of the aspects I love about shooting film. Delayed gratification -- that's good for most things except sex. Anyway, I knew this shot would be a keeper as I took it. Call it intuition. Call it 40+ years of experience. Call it luck or karma. But it felt good and right and exciting.

Anyone seen my banana?