A Few Working Notes

I apologize, but I'm going to need a few more days to finish up the "Objects" post. The reason is that there are two distinct trends in the submissions—pictures which contain objects that the photographer remembers fondly, and pictures that are "portraits" of objects, not necessarily ones the photographer has any personal attachment for. The latter tend to be clean and descriptive and not necessarily personal, and the former looser, more personal, and less centered on the object. The two strains mix like oil and water for me, and my first efforts to distill them into a coherent portfolio haven't satisfied. Going all-in one way or the other is just unfair to the other approach, but I'm still working out a way to combine them. This work is visual, not thought-based. You have to look at things together and see—using the word literally here—how they're working.

I know it's not that big a deal, but I feel I should be responsible to your work.

Tina Brown and the Talk of the Town
In other news, my first piece for the New Yorker (I've submitted three now) is going into the queue for copyediting and fact-checking today (or yesterday or tomorrow), and evidently it's already been turned over to the Art Department for illustration. Apparently the photograph I talked about in the piece (this one) will be represented by a drawing. "Illustrations create a little imaginative space for the reader—that’s why we use them in Talk of the Town, for instance, instead of photos," I was told. "It’s like the idea of the photo, rather than the photo itself."

All pretty exciting! Although nothing's a done deal yet. You're not published till you're published.

Photographers might reflexively take exception to replacing a photo with a drawing (like the color photographer Kim Kirkpatrick used to hate the phrase "original in color" under a B&W reproduction), but I see the wisdom. People do have a tendency to take things too literally, and will sometimes assume something is intended as probative evidence when actually it's just a fer-instance. Then they'll "argue with the illustration," and the illustration becomes a distraction. That's why Ctein is always saying some variant of "believe what I say, not what you see." I learned never to illustrate photo contest announcements, because people will assume it's an example of what you're looking for and will send in more of the same.

Plus, there's a history. The New Yorker originally never used photographs. Unless I'm mistaken, Tina Brown (fourth editor, 1992–98) was the first to allow photographs in the magazine—at least she was the first to use them extensively, and the first to hire a staff photographer (Richard Avedon—in fact he was on assignment for them when he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died in 2004). If I'm not wrong, no editor has yet dared to use a photograph on the cover, praise the ghost of Ross, and that's a Rubicon I hope is never crossed. Traditions aren't all sacred, but some are just part of a publication's identity. The New Yorker is one of the last magazines—maybe the last, I don't know—that uses original art and no blurbs on its cover. Clean and strong. Integrity, since 1925.

Anyway, "they're the NFL," as Michael Wexler said to me, and whatever they want to do is cool with me. I'll keep you apprised.

Mike

Book of Interest this Week

Gregory Crewdson: Alone Street. "Filmic" seems the best single adjective to describe Gregory Crewdson's work; his directed and carefully managed tableau are the still photography version of scenes in movies. As such they are hyper-real; more beautiful than life and more poetic, and more concerted. They're also very easy to enjoy and a pleasure to look at.

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kenneth Tanaka: "Preliminary congratulations to you, Mike. I am very eager to see your article published in The New Yorker. I've had a digital subscription to The New Yorker for many years but, somewhat embarrassingly, I seem to spend relatively little time with it. Its longer-form of writing seems at odds with my increasing elderly A.D.D. syndrome. Maybe your features will be just the dose of Ritalin that gets me back into The New Yorker."

Mike replies: "Preliminary congratulations" is just the phrase, and thanks. They do want me to write short pieces, targeting 1,200 words, so the danger of long pieces is slim. I'll be writing for the website, newyorker.com, which I'm told is actually doing as well as the print magazine now, and growing faster.

Richard Skoonberg: "Such exciting news! I wish you the very best! I think you are a wonderful writer and I have enjoyed your posts for years. So good luck!...or should I say 'break a leg?' Whatever, I am rooting for your success."

Comments

[Albert Smith]

Good luck, Mike!

[Chris Kern]

A “Talk” piece in The New Yorker? Over the transom or do you know someone there? Either way, that is definitely a big deal. Congratulations.

[Ben]

You could... do two independent selections, one for each of the kinds of "object" photos. Oil with oil, water with water-no emulsifying necessary!

Always love to see more photographs :)

[KeithB]

Seems to me the obvious answer is *two* Baker's Dozens, one for each sub-category.

[Bahi]

Such excellent news. Whether you're published this time or not, your writing is getting attention from the right places.

[Frank B]

Congratulation Mike for getting into the New Yorker (that is when it actually gets published, which I am sure it will). That is a nice feather to put into your cap.
You are a good writer and will fit right in. Don't go having the imposter syndrome.

[Paul Van]

You are probably well aware of it, but My Years With Ross by James Thurber is worth the read.

[Christer Almqvist]

Mike, I am so happy for you. And for The New Yorker.

[darlene]

That is a beautiful photograph, Mike, and I am sure it will be just as compelling as an illustration. Best of luck!

[Peter]

While I've let all my magazine subscriptions go over the years, I will be subscribing to the New Yorker as soon as I learn they published your first piece!

[Chris Hunt]

Wow, look what happens when you get going. That reply was longer than some of your posts. No complaint here though - always good to get your thoughts on things.

[MikeR]

I cancelled my subscription when I found myself with a six month backlog. I did find that my perspective on articles about "current events" changes considerably when those events become "history."

[ASW]

I have a love/hate relationship with the New Yorker. My wife got us a subscription a few years ago. On average, I figure that about half of the articles should be of interest to me. I am a scientist and love history, but I have zero interest in theater, or a lot of art, or even large corners of the world of music and musicians. Blame my redneck/uncultured upbringing. However... I'm also incredibly cheap so if I paid for something I'm going to use it, so I give every article a chance, and as the writing is generally of high quality (in my opinion) I almost always end up reading them all. I usually do one long article per breakfast and finish up the shorter articles on the last day before the next issue comes in the mail. So, while I generally enjoy what I'm reading (the love), I have this sinking feeling (the hate) that I'm going to be reading the New Yorker every day for the remainder of my life.
I don't think I've ever been on the website, but I will definitely check it out if one of your pieces goes up Mike.

[hugh crawford]

Congratulations!

That Margaret Wise Brown was really something.
I’ve made it a rule to never kick my leg in the air as a demonstration of good health.

[John Krumm]

Interesting conversation about focus, as I've been reading the book "Stolen Focus," which I like a lot. The author, Johan Hari, really stresses the need for social solutions, not individual ones. Spend your energy working with others to change society, rather than perfecting yourself, in other words. Of course, he does mention things you can do to improve focus individually. Read novels, for instance, not just non-fiction, as they seem to increase empathy. Let your mind wander on walks, skipping the podcast (without self-critical rumination, hopefully). That sort of thing. But mostly we need a different world.

[Jeff1000]

Mike's elevating his prose. 🤣👍