poorly knit

Formal Analysis.

2011-02-21T16:52:00.000-08:00

David De Beyter has two images up in the Aperture gallery, but I was drawn to the top image. It is a person in a make shift tent, lit artificially from the inside. The tent is situated in the middle of the frame surrounded by a vast empty field. There is one rectangular form in the center right of the tent. The fading purple and orange sky provides for a beautiful and simple background. I was attracted to this photo because of its strong sense of wonder, shown through the hazy atmosphere and strong diagonals.

The photograph is shot in a deep depth of field, all in focus and clear. It’s from a landscape perspective. The content is placed right in the middle of the rectangle., full of bright shapes, making the photo very three-dimensional. The elongated lights on the highway in the background shows that it’s a long exposure. From top to bottom, the photograph gradually moves from light to dark values. The bottom, where the grass is, sits in the dark, but the light shapes from the tent pull the viewer up to the twilight sky. The most intense area of the image is the midsection – where the tent is constructed. The light is the brightest here; drawing our eyes to the shelter this figure has taken refuge in. The bright, jagged values of light make this piece the most important of the photograph.

The space is recessional. The field is long and wide, spreading to a far off highway and faded trees. Foggy background provides the viewer with a setting, which gives more information about the image. The dark trees to the left of the tent are obviously further away because of their scale. There’s also a structure to the left that creates distance from the tent, showing us that the space is massive. Both are small in comparison with the tent. Because of the shapes in the tent, the photograph transforms into beads of value and line. The glaring values of the tent turn the middle of the photograph into white triangles and rectangles, with diagonal lines holding it together.

The actual content of the photograph, the real meat of the picture, is very reminiscent of many post-apocalyptic films. The warm tones and wasteland atmosphere add to the murky mood of the photograph. The dark values at the bottom paired with the warm light of the top produce a gradient of warmth and mystery. The structure and tree to the left are so dark, almost black, and ominous.

Overall, this image is a stunningly and mysteriously composed piece of art. The color tones, values, and shapes work together to create a cryptic and eerie setting. It is successful on many levels, including conceptually and formatively. There are still no real answers to the content that De Beyter set up, but light and form make up for it.

On Popular Photography.

2011-02-08T17:06:00.000-08:00

The new trend of photography appears to be series of images of randomized nouns, making it inaccessible for the viewer. It confuses, which coincidentally is the antonym for enlighten. When I look at a body of work by an artist, I look for consistency, cohesiveness, and intent. The intent doesn't have to be sitting there on a plate for me, but the viewer should have some idea of what the intent is by looking at the body as a whole, then moving onto the artist statement. If a person comes through a gallery and feels alienated, that is not successful (unless it was intended, then you are just an asshole).

All questions should not have to be answered, especially just by looking at the photos. But there is a shocking amount of work being made in art schools (and out) where only the students "understand" it. I have a problem with that.

A question that every artist should ask themselves is what is the purpose of art? If your purpose is beauty, then make beautiful pieces. If your purpose is to communicate, then communicate. Once you identify the purpose, that becomes the goal, and that sets you off into making work.

If the point of this new trend of work (which I have examples of down below) is to communicate, then they have succeeded, yet what exactly is being communicated? When I look at the erratic display of images, a life is illustrated for me.

The only thing I can gather is that these brands of photos are journals of the person taking them. When you publicize a journal or opinion, you have to make the listener/viewer want to pay attention and want to be interested in your life. Convince me that you aren't just selfish. These "journals" (if we can call them that) are the illustrations of the lives of the rich and privileged. White privileged kids documenting their lives, but why should anyone care? Convince the viewer that your life is worth looking at. The only thing you are communicating to me right now is that you have the ability to pay for art school, buy a rangefinder, and live in Brooklyn, therefore validating your presence at art school. The work communicates, but the makers (or takers) aren't thinking about what is being communicated.

An example

Second example

On my rant about SVA students.

2011-02-08T17:00:00.000-08:00

About two weeks ago, I posted a rant on another blog about a show that was on the 5th foor of the photo building at The School of the Visual Arts. My rant was very explicit in it's language, and I resorted to name calling out of my annoyance and anger. This was not the right thing to do.

I stand by my opinion of the work, so I decided to write a real, intelligent entry about it. I should have done that in the first place.

While reading for my Photo Criticism class.

2011-01-15T14:12:00.000-08:00

"What do I do as a critic in a gallery? I learn. I walk up to, around, touch if I dare, the objects, meanwhile asking questions in my mind and casting about for answers - all until mind and senses are in some rough agreement, or until fatigue sets in."

-Peter Schjeldahl

The Effects of the Internet on Photography.

2010-12-01T17:54:00.000-08:00

In my photo critique class this week, my teacher said that the internet has ruined photography because you can see photos for free. Now we all know where this is leading. Photography is dead, creativity is dead, technology has made everything too easy. Here we go.

The internet is amazing. And technology is beautiful. We have no choice but to embrace where this is all leading. Yes, we can host photos for free on Flickr. And photographers have websites where we can view their work. Tell me how this is bad? I think my teacher mentioned the need for gallery shows, or prints or something of that nature. I don't know about you, but if I like the work then I'll go see it in person.

The popularity of digital SLRs is the only real issue that can be had with technology. Everyone has a camera now and most can afford amateur SLRS. I've read several articles that argue about the moms in America with their Canon Rebels being competition. Oh no, they're stealing business from us real photographers that are in art school! Really? What is really the problem with the availability of cameras and photography information? What is the problem with free photo hosting sites? And what's wrong with photographers having websites so that people can easily contact them? I find it useful and convenient, don't you?

Technology isn't something to be afraid of, especially when it comes to art. How did the internet ruin photography? I vote that it made it better. Information is made accesible to people who aren't part of the "art world", but it also makes things easier for people like students. Cheaper cameras and equipment, sites like Strobist, and free photo hosting makes it easier for poor students to access information and equipment.

There is still some air of pretention and elitism at art school. "We" are so different from everyone else. "We" shoot film because we're smarter than you. If this is true, then why do "we" hate technology so much?

The Reversal of Gregory Crewdson.

2010-11-16T17:35:00.000-08:00

Gregory Crewdson was or is everyone's favorite photographer. His images are relatable, technically perfect, simple, and beautiful. They transcend that tiny barrier between fine art and editorial photography, and I believe that is where his popularity lies.

When I first came upon his work, I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Excessive? Yes. But also amazing. I didn't want to like it, probably because of jealousy, yet in the end he became my favorite photographer. In addition to that, his work symbolized what I wanted to have for myself. The lighting, locations, complete control over the situations, and actors are all elements I wish for in my own work. Cinematic right?

Cinematic seems to be the "it" word in photography these days. Of course, I'm only 20 so this trend probably isn't that new. In my experience at school and looking at current work, it's hard not to see this trend in contemporary photography. An implied narrative is the top of the ladder.

The reason for the title of this post is this: Gregory Crewdson is no longer who I aspire to be. Hold in the gasps. If you know me at all, then this is probably a shock. Let me explain.

If you look at Crewdson's full body of work, most of the pictures have the same feeling and the same emotion attached. There's a strong sense of distance, apathy, lack of consciousness throughout every expression and every figure. It has started to get boring. Twilight was a stunning series focusing on the banality of suburbia. Even when strange things happened, the figures were expressionless and emotionless. The concept could be as complex as the viewer wants to make it. Crewdson became known for this aesthetic, and his photos sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I recently saw his new work at the Gagosian gallery on Madison Avenue. It was completely boring. And it started me thinking, can Crewdson move on from that one majorly popular series?

My reversed opinion on him is stemming from these new photos. If you combine the new photos with the rest of his body of work, it's still the same lack of emotion. Some might say that's the point. But if it doesn't keep the viewer interested, then does it matter what the point was? In my mind, he has become strictly a technical photography. Conceptually, I'm losing interest.

Mr. Crewdson, please win back my heart.

Art and Commercialism.

2010-08-16T10:56:00.000-07:00

The word "commercial" and art in the same sentence feels like a big no-n0. In the more pretentious circles it seems like having a piece that looks commercial means you've sold out. After exploring this subject and being exposed to a lot of examples lately, I have decided to organize my current thoughts on it.

Art wants to be successful. It wants to reach people. There is some psychology involved in this. People make art and people want to be noticed and accepted right? And most, if not all, art is very personal to the person who made it. So of course we want our work to be successful right? The problem with not wanting to be commercial brings the possibility of isolation.

When we look at anything, whether it's a book, a painting, a photograph, a movie, or a comic book, we see how we can relate. It's inevitable. Comparing ourselves to the thing we are looking at just seems natural. When a normal person comes into a gallery and sees a bunch of stacks of paper against the wall, do they feel like they are invited to experience? Or do they feel stupid because they "just don't get it"? I think sometimes as artists we feel like people who aren't artistic won't understand what we do. Our job would then be to make pieces that are relatable, understandable, attractive, etc. When more than just the art world is attracted to a painting, is it then decided that it's commercial?

During the summer, I have seen a lot of work that made me feel isolated and confused. How is that successful? Great, all your friends think you're awesome and brilliant but what about the public? It's safe to say that artists hope to sell their work. If there is a semblance of real life and ideas in there, then most people should be able to find something to latch onto. If a soccer mom can go up to a painting and see something in it, apply it to her own life, and really feel something from it, then it is successful right? If our goal as artists is to spread our original and unique points of view with all people, then that is how we should make work.

Something I learned in critique is that inclusion is key. If the work speaks only to you or the people involved, then the goal of sharing with others just won't work. Successful art hinges on accessibility. As long as we, the people viewing your piece, can pull something out of it that we can hang on to, then we will want to see more. We should feel and see and hear and imagine. Not be put off because we feel stupid for not understanding.

After all, art critics aren't that important. It's the average viewer that determines the outcome of a work of art.

2010-06-18T00:34:00.000-07:00

I'm preparing a few blog entries but my thoughts aren't quite arranged yet and I need to gather some images.

-How Flickr has destroyed or at least soiled the self portrait

-the distance between us and the camera

-the use of the camera (massive viewing audiences)

-thoughts on misleading the subjects

On Susan Sontag.

2010-06-08T15:11:00.001-07:00

The first chapter of Susan Sontag's book On Photography is, hopefully, a run down of the subjects to be discussed in the book. It is a plethora of comparisons ranging from tourism to phallic symbols.

She talks about the uses of photography, for the most part. Evidence is a big deal to her. Evidence of events, the past, achievements...From this theme she moves into tourism and then on a tangent about the Japanese and how suffering effects picture taking. This section stood out to me, mainly because it was so random and hard to follow. She goes from photographing personal achievements to why the Japanese like to take pictures on trips. For lack of a better word, it was weird.

There are a few sentences that compare to camera to a gun and a penis. I don't really even know what to say about that. If she is going to make these comparisons then she should put more into it. There are two sentences on page ten about the camera being a phallus, also mentioning fantasies for "shooting". I'm not opposed to this idea, but I just don't get it if the comparison is not explained.

My main problem with her writing is her writing. The style in which she shares her opinion is self righteous, unorganized, and almost spiteful. Sometimes I wonder if she even likes photography. This book feels like a necessary chore that she was forced to finish. And I'm only done one chapter.

Jumpology.

2010-06-07T12:31:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Susan Sontag right now.

That's all I will say for the time being.

_______

So I saw this picture in my photo history book during the school year

and I thought it was awesome. We didn't even talk about this photo though. I showed my boyfriend and I think he fell in love with Philippe Halsman, the photographer. We found out that he has a whole book full of jumping shots of famous people. By telling people to jump for their portrait, he captured a true expression, which seems to be the goal for all portraiture. Instead of putting them in a chair in a studio with hot lights burning their faces, he asked them to jump. A lot of portraiture looks similar and has the same goal: to show the viewer the sitter's personality. Halsman believed that by asking his subjects to jump, their true selves would show through because they weren't thinking about how they appeared to the camera.

The Laurence Miller Gallery had about 50 of his photographs on display, all jumps. The subjects ranged from entertainers to artists to politicians. It was a good exhibit, although the space was small. Halsman seems to be an underrated photographer. We skipped over his image in class, but it is just as important to the genre of portraiture as Avedon. The greatest part of these photographs is his ability to portray people we tend not to like (politicians) as approachable, happy, normal people. I want to hang out with Nixon now.

He is using a natural moment to show us who these people are and that is a coveted quality.

“When you ask a person to jump, his attention is mostly directed toward the act of jumping, and the mask falls, so that the real person appears.”
-Philippe Halsman

My photo history paper.

2010-05-03T09:03:00.001-07:00

In 1984, grad student Doug DuBois started photographing his family. This project started out innocently enough, but eventually it would unravel into a 30 year series documenting all the turmoil that occurred in his family. The collection of photographs can now be found in his most recent book ...all the days and nights. The images themselves are reminiscent of William Eggleston, in style and subject matter. The layout of the book is also very similar to Eggleston’s Guide, yet DuBois took it further. The photographs in Doug DuBois’s book depicting his family are arranged in such a way that mimics the tumultuous times had by the subjects, reinstating the idea of separation and isolation through careful consideration of placement.

Doug DuBois’s father fell from a commuter train just a year after he started photographing his family.1 This misfortune was just the beginning of a series of events that would unfold before his camera. For the next thirty years he was more of an observer rather than a participant in his family. He photographed his family through the worst times of their lives. Through attempted suicides, multiple divorces...all the while he spectated, documenting it all. He was capturing those unsaid feelings between them, the awkward moments and the tension that no one would admit was there. His father falling off the train caused him to spend more time at home, so he took pictures. The pictures he made are intense portraits of his family. So much loss and pain occurred in the decades that he photographed, yet the series is incredibly relatable. The general public can relate to family drama, isolation, and loneliness. Thus, this photo book has become more than a photo book: it is now the memoir of Doug DuBois.2

The book is full of pictures of his family, spanning over twenty years. The images reflect the general atmosphere of the turmoil going on in his family. Beautiful images with amazing light and colour merely suggest a narrative; there is no obvious plot. At the end of the book DuBois has written an afterword, explaining what's going on throughout these twenty or so years.3 Having this explanation, the viewer finds themselves going back through the pictures much slower, noticing the smaller symbols for the events that are now clear. The experience of reading this book (images and afterword) is unforgettable. His clever and symbolic layout and sequencing made for a perfect product.

...All the days and nights contains these family photos. They are arranged in such a way that emphasizes the overall story. The sequencing of events creates a narrative between each situation, connecting them all in a chronological series. When speaking about his book, DuBois says that he paid very much attention to the sequencing and dividing of the images, making many trial books before deciding on one.4 He says in an interview with Alec Soth on the blog Conscientious:

In my most intimate photographs there is a detachment that speaks of my isolation. I no longer see my family as an assured source of comfort but as a part of the confusion of my adult life. In the conflict between intimacy and detachment, I feel the loss of my childhood family.5

This isolation and detachment he talks about is evident in not just the photographs but the book itself. Every detail is considered, all pointing to one constant feeling of loss. The cover of the book even hints at events that happen later in the book. It holds a picture of his mother and father. Husband is looking at his wife with a look of admiration, maybe respect, and maybe even love. She is gazing downwards, her expression somewhere in the range of a blissful sadness. It’s almost like she suspects what will happen later. On the back of the book, there is just the mother. She’s alone, at the end, which alludes to their divorce.6 This thoughtfulness of dividing up the pictures is shown throughout the whole book, not just the cover. The feelings of loneliness and separation are not just seen in DuBois’s portrayal of the events, but also the subjects in each photograph. Both his sister and his mother are abandoned by their husbands, left only with each other for comfort.7 Since the photographs in ...all the days and nights are of family members and events, this body could be perceived as merely family snapshots. Because of the sequencing of photos in the book itself, the work is elevated to the point that DuBois hoped it would reach. It turns out to be more than just snapshots, but a very intimate look inside this photographer’s life. This would not have been possible if he had just thrown a quick book together and not paid any mind to the layout, style, or progression of images.

Most of the book is one picture per two pages, using one page as a blank space. Some of the pictures, however, are placed right in the middle of the spine of the book so that there is a line dividing the picture. This is a thing that most people avoid when laying out a book, but DuBois used it to his advantage. It is no longer an ugly necessary but a symbolic piece of the story. Most of these splits occur with a figure left alone one the far side, opposite of the other figures. The choice to do this speaks to the overall story and theme of the pictures: separation. Though DuBois is not the first to space his pictures out this way, he is one of the few that effectively uses the layout of the book to enhance his idea.

In 1976, William Eggleston had a solo exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art. His colour photographs of mundane, everyday objects changed the shape of fine art photography. These iconic photographs were compiled into a book entitled Guide.8 The images are arranged one every two pages, with the page number placed on the left hand side, in the middle. This is almost exactly how DuBois has his pages laid out. A few minor changes aside, the books are practically identical. Eggleston is an inspiration to most colour photographers, if not all, and it is quite evident when viewing his book next to DuBois’s. However with DuBois, the layout is intentional, each division of image means something. Eggleston’s sequencing is almost as random as the imagery, though it all comes together as a portrait of the South. Photographing the normal household objects, as Eggleston does, overlaps into the photographing of home, as DuBois does. The subject matter is relatively similar in it’s mediocrity, and even, at least one time, is duplicated. Both DuBois and Eggleston have photographs using an unfinished puzzle as the subject.9 They are even shot in the same light conditions. When looking through DuBois’s book, it’s difficult not to think of Eggleston.10 He was an obvious inspiration, as he is to most photographers, and it is evident in DuBois’s work and layout of his book.

Doug DuBois brings all the elements of photography and storytelling together. His pictures are technically good, aesthetically pleasing, and emotional. His use of division and colour only enhance the story. He is a great example of good work that shows understanding of equipment and craft as well as a clear idea with interdependent text. DuBois’s work is reminiscent of what was being produced in the 1970s when colour photography was gaining more respect. Eggleston and DuBois share many things, but rather than a book full of pictures, DuBois has provided viewers with a cohesive story. By using the layout of his book as an enhancement to the narrative, he created a symbolic memoir that is not just confined within the photos, but from cover to cover.

While studying.

2010-05-02T20:43:00.000-07:00

"I think everything is mysterious ... To me everything in art is a symbol, it's never the thing ... I believe that symbols are more important than the people. they have more power to influence the world than the people who create the symbols. Why is it that all the great philosophers, scientists, paintersz, and so forth still have this great influence? It's because of the symbols they left us."

-Wynn Bullock

The Truth in a Photograph.

2010-04-19T20:40:00.000-07:00

Photographs are often used as proof. Or as documents of an event. It is assumed that a picture is a true fact, something that you can believe. A war photo should be an accurate description of the war. And a picture of the perfect moment should indeed be the perfect moment. I believe that this is false.

Every photograph is biased. Taking a photograph means blocking off this tiny little piece of this huge world of stuff. And you decide what you want to put in that little piece. The viewfinder separates things from normal perspective. If you are the one that chooses what goes in there, then is that not biased? If you make a conscious decision to include certain items in your composition, then you are also deciding on what to exclude. Which is why all pictures should ask questions right?

Jeff Wall is my favourite example. His work exploits the photograph's ability to tell a lie and completely fool the viewer. His shots are totally and completely fabricated, yet they give the impression of photojournalism. It is still a document, but it's a document of a scene he's created, not a true war scene or an honest street shot.

Viewers will believe what you put in front of them, so in theory you can say and do whatever you want. Caption it and present it correctly and you can lie about anything.

Photographs are a stage. No matter what you say or do, you can't change the fact that what you have done is selective and biased. Even if the subject matter is just a house. Or just a portrait. They don't always have to be elaborate fake mockumentary scenes. The bottom line is that photographs are all lies and no matter what you try to do to change it and make it honest, you can't.

Meeting Photographers.

2010-04-18T19:52:00.000-07:00

When I went to New York with my class we made our way to the Pioneers of Colour show. It featured Eggleston, Shore, and Meyerowitz. Of course I was super excited to see older Eggleston prints. I had seen his most recent show, which was great, but I prefer his older work. Meyerowitz and Shore were kind of an afterthought, for me, but I was excited nonetheless.

There was this group of people standing around this one dude who was talking in front of a picture. After circling the gallery once, I stood in the back and listened because it seemed like he was a big deal. I don't remember how we figured out who he was, but we eventually found out he was Joel Meyeorwitz. I was checking out his camera (that's why I was lurking) because it looked like he had a Leica M9 (was right by the way). He told us about his work and all that. I took notes. The main thing I remember was about the idea. The idea is the most important part of a photograph. I'll be honest, I don't see that being the most obviously important thing in his photos but that's not what this is about. I actually stayed after and talked to him about what kind of film he uses (!!!) for his 8x10 shots. The best park was that he sounded like Christopher Walken but looked like a bald Willem DaFoe.

I won't write about meeting Doug DuBois because I feel like I already did. But yesterday I got to ask Ofer Wolberger about his work and I got to swoon at David Graham. Ofer Wolberger, creator of Life With Maggie, disappointed me. He was totally nice and offered to answer my questions. It just felt so awkward. Life with Maggie is a series of his wife wearing this mask of a very innocent looking girl. She goes to all of these places with this sad sort of hope. I was suggested to look at this series and I really liked it. It was during the same time I was doing my mask thing. I looked at his book at the book fair (I also read his blog) and noticed nothing was written in it. It wasn't a complete book, just a trial version. Still, I was hoping to read something about this work. About what he was thinking, or his intent for lack of a better term. I wanted to know why I should care about it more than other pictures involving masks.

So I asked him almost exactly that. He didn't really answer, he probably didn't understand me. He gave me a link (which doesn't work) to an essay he wrote on the series. He told me it was just a thing that evolved or ended up happening, and that it was all about the mask. I am going to commit and say I was not happy with my encounter with him. He seemed to not know how to answer my question. Maybe he didn't want to. My main disappointment was with the lack of thought behind this or even just the lack of excitement to tell a curious potential customer about your thought process. I was a fan, a very enthusiastic one, and I wanted to know what that extra meaning was behind this series. I can't find the essay, so as far as I know, there is none.

Sometimes it's okay for work to be about the design or the technique or just to appreciate the beauty. But when you use such an easy, widely used prop, I think you should have some reason for using that. Masks are such an obvious way to spice up a picture. But what's the reason for the mask? This bothers me a lot. If I could read his essay I might understand better, but from my information, it is a guy riding around shooting his wife in a mask. Just there.

Maybe I ask too many questions or expect too much from people and their work.

I'll say this though, David Graham was worth the trip.

"Setting up" a photo.

2010-04-12T12:57:00.000-07:00

It seems that in the photography world, or maybe just my class, that there is a wall beween the discovered photo and the invented photo. While there is a significant difference between these types of photos, I think there is a connection between all photographs.

Why isn't every photo considered a "set up"? By taking a photo and framing out a composition, it is no longer fact. It is what you decided it should be, and it shows what you want it to show. Is that not a set up? Complete fabrication is definitely much different than simply responding to the surroundings, in content and intent. But if you set up your tripod and your 4x5 camera, does that still make it just a simple response to environment? Or is it a little piece of what's actually there, a piece that you have decided should be shared? Just because you didn't move anything or place someone there, doesn't mean it's a complete discovery. Choosing carefully what to include in your discovered composition is just as important as choosing what clothes someone should wear.

The separation between these two..genres doesn't appear to be as strong as people think. Saying that you don't like setting up a photograph is, in my opinion, impossible. If you are thinking about your composition, no matter what is in front of the camera or intent of the image is, it is still a planned image. Hopefully it is planned and well thought out. The build up or preparation leading up to the photo is irrelevant in this argument. The execution and intent and thought process are key. If you and I set out to make a picture, we both are trying to make a picture. Does it matter how we do it?

My point here is that staging a picture and finding a picture aren't as different as we think. Neither process is harder or better. I feel like there's this divide between the two and if you are for one side then the other gets much less respect than it deserves. Yes, I'm comparing someone like Crewdson to someone like Cara Philips. She's shooting a chair that is in an office. She didn't move it there. She didn't even light it. Crewdson spends millions on shoots just to make it look the way he wants. Both of them intend to make a photograph, blocking out the frame exactly how they want.

So is there a real difference? Is one really harder than the other? Is it about the process and preparation or is it about intent?

Just something I've been thinking about lately.

Doug DuBois.

2010-04-05T17:22:00.000-07:00

I am way behind on entries here. I've got a growing list of subjects to write about:

- Weston show

- Various shows at small galleries

- Surrealism show at ICP (maybe)

- the subject of "Setting up" a photo

- meeting Joel Meyerowitz

- the current trends of photography (how I see it anyway)

- Doug DuBois lecture

The Doug DuBois show is the most recent event and the freshest in my mind so that's what this entry will be about.

My boyfriend showed me Doug's work last summer. I saw only the pictures of the toy dinos, which I liked, yet they did not implore me to keep looking. I bought my boyfriend Doug's book ...All the Days and Nights which I am now convinced is the most perfect book.

The book is full of pictures of his family, spanning over twenty years. The images reflect the general atmosphere of the turmoil going on in his family. When just flipping through the pages, you see beautiful images with amazing light and colour that merely suggest a narrative; there is no obvious plot. At the end of the book Doug has written an afterword, sort of explaining what's going on throughout these twenty or so years. Having this explanation you now go back through the pictures much slower, noticing the smaller symbols for the events that are now clear. The experience of reading this book (images and afterword) is one I won't forget. His clever and symbolic layout and sequencing made for a perfect product. I was just blown away by his thoughtfulness to every detail. This is how you make a photo book.

I had the opportunity of meeting Doug last week, as well as hear him speak about his work. It was the best lecture I've ever seen (which isn't really that many but it puts pressure on others). Doug was really really nice, not to mention stylish. I feel like it's okay to call him by his first name. He showed his family photos while reading the afterword over them. This is a little strange for a typical lecture I think, but it made the pictures all the more powerful. He mentioned the book being more of a memoir than a photo book, which shows how much he thought about the actual book. I will be writing a paper on his book, which he said he wanted to read(!!!!!), so I won't elaborate too much yet.

He showed other work but nothing will top the family pictures. They are so real and relatable and that's what draws people to them.

Doug DuBois brings all the elements of photography and storytelling together. His pictures are technically good, aesthetically pleasing, and emotional. His use of division and colour only enhance the story. He shoots medium and large format film, which of course makes all work better. He is a great example of good work that shows understanding of equipment and craft as well as a clear idea with interdependent text.

Sweet.

2010-03-23T21:06:00.000-07:00

I told you my teacher reads my blog.

Greg Miller.

2010-03-23T07:27:00.000-07:00

Last Friday I went to New York with my class to see some shows. The first show we saw was the Surrealism exhibit at the International Center for Photography. I was not very impressed with the work or the environment it was set in. The lights were dim and I felt that calling Eugene Atget "surrealist" was a stretch. I got bored so I went upstairs to get information on classes. The magazine had this picture on the cover:

which persuaded me to look up the photographer, Greg Miller.

Greg Miller is a graduate from School of the Visual Arts and maintains a commercial career as well as personal projects. When you first look at his work, it seems to be documenting a place and it's people. This isn't a wrong assumption, but he doesn't just photograph as he sees things. His use of an 8x10 view camera forces him to approach his subjects instead of hiding from them. This picture from his bio shows a bit of his process, revealing that he changes the scene a bit to suit his ideas.

His work is reminiscent of Alec Soth, William Eggleston, and Lauren Greenfield. That orange glow is something that happens frequently in Eggleston's photos, as well as that photojournalistic style of shooting an area. His portraits are similar to Soth's in style, composition, and technique. It's a documentary yet it isn't quite photojournalism.

His Artist Statement reveals some of his process and intent of approaching and photographing people:

"Photographing people or places has to be for more than the sake of simple description, a story has to be told within the frame. I make photographs to describe an underlying world that exists in the absence of connection. This is manifested in the complicated relationships individuals occupy in the same space as well as with themselves. As a child, I was very aware of how adults around me were relating (or not relating) to each other. I have retained that awareness and it has become the basis for my photography. "

Miller directs these people he barely knows into these photographs, but comes out with a scene that doesn't look staged. It is deceiving and that is what makes it work.

Greg Miller.

Books!

2010-03-17T14:43:00.000-07:00

I took out 5 [the max amount] books at the library today.

They include:

The Photographer's Eye by John Szarkowski

Looking at Photographs by John Szarkowski

Art After Philosophy and After by Joseph Kosuth

...All the Days and Nights by Doug DuBois [I'm writing my paper on the layout of his book]

Sleeping by the Mississippi by Alec Soth [because apparently I am a baby Soth]

I found a bunch of art theory books I want to take out too. After I finish these, I will post reviews. Learning about theory is exciting for me, and I kind of wish I had more choices and opportunities in my electives. Or at least mention of it in my current classes. I know my teacher reads this.

Pentax 645d.

2010-03-12T11:13:00.000-08:00

So there a few medium format digital cameras that all came out around the same time. It's sort of like a tier, the most expensive came out first and now we're trickling down to the more affordable.

Leica s2 (body only) = 22,900

Hasselblad H4D-40 (kit) = 19,995

Pentax 645d = 9,300 aprox. (it's weather proof!!)

I'm gonna go ahead and say that the Pentax is relatively cheap. Compared to Leica? And how much their lenses cost? The Pentax is 40mp, as is the Hasselblad. I don't feel like posting all the specs but I will post links. So far I would say that the Pentax looks the best based on cost and features combined.

Info on Pentax.

2 pictures from the the Pentax (more can be found here). They look pretty amazing. You MUST zoom in and look at the clarity of the images.

Here is a page about the Leica that includes sample images.

Here is the Hasselblad.

I think that medium format going completely digital is a great thing. Of course there will be those people that just have to have the newest most expensive camera and gear. But just think of what this could do for commercial photography. Film is way too slow to be used in advertising and such, but even full frame digital SLRs are limiting. I'm excited for new gear.

Seriously check this stuff out. If you are going to take pictures, you should really know about cameras and equipment.

Future critic?

2010-03-08T17:42:00.000-08:00

Through this blog, I have decided that I prefer writing about topics dealing with photography rather than basically critiquing someone's work. I think I realized this when I read the foreword to Eggleston's Guide by John Szarkowski. He's a great critic, and his words are so insightful. Sadly, a lot of the books I want are incredibly expensive. I'd like to learn how to better improve my critiques and how I talk about art in general. It's really important to me that I properly communicate what I think about something. Intelligently and articulately speaking about art with my ultimate goal being to write coherently about it. Basically, I want to be John Szarkowski. I also want to learn more about the beginnings of conceptualism because that genre is really relevant in contemporary art and photography. And I don't think I fully understand it. I just want to know everything.

Here is a link to a New York Times article about him.

And my book wishlist.

Cara Phillips.

2010-02-20T23:19:00.000-08:00

Cara Phillips, a Sarah Lawrence grad, came to my school last week for a lecture. She is the owner of the blog Ground Glass and co owner of Women in Photography. That's where I first learned about her. I started reading Ground Glass awhile ago but I stopped because I thought she was a feminist. Her work wasn't really too interesting to me at the time. After hearing her speak I guess I could say I like them a little more but should it be that way?

Basically, I would say that I was bored by her pictures and her idea. The idea of women being pushed into this certain mold that Hollywood crafts isn't a new one. It's relatable though, as well as being a relevant topic. I'm just not so interested anymore. As far as her images go, I felt like it was the same thing over and over again. Same composition and colour palette. She went around to a ton of cosmetic surgery offices and photographed them with a 4x5. Somehow I think this fact is suppose to make the pictures mean more. I liked her reasoning for using the 4x5, which I will make a post about later. But that isn't really enough.

And the UV Beauty series was less stimulating than Singular Beauty. It was just way too simple. And I think, again, what she did for the pictures is more important than the final prints. I'm just not too into this stripped down imagery. Maybe I'm just simply not attracted to the style of her work.

This is kind of a disjointed review. I really liked her but I just felt like there was a lot missing. And that her work and viewpoints are gonna change a lot as she creates more work.

2010-02-18T21:11:00.000-08:00

Available light is any damn light that is available!

-W. Eugene Smith

(Quote stolen from a polite coup)

Cara Phillips lectured today at school. I'll be making a post about that in the near future.

In more technical news, there has been alot of excitement in the new equipment department lately. Medium format digitals are popping up everywhere. Hasselblad, Leica, and Pentax, so far, have announced digital medium format cameras. Interesting developments....

Part 2.

2010-02-17T18:21:00.000-08:00

So in my last post I mentioned idea over content. Which is better?

This is such a relevant topic in contemporary photography. Proving some kind of point, having a silent rant, whatever reason you have for taking the pictures as long has you have a reason. Philosophical images gain more respect than pretty ones. Technique is a side note. Digital is too common and going "commercial" is the kiss of death. Why? I'm trying to wrap my head around it myself.

I think ideas are important. Of course. But I do not at all think that the visual or technical aspects should be sacrificed just because the idea is amazing. I've heard that current photographers think that because of the digital phenomenon, idea is key to success as an artist. I'm not saying that all current artists are throwing technique and design out the window, but most of them seem to be. Take my last post, for example: her images are incredibly boring, but paste that statement in there and suddenly it's beautiful and meaningful.

It reminds me of my meeting at SVA. They want me to be more ambiguous and "open to interpretation". So open that no one will have any idea what I'm trying to say and yes, I am trying to say something. Conceptualism is one of my favourites, but if you combine concept with an amazing display of technique, then that's just everything isn't it?

I don't want to have to read a paragraph in order to like your pictures. I want to look at compelling, beautiful, carefully considered images whose meanings aren't buried beneath vague and boring imagery. I think artist statements are important but shouldn't be essential to understanding the idea. As far as imagery vs. concept, I would like both please.

Rachel Wolfe.

2010-02-14T20:15:00.001-08:00

Rachel Wolfe is freshly graduated from college with a bachelor's in art. Not only does she take pictures, she writes too. I'll admit that her poems almost caused me to dislike her completely. But I got over the fact that they were terrible and concentrated on her photos.

Honestly, I'm not blown away by her photos. A few really stood out though, especially in the series titled "Not Even But Almost". Her description for the series is what decided it for me.

"For what you are looking, in wrong places for bliss-complete happiness cannot be sought, but found from within.

Not Even But Almost is an investigative look at contemporary life and its unsatisfying nature. By looking intimately at perceived ideals of happiness in the out-there, we can understand how our in-here situations of containment and discontent are created. The understanding of the mind creating a mutually agreed upon reality becomes apparent in these external manifestations, unconsciously creating perpetual unsatisfactory situations. The relentlessness of discovering almost-understanding continues to persist through the inherent flaws in human nature. Through this work I hope to help viewers discover, the quest for wholeness is disguised in our pursuit of happiness."

Philosophical and pessimistic, my favourites.

While her imagery is not entirely striking, the idea is there. But should that be more important the images themselves? Should I need to have a paragraph to be the deciding factor in why I like something? I guess what it really comes down to is whether the idea is more important than the content of the image. I'll save what I think for another post.

Connie Imboden.

2010-02-08T22:45:00.000-08:00

Last Wednesday, Chris and I decided it would be beneficial for us to skip class and go to a lecture in Philadelphia. Connie Imboden was speaking at UArts, and I am so glad that I went.

I had heard of her before and seen a few of her photographs, but I didn't really know much about her. I like to hear artists speak, even if I don't particularly like their work. It's an opportunity that I might not be able to get back, plus I think you can always learn something from a lecture.

So we journeyed up to Philadelphia to hear her speak and it was awesome. She was very enjoyable to listen to, not pretentious or self-righteous. She explained her methods and techniques, as well as her thoughts during the periods in which she took the photographs. I was really inspired by her consistent body of work: it was all along the same idea, yet she progressed through it. Starting with simple forms in black and white, she eventually ended up at splitting the form in colour.

In twenty five years of photographing there are bound to be rough spots. But she was always producing. She talked about her creative blocks and how she got through them, which was particularly inspiring. There is always something different to try and experiments to be made in order to further explore the subject or idea. This was probably the most important thing that I got from it. Having the ability to keep the same subjects yet still, after 25 years, make them interesting and new. I also have to respect all the work she puts into these pictures: scratching mirrors up at different angles, sitting underwater for a long time, getting over a fear of water....She does alot of work for photographs that look surprisingly simple.

Basically, it was an inspiring lecture. To talk a little bit more about her work, I have to say I prefer her water series, specifically the new colour pieces. She uses the water to distort the human form, yet it remains beautiful. The mirror images are much darker and deeper, reminiscent of Francis Bacon. While I like these and believe they hold more emotional motives, I still prefer the water. There is just something about it.

So to sum it all up, hearing her speak was worth skipping class.

Chip Simons.

2010-02-02T08:23:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Randy and his immense collection of books, I discovered Chip Simons last semester. It will soon become apparent as to why I was drawn to his work. I mean, we share the same exact props. Despite this, our work is completely different from each other. His body of work is strange and comical and breaks all the "rules". After visiting his site, you'll either be confused or optimistic about everything in life. His photos are light, funny, and unconventional. And also weird.

The series entitled "Bunny" is almost nothing like his other work. He uses a tilt/shift adapter on a bulky Mamiya with a warm filter to achieve this look of innocence and nostalgia. A lot of things appear to be thought out in his compositions, yet he claims that he "shoots before he thinks". In some circumstances I think this is a good method to adopt. After everything is all set up and all the hard work is done, why not just shoot? Instead of blocking out a composition just shoot what you like. If this is not the way you work or you are entirely opposed, I would suggest just trying it once. It might be a good exercise in seeing and experimenting with how your mind works in regards to a scene. Anyway, Simons has some interesting and unconventional approaches to photography.

Chip Simons.

Blake Gordon.

2010-02-01T20:07:00.001-08:00

Blake Gordon has this series called "Reality TV" and I am completely in love with it. It's got a message; you can tell he feels strongly about the American relationship with television. As well as having an opinion, these pictures are set up very minimally with attention to colour. Relationships between the TVs and the landscapes create contrast and tension, not necessarily in the composition but in accordance with the idea. Some of the images are paired with text, you know, in case you can't figure it out from the artist statement. The text makes these more commercial than they already are, but I like them this way. The quotes and statistics are relevant, and the images are beautiful so I feel like nothing will soil them. Also it sort of adds to that television commercial advertising thing.

Gordon has a lot of other pictures ranging from athletics to portraits, but I think that Reality TV shows more creativity and ingenuity.

Blake Gordon.

EXCTING!

2010-02-01T16:14:00.000-08:00

Everyone should be excited. New Hasselblad!!
40 megapixel medium format sensor.
Start salivating now.

H4D-40

Michael Schmelling.

2010-02-01T16:13:00.001-08:00

Michael Schmelling. I honestly don't know what to say about him. I really ejoy his work; it's strange and compelling but it's totally random. Which kind of adds to the intrigue of his work. It's not common though, as it seems like everyone is making sure their work is cohesive. It makes him stand out among other photographers. His work totally asks questions, a ton of them, but I don't think that's a very new quality. A bad picture can ask questions. I don't think that should be criteria for a picture because it is so incredibly easy to do. Anyway, Schmelling's photos are really cool, totally modern, and creative. Reminds me a tiny bit of Andy Reynolds.

Schmelling.

Hasselblad.

2010-01-28T17:20:00.000-08:00

Extremely exciting news.

About cameras.

That no one normal can afford.

William Eggleston: 21st Century.

2010-01-25T21:58:00.001-08:00

So I went to New York over the weekend to visit a college, and I was able to go to the Cheim and Reid gallery. They were putting on a show with Diane Arbus and William Eggleston. I found out about this on the blog Photographs Do Not Bend, and naturally I tried my hardest to see it.
Some people say that Eggleston has lost his significance to photography. His pictures were revolutionary in their time and maybe they don't hold up now. After seeing his newest work I might have to agree with this idea. Eggleston is not worse than he was in 1976, in fact he is exactly the same. Same snapshot style imagery, same attention to colours, same mundane subject matter. Colour is not new to us anymore, therefore his images aren't as spectacular and shocking but he is consistent, which is a quality that everyone should aspire to achieve in their body of work. Being able to keep up the same distinguishable style for over 30 years is an attribute that deserves respect. Especially if you've seen his movie.

More about the show on DLK Collection.

Lectures.

2010-01-19T21:06:00.000-08:00

The International Center for Photography has added a ton of audio and video lectures! Artists include Gregory Crewdson, Keith Carter, Lauren Greenfield, Abelardo Morell, and David LaChapelle. They will also be posting live streaming lectures for winter 2010 at some point.

ICP.

Roger Ballen.

2010-01-17T20:26:00.000-08:00

I discovered Roger Ballen when I was doing my dark secret project. His images are compelling, yet incredibly difficult to look at. I think he breaks a lot of the rules of photography and composition. The images tend to be very busy, with disjointed drawings as a background. In this video interview with him, he actually says that his goal is to make images that are difficult to view. The video is thought-provoking, as he brings up many intricate issues of photography, the purpose of a camera, and the complex compositions in his work. Plus, Susan Sontag recommends his book so you know that it has to be good.

Interview.
Work.

Everard Williams.

2010-01-17T12:28:00.000-08:00

Everard Williams is a photographer and teacher and also apparently somewhat cryptic about himself. I can't seem to find any information about him anywhere on the internet. His website About Me section says "Coming Soon". I do know that he takes awesome pictures, whether it's portraits, landscapes, or something more personal. His portraits are on the commercial side, yet they embody a certain artistry and creativity that most commercial portraits lack. It seems like a lot of artists look down on photography or art that makes money and has mass appeal, maybe they assume that it doesn't really mean anything. Williams proves that you can be creative and make money.
My favourite series of pictures by him are his projections. The colour produced in these photos is incredible. It's so saturated, and they all fit together perfectly. This is a more personal project and I think it's spreading into the fine art realm, rather than commercial.

More of him here.
An interview here.

Denise Grünstein.

2010-01-13T15:17:00.000-08:00

Denise Grunstein is a highly respected Swedish photographer. Her photographs consist of these imaginative scenes that tend to be quite romantic. When I see her work, I automatically think of Alice in Wonderland. It has this innocent, other-wordly quality which is so incredibly appealing. A classmate of mine suggested her work and I cannot thank him enough. Her photos are so inspiring, through the way that she sets her scenes, the attention to every single detail, and the vibrant colours.

It is safe to say that I am obsessed with her work, which can be found here.

Blogs.

2010-01-12T11:48:00.000-08:00

These are good sites/blogs for inspiration, new artists, and info on shows or lectures:

Horses Think (Ofer Wolberger's)
Fffffound is a little weird.
Conscientious is my favourite. So many resources.
The Candid Frame has interviews with mainly commercial artists.
2point8
(Notes on) Politics, Theory, and Photography
1000 Words Photography
Strobist

So far, reading these blogs has increased my knowledge of artists and techniques. Not to mention, it is a totally modern way of learning.

Goldfish pt2.

2010-01-12T10:45:00.000-08:00

Remember all those pictures of goldfish that I posted? Well I bought a goldfish and tried for the...3rd time to get a good shot. This is what I came up with:

I'd like to try this again. Reworking an image is something that I really advocate. If it isn't right the first time, why settle? That's one of the beautiful things about working in a series. It gives you time to learn from your own mistakes, and perfect the individual images. Artists shouldn't settle for images that they aren't happy with. And I don't think you should be afraid or ashamed to redo something if it will only make your work better. I think some people are afraid of admitting that they screwed something up, and they would rather not fix it because that would show weakness or something like that. Just a little something I learned in Photo 2. Yes, I did learn something.

I am actually pretty proud of the above photographs. It was the first time that I really used my Alien Bee, and the first time I have ever used it outdoors. Looking forward to using them on a regular basis. More from this shoot on my flickr.

Honesty.

2010-01-07T07:57:00.001-08:00

I really like honesty. I am a firm believer that if everyone in the world was completely honest, things would be easier. How much time would you have saved if you knew what someone's real intentions were?

I've been thinking about this lately. I enjoy being honest, yet photography is just a bunch of lies. And I kind of really like that part of it. Even though it is evidence of something, it is manipulated evidence. Intentionally leaving out facts or highlighting certain aspects of the scene to prove something. You can say what you want, do what you want, be whatever you want (thinking of Cindy Sherman here) with it all being masked by something aesthetically pleasing.

I've come to the conclusion that lying like this is incredibly fun.

Selecting a Topic.

2010-01-03T12:21:00.000-08:00

"Many people are interested in photography in some nebulous way; they might be interested in the seemingly glamorous lives of top fashion or war photographers; or in the acquisition and admiration of beautiful, functional machines, the cameras; or in the arcane ritual of the darkroom processes; or in the persona which they could adopt if only they took pictures like... whoever. But these interests, no matter how personally enjoyable they might be, never lead to the person becoming a photographer. The reason is that photography is only a tool, a vehicle, for expressing or transmitting a passion insomething else. It is not the end result. An analogy would be to buy a car for its status appeal, for the idea that it will improve your sex- life, for the smell of the new upholstery, for the fascination with its beautiful engineering, and so on. But it is useless unless it actually takes you somewhere."

-David Hurn, from On Being a Photographer

Alec Soth on Flickr.

2009-12-30T22:59:00.000-08:00

When I saw Alec Soth speak last year, he was in quite a mood. He ranted about everything, including Flickr. He posted something similar to his rant on his blog. It's an interesting read, and it makes you think about the affect the internet has on...everything. There's also an excerpt from an essay by Bill Jay addressing fame, which I would suggest reading in addition to the blog entry.

Alec Soth, Sleeping by the Mississippi

Alec Soth, Fashion Magazine

He mentions Stephen Shore in the blog. He seems like an interesting man so I looked him up and found an interview:

Stephen Shore on Certainty and Shit