Future Direction

Throughout the quarter I have been blogging about other artists’ work and have not yet written about my own. For the last blog of the quarter I wanted to talk about what I have been working on and reflect on my future direction. I have been making small collages based on a fear that I have and a corresponding fantasy that is like the opposite of that fear. My plan with creating the collage was to create a composition, then scan the composition, make a negative on transparency, then print in the darkroom. However, after working with the collages I’m tending to favor the collage over the darkroom print. I have posted one of my collages here on the blog; yet, you really cannot get the feel of the collage texture through the scanner. This texture is what is veering me towards working only with the collage and not in the darkroom at all. I’ve also been looking at Patrick Woodroffe’s work, who I have admired since a young girl, and thinking about his technique. He does drawings and paintings of mythical characters and places them in a setting so that he can photograph them. I was thinking of doing something similar. I have also posted a picture of Woodroffe’s work featuring his “Elephas”, a snail-elephant animal. The elephas is an illustration; however, the flowers are real flowers. I would love to incorporate both photographs and illustrations into an environment and take photographs like this. I would even like to try making a fictional setting and then placing a real object into the setting to photograph. Still, when would it stop being photography and start being illustration? How much photography would have to be incorporated for the work to be considered photography?

Samaras vs. Steadman

This past Thursday during a trip to the High museum, several works peaked my interest. One of those works was the small color Polaroid by Lucus Samaras that the curator showed our class group. The work involved a portrait of the artist with heavy manipulation in most of the photograph. The photograph reminded me of a series of manipulated Polaroid photographs that Ralph Steadman produced called Paranoids. I could only find a picture of the cover of his book Paranoids, which displays the series; however, I have his Gonzo Art book which has a few of the works from this series. Steadman describes the technique stating that pictures are taken in total darkness with a flash bar and then the emulsion in the Polaroid is manipulated with a pencil before it dries. This is similar to the technique that the curator at the High described in reference to Samaras’ work. The technique creates a distortion common to Steadman’s style; however, Steadman uses the technique to manipulate photos of icons in order to reveal his concepts of corruption and manipulation of society through this iconic figure. Conversely, with Samaras’ work I have discovered that he mainly focused on self-portraits, mostly nudes, beginning in the 70s as a comment on the Romantic idealized male nude. I am drawn to both Steadman and Samaras’ work because of the painterly quality given to the work with the use of the process. There is another series of photographs done by Samaras that I find especially aesthetically interesting in which Samaras has nearly destroyed the entire image except for his hands. I find both Steadman and Samaras work to be compelling; however, while they both use the same technique, their end results vary drastically, in part due to the intention or idea behind the image. While Samaras’ work seems to be propelled by narcissism, Steadman’s work is motivated by the deception within society that he seeks to reveal. One thing I found interesting about Samaras and Steadman is that Samaras is viewed as a photographer for these images, but Steadman is not. In fact, it’s hard to find Steadman’s Polaroid images on the internet, whereas one can find a plethora of Samaras. Is this because Steadman is known more commonly as an illustrator and not a photographer? Why could he not be both?

Fashion

A couple of weeks ago I found this book on fashion photography from 1980 titled Fashion: Theory. I found it really interesting, especially since all of the photographs are in black and white. When you think of fashion photography you generally think about high gloss color photos, but that’s not the case with these photos. The book showcases eight photographers and each photographer talks about how they executed each photo and their journey through the fashion business. One photographer I found most interesting is Jean Pagliuso. “Girl Eating a Peach” was one of the Pagliuso photographs represented. He said he created the photo using a Nikon and a ring light as well as a star filter to diffuse and refract the light. This is very useful information if you want to recreate the effect; however, he doesn’t talk about why he choose to have the model eating a peach or choose to have this type of effect on the photo. I find this photo among one of the most interesting in the book and would be interested in the why of the photograph. I noticed that most of the photographers in the book did not talk about the why and only about the how. I wondered if it’s common practice in the fashion photography world to disregard concept and only worry about the representation of the product sold. However, some of the photographs led me wondering what exactly was the product. Going back to the “Girl Eating the Peach”, for example, the girl is wearing clothing but the focus is more on the peach and the dress seems less important. I find this a lot in fashion photography, but maybe I’m confusing commercial photography with fashion photography. However, I still find these fashion photographs compelling regardless of the fact that I can not determine what goal the photographer has in mind. This book definitely peeked my interest in fashion photography.

Jason Salavon

This past Friday I went to see the artist talk with Jason Salavon and Penelope Umbrico at the Hagedorn Gallery. I thought they both had some interesting thoughts in regard to their work however I will spare everyone any further insight into Penelope’s sunset installation. What was extremely interesting about Jason his assertion that he is not a photographer and that his medium is data and not the paintings that he reformatted for this particular show. His work involves mathematical averages of data sets involving a seemingly random assortment of subjects and really has nothing at all to do with photography except for the fact that some of his series involve using photographs, such as his Playboy Centerfold series. Similar to that of the Dutch masters series this series is an averaging of every Playboy centerfold for the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Jason emphasized that fact that information can be read in regards to changing trends throughout the decades. He pointed out that in the 1960s one can see more hair and as the set progresses to the 1990s the forms become brighter. This seems to build a chart of information similar to a chart except in a more abstract form. Jason presented another series, which created more of a visual graph for the viewer charting the US production of shoes from 1960 to 1998. This series can be seen as a 3 dimensional animation or as a set of prints showing a steeply climbing form, displaying how production of shoes is drastically being exported as the years’ progress. This series is dramatically different visually from the playboy and Dutch masters series however, all of his series do have a concern with representing this data in an aesthetically pleasing work. This coupled with his innovative use of media leave me wanting to see more of his work.

Marina Abramovic

I recently went to check out the Marina Abramović exhibition in the Trois Gallery of the SCAD library. I had not really heard much about her work until Holly gave a journal presentation in class on an article that featured Abramović's work “The Artist Is Present”. Although I really didn’t understand the point, I had a lot of questions and was interested in having them answered. After seeing her work in Trois Gallery I have even more questions. There is no artist statement, but there are brief explanations of what occurred in each performance along with a photograph from each performance. With several of the works, such as “Rhythm 0”, I was really interested in knowing how people reacted and what people did to her. In this performance Abramović placed objects, which she lists below the photograph, in front of her and invited people to use them on her body in whatever way they wished. My first thought is: Why would anyone want to do this with objects like a pocketknife out there? I know there are a lot of crazy people out in the world and it would definitely make me wary. It also gave me a chill to read on the description at the end “I take full responsibility “. Wow, so if someone cuts her with that pocketknife, she takes full responsibility. This blows my mind as to why anyone would want to put themselves in this kind of position. Maybe her purpose in this particular performance is to comment on humans and how they behave. I still don’t really understand the work and maybe without ever seeing the actual performance I never will. This brings me to comment on how a majority of the performances are presented only with a description and a photograph of a piece of the performance. I wondered if Abramović intended for these photographs themselves to be viewed as pieces of artwork or if they were only taken as a means of documenting the art. Then maybe some photographs are only documentary evidence and should not be viewed as art. I believe this is one of the most interesting aspects of photography, considering that no other art medium can function as something other than a means to create art.

Ipad

This week I bought an iPad and I was really excited about the possibilities the iPad can offer. It's like an iPhone, which I have been interested in purchasing as well, because it has all the applications an iPhone has and more and it offers a much larger screen and the ability to use a Bluetooth enabled keyboard, allowing one to type lengthy documents at the same speed one would on a laptop or desktop. The applications are especially exciting, particularly when it comes to photo. The well-known app Instagram allows me to take photos or import photographs and use filters to create vintage effects, which is very appealing; however, I've found that this app works best in conjunction with other photo apps, such as Camera360 or photo booth. There does seem to be an abundance of apps that do the same thing or nearly the same thing, especially when it comes to photo effects. There are really so many camera and editing apps it's difficult to make a decision about which ones to install. I found myself obsessed with taking pictures using the mirror or kaleidoscope effects on photo booth and then using Instagram to make them look surreal or vintage. I have posted examples of some of these pictures I speak of. I have found this to be a lot of fun, however, the camera quality on the iPad is so low that one could not take detailed, clean images. On the other hand, if you are going for the vintage look and you are planning on putting a filter on your pictures, the grainy quality doesn't really matter. Some other things I found exciting and useful were the flashlight, softbox and Hellophoto apps. Working with film, I found that the flashlight app makes a great lightbox so that I can easily view my negatives. Softbox allows one to use the iPad as a lighting device for a studio set up, which I have not gotten a chance to try out. Hellophoto allows you to convert your negatives to digital format, which I have also not been able to try out because it requires the use of an iPhone or another iPad.

Now this brings me to the not so exciting or useful things about the iPad, which eventually led me to make the decision to return my iPad. Some of the apps require you to have access to an iPhone or a macbook, such as Hellophoto. Also, if you want to hook up a printer, camera, scanner, or another computer, you have to buy an adapter.

On top of that I can not just hook up any printer or scanner, it has to be compatible with the iPad and the printer I own is not one of those, go figure. Also,that keyboard I was planning on buying, it's 70 dollars and those adapters are about 30 a piece. In short, the iPad is a little inconvenient if you want to do any serious work, but it is fun.

Elinor Carucci

When I was looking up information on Jock Sturges I found this website that contains an interview with the artist. http://www.amadelio.com/vlog/2008/01/10/vlog-videoblog-jock-sturges-line-of-beauty-and-grace/
On the same website using this link:
http://www.amadelio.org/
there are three trailers for documentary films about different photographers on this site, one of which is about Jock Sturges. While I was exploring the other trailers, specifically the one titled People, Love, Photos, I discovered Elinor Carucci and immediately wanted to know more about her work. She had photographed herself while she was pregnant as well as her children after she had given birth. These photographs showed herself and her children in intimate situations without clothing; they very much reminded me of Sally Mann’s work, not because of any similarity between aesthetic qualities but because Sally Mann photographed her children in the same innocent vein. I imagined that Sally Mann felt the same way that Elinor did about her children and wanted to cherish every moment, even the vulnerable ones that her children might not be ready to relive when they got older. However, after looking at Elinor’s work on her website (http://www.elinorcarucci.com/recent.html) I began to get more of a sense of intimacy from her work than from Sally Mann’s work. I feel that there exists a greater affection for her children and desire to document everything about her children as they grow, including runny noses and haircuts. Even with her other family members Elinor has accurately captured emotions and vulnerabilities that I believe are missing from Sally Mann’s work, but does this make her work less provocative than Mann’s work. In her personal series Elinor captures moments that are difficult and painful to look at, but also captures images of affection. I believe that in this respect there are vast differences between the works of Carucci and Mann. However, both artists have invaded the privacy of their subjects by capturing vulnerable moments. I believe that this is the real issue that should be provocative about their works, not the debate over nudity.
Now, after viewing Carucci’s work in further detail I find it more intriguing than Mann’s work and empathize with her subjects.

Jerry Uelsmann

I’ve been thinking about what direction I want to go in for my next body of work and I was thinking about how I can create a narrative or story with the people I photograph. I was also thinking about the reasons why I photograph and I came to the realization that for me photographing is not about capturing the reality of a person or a moment, it’s about creating a fantasy. For the same reason that people, myself included, read fictional books, I photograph as an escape from the world. As I was thinking about how I could set up a narrative of fantasy with my subjects I came across an artist that has greatly inspired me. Jerry Uelsmann creates other worlds and dreamlike situations through the use of darkroom manipulation. Like Uelsmann, I want to use the darkroom to manipulate my images so that I can create this narrative. Uelsmann uses multiple exposures in the darkroom to create his images, which I find to be astonishing considering the difficultly of piecing together images in this way opposed to using photoshop to get the same effect. This is what I love about his work, the fact that he has not given in to the digital era and even continues to use the same camera he used in the 60s, a Bronica GS-1. Like Uelsmann, I want to experiment with multiple exposures in the darkroom but I also want to use my negatives like pieces in a collage, much like I do with cyanotypes and Van Dykes. I would also like to try out the same camera that Uelsmann is using to see how the outcome will vary from the use of a 35 mm. His photographs have a beautiful quality of light, especially in the photograph above created by Uelsmann in 1986 and untitled. The shimmer of the satin dress as it morphs into waves is mesmerizing. I hope to create this same compelling effect within my work as I create fantasy worlds and narratives with my own subjects.

You can view Uelsmann’s work at this site: http://www.uelsmann.net.

Scannography

In my quest to satisfy my insatiable urge to explore alternative photography processes I came across a group of artists focusing on a technique, termed scannography, of using a scanner instead of a camera in order to create images. http://scannography.org/

However, my assumption that this form of art would be considered alternative photography is purely my own. In fact, Christian Staebler, the webmaster of the site and also a scannography artist, asserts that “it’s not photography, but it reproduces the reality with extraordinary precision.” I’m sure most of the artists practicing scannography do not share his philosophy, but it does bring about an interesting question about what is and is not photography. Is photography only photography when a camera is used? When a scanner is used to make art images should it then be considered a camera? This also forces me to ask myself whether the art forms I have been practicing, cyanotype and van dyke printing, should be considered photography? Without the use of a camera does it make the technique closer to that of printmaking?

Questions aside, I find scannography to be an extremely seductive art form. The clarity and detail that is possible with the use of a scanner is amazing, like with the work of Joann Urban and Dale Hoopingarner (two artists found on the website). However, for other scannography artists, like Sian Aldridge and Rebecca Wild, the scanner gives the artist a new medium to create beautiful abstractions. One artist, Thomas McDonnell, I find most intriguing because he took his scanner outside in order to capture images of people and places, thereby directly turning the scanner into his camera. The scanner seems to capture images with a sense of unreality and at the same time a stark reality.

While I was looking on the scannography site there was one artist I did not find, who I initially set out to find, Katrina Jebb. Jebb used industrial scanners, or rather photocopy machines to create images of Tori Amos for her album From the Choirgirl Hotel. The best examples I could find of this particular work was on a Tori Amos website. http://www.hereinmyhead.com/artimp/katerina/index.html Tori had an interesting thought about being photographed, stating that “it’s photocopying your thoughts”. This is something I don’t think many have said about a camera.