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?