Inside the box thinking.....

[blansky]

I wanted to share this picture taken by an incredible photographer who died this month. His name was Darton Drake and he, like I started around the same time in film and moved over to digital in the mid 2000.

He was an amazing photographer and teacher and his work was always innovative.

I realize this is an analog site and this is a digital picture but this one time I wanted to share something unique and creative.

This picture was taken by sending someone a camera that attaches to their computer, in this case a couple of thousand miles from his home.

Then placing a Skype call to them, remotely directing them to a location in their home, directing them in what you want them to do.

Then from there, he takes a screen shot of the scene, from his home and produces this photograph.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Good faith questions...

What do you think it is that attracts in this image? That makes it unique and creative? Is it the process and logistics? The final result? Or both, to some self-balancing degree? Or is it something else entirely?

Honestly curious, without wishing to spoil anything by interjecting my own thoughts.

Ken

 

[removed account4]

I wanted to share this picture taken by an incredible photographer who died this month. His name was Darton Drake and he, like me started around the same time in film and moved over to digital in the mid 2000.

He was an amazing photographer and teacher and his work was always innovative.

I realize this is an analog site and this is a digital picture but this one time I wanted to share something unique and creative.

This picture was taken by sending someone a camera that attaches to their computer, in this case a couple of thousand miles from his home.

Then placing a Skype call to them, remotely directing them to a location in their home, directing them in what you want them to do.

Then from there, he takes a screen shot of the scene, from his home and produces this photograph.

the title says it ALL .. inside the box ( as in the box on the desk ).
not sure when this photograph was made/taken but darton drake seems like he was always breaking ground.
it is hard enough making a photograph with the camera in the hands of the photographer, and directing
the subject and doing "the dance" ( as i think avedon called it ) until the collaboration is complete,
but sending a camera so someone (or ones ) who might not have experience with it, and then remotely
direct over the phone/skype and producing something that works is pretty interesting, different outside ( and inside ) the box.
it reminds me of that episode of m*a*s*h when radar had to do an emergency tracheotomy with his lone ranger pen knife
and a ball point pen while getting instructions over the crank phone from a dr on the other end.

i wonder what the photographer's "hit" ratio was, seeing every situation was completey different, lots of unknowns
(lights, electricity, bad reception, people who didn't understand direction, or use of camera &c ) and an amazing thing when it all worked out.

 

[gone]

Nice lamps.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Doesn't matter..

I realize this is an analog site and this is a digital picture but this one time I wanted to share something unique and creative.

It's a great process and a beautiful shot. Very thought provoking.

 

[cliveh]

This picture was taken by sending someone a camera that attaches to their computer, in this case a couple of thousand miles from his home.

Then placing a Skype call to them, remotely directing them to a location in their home, directing them in what you want them to do.

Then from there, he takes a screen shot of the scene, from his home and produces this photograph.

Nice image and concept, but how does he know what their home looks like? Is he familiar with their home, or is this an entirely random exploration of the environment of others?

 

[blansky]

Nice image and concept, but how does he know what their home looks like? Is he familiar with their home, or is this an entirely random exploration of the environment of others?

I believe he has extensive consultation beforehand discussing the type of pictures and what is wanted by the subject. He must also scout the location either by the subject sending camera phone shots of the rooms as well as maybe walking around with a laptop and the mentioned camera and scouting that way.

My understand is that it's very pre planned.

There were also a number of other shots taken in different locations around the house and different "moods".

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Interesting story and photograph. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[pschwart]

Good faith questions...

What do you think it is that attracts in this image? That makes it unique and creative? Is it the process and logistics? The final result? Or both, to some self-balancing degree? Or is it something else entirely?

Honestly curious, without wishing to spoil anything by interjecting my own thoughts.

Ken

I think the logistics are interesting because they allowed the photographer to extend his reach, but they are not part of the image which has to stand without the narrative. The scene is reminiscent of a Dutch domestic interior; I like that. What I don't like is that the image has processed with Photoshop/Instagram/... filters for the instant painting look. I thjink the image might have been even more effective without that.

 

[blansky]

Good faith questions...

What do you think it is that attracts in this image? That makes it unique and creative? Is it the process and logistics? The final result? Or both, to some self-balancing degree? Or is it something else entirely?

Honestly curious, without wishing to spoil anything by interjecting my own thoughts.

Ken

The picture itself is what it is. A sort of interesting nude study with a voyeuristic mystery about it.

The voyeurism to me is enhanced by the fact that there is no one else in the room. Just a computer sitting looking back at her like they do. The voyeurism is rather fascinating because of the invited invasion of her privacy. She's alone yet not alone. It's not the same as setting up a camera yourself and taking nudes of yourself because she is being directed by a voice in her computer. In essence the computer is telling her to take off her clothes, place herself in whatever position it suggests and she does it. She may have never met the person on the other end of the line. And in a few weeks she receives a large print in the mail. A picture in fact she has never seen before. And it's her.

As for the process. That too is interesting from the photographer's point of view. Photographing someone he has never met or seen, and producing work for them, again, never having actually seen them.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Trying to thoughtfully look a little deeper than just a forum thread title, my first thought—assuming there had been no extensive pre-consultations involved—was that this might be an example of inverted voyeurism, which could be considered a form of exhibitionism.

Meaning, normally a voyeur is someone who experiences a thrill from anonymously watching others when they can't be watched in return. But in this case the thrills would be reversed. It's the watched who experiences the thrill by being knowingly observed, as well as controlled by, someone they can't ever see. And that's exhibitionism.

But if, on the other hand, everything was pre-planned, agreed upon, and set up in advance, meaning that there was no significant element of discovery involved, then it just becomes another environmental portrait intentionally differentiated only by adding some extra artificial degrees of difficulty. It's a pretty picture, but not too much more.

So for me, the knowledge of how the image was made would make all the difference. Even though that how could never be inferred only by looking at the image itself.

Ken

Note: I posted this before reading your description, blansky. It may scare you to realize how close we sometimes think...

:eek:

 

[cliveh]

So for me, the knowledge of how the image was made would make all the difference. Even though that how could never be inferred only by looking at the image itself.Ken

But does that matter, as the image alone is the final distillation.

 

[blansky]

Trying to thoughtfully look a little deeper than just a forum thread title, my first thought—assuming there had been no extensive pre-consultations involved—was that this might be an example of inverted voyeurism, which could be considered a form of exhibitionism.

Meaning, normally a voyeur is someone who experiences a thrill from anonymously watching others when they can't be watched in return. But in this case the thrills would be reversed. It's the watched who experiences the thrill by being knowingly observed, as well as controlled by, someone they can't ever see. And that's exhibitionism.

But if, on the other hand, everything was pre-planned, agreed upon, and set up in advance, meaning that there was no significant element of discovery involved, then it just becomes another environmental portrait intentionally differentiated only by adding some extra artificial degrees of difficulty. It's a pretty picture, but not too much more.

So for me, the knowledge of how the image was made would make all the difference. Even though that how could never be inferred only by looking at the image itself.

Ken

Note: I posted this before reading your description, blansky. It may scare you to realize how close we sometimes think...

:eek:

But I sometimes think we add too much to the mix.

In fact is it really important how an image was made? I get it, as photographers we NEED to know. But is it not possible to enjoy and image merely for what we are looking at.

Does a picture need a description. When I entered photography exhibitions years ago, I always cringed and choked at photographs that had cutesy titles, and actually they often ranked higher because of that. Does a great shot of something need a description. A list of ingredients. Or is this just photographers showing off ( pardon the pun).

Does it matter if migrant mother was shot with a Rebel with 4MP?

 

[blansky]

But does that matter, as the image alone is the final distillation.

Beat me to it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But does that matter, as the image alone is the final distillation.

For me, yes it does.

It would completely change the dynamics to know that the lady depicted had already rehearsed that prone position a dozen times in advance in the presence of the photographer, versus her assuming that position without prior knowledge in nervous response to a disembodied command delivered by a computer from someone she had never met and who was watching her anonymously.

Those would be two completely different narratives.

Ken

 

[blansky]

For me, yes it does.

It would completely change the dynamics to know that the lady depicted had already rehearsed that prone position a dozen times in advance in the presence of the photographer, versus her assuming that position without prior knowledge in nervous response to a disembodied command delivered by a computer from someone she had never met and who was watching her anonymously.

Those would be two completely different narratives.

Ken

I've never seen your work and I've always thought it was landscapes probably.

Have you ever photographed people? In fact I'd be interested if the people pictures you admire were grab shots/street shots, or done by portrait photographers.

 

[cliveh]

For me, yes it does.

It would completely change the dynamics to know that the lady depicted had already rehearsed that prone position a dozen times in advance in the presence of the photographer, versus her assuming that position without prior knowledge in nervous response to a disembodied command delivered by a computer from someone she had never met and who was watching her anonymously.

Those would be two completely different narratives.

Ken

So what do you think about historic images with no description about the subject? Are these inferior to those with added descriptive knowledge?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

So what do you think about historic images with no description about the subject? Are these inferior to those with added descriptive knowledge?

I don't see photography as competition. I see it as communication.

When words are necessary to further that communication by clarifying a photograph's context, then words are appropriate. When they are not necessary, because the relevant context is already readily apparent within the photograph, then words are superfluous.

Ken

 

[pdeeh]

I think the logistics are interesting because they allowed the photographer to extend his reach, but they are not part of the image which has to stand without the narrative..

But does that matter, as the image alone is the final distillation.

I realise that cliveh's comment was not a response to pschwart's, but the issue is similar.

Why is there an idea that a photograph "has" to stand alone, without explanation or comment or knowledge on the viewer's part of how it was made, in order that it be considered aesthetically proper?

Why is something different asked of a photograph than of other expressive media?

(I don't think anything extra or different needs to be asked of a photograph. If a photographer wants to title a photograph, or offer details of the process to the viewer, or even stand next to the photograph and explain her intent and the expected interpretation to the viewer ... or indeed offer no title, or explanation ... then either way a context is being set. The idea that absence of
information means absence of context is misleading)

 

[cliveh]

I realise that cliveh's comment was not a response to pschwart's, but the issue is similar.

Why is there an idea that a photograph "has" to stand alone, without explanation or comment or knowledge on the viewer's part of how it was made, in order that it be considered aesthetically proper?

Why is something different asked of a photograph than of other expressive media?

(I don't think anything extra or different needs to be asked of a photograph. If a photographer wants to title a photograph, or offer details of the process to the viewer, or even stand next to the photograph and explain her intent and the expected interpretation to the viewer ... or indeed offer no title, or explanation ... then either way a context is being set. The idea that absence of
information means absence of context is misleading)

Does this mean you regard all images without context or description misleading?

 

[blansky]

I realise that cliveh's comment was not a response to pschwart's, but the issue is similar.

Why is there an idea that a photograph "has" to stand alone, without explanation or comment or knowledge on the viewer's part of how it was made, in order that it be considered aesthetically proper?

Why is something different asked of a photograph than of other expressive media?

(I don't think anything extra or different needs to be asked of a photograph. If a photographer wants to title a photograph, or offer details of the process to the viewer, or even stand next to the photograph and explain her intent and the expected interpretation to the viewer ... or indeed offer no title, or explanation ... then either way a context is being set. The idea that absence of
information means absence of context is misleading)

Which is interesting. Because I was originally going to post the pictures by itself and test the response. Then define how it was made later.

I'm torn on the idea of explanation. On the one hand I feel a picture should stand on it's own and if added information is needed, then the picture failed.

On the other hand context in life is important and necessary. Because we all live by/in context. It defines are motivations, our ideas and our life.

And can add interest to the picture I posted. Plus and minus.

 

[pdeeh]

I choose almost always to post my pictures without explanation or even a title. As far as I'm concerned once they're made and I've decided to publish them in some way, then it's over to the viewer.
But it is purely my personal preference.

If a picture is presented that is intended to stand without explanation, but "fails" in some way in the viewer's experience, that is one thing.
If a picture is presented with a verbal (or other explanatory) context, and neither the picture nor the context is intended to be experienced in isolation, that's another.

What I am thinking about is the "demand" made on a photograph that it must stand alone, even in the second of the two cases I sketched.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I've never seen your work and I've always thought it was landscapes probably.

Have you ever photographed people? In fact I'd be interested if the people pictures you admire were grab shots/street shots, or done by portrait photographers.

What I admire is often completely at odds with what I can produce. I'm not a professional (photographer). I'm not an artist. As I've said to Clive in the past, I have no great insight into the human condition or existence. But I do try to see the things around me clearly. Sometimes that comes across in a photograph, and sometimes it doesn't.

Here's an example of a photograph where I felt that extensive background knowledge was helpful to enhance the viewing experience. Note also that it is entirely possible to ignore every single word and simply look at the picture. No penalties are involved:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And here's one where no description at all was necessary, a tiny one being added only to justify the simple descriptive title as being truthful. With or without those eleven words, I think the photograph carries all of the context it needs, and communicates the intended sense of uneasy queasiness strongly enough that, while it has 347 views, it does not as yet have even a single comment. (Please don't anyone leave one only in response to this link. That would be tragically cheating):

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And here's one where I felt a description was also totally superfluous. However, one was hastily added by me (in comment post #16) that was entirely mob-driven and defensive on my part, after a number of requests to moderators to remove the picture. If you read all of the comments, you'll better understand why:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ken

 

[pschwart]

For me, yes it does.

It would completely change the dynamics to know that the lady depicted had already rehearsed that prone position a dozen times in advance in the presence of the photographer, versus her assuming that position without prior knowledge in nervous response to a disembodied command delivered by a computer from someone she had never met and who was watching her anonymously.

Those would be two completely different narratives.

Ken

In the spirit of inquiry : What is the purpose of a photograph that can't somehow stand on it's own without a narrative?
I think this image does, though the back story may alter how some perceive it.

 

[Bill Burk]

And here's one where no description at all was necessary, a tiny one being added only to justify the simple descriptive title as being truthful. With or without those eleven words, I think the photograph carries all of the context it needs, and communicates the intended sense of uneasy queasiness strongly enough that, while it has 347 views, it does not as yet have even a single comment. (Please don't anyone leave one only in response to this link. That would be tragically cheating):

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ken,

I enjoyed this when you first posted it to the gallery. The words and description are fitting.