The idea vs the technique (not my point of view is better than yours)

[Alan Edward Klein]

Originality is a rare bird. And with a billion photogaphers, many instantly seeing what others are doing and copying them, newness gets old quickly. Social media overwhelms us with photos, many of them amazing. Our eyes and brains are saturated. I think focusing on our personal objectives and keeping them realistic and local rather than grand could give more satisfaction in the long run.

 

[VinceInMT]

Those last two sentences were stopped on a dime. What did you mean? How do you create an image that is different, that encourages the viewer to think differently about it from other pictures? I think that's something we all endeavor to do.

I am certainly not saying that I am always successful in doing that nor to I have the magic formula that yields that result every time. Since I dabble in geometric abstraction and Surrealism in my drawings and paintings I try to bring some of that into my photography. I think that the short answer is that even if the image presents something that is representational, which allows the viewer a point of access, I try to include something that provides a bit of mystery or give them a reward for lingering on the images a bit. If the subject is abstracted, perhaps they will ask themselves what the image is before going on to understand what the image is about. Or, for someone who may be attuned to photography, they might be intrigued with “how did he do that?”

I have some recent work on display at the university where I am finishing up my BFA and one of the administration people called me out from the drawing studio to ask me questions about some of the pieces. In one of them, which was representational but heavy in the juxtaposition it of images, she was trying to understand what it was and asked if she could touch part of it. It was the portion of the drawing where I’d first printed a cyanotype made by sandwiching a positive and a negative to provide a bas-relief effect. I agreed and after she felt that it wasn’t actually engraved she thought more about what the image was about and had some interesting comments about it, transitioning from “what am I seeing” to what is this really about and understanding why she struggled getting there at first.

BTW, I highly recommend a podcast called The Lonely Palette. It’s a short look at works of art, led by an art historian. It is not as dry as you might think. It focuses on a specific piece of work from the art museum in Boston and each episodes starts with a recording of random viewers in the museum describing the work: what they see and what is means, to them.

http://www.thelonelypalette.com/

One thing I’ve learned through the BFA process is the value of critiques. Every assignment culminates in a class critique where they try to sort of what the work says based on what they see and, sometimes, how well this aligns with the artist statement.

So, to answer your question, I think that an important part of the formula is to get LOTS of feedback on your work. Lots.

 

[VinceInMT]

I think one issue I haven't seen mentioned is a process/product debate….

Well-stated. I could have written this myself.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I am certainly not saying that I am always successful in doing that nor to I have the magic formula that yields that result every time. Since I dabble in geometric abstraction and Surrealism in my drawings and paintings I try to bring some of that into my photography. I think that the short answer is that even if the image presents something that is representational, which allows the viewer a point of access, I try to include something that provides a bit of mystery or give them a reward for lingering on the images a bit. If the subject is abstracted, perhaps they will ask themselves what the image is before going on to understand what the image is about. Or, for someone who may be attuned to photography, they might be intrigued with “how did he do that?”

I have some recent work on display at the university where I am finishing up my BFA and one of the administration people called me out from the drawing studio to ask me questions about some of the pieces. In one of them, which was representational but heavy in the juxtaposition it of images, she was trying to understand what it was and asked if she could touch part of it. It was the portion of the drawing where I’d first printed a cyanotype made by sandwiching a positive and a negative to provide a bas-relief effect. I agreed and after she felt that it wasn’t actually engraved she thought more about what the image was about and had some interesting comments about it, transitioning from “what am I seeing” to what is this really about and understanding why she struggled getting there at first.

BTW, I highly recommend a podcast called The Lonely Palette. It’s a short look at works of art, led by an art historian. It is not as dry as you might think. It focuses on a specific piece of work from the art museum in Boston and each episodes starts with a recording of random viewers in the museum describing the work: what they see and what is means, to them.

http://www.thelonelypalette.com/

One thing I’ve learned through the BFA process is the value of critiques. Every assignment culminates in a class critique where they try to sort of what the work says based on what they see and, sometimes, how well this aligns with the artist statement.

So, to answer your question, I think that an important part of the formula is to get LOTS of feedback on your work. Lots.

Do you have an example we can see a photo of?

 

[VinceInMT]

Your vision is cluttered with everything you wanted and everything else you've already seen, so this thing you've produced seems empty or, at best, just reflective (for example, often you can't judge a negative until you've almost forgotten it).

That last bit rang a bell for me. Over the past year I have been digitizing all my film from back to 1973 when I developed my first roll. Some of these images were never printed as they seemed, well, “dull.” Now, decades later, I have found many of them speak to me in a new way. It certainly wasn’t my goal when I made the original image which was captured with a lack of intentionality but, based on where I am with my art today and how I think about it, serendipity has given that old image some new life.

 

[jvo]

... does it make sense to take another photo of the forest, the architecture of my town, etc? The answer is probably yes...?

The answer is definitely "yes". More images are being made today.

It is the photographer who "...properly compose a photograph to capture the mood, look, vision et al..." - Sirius Glass.

The photograph is about life and the photographers view of life that make it art. Steve McCurry made the first "Afghan Girl" - before him Larry Burrows made made a similar image of a Pakistani ~25 years earlier. Each "generation" will produce art newly, if only in the mind of the viewer, hopefully more. It will be art.

 

[VinceInMT]

Do you have an example we can see a photo of?

This is the one I referenced above. “Portal #2 - Impediments,” cyanotype and graphite on paper, 15”x22”.

 

[Algo después]

I think many people stop their "artistic" endeavour when they confront themselves with these questions. People do get frustrated with the results of their pursuit. "My photos are dull." is probably a sentence many many have thought. And this is all far from the question of "Why take photos". (Any artistic endeavour can be substituted for photos here, because these concerns are fairly universal.) Even abandoning the notion of "art", the photographer still seeks expression. Sometimes, you can't look at what you're doing in a way that lets you see what exactly you have done. Your vision is cluttered with everything you wanted and everything else you've already seen, so this thing you've produced seems empty or, at best, just reflective (for example, often you can't judge a negative until you've almost forgotten it).

Originality is a rare bird. And with a billion photogaphers, many instantly seeing what others are doing and copying them, newness gets old quickly. Social media overwhelms us with photos, many of them amazing. Our eyes and brains are saturated. I think focusing on our personal objectives and keeping them realistic and local rather than grand could give more satisfaction in the long run.

Indeed, here you present some interesting perspectives on the possibility of originality getting old. Over time we conclude that in art there is no resolved issues, even on a context of over-saturation of images and cameras; someone (or even the same person with another point of view) always arrives who with new energy finds a twist. Of course it is not simple but it is possible. There may be topics that are "common places", I mean, have become too frequent and that perhaps need a rest, but it is such a different matter from the fact that we must seal that door for eternity.

I think that the short answer is that even if the image presents something that is representational, which allows the viewer a point of access, I try to include something that provides a bit of mystery or give them a reward for lingering on the images a bit. If the subject is abstracted, perhaps they will ask themselves what the image is before going on to understand what the image is about. Or, for someone who may be attuned to photography, they might be intrigued with “how did he do that?”

Your comment Vince could also apply to cases where a bold technical solution can become the lure for your viewer. Certainly you have to have bear skin so that you don't stop criticism or your own doubts and fears. So many artists let themselves be defeated by the scrutiny that they barely showed their work, to show a button: our dear Vivian Maier.

 

[Algo después]

This is the one I referenced above. “Portal #2 - Impediments,” cyanotype and graphite on paper, 15”x22”.

Great Vince, very interesting.

 

[Algo después]

It is the photographer who "...properly compose a photograph to capture the mood, look, vision et al..." - Sirius Glass.

The photograph is about life and the photographers view of life that make it art. Steve McCurry made the first "Afghan Girl" - before him Larry Burrows made made a similar image of a Pakistani ~25 years earlier. Each "generation" will produce art newly, if only in the mind of the viewer, hopefully more. It will be art.

...when the technical principle gives me the freedom to try something different:

Abelardo Morel, and his Camera Obscura photos.

In 1991, he built a rudimentary camera obscura out of a cardboard box and an enlarging lens, and then photographed the device in operation as the lens projected the image of a lightbulb on the interior wall of the box. Moving up in scale, he sealed the windows of his living room with black plastic and cut a dime-sized hole in the center to serve as an aperture for the passage of light, which projected an inverted image of the exterior scene onto the opposite wall. He documented the visual effect of this scene by positioning his 4x5 camera in front of the projected image.

Private Views
While the tiny hole used for Morell’s earliest pictures provided sufficient depth of field to render an image, he admits it was “not exactly very sharp.” The image it projected was also very dim, requiring an extremely long exposure time for it to register on film.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...-morell-considers-the-world-through-a-pinhole

 

[Algo después]

and also...

Esteban Pastorino

So, inventing and making things is all part of the process for you?

Yes. I am driven by curiosity… What would happen if…? The question is usually linked to an unconventional way of using photography that requires me to develop my own equipment because what I am trying to do cannot be done with a shop-bought camera.

I also enjoy the idea of creating something from scratch; making something with my own hands rather than buying it or having it custom made. I believe that all the challenges and solutions that arise as I am designing and making leave their traces in the final image… and that makes it unique.

What other technical innovations have you created to make unusual photographs?

For the past fourteen years, I have been designing and working with long panoramas using slit-scan cameras. In 2004 I created a version that can produce a single negative of up to 1.6 metres in length. This is the one I use most often. It can also shoot in stereo using two parallel rolls for film.

How would you describe the result that is captured using this technology? It’s not quite a ‘snapshot’, in that it is not a single moment frozen, but it is also not a moving image…?

While, a traditional camera exposes or records the entire frame simultaneously, the slit scan camera on the contrary, exposes the film sequentially. This means that what is depicted on one end of the image took place seconds, minutes or even hours before that which is on the other end. This is because of the way the camera exposes the film: while the shutter is open the film moves continuously behind a narrow vertical slit. What is depicted along the film is not space but time. That is the big difference. So, one can’t think about this kind of image in the same way one does about a normal photograph or even cinema, which is itself simply a sequence of separate still photographs.

https://talking-pictures.net.au/2020/07/04/esteban-pastorino-diaz-the-invented-eye/

 

[Brendan Quirk]

...when I developed my first roll. Some of these images were never printed as they seemed, well, “dull.”

I have found this also. A contributor, besides more mature vision, is more mature technique. I can print some of these properly, that eluded me in my youth, and looked at the time like crap!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not worry about originality; I look for what pleases me and then often originality emerges.

 

[Algo después]

can the gaze be educated?
can taste be trained?
can the quality be fine-tuned?

Or is habit stronger than all these?

 

[Sirius Glass]

can the gaze be educated?
can taste be trained?
can the quality be fine-tuned?

Or is habit stronger than all these?

Yes to the first three. Not necessarily to the last.

 

[Don_ih]

can the gaze be educated?
can taste be trained?
can the quality be fine-tuned?

Or is habit stronger than all these?

There is only so much nature does. The rest is education - whether explicit or embedded in the experience of one's life. Habit takes hold when you get complacent. But I think it can be dislodged - often by a trick mentioned above several times: changing technique.
(Too bad John Nanian left - he would've liked this discussion.)

 

[Algo después]

(Too bad John Nanian left - he would've liked this discussion.)

X 2

 

[Algo después]

(Wordless Touch)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is the one I referenced above. “Portal #2 - Impediments,” cyanotype and graphite on paper, 15”x22”.

View attachment 299173

That's nice. When I go to museums exhibiting new work, photos are often composited with other materials. People look for new stuff so I suppose that's where the market is going.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

and also...

Esteban Pastorino

So, inventing and making things is all part of the process for you?

Yes. I am driven by curiosity… What would happen if…? The question is usually linked to an unconventional way of using photography that requires me to develop my own equipment because what I am trying to do cannot be done with a shop-bought camera.

I also enjoy the idea of creating something from scratch; making something with my own hands rather than buying it or having it custom made. I believe that all the challenges and solutions that arise as I am designing and making leave their traces in the final image… and that makes it unique.

What other technical innovations have you created to make unusual photographs?

For the past fourteen years, I have been designing and working with long panoramas using slit-scan cameras. In 2004 I created a version that can produce a single negative of up to 1.6 metres in length. This is the one I use most often. It can also shoot in stereo using two parallel rolls for film.

How would you describe the result that is captured using this technology? It’s not quite a ‘snapshot’, in that it is not a single moment frozen, but it is also not a moving image…?

While, a traditional camera exposes or records the entire frame simultaneously, the slit scan camera on the contrary, exposes the film sequentially. This means that what is depicted on one end of the image took place seconds, minutes or even hours before that which is on the other end. This is because of the way the camera exposes the film: while the shutter is open the film moves continuously behind a narrow vertical slit. What is depicted along the film is not space but time. That is the big difference. So, one can’t think about this kind of image in the same way one does about a normal photograph or even cinema, which is itself simply a sequence of separate still photographs.

View attachment 299189


View attachment 299190
View attachment 299191

https://talking-pictures.net.au/2020/07/04/esteban-pastorino-diaz-the-invented-eye/

Looking at the long shot with the people had to be done quickly or the people would have blurred. How long did the slit take to cross the entire negative? How do you prevent distortion as the slit travels? Why aren;t all the images smeared with the objects being photogrpahed?

 

[Algo después]

That's nice. When I go to museums exhibiting new work, photos are often composited with other materials. People look for new stuff so I suppose that's where the market is going.

I celebrate this multimedia that Vince presents to us. Beyond that I suppose that he must be dealing with the questions or insecurities that arise from his own process, which is normal in any creative process. Of course I can't speak for him but, contrary to what many people believe, and what has already been pointed out several times in this thread, changing involves the risk that your work will not be assimilated. Without risk there is no art.

Changes bother many people and although we know that the public is not a uniform mass, the great majority tends to go behind what the artists propose, the critics/institutions legitimize and the market collects. The general public sometimes reluctantly accepts these changes and on other occasions it simply disconnects or, failing that, takes refuge in the ideas of what art is for themselves to the point of shielding that code. Artists or works of art that break it run the risk of being considered transgressors or degenerates.

Similar things can happen with the technique, humanity could have settled for the camera obscura as a device directly linked to the role of painters or scientific illustrators but someone (or several) discovered that these images could be fixed on various supports, that they could have color and so on. In this regard, note that before photography was established as a more "objective" tool at the service of various fields such as science, many scientists had to learn to draw to present their research. None of these scientists claimed an artistic status in their images, despite having a highly virtuoso technical handling. Here we see again the relevance of the camera obscura. Some examples:

Robert Hooke, Micrographia, 1665.

William Hunter, Huteri Humani Gravidi, unknow year. I'm sorry if the image it´s too strong.

William Cheselden Osteographia, 1733.

 

[Algo después]

Looking at the long shot with the people had to be done quickly or the people would have blurred. How long did the slit take to cross the entire negative? How do you prevent distortion as the slit travels? Why aren;t all the images smeared with the objects being photogrpahed?

Indeed, the image tends to be distorted in various planes. The first plane is the one that suffers the least, the second tends to contract the objects and the third plane, practically due to the movement, tends to become constant bands of colors, as if they were an abstraction. Also, I have a very vague recollection of seeing one of these long photos by him where the device enhanced the background capture. It was a tracking shot (if you can call it that) from the center of Buenos Aires.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I forgot where I saw it, maybe the NYC Public Library, Main Branch on 42nd street with the two lions outside. A photographer put together a book of photos that unfolded to yards in length that showed an entire avenue of buildings that ran for miles.