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 think one issue I haven't seen mentioned is a process/product debate….
Do you have an example we can see a photo of?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.
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).
... does it make sense to take another photo of the forest, the architecture of my town, etc? The answer is probably yes...?
Do you have an example we can see a photo of?
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.
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?”
This is the one I referenced above. “Portal #2 - Impediments,” cyanotype and graphite on paper, 15”x22”.
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.
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!...when I developed my first roll. Some of these images were never printed as they seemed, well, “dull.”
can the gaze be educated?
can taste be trained?
can the quality be fine-tuned?
Or is habit stronger than all these?
can the gaze be educated?
can taste be trained?
can the quality be fine-tuned?
Or is habit stronger than all these?
X 2(Too bad John Nanian left - he would've liked this discussion.)
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.This is the one I referenced above. “Portal #2 - Impediments,” cyanotype and graphite on paper, 15”x22”.
View attachment 299173
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?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/
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?