I read "The Photograph" by Clarke soon after I received the course materials, I already had (and have now re-read) "The Photograph As Contemporary Art" by Cotton and "The Genius of Photography" by Badger having watched the television series and now re-reading again.
There are a number of things that strike me, firstly the likelihood that the same photograph will turn up in each book to illustrate a point. This concerns me a little in that whilst the image itself may have significant relevance to the chapter or genre being discussed, it would benefit the reader/researcher to have more variety to consider, otherwise the genre may tend to be considered a little narrow. This tends to suggest that more work needs to be done (by me) to investigate some of the photographers, to try and put some context to the text, in as much as it relates to what the authors is trying to relay vis a vis the photographers work and intention. There is a tendency to look at individual images and think that could be a "jumping-off" point for my own work. The seemingly straightforward compositions, especially of the still life work - which may or may not be atheistically pleasing - could quite readily be "cloned" and used to make similar images, in appearance at least. I suspect that when I have looked at more examples of the artists work it will help me put their work into perspective.
Clarke's book was less pleasing to read as it contained, for me at any rate, a number of contradictions which I have covered in previous entries - War and Peace and Confused already and I felt more at ease with Cotton's book. Both books, together with the Badger publication looked at how some modern photographers looked at, as Cotton described "Intimate Life". The photographs seem to be taken at the periphery of life (albeit intimate studies) and whilst I agree that they are "intimate" shots, I am a little concerned that it is the viewers prurience that is being pandered to. I saw an exhibition of Corinne Day's work (or it might have been photography that included Day and another's documentary of Day) at the Photographer's Gallery some years ago which did detail the excruciating process she went through with the brain tumour. I can appreciate the bravery of the decision to record it, as there was no guaranty that there would be positive conclusion to the process. It was moving, I did feel shock and awe, but I came away thinking that it was the the image that shocked, rather than the emotive force that fed the creative process in its creation; much in the same way that Weegee's images shocked New Yorkers in the middle of the last century. Could it be that both of these photographer's contribution to the medium is as recordists of the society at the time? However Richard Billingham and Nan Goldin have both earned significant reputations as photographers almost by happenstance. Both recorded life as it happened around them, Billingham to gain material for his painting course and Goldin to record her life and that of her close friends - much in the same way that Facebook users do today. Both of these photographers work again seem to pander to the prurient and both photographers work have been legitimised by their having studied in either "Liberal Arts" in Goldin's case and "Fine art" in Bilingham's case. I will add that I have seen an exhibition of Billingham's work as well and again I was moved and shocked by the imagery, but much in the same way as for Day's work. I am also concerned that to research it more may inure the viewer to the "shock value" that must surely be at the core of the work; I can only assume that Billingham found himself looking for "more" intimate images of his family once the project gained momentum. This all needs more thought and research.
I did notice a similarity in a number of the "still life's" in that the subject - or object - found itself at the centre of the image, this was especially true in Cotton's chapter 4, "Something and Nothing". I struggle to believe this is a contrivance of the photographer to emulate a naive photographer's approach. For example Fischli and Weiss's Quiet Afternoon p114, Wentworth's Kings Cross, London, p119, Evan's "New Scent" p115, Shafran's "Sewing Kit" p115 amongst a lot of others and even Wall's "Diagonal Composition" p131 has the object (probably a piece of kitchen appliance) noticeable by it's absence at the centre of the image. I'm wondering why this all is.
All the books had something to say about portraiture which I found exciting, illuminating and challenging. I believe that portraiture should say something about both the artist and the subject - and it probably does in every image, even if it is nonchalance. I think that portraiture opens windows on both parties in a way that is difficult to do on other genre's in photographic art. When a photographer asks someone to sit, or is commissioned to portray someone in a portrait there are all sorts of emotions at play that cannot be involved in a landscape, still life or street photography. Two people, generally staring at each other, one decoupled through a lens the other naked in full view of that same lens. The emotions are probably amplified on a square law basis. The finest movement from either party will amplify the connection, or disconnection between the artist and sitter. I have taken a lot of portraits and intend to carry on doing so and I fully expect this course to inform my approach to portraiture.
I have included some examples taken of some volunteers sitters. These photographs were taken over a series os sittings where I have tried to convey, through the image, a sense of what the sitter is without being affected by the process of sitting. I am convinced I have not fully succeeded in as much as there is still residual artifice in all the portraits despite having each having sat for me a few times and all being very well known to me - good friends. The brief for the sessions that these images came from was for the sitter to turn up in everyday, comfortable clothes, not made up in any way, to be as natural as possible. One of the ladies spent some time in order to be "presentable" whilst the other did pretty much as I asked. Both males did exactly as I asked. I tried to have the sitters express bland, emotionless expressions to convey the "naturalness" of themselves, one of the ladies had no problem with this and it was so for the males. I have included one shot where the sitter has her eyes closed, I asked both the ladies to pose this way as I expected it to present a layer of emotion, trust in me as the photographer and only one lady was able to pose readily in this way.
I will try and get back to this project with either these models or some others to see how my thought processes develop. Maybe my lighting was too dramatic? Maybe I should use colour more?
No comments:
Post a Comment