I’m sure it’s been discussed many times before, but in continuing the conversation about photography and how the definition seems to be expanding all the time, I wonder if this video demonstrates yet another expansion?
See how it was made here.
Most photographers seem to know about this site, a great resource available to photographers and those interested in photography.
I just came across another site that has even more information and links to all kinds of grants and contests all around the world.
Definitely worth adding to your RSS reader.
A video to get the day started off in the right mood.
Yellow Cloud, 2008 by Clifford Ross
Not sure what to make of Clifford Ross’s new work at Sonnabend based on his previous Mountain XII photograph.
Ross has been busy digitally de-constructing, re-constructing, cropping, inverting (into a negative), and color separating the original photograph with what looks like photoshop. At times he shatters the original image into tiny shapes and colors resembling broken glass or Japanese origami. Many of the new images are being printed with archival pigment on Japanese Rice paper.
Overall it’s definitely one of the most bizarre photography (if you can even call it that) exhibitions I’ve seen around in a while.
Someone I know compared it to Gursky’s Stockholder Meeting, Diptych from 2001. That photograph had it’s one and only public exhibition at the MoMa retrospective in 2001 and forever disappeared from sight. I can’t even locate an image of it online, it’s like it never existed.
It’s quite surprising that no one seems to be talking about the Ross show considering how much press and attention he received for the earlier Mountain photographs and the invention of his super large format R1 camera. The New Yorker seems to be the only place that even mentions the new work (scroll down to find the snippet on Ross).
In the beginning I was very curious to see what kinds of subjects Ross might attempt to capture with the R1 and how the subjects themselves might reflect on the invention of the camera as well as the photographic medium on the whole. So far Ross has given us some beautiful though rather traditional and romanticized landscapes with confounding resolution and detail.
I hope that this latest exploration doesn’t signify the end of Ross’ experimentation with the R1 and that there will be further developments from him as they are pursued.
All this has me wondering what I would do with such a behemoth of a photographic apparatus. In truth I really have no idea, what would you do?
Bombhead, 1989/2002 by Bruce Conner
Bruce Conner, a pioneering San Francisco based artist known for his work in film, drawing, collage and assemblage, passed away yesterday afternoon.
Probably his most well know piece was a short experimental film composed of found footage titled A Movie (1958).
still from A Movie, 1958 by Bruce Conner
I remember watching A Movie in film class and being surprised (and confused) by the jarring juxtapositions of images and title screens continually announcing the THE END. It was quite a revelation to see at the time and has been extremely influential ever since.
A few appreciations of Bruce Conner’s life and work can be found here, here, here and here.
Untitled XXIII, by Polly Borland
Bunny, a new series of photographs by Polly Borland is definitely worth a look.
Untitled II, by Polly Borland
Her enigmatic, strange, and humorous photographs of an extremely tall woman named Gwen explore intimacy, femininity, beauty and a whole lot more.
Untitled III, by Polly Borland
This girl was a total stranger, who I’d seen walking around Brighton for a while in 2003. She was extremely tall and captivating in her style, like a 1950s starlet. One day, it just came to me that I should be taking photos of her. So I found out that she was called Gwen and where she worked, and marched in there and gave her my phone number. Then she rang me and said she’d like to be involved, so we started taking the photographs.
At first it was going to be a Bunny Yeager-style pin-up shot. But it evolved into me dressing her up in weird costumes to do with femininity and female representation. She was very theatrical in the way she presented herself, and it just seemed to naturally develop. As this was going on, Gwen and I formed a deep friendship as well.
In her bedroom, I got her dressed in ballet tights, and then drew the face. The eyes are lipstick, and the mouth is eyeliner; I think we used socks to fill the ears out. I wanted it to look very homemade. I don’t know where the idea of putting the tights on her arms and head came from.
As we were shooting, she was doing different positions and different poses, and then all of a sudden she leaned over just like that. We’d been taking photos at this point for six months, and this was the launch of the real work.
The image has a snapshot feel to it, which I love. A lot of my work is very controlled, but this was just a moment. It also evokes a lot of different things. It’s quite sinister, quite gritty, and the ears almost look like they could be extra legs, so it’s not easily digestible. I think it makes you question things. That is what I want from a photograph.
-Polly Borland talking to the Guardian about Untitled III (above)
Untitled V, by Polly Borland
The colorful and saturated photographs remind me of Guy Bourdin mixed with a little Matthew Barney.
Untitled I, by Polly Borland
Some of you might know Polly’s work from an earlier project called The Babies, also worth a look.
If you live in London or just visiting, you are in luck as Bunny is on exhibit at Michael Hoppen Contemporary through August 16th.
I’m probably beating a dead horse with this post but what the hell…
Admittedly this is coming a little bit late as it’s kind of a response to The New York Photo Festival that happened in May as well as to contemporary photography in general.
While I still mostly use large format cameras (and some medium format) to produce my personal work, I am a huge advocate of digital photographic technology. That includes everything from the film-less cameras and digital editing software to the unbelievable quality and ease of printing at home.
Although one can argue that we are creating just as much pollution with our digital cameras and ink cartridges as we were with our film chemicals, I like to believe that the digital revolution can be good for photography as well as the environment.
At the same time there is no doubt that something has been lost in the changeover from film to digital. I’ve thought about this for a long time and wrote about it before.
These days it seems that photographers rarely print their work as traditional C-prints, myself included. Instead, many are making digital C-prints or Inkjet prints. Sze Tsung Leong’s recent Horizons exhibition was a notable exception to this practice.
Both digital C-prints and Inkjet prints can be done beautifully with a little effort but usually require a drum scan to begin with. Yes, drum scans are expensive but it obviously makes a difference especially when you want to make a large print. Other scanners can be manipulated into making good scans but that really depends on the scanner (Imacon, Epson, Scitex, etc.) and the operator in charge.
If you saw Gregory Crewdson’s last show, then you know what the best technology and the best technicians can do for you. Regardless of whether you like the photographs, one has to respect the amazing Inkjet prints he presented. Alec Soth is another well known photographer who recently made some beautiful Inkjets (he’s calling them Pigmented Ink prints).
This is not to say that you have to be Gregory Crewdson (with Crewdson size budgets) or Alec Soth to make gorgeous Inkjet prints.
I was quite impressed by the recent SVA MFA Photography Thesis Exhibition which contained a majority of what looked like really good Inkjet prints. This was a huge improvement in quality over the past couple of thesis exhibitions.
I myself am giving away Inkjet prints on this blog as part of The Photographic Project, but I have to admit that I really don’t know how I feel about them and their place in contemporary photographic practice.
Instinctually I don’t like the idea of an inkjet print. When I try to understand my aversion to them, I realize that it’s usually because of the bad quality of prints that I’ve seen around. The truth is that the scan of the negative or the digital file itself is more to blame than the actual print.
While having a conversation the other day with a fellow artist about contemporary photographic printmaking, we both came to the conclusion that it probably had to do with the chemical nature of photography until this point.
It seemed that the magic was quite possibly being lost in the new process.
I realized that when the photographers of the past experimented with all kinds of processes (Carbon, Gum Bichromate, Platinum, Salt Paper, Albumen, Cyanotype, Tintype, etc.), the majority of techniques were primarily chemical in nature. I guess that excludes many other techniques like the photogravure process that Stieglitz used (although it starts out chemically with the development of the negative) but you get my point.
I know that the definition of what makes a photograph a photograph has nothing to do with the chemical nature of the printing process. But it does bother me when a photograph can’t be differentiated from say, an illustration printed on similar paper.
Walking around The New York Photo Festival’s main exhibitions, I was struck again and again at how wonderful and engaging many of the photographs and projects were. But on the wall many of the prints were just plain ugly especially upon closer inspection.
From what I could tell, digital scanning, over-sharpening, over-saturation and poor printing were mainly to blame. This is unfortunate as it shouldn’t be that big a problem. When one thinks about the great history of the photographic medium in all it’s glory and compares that to what we see today in terms of photographic presence on a wall, we are bound to be disappointed.
Once you realize that many of these photographers are using large and medium format film it gets even more annoying. A photographer should know they’ve got a problem on their hands when the finished print doesn’t hold up in relation to the film format they’re using.
The only conclusion I can make regarding all this is that photographers are getting lazy, don’t really care or just don’t have a clue about what they are doing and are afraid to ask. Luckily for them, the general public as well as the photographic community (collectors, gallerists, curators) doesn’t seem to mind either. Although I believe that given adequate time to look and learn, they too will see what’s missing.
On the one hand, I’m extremely disappointed and annoyed when I think about what I see on a constant basis in many contemporary galleries and museums. It’s basically an affront to the great photographic tradition of beauty and excellence in printmaking. On the other hand, the Crewdson and Soth prints as well as the SVA Thesis exhibition give me great hope for the future of photographic printmaking.
One last thing worth mentioning is the discussion of photography on a computer screen vs. printed and framed on a wall. It seems to me that viewing work online can easily give a false impression about the quality and integrity of a photograph. It’s much easier to make photographs look great on a screen where as in reality, in print form, things are much more difficult. I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve looked at work online only to be disappointed by the work in person. In this case it isn’t just how the photographs are printed but how they actually feel and read on a wall.
Untitled, 2005 by Florian Maier-Aichen
Listen and watch as Florian Maier-Aichen talks about his work and what motivates him as an artist.
Make sure to watch all three parts on Photo España’s website.
still from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining
UK’s Channel 4 is showing a season of Stanley Kubrick’s films and has created a TV ad that goes behind the scenes of the The Shining.
One long tracking shot and lots of look a likes, very convincing.
Watch the promo here.
“The big question is, what are the appropriate criteria for determining whether judgments, by individuals or groups, are good or true? With jelly beans, there is an exact number against which to compare guesses. With art it is less clear. The popularity of exhibitions can be measured by ticket sales; auction sales can tell you what individual artworks are worth. But what if popularity or sales are not your immediate or ultimate measures of success? The artists who make the most money are not necessarily the best artists.” [Full Review]
-Ken Johnson writing about Click! A Crowd-Curated Exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum.