"Saving Those Landscapes, in Pictures at Least" NY Times

Hello fellow photographers,

   I found this interesting article from the NY Times about how a team of photographers have been commissioned to photograph lost landscapes and the meaning behind them.  Enjoy it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/arts/design/23shat.html?ref=design

Digital FIne Art paper sampler

I went to the Hahnemuehle website and contacted their rep for some paper samplers and they emailed me a response. Apparently, they are nice enough to send me a pack for free. It's an awesome opportunity to try their papers - if you guys remember my first project (the portraits of "painted" women), I used Hahnemuehle "Bamboo" paper. I have only good things to say about it and this is a good treat for digital printing.

http://www.hahnemuehle.com/site/us/810/digital-fineart.html

Enjoy ~

Photography Masters on YouTube

Here is a YouTube channel on Photography Masters: videos of documentaries on famous photographers such as Ansel Adams, Annie Liebowitz, and many others.  Most of the documentaries are very old like from the 1980s.  Enjoy it!  

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Rangefindergeneral&view=videos

3D Art Journey Project

Hello everybody,

  My 3D Art project back in October relates back to the "Radiohead" video Colby showed us earlier in the semester.  My professor, Pat Kelley, showed it to my 3D art class because it relates back to the project and how both photography and 3D modeling are incorporated in the video.  At one point in the video, there is a little 3D animation of what appears to be a neighborhood where they were filming.  So, with this 3D project, we had to create a journey through a place we were familiar with and interpret it.  For this project, I wanted to focus on my neighborhood in Mitchellville, MD.  With the use of the camera, I created a motion path through the neighborhood and when you play it, the camera is just following that path.  There were a lot of things that were unintentional, but other than that, my goal for the project was achieved.  I hope you enjoy it! 

http://www.youtube.com/user/jeweldance1

street art, as it's meant to be.

Kelley Reception and Gallery Talk

I was pleased by the level of arbitrariness of present in Kelley's artworks. He did not appear to be too concerned with the philosophical, cultural, apparitional, or otherwise theoretical/imaginary parts of his artwork. I liked this. Most of his talk was related to breaking down the elements of the image and explaining their origins, and how he made the images (without revealing any trade secrets).

He works primarily with computers, but has an affinity for presenting artwork in non-digital formats. He has a series of digital photographs that were presented as a sequence in small books. I asked him why he did this. Couldn't he just make a .mov file with the sequence? I was pleased by his answer. He said that he gives control to the audience. The vagaries of movement, the intention of the user in flipping the pages, did not generate the same experience as a digital video file. A video file is uniform and plays the same way for everyone. Kelley empowers the user.

I think that anything is possible in the digital realm, and that with advances and new features in digital video, the experience of a unique experience for each individual user watching a sequence as a video file, will be possible. All the subtleties and control for the user will be possible eventually, so the idea that a small paper book generates a special experience unattainable with digital formats is not completely true, but I do like the idea that he considered the audience and put a lot of thought into how they would be viewing it.

Portraits of Power

I was just waiting to tear this artist up after watching him revealing his political leanings and bias through his work. However, it seems that he was pretty fair and there did not appear to be any difference in his portrayal of Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem that he had any goal, but, he was simply interested in the concept of power. He was able to photograph many different people, but I was interested in hearing about what people he asked to photograph but was turned down.

One part that stood out to me was the photograph of Rove, that the subject was very upset about. He seemed to feel that the photographer was out to get him. I think he should grow up and just realize that photographer was interested in taking a photograph of a natural moment in time. I don't think he was trying to make Rove look bad, for not taking a photograph that is a carbon-copy of virtually every other photograph of American politicians. It was also funny when Rove was so upset that he told the interviewer to pass it on to the photographer that he thought the photographer was trying to make him look stupid and the interviewer had to tell him that he was dead. I wouldn't object at all if a similar photograph was published of me. In fact I would feel good to know that such a great photographer wanted to photograph me.

One of the photographer's final works before he died, was a picture of Obama, which the lecturers gave us a little context for by reading the photographer's commentary. It would seem like a strange bit of luck or foreknowledge that he said that Obama would run for president someday. However, I wonder how much availability heuristic plays into this- perhaps the photographer had other works from 2004 that went by unnoticed, because they retroactively did not have similar significance.

Response in the Voice of Benjamin

As the function of artworks have changed throughout human history, so have images of humans. Artworks have gone from having a definite purpose to existing within the context of its social function. This photograph may have been taken for purposes of record, correspondence, or memory, but within a modern context could have other implications. The image was presented without any information on its ownership, age, or where the photograph was taken, which obscures its cultural value. The fact that there is no actual original version aids in this and makes it easier to conceal such things. This photograph, by the fact of it being a photograph and placed in digital format to be downloaded online, has lost its potential for politicization.

Those in need of proof for the reproducibility of art separating the audience from the original experience should look at the metadata on the .tiff file; An analog photograph which appears to be quite a few years old (judging by the way the people are dressed) has been brought to the masses (digitally) by a scanner from 2007. There has been room for the uniqueness of the original experience to be altered by the copying of the image from its original color space to a digital approximation of that space called “Nikon Apple RGB”.

Photographs can allow the audience to experience things they normally cannot achieve. It is difficult to look at objects close and objects far away simultaneously, but with this photograph, the background and foreground are in focus simultaneously. The absence of an artist illustrates the decline of the exclusivity of art. The person in the bottom appears to be holding the mechanism that opens the camera, so there wasn't even a photographer. No painter was necessary, nor even a photographer. Art for the common people.

From the film, an indefinite number of copies can be made, which further erodes the exclusivity of that image. This image was posted online. The fact that the photograph is reproducible causes this erosion to occur. It makes a visual experience possible only under certain circumstances for normal vision, possible for many. The hilly landscape appears inside one's house through a computer monitor. If the owner of the photograph valued the aura of the image, it is a bit of irony that he contributed to the decay of the aura by allowing the film negative to be reproduced.

http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/1ex.jpg

http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/2ex.jpg

http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/3ex.jpg

http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/4ex.jpg

http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/5ex.jpg

5 Images

All of the pictures I posted are found photographs from these two sites:

http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/

http://www.timetales.com/introMid.htm

"These photos were either lost, forgotten, or thrown away. The images now are nameless, without connection to the people they show, or the photographer who took them."

Photographs

Photography Reader- Benjamin

Photography, as well as other advances in technology, changed the way that art is viewed, produced, and interpreted. The “eye can perceive more quickly than the hand can draw” and photography allowed the process of “pictorial reproduction” to accelerate to the extent that a single instant could be preserved. From photography followed sound film which enabled “reality” to be captured in a way that it could not before.

The ability to reproduce famous works of art changed their impact and interpretation by the public. Reproduction became an art form in itself. The original holds all of its authority in the presence of a reproduction, but the fact that the reproduction exists changes the meaning of this authority. Reproduction enables artwork to meet the viewer halfway. It makes it possible to view works of art, in reproduced form, which otherwise would have remained a mystery. This, it appears, has both advantages and disadvantages.

“The work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed to be reproduced.” With the knowledge that reproduction is the final stage in the creation of an image, the decision making during the development is likely to be affected. Viewing this image, the first thought that comes to my mind is reproduction. The choice of the photographer to include the negative strip and a section of the upcoming photograph immediately reminds me of the reproducibility of the image. A slightly altered version of this image would not be hard to come by. The idea of an “original” print is photography is a strange concept as many different prints can be made from a negative. Which is the original?

The focus on reproduction has led to a shift in meaning of an image. Whereas the focus used to be on the ritual and the importance of the subject matter, it seems now to have shifted to what will be seen by the viewer rather than the importance of the actual scene. The importance of aura itself has shifted. There is a different focus when producing a work of art to be a simultaneous collective experience, as can be done with photography, than when this collective experience is not a possibility when creating a painting.

A “different nature opens itself to the camera than opens itself to the naked eye.” It is important to remember that although photography can capture an instant, there is still a question as to whether or not this instant represents reality. Individuals often act differently when being photographed and scenes will be staged in order to create a desirable final image. In this particular image, the family is staged and although it may be a representation of the time and the family, there is still a question as to its relation to reality.

Five Images

if I could draw.. I'd aim for this.

5 pictures

An Article on Photographer William Eggleston

Here is an article on photographer William Eggleston's show "William Eggleston: Democratic Camera, Photographs and Video, 1961-2008.  ENJOY IT!!!!!  

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/arts/design/07eggl.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=design

Pictures

Poignant and Uninterested Barthes

This photograph, like all others, is ‘pure contingency and can be nothing else.’ This means that something is always represented—a representation which connects the photographer, viewer, and people being photographed. If cameras are clocks for seeing, then what is being represented here?

In this color negative, we see a family: a woman, her two children, cat and dog posed outside in a green, rural, hilly landscape. The picture was taken quickly, while the dog was still in motion while looking up to and pawing at the boy. What is special about this picture? Clearly, it is full of studium for me, leaving me with feelings of unconcerned desire, various interest and inconsequential taste. I like this picture I guess, but I certainly do not love it. It is not poignant to me, it does not evoke any special emotion except, “oh, another family portrait.” This leaves me questioning what the photographer’s interests were.

This photograph for the assignment was taken out of context, but it doesn’t seem to be capturing anything special/abnormal/monumental about this family or this day. Why was this picture taken and why am I looking at it and analyzing it now? I do not know these people and this photograph does not aesthetically appeal to me. On the other hand, if I knew these people and why this was taken, it would consist of punctum for me (punctum being what interests/captures and captivates me; what I love). If this were a picture of my family, for example, then I would love it and the photograph would automatically transform from a studium to a punctum photograph.

What differentiates our feeling of punctum and studium for each image? Shouldn’t I love or hate every image I see, or respond to it in a strong way? If I am an artist does that mean that every image I see must evoke a strong feeling within me? And if I don’t feel strongly for or against it, does that mean I am a worthless artist who is not trying hard enough or that I am ignorant and naieve to the world of art?

Photography is anything but simple. There are so many truths and distortions, emotions, memories and meanings captured by a photograph. We should be open to the punctum in every photograph, but as humans I do not know if we are capable of feeling so much with every photo or anything in general that we interact with. Would feeling that much put us over the edge? Cause a mental breakdown from the stimuli overload? Or is it the opposite—with so many photographs out here, should only a select few really speak to us since there are so many dangerous functions of photography? This photo doesn’t really speak to me and I don’t consider it dangerous, but if I overanalyze it it may speak to me and become dangerous.

I am looking at this picture while being excluded from it. It is just an image. The more I analyze it the more it continues to be just an image.

Szabo Symposium : Paul Roth and Frank Goodyear

On Thursday, October 30, 2008 Paul Roth and Frank Goodyear gave a lecture on the work of Richard Avedon, specifically his work dealing with power. The lecture began with Colby Caldwell giving a brief introduction to Avedon’s work. Included in that introduction was a quote by Avedon: “The photograph is a record of the transaction between the photographer and the subject. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.” I found this statement to be quite pertinent when thinking about the issue of the “authentic moment” in the landscape which I am trying to show the audience in my current work. According to Avedon’s above thought, the simple fact that the work is a photograph is showing that I am having some sort of interaction, or transaction, with my subject, the landscape. While this is a fundamental idea, it makes me think more clearly about the fact that the interaction is already present in the work; it is the nature of the interaction that I am trying to convey. The second half of the quote also has resonance with my current working process. Over the past few months I have been trying to create photographs that accurately and honestly depict my interaction with the landscape. Avedon’s thought that photographs are accurate, that they capture a moment in time accurately encourages me to further loosen some of the rules that I have set up for myself in creating the photographs.

Frank Goodyear took a very interesting approach to studying Avedon’s career and creative process by interviewing the subjects of his portraits. I found the descriptions of Avedon’s working methods to be quite interesting and very different from my own. When I work in portraiture I have the model come to the location and work with them for about an hour, usually a bit less. I do my best to make the sitter feel comfortable and talk with them throughout. I feel as if I have some power but most of my power as the photographer is put into trying to make the sitter feel comfortable. This is in stark contrast to Avedon. His portrait sessions were characterized by words like brief, intense, short, and awkward. Such intense differences in process interest me.

Another aspect of Goodyear’s talk that interested me was the varying opinions about who controlled what happened in the portrait: Avedon, or the sitter. For example, during his discussion of James Carville who was photographed by Avedon in 2004, he said that Avedon seemed to allow people to photograph themselves and Carville himself said that Avedon “allowed me to be myself.” However, other sitters such as Jerry Brown felt that Avedon knew exactly what he wanted from the portrait going into the shoot. This dichotomy fascinates me as I often oscillate between the two working methods.

Paul Roth’s discussion of Avedon’s work was fascinating. His complete and thorough knowledge of Avedon’s methods, personal life, professional life, working process, and thought process was impressive, interesting, and enlightening. During Roth’s discussion he quoted Avedon as saying he was trying to “take the lying and the romance out of the picture.” I think this attempt can be clearly seen in Avedon’s work, especially during the years that he worked in his “mature” style using an 8 x 10 camera and a white backdrop. This style occludes a lot of visual information that could be used to draw connections or characterize readings of a portrait, leaving only the face, body position, clothing, and hair to relate information about the portrait. In the past I have worked in this way, using a white wall as my back drop and black and white photography to leave out the information brought to a portrait by color and surroundings. Earlier this semester I planned to work on a portraiture project that studied exactly what objects and location brought to a portrait. Revisiting this idea seems even more interesting now. Aspects of color versus black and white, setting, props, and clothing, among other things, could be manipulated in order to test what a portrait conveys through the different components.

Images