Wednesday, February 23, 2011

on being inventive

Both of the assessment reports for the OCA modules I have done, mention that I lack inventiveness ... was not sure how to understand this remark. Read the following from Osho ...

‎"You will be surprised to know that all that you see has been invented by playful people, not by the serious people. The serious people are too much past-oriented — they go on repeating the past, because they know it works.
They are never inventive." Osho



Does this apply to me?!


Subjects like natural history and the Taj Mahal suggest it does!!

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Woman's Hour : taking a great photograph !?

Can you learn how to take a great photo … how to pose someone!

AJ - looking for the book she came to write; could not find it so choose some photographers she liked to feature 

Anna - from fine art background likes Thomas Demand

can art be taught? good question! can't really teach someone to take a good photograph but can help student to become aware of what a good photograph is and the various ways it can be done

need for gut reaction

AJ - litle stories, odd photos; subject sometimes comes up with best idea of way to photograph !!

need for technical efficiency?! varies from photographer to photographer .. need for for some technical knowledge as per one's approach … pinhole!! … 

does a photographer need a philosophy? what is that extra quality how one sees the world .. who you are that creates the pictures!

advice to amateur .. experiment do not worry too much about the technicalities! 

catching people off guard

comment on choice of Photography Books by the OCA December 2010

Gareth
I am intrigued by your choice of book partly because I attended the Tate Modern seminar on the representation of violence that followed in the wake of the EXPOSED exhibition. Is Sontag really saying that we have become inured to photographs of suffering? In her book, In Regarding the Pain of Others, she actually writes … “our capacity to respond to our experiences with emotional freshness and ethical pertinence is being sapped by the relentless diffusion of vulgar and appalling images – might be called the conservative critique of the diffusion of such images. I call this argument conservative because it is the sense of reality that is eroded. There is still a reality that exists independent of the attempts to weaken its’ authority.” (p.97 Penguin Edition 2004) which I consider is a vital statement of her outlook. Elsewhere, she admits that “There are hundreds of millions of television watchers who are far from inured to what they see on television. They do not have the luxury of patronising reality.” (page 99).
Sontag is however tends to be regarded as gospel and I do not think she is; her statements are rather sweeping!
Jose
What a wonderful book you have come across! such books are a bit of a luxury and although Amazon offer it at a reasonable price, it is a matter of whether I’ll have room for it. Maybe … these days I am my own Santa so its’ possible! The Antarctic may not be there much longer so these are poignant landscapes.
As for my own choice, it is rather personal. The Indians by Raghu Rai does not seem to be available through Amazon and the cost in Delhi of £80 seemed too exorbitant. Nevertheless, I was shown a copy. It starts with a collection of Rai’s old portrait photographs, images from a bygone era when Britain ran the country; these show something of an India that is no more. This is followed by Raghu’s own photographs and features portraits of famous Indians such as Mother Teresa (actually a European) and Indira Gandhi as well as some of the great musicians (Hariprasad Chaurasia for instance). My favourite portrait is that of Jiddu Krsnamurti, a teacher who is still recognised worldwide; he is portrayed in a triptych that suggests both agony and ecstasy. The one that made me laugh is of Moraji Desai, a former prime minister who seems to be glaring defiantly down Rai’s lens; Desai was also famous for drinking his own urine, a nature cure!
I would also like to mention Michael Freeman’s Photographer’s Mind. What I like about his books is the way they bridge the gap between critic and photographer.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

THE DEBATE: Photography is a lesser medium than paint

Phillips de Pury is an auctioneer's establishment a short walk from Victoria station. The debate on november 1'st 2010 at which about 300 people were present took place in a hall while other smaller adjoining rooms showed a collection of framed photographs, hung on the walls, awaiting auction the following week. There were many by David Bailey yet the one that interested me most was number 2 of a 25 print collection by a deceased photographer called Ian MacMillan who made the famous image of the Beatles walking across a zebra crossing in St.John's Wood that was the cover of their Abbey Road album. It was estimated as having a value of between 3 and 4,00 GBP yet would probably go for more.

The debate saw the 6 speakers sitting behind a long desk facing the audience and flanking the chairman of the discussion, John Gordon, a co-founder of Intelligence Squared, the group responsible for organising the event. What I write is from notes made at the time which miss some points and may construe others yet hopefully relate the substance of the debate.

The first speaker, Michael Mack, a publisher and literary agent, described the evening as little more than intellectual exercise with as much value as the Turner Prize. Photography has credibility but tends to be overdone while there is a kind of guilt attached to its' inherent simplicity. Painters construct, photographers disclose. Digital mediation means photographs don't represent reality. Slipshod snapshots. Photography fulfils the surrealist notion (as proposed by Andre Breton) of elevating the ordinary to the status of art. Artis concerned with intention. Photography elevated painting so much so that painting now owes its' status to photography. Painting will continue to benefit from photography. The interest in images and ideas.

A.A.Gill, who trained in art and worked as an artist, agrees with everything the previous speaker has said, even though he is against the motion rather than for it. The topic is under discussion is both redundant and ridiculous. The subtext for the evening is whether photography is a lesser medium that art and indeed, many use the word art rather than painting which has more complex meanings. Art is about exclusivity, who can and who can't. Photography is everything that art is about, a contemporary form of cave painting. The crux of the argument is, what constitutes art? Who these days has the time to do a large Pre-Raphaelite painting? What about craft? Art is not a craft but singular, not repetitive. Take the skill out of art and you have Photography! The "Decisive Moment" is what Cartier-Bresson referred to the moment in time that marks a photograph. H.C-B liked to draw and paint but was not good at it apparently; his art expressed itself through photography.

Jose Maria Cano, a songwriter and painter, mentions Frieze, an early form of art likened to painting. Came a point when painting no longer represented reality. The art of ideas is conceptual art. Van Gogh not a smart artist unlike Salvador Dali. Art is about intelligence which is difficult to define. 95% of artists today are students! The art of intelligence, intrinsic value. The 1970's American Minimalist artists said "Painting is Dead!" but painting now seeing a revival. Art is whatever you want it to be, shifting definition. Art as expression! Photographers talented but painters put their life into their paintings. Don't look at the Mona Lisa as art but stand 80cm away as Leonardo did! An artist puts himself into the painting.

This was a passionately argued case but I wondered if the speaker was aware of how long a photographer might spend over an image in Photoshop or even setting up a shoot!

Discussion: Photography is inferior to paint



I thought it would be good to know a little more about the old argument concerning the differences between photography and art, here referred to as paint; nowadays, photography is widely accepted as art yet the question hangs around the apparent mechanicality of photography and the skill involved in painting a picture. My interest is not so much in whether one is superior and the other inferior rather the differences in the two mediums and their strengths and weaknesses. It seems to me they exercise different parts of the brain and can not really be measured up against each other. Painting has been going on for thousands of years while photography is about 170 years old possibly more if one accepts the light impressions of Niepce and the Dageurotype, processes that did not however lend themselves to infinite multiplication.

As I see it, photography is much more complex than people generally understand it and the skill lies with the ability to make images according to one's vision which is what paint does in a more simple and direct way. It does seem to me rather typical of painters to consider themselves, or at least their work, superior and a reason why it took me some time to like painting. Photography is younger and not so presumptous.

Here is what the Intelligence2 website about the debate says ...

In the beginning was the challenge: how to use eye, hand and brain to represent the significance of the world to our fellow humans. There followed the sinuous cave paintings of Perigord; the rigid, sparkling mosaics of Ravenna; the stunning Renaissance discovery of perspective. And the fellow humans marvelled at the dexterity of hand and the conceptual ingenuity of eye and brain behind such visions, and glorified them as art. 

But how do we feel now that the machine has interposed itself between ourselves and the world? Now that the dexterity of hand has been replaced by the finger’s click on the camera shutter? Now that the imagination of eye and brain has been confined within the rectangle of the viewfinder? If there is great art here, doesn't it lie in the creation of the camera itself rather than the pictures it takes? Is it not the genius of the scientists who devised the camera’s intricate mechanisms and powerful lenses that we should now marvel at, rather than the output of the adepts who operate the machine? 

Or are we still too much in thrall to the notion of art held by our pre-industrial forbears? Shouldn't we just accept that art has been freed of its ancient constraints, and acknowledge that the finest photographers offer us an interpretation of the world quite as original as that of the great painters; that in the digital age, photography is now the medium that matters?


Henri Cartier-Bresson writes in The Mind's Eye that the argument about art/paint versus photography is an academic one and I concur yet the nature of the photographic medium concerns me and seeing it outlined against that of paint might be quite helpful in developing a better understanding of this nature.



Friday, September 10, 2010

Muybridge : photographic exhibition at the Tate

Tate Britain does not often show photography but the Tate as a whole has made a committment to showing photography, recognising it as an art form. However, one wondered what had made them choose Edweard Muybridge, whose work could be shown in a science museum since his photographic studies of locomotion in both animals and humans, led to a better scientific understanding of motion as a whole.

Some of Muybridge's early work reveals landscapes photographed with great attention to detail which are given wider impact by an artistic sensitivity towards composition. Using a large camera with the wet-plate collodion process (he continued with this method until the 1880's) that produced sizeable contact prints, he made images that predate and resemble those that Ansel Adams was to make in the following century for Muybridge worked a great deal in the Yosemite National Park.

Muybridge's photographs from the 1870's of San Francisco contain among them detailed 360 degree panoramas of the city before it was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire. They also show the area before the building of the Golden Gate Bridge which opened in 1933.

However, Muybridge is best known for his studies of motion, made with a line of cameras that were fired one after the other by the subject passing and setting off the shutter by a trip wire. The old age question of whether that had been discussed as far back as the ancients of Greece, of whether a galloping horse ever left the ground completely or always had a foot on the ground, was finally solved; a horse when galloping can be entirely off the ground at a given moment since Muybridge was able to photograph this and show the different movements that led up to and followed it.

Although Muybridge did not actually invent cinematography, he certainly anticipated it as he did many other things. One might point to the case of O.J.Simpson who many consider escaped justice after killing his wife and her lover for Muybridge on discovering his wife had an affair, went out and shot the offending man, a theatre critic, and was eventually acquitted by a jury.

Yet, Muybridge also influenced many artists which is perhaps the main reason his work is being shown at Tate Britain. Degas is one artist who copied directly from his work, with one of his bronze sculpture's being of an image of a horse called Daisy and named 640 after a negative that had recorded it. Muybridge was aware of just how little artists really new about motion and so was able to show them not just a new way of conveying it but of a much more realistic one too though many may not have fully realised this at the time.

The surrealists were also affected by Muybridge's studies as were more recent artists such as Francis Bacon.  Yet his work also influenced many photographers.

If Art can be said to make us see the world differently then Muybridge is a great artist and a realsitic one too.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Eadweard Muybridge from Front Row, Radio 4, september 6'th 2010

Eadweard Muybridge broke new ground in the emerging art form of photography. Best known for his extensive portrayal of animal and human subjects in motion, he was also a landscape photographer, documentary artist and inventor. Joanna Pitman reviews a new retrospective at Tate Britain, London

M was both scientist and artist as his photography reveals.

An artistic sensibility but carefully and thoughtfully considered photographs!

Landscape pictures of American West. Commissioned to photograph Alaska that had just been bought by the American government.

First to climb up Yosemite with plate glass cameras. Dangerous .. porters refused to follow!

Used skies from other photographs even cut down trees to create better views.

Wife Flora, left alone when M went off on trips. She had an affair with someone and when M found out, M went and killed him. Was however, acquitted in court!