Details, photography and the power of less

<p>I think that any discussion of someone else's work (e.g. Sultan), and in this case in regard to the power or impact of detail in art and photography, should be presented with photographic examples. Much of the discussion is tangential to the main theme, partly so because it seems to involve concepts that are opaque to most ears or perhaps intended mainly to impress a particular following. Why not a few photographs of the artist to communicate the pertinence of his or her work and its philosophical connection?</p>

<p>Are the photographic examples also opaque? Luis has brought some of the discussion back to the original thread, which then was warped over to the question of what constitutes the definition of this forum and then, from Clive (who normally provides quite clear and personal viewpoints), the discussion without introduction of some photographer named Sultan. How is he using detail in art? Examples? I realize that it is hard to come across with personal examples or personal philosophies, but if those are ignored please give some photographic examples of the artists mentioned.</p>

<p>Luis-</p>

<p>Thanks for your interest in my photographic approach to the subject of the thread. My extra-photographic experience has involved a number of decades as a scientific researcher and this has imbued me with a desire to seek answers, to research, and to discover and try new things. It is an on-going challenge to do what I have indicated. In art, I do have a great interest in the interaction of fantasy, personal philosophy and values and the creation of the image, and in the use of minimal subject matter to communicate bigger issues, little visited situations, and reflections on mankind, his products and his interaction with the physical world. </p>

<p>I am piloting no movement at present. I think that if ever my attempts were to be considered in that sense I would sense failure of communication with the viewers, as I believe movements tie down an artist, reduce his or her freedom and serve often primarily to provide a support group for sollicitation of grants and peer comments or to convince the great unwashed public of the value of some art form and interpretation.</p>

<p>I will look and see if I want to present some other images that support this theme. I was hoping of course that other examples than mine might be presented to provide separate takes on the theme. These might be accompanied by the what, how, and why of the creators. </p>

<p>Incidentally, my questioning of the use of this forum (Being in most cases 3rd person philosophies, rather than the philosophy of the posters themselves) was in a small part incited by the presence of the only sub-grouping supplied by Photo.Net to date: "History of philosophy of photography". </p>

<p>That in itself says something.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry Arthur.</p>

<p>John Kelly introduced Larry Sultan a couple of posts ago, I've been addressing the Less is More part of this thread more than the detail side of it:</p>

<p><a href="http://theexposureproject.blogspot.com/2009/06/contemporary-reading-of-evidence.html">http://theexposureproject.blogspot.com/2009/06/contemporary-reading-of-evidence.html</a></p>

<p>But now you mention it "Evidence" seems to be primarily about detail, albeit of the conceptual kind, the pictures are in effect all out of context and are probably parts of a whole (which we never get to see). We are given a bland detail with no title, no help is provided so our imaginations go wild trying to invent the correct context for the images we are given to look at.</p>

<p>It is like being given the script of just one actor in a play and never seeing what everybody else get to say.</p>

<p>In this way one detail can generate numerous "wholes"</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - </strong> It does seem like you've thought this "less is more" thing out further than you've let on. I do not mean that as a form of dogmatism, or rigid exoskeleton, but as a fluid, living, personal conceptual structure. I'm just doing my best to understand where you're at, and I may be totally off-base, but it feels like there's more. I agree this is well worth further exploration, and you know I agree with you on furnishing examples.</p>

<p>As to the forums, it seems they're divided between two kinds of people. Those that tolerate others expressing themselves (as long as they comply with the TOUs and forum charters), and those that do not.</p>

<p><strong>Clive - "</strong> my guess is that currently the most fertile area for artists to exploit is the one they hate the most............"</p>

<p> Yes.</p>

<p><strong>Clive - "</strong> We are given a bland detail with no title, no help is provided so our imaginations go wild trying to invent the correct context for the images we are given to look at."</p>

<p> Conceptual horrovacuity. Sultan understood very well the function of art as a psychic generator, and was an expert at tuning that point where signal and noise get close enough to unlock the fetters of reason.</p>

<p><strong>Clive - "</strong> Because of the huge number of images that we see we develop our own personal system to rapidly sort what we are actually prepared to look at. In many ways this is extremely dangerous because it closes our minds."</p>

<p> It is dangerous. As to whether it closes one's mind, I think that depends a lot on the individual, but it is unarguable that the sheer torrent of images around us, if nothing else, tends to desensitize us to certain types of imagery, and set up filtration to keep out the visual locusts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Congratulations Luis - for, horrorvacuity not a word that I'd come across before, not a word that was in my dictionary and only a couple of other references to it ever being used before on Google. I like it a lot, though I had a sort of gut feeling that there was something tautological when it was teamed with "conceptual' - but couldn't actually make it stick.</p>

<p>Last night I went to an art gallery opening:<br>

<a href="http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=1069&h=0">http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=1069&h=0</a></p>

<p>The show I went to see was the Vernon Ah Kee, but as the link shows there's a photography show on too - Disappearers. Very impressive but more to the point almost entirely devoted to our current dicussion. Sadly the whole show is not on the net and you would have google each artist.</p>

<p>I've included this link to one of the sets of photos that are in the show</p>

<p><a href="http://www.izabelapluta.net/worksmenuframe.htm">http://www.izabelapluta.net/worksmenuframe.htm</a></p>

<p>I decided against purchase of Sultan's 3X4 Graflex reflex. IHe'd been photographing freeway on-ramps, presumably on the road to, uh, horrorvacuity. The 3X4 was one of those photographic red-haired step children that mestasticize on shelves. I think he'd adapted it to Polaroid. The shutter seemed OK but everybody knew, even then, that 3X4 was doomed, and I wasn't interested in Polaroid. Anyway, what I wanted was a 4X5 Super D.</p>

<p><strong>Clive - </strong> No big deal, really. I've been using it for a quarter century. It's a useful idea to describe something one often encounters in the art world (and elsewhere). I made what seemed to you, but not to me, a needlessly repetitive distinction between the visual manifestation of the idea as opposed to the idea itself. BTW, as far as I know, horror vacuity is two words, horrovacuity is the singlet.</p>

<p> I see what you mean with Ms. Pluta's work. I think it is in line with Arthur's notion.</p>

<p> The Desert Cantos by Richard Misrach fit in with this...</p>

<p>http://www.utata.org/salon/20487.php</p>

<p> As opposed to Friedlander's Sonoran series:</p>

<p>http://blog.adnanchowdhury.com/post/199356100/review-on-looking-at-lee-friedlanders-book-the</p>

<p>Both masterworks, but very different philosophically with respect to Arthur's point. For Friedlander more is more, Misrach opts for the LiM approach.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My December 17th semi-diatribe grew out of a long day of weary driving and the gloom of a less than palatial motel room at my stop-over point. My comments then were not too constructive and I hope not too impolite to those providing well thought out discussion. Since then I have read more carefully the comments of Clive, Luis and John, and have also visited the photographic creations of Sultan and Mendal.</p>

<p>I think Clive has it in regard to the works of the latter. The details are interesting but the message is often incomplete. Clive's play analogy of one actor's script is a very good one. Perhaps the photographers have created that to incite us to interact more with the detail, to give it flesh, or perhaps they are more likely commernting on the lack of "Evidence" we must often confront in life? Luis' comment on Sultan, that he understood very well the function of art as a psychic generator, and was an expert at tuning that point where signal and noise get close enough to unlock the fetters of reason, adds another dimension to the use of detail, one which had not been addressed to date, I believe.</p>

<p>"It is unarguable that the sheer torrent of images around us, if nothing else, tends to desensitize us to certain types of imagery, and set up filtration to keep out the visual locusts." This is an important sharing of opinion between Clive and Luis, as well as an important point of discussion, and I venture to think (yes, I do, occasionally...) that it may be a significant "raison d'etre" for the contemporary photographer to concentrate on details, which may be more directly absorbed by the viewer, or which may convey by their restricted image a message that is more singular and deeply etched.</p>

<p>"Disappearers", a quite magical title, is perhaps relevant to details in photography. By concentrating on the absent figure in contemporary photography, it purports to stress the detail of the absent part (maybe the same could be said of Sultan's work?). Ms. Pluta provides a series of detail photographs (or photographs of installation elements) that would seem to require a reading of the whole, instead of the individual elements, in order that the meaning be grasped in full. The individual details do not seem to speak as strongly as the overall message of their combined tautological companions, or indeed not as much as some other individual detail photographs that succeed in doing that alone. Personally, I find that to succeed with the latter is a greater challenge.</p>

<p>A quick look at the UTATA site Clive mentioned, and at some 2009 exhibitions and one destined for early 2010, shows Misrach's work, which is also compelling in respect of details in a more expansive scene, and in regard to the intent of its creator, but I particularly noted the piece of Chantal Faust (May through July 2009) called "The Children" and the photo of Ann Zahalka (early 2010 show) called "Marriage of Convenience" in the early 2010 program of an exhibition called "Hall of Mirrors". Her Van Eyck like photograph has several elements to it but the singular detail of interest is in the viewer's perceived relationship of the not very close standing couple and their apparent armour (by clothes type) and detachment.</p>

<p>We recognize immediately some colleagues or acquaintances by a twich, a body physical characteristic, a voice tone, or some other detail. The perception of the whole individual may be recalled by the small detail that announces his or her presence. Can a detail in a photograph provide a similar experience? Can the absence of a detail in another (as per the "Disappearers" exhibition apparent theme) do the same?</p>

<p>I remember my first sight of the Battalia site in Portugal (I think it was near Coimbre). The unfinished monastery was lit by a soft and very warm late afternoon sun, sublimely attractive, but that wasn't the main eye-arrester for me. The staunch character in armour on horseback (the King who defeated the Moorish army), holding absolutely vertical and calmly his long sword, isolated in the middle of the large square opposite the monastery, had a very strong effect. This was not just the hero (detail), but an image of a whole nation, and a turning point in Portugese Medieval history. The Iwo Jima flag raising, not with a full battle ensuing in the background but simply a few soldiers on a summit, is perhaps similar in impact.</p>

<!--EndFragment--> <!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment-->

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >Many very interesting thoughts on the concentration on details in art and photography have been generously offered, and it is worth reading over the comments. Here are just a few, from the first week only and not recalled in any attempt at conclusion (Should one ever conclude a discussion of philosophical nature?), but more to uncover other thoughts or examples on the subject. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >(John K) : « Someone quoted Gertrude Stein saying something like "artists notice important things that others may miss, such as grass growing through cracks in sidewalks." (I can't find that quote online... heard it on the radio of a 1972 Volkswagen, passing through Santa Rosa, CA in 1982 or so...remembered it, sort of). » </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >« To me, "less is more" has to do with expressiveness or coherence of the information rather than relative amount of information. »</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >(Fred G) : « I do find that many doing portraits come in very close, almost to where all they capture are the eyes, and often I don't find them compelling portraits. It's as if some photographers rely on the extreme closeup for expression instead of actually expressing something. A closeup of eyes is not necessarily proof of the adage that "the eyes are the mirror of the soul." Sometimes, you need more to go with eyes in order to make them speak, or at least you need to capture the eyes in a particularly compelling way. »</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >(Luis G) : « There's energy and access to the viewer's mind in simplifying and paring down. The process of art is mostly a reductive one, and this kind of image emphasizes that. An image stripped bare by its author has fewer elements to wade through, and less dead weight. It's a refuge from the apparent chaos and usual noises of the real world. »</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >(Julie H) : « I'm reminded of the old question (that I am going to hash up) about how long should one's legs be? Long enough to reach the ground. Some songs are perfect when barely heard hummed under the breath; others require a full orchestra. »</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >(Phylo D) : « I would say that completion of the image ( the question of the "more" vs the "less", both by viewer and photographer ) is achieved, not when there is nothing more to be added, but when there's nothing more to be taken away. »</p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

<p>You might find this short video also interesting, in context to the thread, it's about how Joel Meyerowitz describes his view of description in photography, and the less & more in it ( he sees the detail in the power of more ) : <br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24X3YPmhpsE&feature=related</p>

<p> </p>