Breaking free

<p>"Where do you go from there" is a recent OP here that seems to have intrigued many. I admit to not having been around on the net when it was in full swing. I am also not sure I absorbed very much of the discussion, but it led me to think that success in art and photography, other than commercial or client-directed approaches, is our ability to create something fresh.</p>

<p>The ability to break free from former approaches is probably recognized by many as an essential element of that freshness The past is important (whether it is our own, or in contemplation of the works of the masters of the practice before us), but I think what is more important is the desire and effort we can make in breaking free and establishing something different in the way we photograph (I am not ignoring the importance of subject and its perception in this).</p>

<p>A few years ago I photographed in B&W a scene in a mild snowstorm in Quebec City (yes they can be mild!) that I then hung in the hall between the kitchen and dining area. I have perhaps a half dozen of my photos hung in the house and distributed among much more artwork of friends and artists that I know and respect.</p>

<p>The little winter scene, where the feeling (as well as presence) of snow is quite palpable, has interested visitors more than other photos and I consider it as an example of a small beaking free from my other work.</p>

<p>Attached is a photo from a current series I began in August that I call "Sense of Water". It is a departure from my other themes. The desire to depict "wet" (sense of rain or water like the aforementioned sense of snow) in a photo is the driving force. You can see several other examples in the portfolio still in progress, which has yet to be trimmed to avoid repetitions. There are no doubt traces of my past manner of seeing in the photos or those compositions that are perhaps less fresh, but some aspects are new, at least to me. All of the images are realised in-camera with only minor PS balancing of light.</p>

<p>I wonder what you feel about "breaking free" in photography and whether that motivates you or not? Is it appropriate in the sense of a resolution to a question of where you might go from where you presently are? </p><div></div>

<p>Damn, Arthur, that one hits me like a ton of bricks. I'ld have to say that's pretty close to being an iconic image with an Eggleston sort of vibe.</p>

<p>Had to go to your gallery folder to see if you made the right choice compared to the others taken at different focal lengths/angles and you chose wisely.</p>

<p>Not sure why I'm liking this shot. Maybe its my screwed up sleep schedule that's affected my energy levels but irregardless I'm actually getting chills looking at the above shot. It's the best out of the bunch. </p>

<p>Yeah, comparing the rest of your gallery images I'ld say you broke free from your typical decisions and reactions to choosing the defining moment with this one. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder what you feel about "breaking free" in photography and whether that motivates you or not? Is it appropriate in the sense of a resolution to a question of where you might go from where you presently are?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mostly I feel doubtful and uneasy whether I'm breaking new ground or just fooling myself with what seems spur of the moment choices. Would love to be able to just not think and just shoot and still have it show me something I haven't seen before. I don't think that's considered "breaking free", though.</p>

<p>Not having a lot of resources I'm pretty much limited to shooting what's around me. Overcoming my laziness to venture out seems to be a daunting task. Couple that with the fact I already have too many images I can't seem to find the motivation to toss or even cull through because I've either grown attached to them or I see them as a record of my existence covering 8 years when I first took up digital photography.</p>

<p>The only way I can even realize I'm breaking free creatively is to compare what I did with film 35 years ago. With that perspective my Bridge thumbnails representing a body of work look like a dream. I just love looking at my own images because I've never seen anything like it that came before what I did with film or what anyone else has done in the photographic medium now and in the past.</p>

<p>35 years ago I didn't have the technology I have today and I'm now just realizing how its contribution is affecting my POV on my own work I now feel I've taken for granted, dismissed and not fairly evaluated.</p>

<p>For instance back then I didn't like Hawaiian shirts because the design patterns looked hackneyed. But in the last 8 years of rummaging around in thrift stores I've come across some with really beautiful print patterns that I'm now wearing.</p>

<p>Then I got into this mood where instead of looking at them in the mirror I started just looking down and to the side showing close-up perspectives that create a strange abstraction depending on how their patterns drape on my body. I decided to start shooting that with a "where ever I go there I am" mentality. No judgement.</p><div></div>

<p>Tim, thanks for at least two examples that I think are relevant. The idea of our preferences changing with time and a second look (the Hawaiian shorts) which can often be important in breaking free or generating something fresh. Also your playing with different viewpoints and the in focus-obscure in your arm shot. What is probably essential for the two (and other visual approaches) is that they come from some reason or what is behind the approach or what does the approach allow us to discover about ourself or the surroundings.</p>

<p>One thing that just came to mind I'ld like to break free from after reviewing some of my images is this persistent visual mindset of forming compositions with a graphic design sense which is hard to shake seeing it was my former career.</p>

<p>I can sense it in the image I just posted. It shows up in all my shots. Compare it to yours which has a wild spontaneity of negative and positive patterns in the back lit trees against a white sky with an off kilter horizon. It looks almost like an abstract sans the geometric balance of mine.</p>

<p>Tim, I agree that compositional graphic forms and lines are hard to shake, perhaps more for you as a graphicist or former graphic art professional. I see breaking free more as a getting out of a rut that can be as much emotional or symbolic or a particular way of seeing as much as one related to point line and form or repeated compositional approaches. Thus, one can continue using the graphic or emotional "tools" one has been using, but in new or different ways and according to choice of subject. It is not bad that your graphic approach appears in your work, it is part of you. I also am conscious that the ways I frame a subject and its surroundings follow some quite graphic paths I have trodden before. Breaking free is an attempt to go beyond what went before. </p>

<p>Phil I like your point about not rejecting but expanding. Todd Hido makessome inyeresting images, but he does so unlike me, letting the close dirty or wet matter create out of focus. If you look closely you will see that I have managed to keep both the rain and the distant matter in focus, something i had to struggle with given a full frame camera and the depfh of field of the optics. The apparent out of focus of distant objects is due instead to the prismatic effect of the rain drops. In fact everything is really in focus although it appears not to be. That fitted my feeling about water and gloomy days.</p>

<p>I tend to look for connection. So I usually see art and photography, including my own, in terms of threads or strands. I want to be connected to past canons of work and find myself maintaining threads throughout my own. That allows me growth while helping me slowly to try to develop a voice. It helps situate me in an ever evolving chain of linked ideas, expressions, pictures, and action.</p>

<p>My own notion of photography and art is that they are shared and entail a sense of community. Any freedom associated with either would involve a collective and not simply individual freedom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.</em> —Nelson Mandela</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If my photography can, even in some small way, address and respect the visibility and dignity of others, that may be freedom enough for me.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17995445-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="404" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, since you mentioned that the sample image you posted substantially resulted from in-camera settings and only a minimum of postprocessing, I looked at the image on your workstation and noted that it was taken at 1/60 second and ISO 320. However, I did not see the aperture setting. Can you please provide it? That will help me better to understand the use of the image in connection with the OP.</p>

<p>In the meantime, to respond to your question about breaking free . . . I freely admit that sometimes I find myself stuck in the routine of shooting photographs using at least similar settings, even though this may vary with the subject matter and the ambient conditions at the time of shooting. There may be an easy way to get myself out of the rut, primarily by taking more time before clicking the shutter. </p>

<p>More importantly, given my predilection for abstract work, I find myself breaking free when trying novel postprocessing techniques. This seems to open up entirely new dimensions, not only in terms of the images themselves but also - and maybe more importantly - in terms of my thinking about them and about my growth as a photographer.</p>

<p>Fred, your consideration of freedom in terms of the situation of an individual and how photography can be applied in that context and create links to others is of interest.</p>

<p>My use of the word free in the OP relates more specifically to the action of breaking out of a mold (a manner and approach of photographing or of seeing a subject) that has served its usefulness in past work but which sometimes can constrict (even restrict) one's development as an artist or photographer. In other words, a question of evolution rather than of remaining static (I say this generally and not in regard to anyone).</p>

<p>I do not reject the various formative influences in my art, or that can be related to some movement, current and temporal context. While acknowledging these as useful bases and appendices to my development I am more concerned in the OP about breaking out of certain manners or approaches or of seeing (a subject) and evolving in new directions. A matter of being continually involved in exploration. That is not always easy I have found, and the OP is interested in how others see and tackle the same issue.</p>

<p>Micheal, I think that abstract art and photography that you and others practice (using Photoshop or in camera) usually necessitate breaking free of certain ways of seeing subject matter, and the avenue of abstraction can drive new ways or approaches of the photographer. However, good abstract art also requires an adherence to many of the principles of graphic art, line and form, color and texture, their symbolic and emotional qualities, so it is not always so different from more representational photography. And technique alone is obviously insufficient for its creation. </p>

<p>The f stop of "Sense of Water (8)" was not recorded but I remember using f5.6 or f8 for many of my photos. I hope that is what you were looking for. If not, I am not at all closed to discussing the technical details of exposure in this series of about a dozen images (to date). </p>

<p>Having said that, the more general comment and question of my OP about breaking free is not based upon a technical approach but more one of evolving the manner of seeing and creating, or of innovating novel subject matter or its representation, which many artists will likely tell as being essential for their development.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, definitely, Arthur, I was considering freedom differently, though I don't think that's a reason not to consider it with some degree of depth. The reason I added my thoughts to the thread, even though I was considering freedom in a different sense than its relation to breaking out of a mold, is to offer that for me, breaking out of a mold is not necessarily "essential" to freshness. I also wanted to communicate that freshness, as an element of art or as a goal, is not as important as other things I am after. My work may not be the most innovative or freshest or most groundbreaking on the block. And I can point to other photography and art that is similar in that respect but still significant. Things that I prioritize over freshness and the breaking of molds are connection among me, my subjects, and my viewers and honesty of expression, even sometimes through the use of artifice and artificial device. I do think the freedom connection to our different priorities or different emphases is something worth considering.</p>

<p>I'm not sure I entirely understand the term Breaking Free in the sense that this occurrence happens by sheer will of the photographer or if in the passage of time ones output just ebbs and flows on it's own. I think a lot depends on what the photographer is hoping to get out of their pictures. Personally, this is not something I've ever really given any thought to. Growth and changes happen and to the involved photographer these come and go. When I started out in photography on a serious level back in 2005 there was no way for me to know what I would be shooting in 2015. Somethings I explored only to discard them shortly after discovering them and other things I've kept and will apply it for as long as it makes sense to me. Sometimes a realization strikes suddenly and one finds themselves at a fork in the road.</p>

<p>For example, the picture at the bottom of this post I took in 2008 when I re-incorporated 35mm cameras to my work. I did so because I felt the need to have a smaller camera to use more casually then the big medium format camera I had been using exclusively. Shortly afterward I was in a gallery looking at work by Eggleston when I saw this picture, one I had not seen before: <br>

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ZoomImage.aspx?image=http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d55368/d5536851&IntObjectID=5536851&lid=1</p>

<p>I was struck by the similarities but when that passed after a few seconds I realized just how hard photography really is. By that I mean the difficulty in taking pictures that have never been attempted before. It was the first time when I really thought to myself that it's all been done before, there's nothing new to photograph. So I had to decide how to continue. For me it was easy, I just simply decided to keep photographing the things that draw my attention. It no longer mattered to me if it has all been done before, part of the challenge is to build upon the past and to try and put ones own personal spin on things. I think when a photographer can clear their mind of all the chatter about what they "should" be doing and just let their instincts guide them, they will get more enjoyment out of photography and really, isn't that the most important thing? It is for me. </p><div></div>

<p>In appreciation of the notes of Marc and Fred I would like to mention here that for some the chosen term of the OP "breaking free" might be considered as describing too strong an action, too deliberate, or too contrary to one's on-going practice or manner of photography or art. Perhaps I might have better used the analogous terms "evolution" or "exploration" of one's approach, and "discovery" instead of "freshness". Perhaps that better situates the intention of the OP. The specific terms chosen are secondary I think to the discussion, as they can be easily taken alone with different meaning than that intended in the OP.</p>

<p>I do think that it is useful to us that our individual approaches or the ways we photograph, or just the subject matter we have newly explored, or the themes that are important to us, evolve with time. I personally dislike being in a static position. Perhaps my former main career in minerals and materials research and its challenges has affected my view. Exploration and photography are important partners for me. Of course, I like them tied to some theme I am pursuing and those themes need not in themselves be new. As Marc mentions, it is difficult to do something new ("fresh") in photography. There are also only so many techniques and methods related to sculpting and painting, although subjects and themes seem to evolve in those areas as well.</p>

<p>Exploration and discovery ("breaking free") are probably as much a part of the work of many of us, even those who suggest that the process is somewhat involuntary and part of a natural evolution of their work to date and their interests. Whatever your overall approach, I am interested in hearing what your exploration and discovery may be or what you feel you want to do to evolve your approach or manner of perception of subjects, and perhaps the cases where you "broke free" from a former manner (in thought more than technique) of photographing that added to both your pleasure and results. And if you don't feel the need of such exploration or discovery in evolving your work, the why and related comments are no doubt equally of interest to this topic. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well Arthur, the following few pictures are part of a series I titled "Meet Exciting Singles." The are pictures of a free locally published adult themed magazine. These are kept in newsstands throughout the LA area. Many of these newsstands are in varying degrees of neglect and vandalism. I started taking these several years ago on my usual street shooting rounds. I wasn't thinking of breaking free, it's just that for some reason these intrigued me. So whenever I'd see one, I'd take a close up picture and then print on a very hard contrast filter in my darkroom. I quickly became quite fond of these so to this day I still take pictures of them whenever I'm out. To me it's just another path, a different way of exploring. I like taking these and printing them, the newsstands are all different and even ones that I've been to before gets new graffiti or an extra layer of grime.<br /> Last year I took a portfolio of these into Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto CA. I know several of the guys that work there so I wanted to inquire about doing an exhibit there. They have a nice well lit room dedicated to exhibitions. They liked the pictures but unanimously thought that it wouldn't pass the review board due to it's adult themed nature.</p>

<p>So no big deal to me. Like I said, I still enjoy these even if I'm the only one. I wish I could be more specific for you but as I've mentioned so many times here before I don't question these kinds of things, I just go with my instincts. One of the things I like about this series is that to the best of my knowledge I'm the only one taking pictures of these so they may be my most original and creative work so far.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't question</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A perfectly reasonable stance.<br>

<br>

Philosophy does question.</p>

<p>Marc, I was particularly interested in your mentioning neglect and vandalism. That rang true for me, especially looking at your photos. Another concrete thing you talk about is hard contrast in terms of your choice of photographic darkroom filter. It may not be thought or questioning that goes into that combination of neglect and vandalism with hard contrast, but it's something.</p>

<p>I empathize with your statement about the passage of time and the natural ebb and flow of what the photographer experiences and produces. How I relate that to the topic of this thread is I've found along the way that I've tried breaking my own molds, etc. and it generally feels forced to me. And, to be honest, not speaking about anyone in this thread but an observation in general, a lot of so-called creative work I see when I go to galleries and when I browse on line feels forced. The first thing I notice is that the photo or painting feels like it's trying hard to be art or to be different for the sake of being different, which often just doesn't work. I don't know if you've felt that as well, but what you said reminded me of this feeling I so often get when looking around.</p>

<p>[Phil and I were writing simultaneously and on some things we seem to be echoing each other!]</p>

<p>The following statement in Arthur's post of 09/23 3:58 PM really caught my attention. "Having said that, the more general comment and question of my OP about breaking free is not based upon a technical approach but more one of evolving the manner of seeing and creating, or of innovating novel subject matter or its representation, which many artists will likely tell as being essential for their development."<br>

<br>

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough, so I will try to amplify my previous post. When I mentioned the use of different postprocessing techniques in the same sentence as the mention of breaking free, I wasn't strictly referring to technique only or primarily. And I do fully understand Arthur's point about technique alone not being sufficient for the making of good abstract photographs. To me, trying new or different postprocessing techniques is a bridge to my trying to think about the entire photographic process differently. Here lies the tie-in to the other principles of representational photography to which he referred. I also consider the use of these techniques as encouraging alternative ways of thinking about the goals I set for my photographs. Ultimately I suspect that my engaging in abstract photography is motivated by the reasons I started in philosophy years ago - to try making sense of the world and my connection with it, and to discover reasons why making sense may not necessarily be possible. Herein lies the best way I can describe "breaking free."</p>

<p>Arthur, I tend to think a lot about content, narrative, subject matter, and expression. I often find myself focusing on the task at hand, which in my case often enough is providing visibility to the communities I work with and seeking authentic and meaningful gestures and expressions which I think are vital to my portraits.</p>

<p>I do <em>experiment</em> and am trying to push myself to do more, and I try to maintain a connection between my experimenting and what I'm working with. So, for instance, I am interested in continuing to pursue the effects of both flash and motion blur, sometimes separately and often together, particularly on the gestures of my subjects.</p>

<p>To me, the best photography has some sort of passionate relationship to the world, and that may be true of photography in a unique way among the arts since we do point our cameras directly at the world to start. </p>

 

<p>I use other photographers as inspiration and am not shy of even stealing from them, in terms of idea and style. But since I put that all into my own individual relationships to the people I photograph (whether I know them well or have just met them for the photo session), I sense that there's an individuality there that's enough for me.</p>

 

<p>I can name (even though naming reduces it to words which aren't enough to fully describe pictures, which is why I photograph) the things that matter to me. The list continues to grow. And that's where my energy is going. These things are concrete even as photographing with them in mind is less concrete and more expressive. People, under-seen communities, expressions, gestures, their environments, artifice, masks, personas, how they as subjects connect through a photo to a viewer. These are my overriding focus.</p>

 

<p>The idea of "breaking free," or whatever term we want to give to it (you are right that it could be given any number of terms and the term doesn't matter as much as the ideas expressed) is much more abstract an idea, IMO. For me, the abstractness wants to be accompanied by specific and concrete passions toward or connections with the world. In that respect, I related most to your word "wetness." Just that word makes me think of tearful wetness, cleansing wetness, baptismal wetness, ecological wetness, even sexual wetness. The word "wetness" starts to open up a lot of possibilities to me that the words "breaking free" in themselves do not.</p>

<p>Fred make some interesting points, I also think stealing is necessary to evolution. I steal from Michael Kenna at times (his minimalist and down to the bare essence approach), at other times from Martin Munkacsi (I've not recently seen his works but I loved his inventiveness when I first encountered it), other times from Edouard Boubat (a quiet and civilised mind, attempting to understand our existence and showing it in simple and respectful fashion), at other times the elder Weston (provoking his subjects, their emotional connections to life). Why? Because they communicate what I too feel is important. By adopting parts of their process (and others too, as I learn from the photos of PNers too, one in particular being Fred - the photos reveal a place and community I know not) I break free a little from the baggage I have accumulated and discover other ways (not the specific images but the approaches or aesthetics) that allow my own evolution.</p>

<p>Marc's series should certainly interest the gallery in question. There is little I can personally see that would (should) be offensive to others. The response of the gallery may be just hiding another acceptance criteria. I would continue to develop the series, relating it to some value or documentary intent. You may discover different things about yourself as a photographer or about the community you photograph, by pursuing it.</p>

<p>The explorstion of "sense of water" I started in August needs continual input and iteration. My original desire was to show how wetness or rain can be perceived by images. I also wanted to show how it can affect us on an emotional level. The choice of showing both the rain drops and the background in focus was part of the intent, with any effect being wrought by the optical interaction of the water. Although the water is not seen everywhere in the image, its effect on the scene is omnipresent. An otherwise obscured scene, like that of photographing through a vaseline covered lens or a dirty window, did not appeal to me. The sense of water or wetness had to be crystallised in the image. I am glad that the scene is as expressionist as it is real, yet crystal-like in nature. </p>

<p>I guess it might be agued that my sense of water images are simply an evolution of technique (and one that may exist elsewhere already but one which I had not seen before) rather than an evolution of approach. That may be so, whatever the value of the theme I am trying to express, but the approach has nonetheless opened up another avenue of symbolic representation for me (symbolizing the depressing nature of rain and its effect on our humor - wetness as a condition of human existence - images of water being materialized as an element of life), and where it will ultimately lead I know not. Like the otherwise compelling music of Wagner, it may be somewhat dead-ended and not further evolve through the subsequent compositions of other musicians.</p>

<p>The closest musical analogy to wetness and sense of water for me is in the works of Debussy, uncoralled as much as is rain, a natural choice from that repertoire probably being his "Engulfed Cathedral."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, by connecting experimentation with subject-matter and maintaining a passionate relationship with the world, in my opinion you have gone right to the heart of the concept of breaking free.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The explorstion of "sense of water" I started in August needs continual input and iteration. My original desire was to show how wetness or rain can be perceived by images. I also wanted to show how it can affect us on an emotional level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had an immediate visceral reaction to your posted image above that goes back to my two fears as a child, water (swimming pools specifically) and being the front seat passenger in a vehicle driving fast on a paved narrow road and the possible hydroplaning that might ensue.</p>

<p>Combine that with the obvious "driving on the wrong side of the road" and the first person view from what appears to be from a high position creating an even more precarious feeling of losing control of the wheel pretty much rattled my nerves which influenced my post above.</p>

<p>The converging lines of the road and the tilt of the horizon amplifies the feeling of uncontrolled speed. Since you have a different take or analysis on your image, how is one to know if you were breaking free without having a reference from what you were breaking free from? I'm seeing a lot of decision making in your "sense of water" shot but I can't tell which is intentional and thought out versus intuitive and whether that came about or was influenced by your notion of breaking free from your previous attempts. </p>

<p>For instance you could have shown more of the steering wheel with hands at the helm in control of the situation which would've made the image have less of a visceral feel of uncontrollable speed and become more of a tourist shot which would've been affected by how you made your decision framing the image at the time of capture and/or how you cropped it in post. </p>

<p>"breaking free is not based upon a technical approach but more one of evolving the manner of seeing and creating, or of innovating novel subject matter or its representation, which many artists will likely tell as being essential for their development."</p>

<p>Don't think do...leave your imagination alone to be free...stop overthinking it.</p>

 

<p>"Philosophy does question." - Fred G.</p>

<p>You are absolutely correct Fred. This is why I'm a photographer and not a philosopher. I find that philosophizing about mine or any other photographers work just results in a lot of useless navel gazing leading to no factual conclusion. That's not to say others cannot wax philosophical about my pictures, it's just that it's of no concern to me. Many years ago when I was using the darkroom at Pasadena City College one of the students took a liking to what I was printing. She asked if she could see some previous work of mine. So we met up for breakfast the following week and over bacon and eggs she looked at the stack of prints I brought. After she looked at them all she said was "You're living vicariously through the people you photograph." I just shrugged and smiled and wondered when my coffee mug was going to get refilled. She's welcome to her interpretation; it's no business of mine.</p>

<p>I can relate to Freds impression of some photographers who "try too hard." What I mean is I see a number of photographers who imitate other famous well known photographers and others who in my opinion shoot mediocre work but become unglued if uploaded to a critique forum and anyone says anything other then glowing praise. Some of these folks even charge for workshops, self publish photobooks for sale and so on. I actually admire their chutzpah since they are either completely unaware of the actual merit of their work or they are simply in denial and don't care. Either way, they have marketed themselves well and they have a devoted following with disposable cash to send their way.</p>

<p>Arthur, I forgot to mention in my previous post that Keeble and Shuchat is not an established art gallery but a camera store, a rather large well established business that is actually two buildings across the street from one another. They do have a nice gallery set up in the upper level of one of the buildings. Photographers can apply for an exhibit (which because of the number of applicants can take up to two or more years) and their work goes before some of the mucky-mucks for approval. I've been going to K&S for years which is how I know several of the employees there so when I brought in my portfolio I figured I'd get their take on it before leaving it behind since I live out of town. Basically, they said they only want to show "G rated" pictures because they don't want any blowback from anyone bringing kids in there and seeing these. I agree that these aren't pornographic pictures but they do lean that way and these days it seems there's always someone getting offended at something. So they told "family friendly" is what they look for in considering exhibits and they are correct; I always visit the gallery to see what's on the walls whenever I visit the Bay Area and as far back as I can remember it's always been landscapes and scenics, exotic travel pictures and so on, you know, pretty pictures that sell. They were nice though and praised my portfolio and one guy there upon finding out I live in LA even gave me the name of a bookstore/gallery in Venice that shows "edgier work" and suggested I look into exhibiting them there. I did look into it when I got back to LA but before dropping off the portfolio I visited the place and didn't like it so I didn't bother.</p>