Chinese food and photography

Recently I had an experience that has changed my direction a bit. I

decided to get rid of my old negatives by cutting them up, forming

them into montages and scanning them as 4x5 negatives. What I found

was that imagery in these montages was STRONGER than the work I was

producing otherwise, especially in what the images told about a

particular place.

 

I've been sticking with this past-time of cutting and piecing

together negatives with clear tape. I'm using it to give myself new

ideas about conventional photography. I'd also like to know if

anyone else is doing any of this sort of work. I looked on the forum

page and didn't find any forum for "art photography", etc. So made

the suggestion to site.

 

The response was a little puzzling. I specifically suggested NON

PHOTOSHOP'D work, and got a response about photoshopped work. Then

somebody suggested that work such as Saturnino Espin (found on PN)

was ignored (I'm not sure what the poster was trying to imply), but

later another poster said of Saturnino's work "if [others] are like

me, maybe they don't consider them (Saturnino's photographs)

photos." Finally, there was a referal to an obviously PS'd work that

was refered to as "this particular peice of creativity" in an

obviously condescending way. That PS'd piece was meant to give

example of "non-traditional" methods (on the lower end of the scale I

think).

 

My point:

 

I wish that more people would realise that regardless of whether you

agree that something is good or not, we can learn from these things.

I'll give an example. I'm in China and cooking food is really

important to the Chinese. They are obsessed with "doing it right"

which means achieving the taste that is "the taste". Now if someone

like myself walks in and decides to throw fresh bamboo shoots in with

shitake mushrooms and fry,then stew it with already battered and deep

fried pork, then the Chinese around me (except my wife who is great

about improvising) will chuckle (in a condescending way), remark

with "what's this?" or tell me how bamboo shoots are supposed to be

cooked. Until they take a bite. Then they shut up and eat.

 

Now, if people, including photographers, would realize that they are

often doing just what the Chinese do with food, then... Another

analogy about food. Let's say you are a really conservative cook.

You always cook in one way...the way you like and believe in (and

that's important), and then one day someone invites you to eat out at

some strange, fancy, progressive "Bistro" (bistro is such a

progressive word). You might find that you don't like the food and

you eat it just to be polite. At the same time you are likely to

discover a taste (particularly if you are really sensitive to food)

that you can use in your own conventional way.

 

Lately I've been thinking about a lot of things, and the more I think

about them, the less they make sense. The term "mature", such

as "His work is mature." Another is people's fear of what is

different IN ART!!!! And the last is what I've been talking about

here...this conservativism that denies one new direction, new

appreciation, new knowledge, new ideas, new strength.

 

And finally here's something to think about...every second,every

minute, every hour, every day, every month, every year the same types

of photographs are being produced. And this is from what has been

called "one of the most important photography sites on the net." Is

that good?

It's Sturgeon's law. "90% everything is crud". That applies to images on photo.net just as much as programs on TV.

 

I see almost no innovative work here, and the small amount of innovative work isn't very popular. This is a popular site. If images are pretty and have saturated colors, people seem to like them. Much of the work would qualify as excellent commercial photography, but by its very nature it caters to what people want, and people want what they already know and feel comfortable with.

 

I'm sure 90%+ of all sites are like that too.

 

Almost by definition, innovative work must be a tiny fraction of the whole, and again, almost by definition, it will not have instant popularity or acceptance.

Well put.

As an enthusiastic cook and amateur photographer, I often find myself teetering on the balance point between presenting what most people enjoy and feel comfortable with and what gets my creative juices flowing. While the one course is secure and predictable, the other is surely more exciting and adventuresome.

 

As for innovation, I feel a critical element is the motivation of the innovator: is he attempting to stretch the boundaries of his creativity to make a statement that couldn't be made as well otherwise, or is he simply trying to say, "Look at me -- aren't i different?" So much that passes for innovation is no more than posturing and posing that it makes the sincere efforts appear suspect. This is why modern art gets such a bum rap with many people, because there are too many would-be artists throwing paint at canvas(or whatever its equivalent might be in photography) and sycophants praising the results without a clue about what's truly worthwhile.

 

If we're sincere about what we do, and do it with integrity, I feel we can cook our bamboo shoots the way we want and make our montages without apologies to anyone.

Hi, I can't get sushi easily here in Ireland, and I love food.

My year in N.Y. was a real eye opener for me, so many people.

Photographing chinese food seems more interesting to me now that

I can't get a sushi here, learn to cook?

<a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=526277">Emil Schildt</a> likes to disfigure his negatives.

Dunno, does this qualify as a rant? Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

My view is that it's always better to take small steps because that way you find it easier to keep your balance. Occassionaly, someone comes along who jumps ahead. Usually he falls flat on his face but other people notice and they follow down that path a little, making their own small steps.

 

The things that are too different make people wary. If they're persuaded to try it, and like it, then it's no longer different.

 

Because our world now changes so quickly, people are happiest with what they already know but willing to, cautiously, try what they don't know.

 

And, of course, you can always spot the pioneer. He's the chap with the arrows in his hat.

Have a grudge against Sichuan cuisine, Matt? A culinary "canon" usually survives for a reason, and there are many for not winging mushrooms into a plate of mapo doufu. Your take on photography seems just as self-indulgent and self-important."Fitting in" matters less than communicating but the key assumption is that you've something to "say." If you do, great, but don't let rejection get in the way of trying.

If you want to creat a new dish called dish 'B', it is well & good and you can be as innovative, daring & adventerous as you like. But please don't call it Dish 'A', because dish 'A', the original has its own uniqueness, its character and has been tested over time for it to be called dish 'A'.

 

My 2c worth.

Happy Easter everyone.

I find your photo-collage/montage work of interest, as I've recently been reading on the subject, and viewed a showing last year at UNM's Jonson Gallery.

 

What interests me is the idea that you've permanently altered (shreaded?) these negatives, irrepairably taking them out of their original context, in order to create a new work. You could have merely scanned each negative, then use PS to tear apart and piece together into a new image.

 

But by taking the big leap of physically altering the negatives, you've burned the bridges, so-to-speak. That's brave, especially for those of us pretentuous enough to suppose that posterity would be interested in our attempts at art.

 

I'm also assuming that the taped-together images show artifacts of the assemblage process. Like tape marks, scissor marks, fingerprints, scratches etc?

 

This interests me, as I'm in-process with constructing "grid-cams", which are homemade pinhole box cameras, subdivided into cells like a shadow box, which produce multiple images on one large sheet of photo paper. Its photo-montage performed in-camera.

 

I'd like to see your work.

The Starn Brothers/Twins like tape:)<p>

 

<a href="http://starnstudio.com/perspective01.htm">Starn Studio</a><p>

 

You can <a href="http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/SE">listen</a> to a little bit on what Mike and Doug have to say on their efforts.<p>

 

Scroll down to June 14, 2004, to have a listen:)<p>

 

Hope this is what you were asking for.<p>

Great interview. Thomas, thanks for the link. There seems to be loads of good stuff in there.

Takaaki,

 

You're welcome.

 

Only passing on what others here were so kind to have shared with me:)

Hi Matt,

 

I must first say your effort is valiant, but for a better discussion, I think we need some sort of visual for proper point of reference.

 

There are plenty fine examples out there in Non PS collage works, first one come to mind is works of Frederick Sommer.

 

As for the need for experimentation, it's all fine and well but one must question one self not whether "Can I do this" but "Must I do this" Just because it can be done not necessary means it's automatically good. Same as in cooking, there are infinite ways to prepare food, and no matter how one justify/theorize his/her method of cooking, ultimately it needs to be pleasurly eatable. Whether it resembles any style of cooking is a moot point from an experiment point of view.

 

Speaking of the need for open mindedness, I have seen emulsion peeled from photo papers, negatives semi-melted or charred, filmless photographs ...on and on. For all those who are working is these realms, I say go nuts and share with us your spoil.

 

have fun

 

RS