WEEKLY DISCUSSION #23: Duane Michals - singing women / singing men

<p><b>"There are things here not seen in this photograph"</b> - this title of one of his photos could be read as a motto of the photographic approach Duane Michals follows. In a career that spans severa ldecades and different styles and techniques (portraits, self portraits, sequences, multiple exposures, long time exposures, combing text and photos, coloring photos, not to mention his comercial work) there are still central themes Michals doesn't seem to get tired of exploring in ever new ways: desire, imagination, sexuality, photographic truth and the inability to capture it, sleep, dream, death, the human condition, politics. Just some phrases I associate with his work. You may add what comes to mind. And much of his work comes light footed and with a strong notion of humour (see „Duane Duck“). I also appreciate very much his knowledge of art history. His photo of Rene and Georgette Magritte, holding hands behind a tree, resembles dutch renaissance pictures of Adam and Eve. The photos of three men singing and three women singing was associated to a florentine art work of 1436 by Luca della Robbia and his admiration for Balthus or Caravaggio and Magritte is obvious.</p>

<p>My first encounter with Michals work was around 1980, when I took a photo class at school about sequences. Our teacher showed us „Things are queer“ (probably one of his most famous works) and „Chance meeting“. Years later I realized we never discussed the political notion of „Chance meeting“. To question why well-dressed men meet in back alleys was far beyond my horizon at that time (I was 16) and obviously beyond my teachers horizon as well. Around 1990 I saw a retrospective exhibition and was much impressed by the richness of his work.<br>

I found it diffcult to choose a photo for this weeks discussion for obvious reasons. I decided finally on two photos, that form a sort of a dyptichon: „singing women“ and „singing men“. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good source for the photos in the net, so I scanned them from my copy of an exhibition catalogue. If someone finds a better reproduction I would be thankful.<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21536559@N02/13994243836/<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21536559@N02/14014172931/<br>

The women and men are standing together closely. They seem to be naked (we can only see the part from the naked shoulders above) and therefore are shareing an intimate moment. But it's not a moment of sexual intimacy. They are singing together. Probably one of the oldest human means of celebrating relation and intimacy and life. It's in a way archaic. I simply find much beauty in these photos.<br>

From the technical side his photos and sequences are very simple. Mostly b&w and in very small formats (5x7 is common and sometimes the print area is even smaller) they don't impress in a way a large print is impressive. But I think it adds to the intimacy of the content and the real size these photos develop is inside the viewers mind.<br>

A final quote by Michals: "I believe in the imagination. What I cannot see is infinitely more important than what I can see."<br>

There are several sources on the net where you find his work and as always it's worth to take a closer look:<br>

http://www.faheykleingallery.com/photographers/michals/personal/michals_pp_frames.htm<br>

http://duanemichals.tumblr.com/<br>

http://selfselector.co.uk/2013/12/11/showing-the-things-we-cannot-see-an-interview-with-duane-michals/<br>

<br />I hope you enjoy my choice and wait to read your thoughts and feelings about it.<br>

Stefan<br>

P.S. Sorry, I couldn't turn off the bold typing in the first paragraph. I wrote it beforehand in a text programm and copied it. Something didn't work like it should.</p>

<p>Duane Michals, <em><strong>for me</strong></em>:</p>

<p>1) I love his ideas and his intentions;</p>

<p>2) Almost all of his photographs make me cringe; I find them, with rare exceptions, to be utter failures;</p>

<p>3) Paradoxically, <em>because</em>, <em><strong>for me</strong></em>, they make me cringe, <em>because</em> they are failures (in pursuit of ideas that I think are -- or could/should be -- wonderful), they are fascinatingly instructive and revelatory. I <em>learn</em> more from Michals failures than I do from many photographs that I consider to be perfectly successful.</p>

<p>Artist/photographer Duane Michaels said that “photography deals exquisitely with appearances, but nothing is what it appears to be.” As a photographer the acts of looking and seeing are also two different things.</p>

<p>He is one of the very few photographers that inspire me. Maybe, as Julie says, some or all of his work is failure, if failure is the product that comes close to resolving an almost impossible quest. He may agree, for he searches his imagination and the world about him to show the unseen through the seen, which he communicates in a more successful manner than many artists. Above all that is what he is. Art is the process of research, beyond the merely physically or emotionally beautiful image. Ideas and intentions? Yes. Good choice, Stefan.</p>

<p>Artsy-Fartsy.</p>

<p>Wayne Decker wrote: "Artsy-Fartsy."</p>

<p>... to which I expect Mr. Michals would reply either "Duh ..." or "Thank you!"</p>

<p>Once again the “Weekly Discussion” picture has given me an opportunity to consider more closely someone whose work I was only slightly familiar with. Well done, Stefan!<br /> <br /> <em>... </em><em>his photographs make me cringe; I find them, with rare exceptions, to be utter failures;<br /> <br /> </em>I assume this opinion is sincere and not merely an attempt at contrariness, but even so I find it very difficult to understand – Michals’ standing in the world of photography and the number of people who admire and find inspiration in his work clearly indicate you are in a very small minority.<br>

For myself, in looking at Michals’ work, I feel he has been extremely successful in conveying a mood of surrealism, of mysticism, of dark undercurrents below the surface of the trivia of everyday life. His work could be considered an interesting rebuttal to those who suggest that photography can only record what is in front of the lens, is always literal and can never be more. In general feeling I seem to feel a link to the work of Man Ray, among others, while Mapplethorpe for one seems to have taken some inspiration from DM. </p>

<p>I like the photos in the linked article (with Mr. Michals seated in the first photo). I'm not sure which one you wanted us to view, but they're all quite interesting.</p>

<p>Seems the links got lost in my writing. But they were there. Here again:</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/21536559@N02/13994243836/</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/21536559@N02/14014172931/</p>

<p>Thanks Stefan for the choice of Duane Michals, who, in my unacceptable ignorance, I have never heard of before. No excuses !. He has published numerous books and most of his photos and especially his series are highly creative. A joy to look at and discover.<br>

However, I find it difficult to understand why you, out of the vast choice Michals offers you, have chosen to highlight two shots, the singers, which I would characterize, like Julie, as failures. Nothing worthwhile in those two shots. <br>

Much more interest I find in his <a href="http://ph0tog.tumblr.com/post/22783322167/enversendroit-andy-warhol-duane-michals">Warhol portraits</a>, his fighting <a href="http://popseecul.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/duane-michals.jpg">women</a> or his <a href="http://fansinaflashbulb.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/michals_duane_2012_39_1.jpg">Magritte parody</a>.<br>

Thanks again Stefan. I'll go and buy a few of his books if I can find them in my local shop.</p>

<h1> </h1>

<p>I seldom comment on these threads because if you love the guy/his photos you're considered very smart, knowledgeable, perceptive, and generally "with it". Should you find the work dull, uninspiring, pedantic - well, you're obviously a troll, a boob, or a neophyte who doesn't know his betters.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of what passes for classical music these days. Nary a melody, more oft a seemingly random association of notes that strives too hard NOT to sound like any other classical music piece you might have heard. This guy strikes me much the same.</p>

<p>*donning dunce cap*</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>two shots, the singers, which I would characterize, like Julie, as failures. Nothing worthwhile in those two shots. </em><em><br /> Much more interest I find in his <a href="http://ph0tog.tumblr.com/post/22783322167/enversendroit-andy-warhol-duane-michals" target="_blank">Warhol portraits</a></em><em>, his fighting <a href="http://popseecul.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/duane-michals.jpg" target="_blank">women</a></em><em> </em><em>or his <a href="http://fansinaflashbulb.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/michals_duane_2012_39_1.jpg" target="_blank">Magritte parody</a></em><em>.</em><br>

Speaking personally, if people are going to brand Michals’ images as failures, I would at a minimum like to hear the reasons why. I really would hope that the debate on these threads is above the level of the childish petulance of “I don’t like it, so it’s rubbish|!”. I actually find the singer shots technically well realized and reminiscent of what you might find in the sketchbook of a painter in oils. On the other hand, I have to say, purely personally, that I find the Warhol pictures mere likenesses, with none of the subversion or other subtext of Warhol’s own work, the fighting women picture seems to me to be a joke, a parody of the motion analysis pictures of Muybridge or Edgerton, and the Magritte pictures again seem to be a kind of private joke between DM and the artist, with nothing like the power and invention of Magritte’s own work. Just - as the saying goes – my 2 cents’ worth.</p>

<p>A very personal choice, Anders. One reason was, that I wanted to show photos from Michals that I thought would not be too well-known and not that obvious in it's intent like for example the Magritte series (that I like very much, too). The second reason was my personal interest in spirituality based on performance, rather than like in our religious culture, which I experience very much rooted in language. Both photos show an event that is more spiritual than real.<br>

They were inspired by an early renaissance sculpture by Luca della Robbia. You can see photos of the work here<br>

http://www.arttrav.com/florence/cantorie/<br>

I admit, the photos are subtle and not that strong in their expression, like other photos, but still they leave much room for interpretation. The nudity, the interaction between either men and women are far from being easy to read.<br>

I can also use Arthur's words to characterize my own approach in choosing. "...some or all of his work is failure, if failure is the product that comes close to resolving an almost impossible quest"</p>

<p>David, in my view, technically the singers shots are not failures, they are just not interesting enough to be included among Michals more creative shots. <br /> I agree the Magritte shot(s) are indeed not in line with Magritte's surrealism, but they are, in my eyes great fun without the intellect of Magritte himself (by the way, if you have the opportunity go to the new Magritte museum in Bruxelles, it is a gem). <br>

I follow you, in your general approach to what you get out of Michals pictures. They do not have the depth of a Magritte or a Warhol (until Warhol became commercial, that is !). Nothing like surrealism as a movemùent or pop-art would come out of Michals lifework, but still it is interesting, inspiring and creative, as far as I see it. I'm convinced he was a great teacher for ageneration of photographers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Should you find the work dull, uninspiring, pedantic - well, you're obviously a troll, a boob, or a neophyte who doesn't know his betters."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I once found myself among a group of hard core bikers complete with prison records and quickly learned to respect the Romans while in Rome, not because I was intimidated but rather because they were graciously accepting of my peculiar appearance, behavior, without a single tattoo and no bike. </p>

<p>In the two photos of the singers. I see a kind of quietude, in the somewhat mid key and unremarkable approach, the bareness of the background, the lack of necklines, which provides an interesting visual backdrop for their musical activity. Their voices would seem to gently pierce the quiet (even blandness) of the visual approach. Michals chose six attractive people for these shots and he likely rather intentionally segregated them by gender. I wonder if we each see the men and women differently at all. I do. The bare necks do suggest an intimacy (though I'm skeptical whether nudity is involved . . . I think probably not), and it would be interesting to know reactions by gender to the two very similar photos.</p>

<p>David, I very much appreciate what you've said about Michals and what you see in his work. I think you've well described a lot of what I'm seeing, too. My only difference is that, though I see the connection to Man Ray's work, except for their both being gay I don't see much influence from Michals to Mapplethorpe. As a matter of fact, I was thinking how different the two of them are. Michals seems softer, more pensive, more ethereal, less adamant than Mapplethorpe, who has always struck me as much more intense, more hard-edged, more wanting to be in-your-face. In that respect, I think their work shows their differing political and social sensibilities. Where Michals, by his own words, felt photography wasn't the best way to advance any sort of political activism, his photos, by virtue of being openly of a gay sensibility can in some way seem to be at least passively political. Mapplethorpe, on the other hand, was a bit of an instigator, and I can't help but look at a photo like [CAUTION: SEXUAL CONTENT] <a href="http://korruptyrself.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/artwork_images_423970330_314080_robert-mapplethorpe.jpg">THIS ONE</a> and think that Mapplethorpe was after a very particular reaction and was shoving something into the faces of the mainstream art world that had heretofore remained mostly behind closed doors. If I don't always love Mapplethorpe's photos (which I don't), I do admire his . . . ahem . . . balls.</p>

<p>I see many fascinating and thought-provoking dualities throughout Michals's work: often in terms of body/spirit, male/female and male/male, image/reflection, reality/distortion. [i am using <a href="http://anthonylukephotography.blogspot.com/2011/06/photographer-profile-duane-michals.html">THIS SITE</a> to see quite a variety of Michals photos, which I think contrast well to his Magritte homages and Warhol portraits, which feel a little more facile to me.] Faces that are also seen distorted in mirrors, spirits rising out of bodies, a male-female couple where the secondary image of the male is as if leaping out the window, the tête-à-tête of well-dressed men cruising in a back alley which Stefan mentions in his introduction. Compare this latter series to the Mapplethorpe I linked to and to me there's such a different sense of the gay world each wants to present us with. Michals's presentation, the subtlety, the dance of closeted gayness seeking companionship and sex. Mapplethorpe, out there, doing it, bathhouse material, raw and very open sexuality and S&M. Both very important introductions to the reality of being gay in the world of the mid-20th-century. And Michals, more so to me, broadening the humanistic message beyond the "gay" thing. </p>

<p>Interesting points, Fred, and thanks for a good reference to some of his more interesting images. Perhaps I am not sufficiently sensitive to it, as I am when viewing Mapplethorpe's more obvious sexuality, but I don't see Michal's work as being principally gay or sexual in most cases. He goes well beyond any specific position and addresses more universal subjects, even subjugating surrealistic tricks or symbolism to his own end. Sometimes the message, delivered often in a unique manner, is quite simple, although wide-reaching, but others are more enigmatic or absorbing of our attention. One of the best photographers in regard to artistic approach that I have seen on this weekly discussion. </p>

<p>Arthur, I wasn't suggesting Michals's work is principally gay or sexual in most cases. There is a gay undercurrent running through some of his photos, for example, the <a href="http://www.studium.iar.unicamp.br/zero/chance.htm">CHANCE MEETING</a> series, as well as <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xLSLkOG-C8M/UZkO167gHtI/AAAAAAAAGq4/DAOGKfjTWPU/s1600/142.jpg">THIS ONE</a> and <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JJkAF4PWakI/UZkO-d_URUI/AAAAAAAAGrY/_rdWpTupFMc/s1600/6a00d8341cc27e53ef01116884dcda970c-600wi+-+Cópia.jpg">THIS ONE</a>, and others like it including the one of David Hockney and "friend" in bed. (Sorry can't find the link to the one of Hockney and cohort right now). Also, his more intimate portraits of nude men lying in bed with their bodies rising seem to me like they would have been shot by a gay man. And the way he shoots men even in heterosexual liaisons with women seems a little more male-centric than most other non-gay photographers I'm familiar with. But I was mostly contrasting Michals's gay sensibility with that of Mapplethorpe, which I see as pretty starkly different, rather than emphasizing an overall gay sensibility to Michals's larger body of work.</p>

<p>Ironically, Michals's series titled <a href="http://english114fall2012c.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/things-are-queer-1973-by-duane-michals/">THINGS ARE QUEER</a> doesn't have an overtly gay theme (though there is some subtext in its being shot in a bathroom and there is surely an element of voyeurism in the series), but is probably titled by design so that he could make a point, the point perhaps being that he's beyond a "queer" photographer and beyond simply documenting gay lifestyles and behaviors and that "queer" is used for things other than gay people, like his view of the world itself, a world which is queer enough. But he then seems to tease us (or at least me) by including the naked legs of a man in a bathroom, bringing us back to at least a subtle queer's view of a "queer" world.</p>

<p>I saw a show of his here at the Milwaukee Art Museum about ten years ago and it was pretty impressive. Not everyone gets it and that is probably the way it should be. </p>

<p>Stephan, thank you for the introduction to a new photographer (to me). I had heard his name, but never explored his work. I can see why you would have a hard time choosing the highlighted photos.<br>

Personally, the <strong>Singing Men</strong> and <strong>Singing Women </strong>photos are among the least interesting to me, but I will look at them further, there's probably more nuance there than is first noticed. HOWEVER, his other work is jaw-dropping in his creativity and subtle yet clear communication. It makes be think you might have gone with the "buy the worst house in the best neighborhood" philosophy. I am not saying the highlighted photos are bad; I am, however, very glad to have looked at his other work in addition to those. <br>

I find interesting his philosophy that every photo/portrait is different and should be taken as if one had never taken a portrait before. I also very much enjoy his accompanying prose on some of the pieces.<br>

He is an inspiring photographer to explore. I look forward to the rest of this week's discussion. </p>

 

<p>Although Michals isn't <em>completely</em> new to me, I've not had the pleasure before now of studying much of his work. I find his body of work quite imaginative. I particularly like his series photography. The "Things Are Queer" series had me laughing. I loved it.</p>

<p>I hope I am not misunderstood by saying this: I'm reminded of an exhibit of paintings at a local museum of which I am very fond. The paintings were those of inmates in a mental institution. Often the artists would adorn their paintings with words to express their thoughts or emotions. (Please note: I am NOT suggesting anything about Michals' mental state!) I lingered over each painting, some very clumsy and amateurish, and some done with extroardinary skill. Each was a fascinating window into another person's mind -- into an alternative state of mind. For me, this exhibit was far more interesting than the works of Ansel Adams, across the hall, that I had come to see that day.</p>

<p>Anyway, it is with somewhat the same fascination that I view much of Michals' work. I don't at all mind that it takes chances, sometimes with doubtful execution.</p>

<p>I agree that "Singing Men" and "Singing Women" are perhaps some of his less interesting photographs, but I find them interesting nevertheless. I connect to them on somewhat of a behavioral level. To me they are a study of gender. Male and female, engaging in the same act of artistic expression, seem to have two different approaches. The men are working as a team, trying to execute to the best of their abilities. Their eyes and expressions (at least the two on the right) show concentration and focus. The women are more "in the moment" -- more inside their heads. The act of singing takes on more of a spiritual character. A very subtle difference between the two photographs is the distance of gaze. The men (at least two of them) have a close focus on their colleagues, while the women (at least two of them) have a "thousand mile gaze." I personally see "Singing Women" as a beautiful photograph of its own right.</p>

<p>When I talked about the photos to my girl-friend she looked at them on about the same level as you, Sarah. She focused on the different interaction. It's a valid point to see the gender aspect. I saw in the male singers expression a notion of competition, at least that's how I reacted on the intense haze of the two on the right. I'd love to see the contact sheets of this session to see other possibilities.<br>

And I can see the resemblance to the paintings of mentally ill people. My guess is, that Michals wouldn't be offended.</p>

<p>Stefan, I don't have anything at all to back this up but ...</p>

<p>... given Michals graphic arts education and employment, as well as his demonstrated interest in modern art, I wonder of the three singers are attempts at photographic cubism? Several aspects of the same thing to the same ends as cubism? The idea that perception/cognition is not photographic in the sense of a singular image i.e we conceive/integrate multiple aspects at once.</p>

<p>There is, of course, extensive evidence of how Michals wanted to get multiple "layers" into the same image via multiple exposures and negative sandwiching. This could be either a lean towards motion pictures -- time extension in a still frame -- <em>or</em> a move toward what I've described above.</p>

<p>Personally I don't see the cubist aspect to the two photos, but there are elements of "movements" (the second layer, julie talks about) which could be inspired from the modernist or futurist tendencies that Duchamps was experimenting with, with his masterpiece of the naked lady going down the stairs.</p>

<p>Cubism? Could be. I think his "magic mirror" photos have a certain cubist element to them:</p>

<p>http://www.perspective.name/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DUANE-MICHALS.-Dr-Heisenbergs-Magic-Mirror-of-Uncertainty-1998-2.jpg </p>

 

<p>I see more surrealism than cubism, throughout Michals's work and particularly in the mirror photos. Cubism, while distorting, also has a geometric flavor, IMO. That seems not to be the case in many of the Michals photos I'm seeing—no overt or clear sense of geometry or mathematics.</p>

<p>What I see in the singing photos is almost a rhythmic stuttering effect, though a quiet one. And I suppose, in the way Julie describes it as "several aspects of the same thing to the same ends," perhaps that is an element of cubism. I sense it more as potential than something fully realized and that may go along with Michals's own description of photographing what can't be seen. The two singing photos suggest to me the slow emergence of something not yet fully formed. Since there isn't that much difference in the overall looks of the six singers, they could almost feel as a repetition of one person in three different positions.</p>

<p>I do think, however, without noticing the segregation of genders and what that means and feels like, and how and why I react differently to each, I would miss a lot in those two photos.</p>