wimmen Tanyth Berkeley

<p><a href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/03/tanyth-berkeley-and-special-ones.html">http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/03/tanyth-berkeley-and-special-ones.html</a></p>

<p>What's Tanyth Berkeley doing? Is she really looking for people like this, does she have a special awareness of them, or is this an edited project...a visually poetic assemblage?</p>

<p>I don't recall anybody with deliberate photographic awareness of women who were outside conventional norms of beauty, but were beautiful in their own ways. Perhaps the movie "Precious" addresses this with more toughness?</p>

 

<p> She found the women subjects of Orchidacea riding the subway. She has stated that she did not look deliberately for them, but relied on randomness. On the other hand, she has said she looked for younger subjects. She photographed the Orchidacea subjects originally in Central Park.</p>

<p> "I love the undeniable truth inherent in photography, the fact of it. I love that within this truth the world can be magical and awe-inspiring, that I can capture this fact, hold it fast on film and reflect on it over and over again. Painting is wonderful in that worlds are created, made from scratch, made from paint. For me as a photographer, I make images from what already exists, so I can be more spontaneous. I love that I can grab my camera and work the street, that I can play with space and time or more subtly capture the light quality of a rainy day."</p>

<p> --- Tanith Berkeley</p>

<p>I enjoyed her images....a bit flat and undersaturated for my taste, but she certainly has an eye for her "special" or "Precious" subjects....Robert</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 19, 2009; 11:05 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/03/tanyth-berkeley-and-special-ones.html" target="_blank"><em>http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/03/tanyth-berkeley-and-special-ones.html</em></a></p>

 

<p><em>What's Tanyth Berkeley doing? Is she really looking for people like this, does she have a special awareness of them, or is this an edited project...a visually poetic assemblage?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, it beats me what's going on here. What I can tell you is that if you have any kind of "name", you can do most anything and get away with it.<br>

If an unknown beginner posted one of these shots and asked for advice, we wouldn't know where to beign, the shots are technically a disaster. I'm sure you ran a couple of them up and checked the histos and curves.<br>

The subjects themselves seem to be just average everyday people, caught in bad poses in unflattering light, or to put it another way, your basic bad snapshots. </p>

<p>And the comments...... </p>

<p><em>"....the Special Ones, the Orchidaceae. One species looks just like a pony with its mane flowing out. One species looks like a glowing strawberry. One looks like a beautiful alien. One looks like a human rose. One looks like a firefly. One looks like the kind of fancy shoes that a king might wear. One looks like Mickey Mouse. One looks like a fluffy kitten......"</em></p>

<p>If you or I said that, we'd be arrested for political incorrectness and personally crucified by Oprah.<br>

The National Enquirer used to come up with stuff like that in decades past "..... Woman finds child with head like glowing strawberry....".</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>"The subjects themselves seem to be just average everyday people, caught in bad poses in unflattering light, or to put it another way, your basic bad snapshots."</p>

<p>I agree and maybe that was her point, that most women do not look like Katherine Heigl or any of the other media stars - even, thank God, Lady Gaga. It's a kind of reality check - bad hair, no makeup, clothes from a Goodwill store, shot in bad light with a Kodak Instamatic, just the way it happens in the real world. The strange thing is, a couple of these women look a lot like people I know very well and have a deep affection for, and my reaction to those shots is somewhat different than to the others. Maybe that's what we are supposed to do, look past the mundane and find the familiar. It looks like a low-budget version of Joyce Tenneson's <em>Wise Women</em>.</p>

<p>By the way, has anyone else noticed the striking similarity of the woman in the first shot to Frances McDormand ("Fargo", "Burn After Reading")?</p>

<p> Bill, if you loved these, wait till you see her transgender series. I have a feeling think she didn't run into them randomly on the train.</p>

<p> These pictures don't look like bad snapshots to me. I've worked at a 1-hr lab. Out of thousands and thousands of snaps, not <em>a single one like these </em> ever crossed my eyes.</p>

<p>Much too deliberate for that. They certainly don't conform to photographic conventions of the day, either. The question is, is she an incompetent, or is she using unorthodox techniques, as Fred would say, as a tool, towards an end?</p>

<p> Not that I put Berkeley's work at the same level, but things like this... "The subjects themselves seem to be just average everyday people, caught in bad poses in unflattering light, or to put it another way, your basic bad snapshots." ...were said about Robert Frank's and William Eggleston's work when they first came out.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis made two important observations... his minilab recollection seems to resonate with and reinforce the photographer's statement, which he provided.</p>

<p>To me this work is an irritating mystery, which is why I posted the link. I don't connect with Cindy Sherman's games at all, have no respect..to me they're bogus. But Berkeley's stuff bothers me...which suggests that for me, something's going on.</p>

<p>What about the "poetic" aspect? Luis, are you addressing that?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like Luis, I am struck by the deliberateness of style here and the way technique and content ("message") go together. I find that both challenging and liberating.</p>

<p>When I look at or make photos, particularly portraits, I am not too interested in seeing what I know has already proven to be a good look or formula. I want to explore or be taken by another photographer on a journey. This series does that.</p>

<p>This is a case where the awful commentary does a lot to undermine my experience of the photos. It reads as utter nonsense to me. John, it makes me long for the kind of sober and direct accompanying text you recently gave us regarding your own photo. I'd much rather hear about the photographer's process than about some nutjob's take on women and their "vampire faces." The commentary accompanying Tanyth's photos talks about others gawking at these women but actually begins to make me feel like such a gawker and goes a long way in suggesting that Tanyth is such a gawker. It gives the project a ring of self-consciousness and disingenuousness. I suppose Mr. Rickard things he's being cute or ironic, maybe in-your-face, with the "hunting" metaphor. That kind of irony or metaphor belongs in the photos if it's going to be in them at all. Since it's not in the photos, it doesn't belong in the accompanying text. It seems to be at odds with the actual presentation, which doesn't express "hunted" by any means. When you try too hard, it usually reads that way.</p>

<p>I do wonder if the obvious consistency of photographic style goes too far in not allowing me to experience these women as individuals but, instead, as a collection of "specialness," which the commentator goes on about. I suppose it's a "style" not to have any of the women look at her or into the camera but, after a while, even that starts to feel imposed. Though the commentary stereotypes these women as ones who don't look you in the eye, I have a feeling that's something he made up for convenience, though I could certainly be wrong . . . just a gut feeling.</p>

<p>I saw "Precious" last night. It's nothing like this series and doesn't deal with what these photographs seem to deal with. Though the previews of "Precious" made it seem like it was going to be about her inner beauty vs. her extreme weight, it was much more hard-hitting and gritty than that. This movie is not a look at our "superficial" selves vs. our real selves. It was very much about an individual, not a type and, although it's gritty it's not false or over-the-top grittiness. Tanyth's work -- and this is not a negative judgment, it's significant -- does deal head-on with looks and superficiality. "Precious" is only very tangentially about that sort of thing. John, I know you'll appreciate it because it includes a lot of fantasy as well, and rather well done at that. :) It's an incredibly moving film with amazing acting . . . acting so real it's hard to believe it's not a documentary.</p>

<p>Luis, I don't get the "deliberate" part. Why would anyone want to "fake" a terrible shot, much less a whole series ?<br>

I'll go with "quaint", as a nice way of saying "incompetent".<br>

You must have worked in a 1 hr. lab that had talented clients. I've seen many snapshots that looked this bad, but I never had the experience of working in a 1 hour lab.<br>

Also, if the art community considers you a "darling", you can hang just about anything. Kinda like that junkyard muffler spray painted with Krylon silver and labelled "Silence". <br>

I've seen some Eggleston photos and sure, they're mundane subjets, Americana, folksy, etc., that's the point, but they're not technical travesties.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>"Bill, if you loved these, wait till you see her transgender series. I have a feeling think she didn't run into them randomly on the train."</p>

<p>Thanks, anyway, Luis, but I think I'll pass. :-). Actually, I hate those shots. I was just trying to figure out her motivation for taking them...</p>

<blockquote>

<p >What's Tanyth Berkeley doing? Is she really looking for people like this, does she have a special awareness of them, or is this an edited project...a visually poetic assemblage?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I don't recall anybody with deliberate photographic awareness of women who were outside conventional norms of beauty, but were beautiful in their own ways. Perhaps the movie "Precious" addresses this with more toughness?</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > I tend to take an Occam’s Razor approach to questions like these. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Obviously, Berkeley seems to be documenting women whose physical characteristics are unusual, outside the norm. Primarily through head shots, judging by the photos that accompany Doug Rickard’s rather florid prose. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I, too, cannot recall anyone who deliberately sought to take photographs of women who were outside the conventional norms of beauty. However, Berkeley’s images do bring to mind Diane Arbus and, cinematically, Fellini. Interesting work, but hardly earth shattering.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Based on the website images, she seems to have photographed her subjects in a rather casual, offhand manner. Intentional, perhaps? “This is what they look like…this is what a quick snap reveals about them.” Or was it the need to not prolong the moment of capture…to not make too much of these subjects? If it’s an intentional style, it’s almost subtle beyond apprehension. It is interesting to note that of the 8 images, at least 5, perhaps 6, appear to have been taken at an upward angle…intentional accentuation of facial features? I don’t know.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >There is a certain subtlety to her choice of subjects that I find interesting. These are not women with Down’s Syndrome, elephantitis, or gigantism. Nor are they simply “plain Janes”. They have facial characteristics that are decidedly different from the norm, and that do not conform to a Vanity Fair, Maxim, or Vogue concept of beauty. Still, there are at least certain actresses who might not seem out of place in this series of photographs. Sandra Oh, for example. And someone has already mentioned Frances McDormand.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Whatever Berkeley’s intent is (edited project, poetic assemblage…not mutually exclusive, I think) I find the photos interesting, whatever their defects of histogram or color curve might be. ;) Not enough to purchase a book of such photos, but certainly enough to want to see more examples of them. </p>

<p><strong>Bill P.--</strong></p>

<p>Can you translate "terrible"? Is it that it doesn't translate "correctly" onto some objective measurement like a histogram and curves graph (which you mention in your first post)? Is it that it doesn't look as crisp, colorful, saturated, and sterilized as most of the photos judged worthy of PN's top-rated-photos, which so often seem to conform to some objective yet vacuous standard of technical achievement (or at least <em>presumed</em> technical achievement . . . much hack work that looks a certain way passes for technically competent)?</p>

<p>Did you consider what the photographer herself might be trying to do or show or did you immediately dismiss her work because of what you found distasteful about it? If so, I'd be curious to hear what you thought her purpose might have been, if that purpose goes beyond being acclaimed by the hero-worshipping art world.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1836730"><em>William Kahn</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 20, 2009; 11:28 a.m.</em></p>

<em>"....Actually, I hate those shots...."</em>

</blockquote>

<p>Finally, somebody else said it first, so I don't have to take all the heat....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p><strong>Bill--</strong></p>

<p>If it comforts you to think you're taking heat for not liking something, please go on living in that superficial world. Consider that it's the thoughts and reasoning you conveyed, not your taste, that's generating heat. Deal with the deeper issues, not just the easy ones.</p>

<p> Bill P's and Wm K's responses, which don't seem quite the same, are significant...readily defensible. </p>

<p>But those aren't my responses...quite. </p>

<p>Minor White said somewhere that if we respond negatively (strongly negatively?) to something in a photograph it was (might be?) "feeding something in us."</p>

<p>I remember that my first response to Berkeley's images was to be hung up on something in that was bothersome..I couldn't just reject the images, but tried...they began to seem poetic.</p>

<p>A photographer got online recognition for that related, coherent set of images. I recognized something as well. That is my problem. If I'd seen them in a minilab, I imagine I'd have ignored them. But...</p>

<p>Don't we want to have problems with photographic images? Ever?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>You make a good point worth discussing.</p>

<p>I always try to sit with my own negative responses and see what they're about. That's what I was encouraging Bill P. to do. The positions expressed by both Williams (in very different ways) are, indeed, readily defensible. I'm suggesting to Bill P. that he do just that. "Defend," to me, suggests some degree of understanding and depth. I haven't heard anything beyond a very superficial "I don't like" along with some rumblings about artists and the art world.</p>

<p>I think much about photography and art is presentation and context. We frame paintings for a reason. It isolates them and heralds them as something to be noticed. We might very well ignore great stuff we see in all kinds of places like mini-labs. There's nothing wrong with looking differently when we are "shown" something. When something is presented on-line or something is hung on a wall, we may well see it differently. Good.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, that's often what photographers do. They try not to miss things that others might ignore. Photographers frame things with their lenses in order to say, "Here look at this. See it in a way that you might not if I didn't present it to you." That thought seems appropriate in the context both of Tanyth's subjects and her technique. I think she's talking very much about dismissiveness so I actually think she's talking directly to Bill P.</p>

<p>There's a fine line between responding negatively because something in us is being fed and, perhaps, coming to see the significance in the work because it reaches us emotionally in that way and something just being a load of crap. When I see something that seems "intentionally" crappy, I usually give it a second and third look and tend not to dismiss it as easily as when I feel it's a complete and unintentional "mistake." To me, this work is so clearly not an unintentional mistake that, though I can imagine someone hating it (I'm not at all surprised many would hate it nor does that disappoint me in any way), I'm more baffled by someone dismissing it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 20, 2009; 11:42 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><strong><em>Bill--</em></strong></p>

 

<p><em>If it comforts you to think you're taking heat for not liking something, please go on living in that superficial world. Consider that it's the thoughts and reasoning you conveyed, not your taste, that's generating heat. Deal with the deeper issues, not just the easy ones.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get over yourself, Fred. Where do you get off saying I live in a superficial world? You don't know me, you have no idea who I am or what I'm about. What makes you think that you can come out with these passive aggressive little put downs every time I say something? You're totally off topic, unconstrucive, patently useless, and it's really getting old having you follow me all around this site. <br>

All I was doing was agreeing with William Kahn, or don't you read these posts?</p>

<p>Just for laughs, what world do you think you're living in?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p><strong>Bill--</strong></p>

<p>Please believe me when I say I don't follow you around the site. I stick pretty much to the Street/Doc forums and the Philosophy forum and the critique forums where I don't remember ever encountering you. I read you when you're around like I do everyone else.</p>

<p>I absolutely don't know you. I only know what you write. I was challenging the things you wrote here, trying to be constructive though I understand your not seeing it that way. I read the posts carefully and you wrote before William Kahn did. I referenced that post of yours in particular. </p>

<p>I am aggressive, not passively aggressive. I make no apologies for that. If you find it useless to be challenged, even challenged aggressively, so be it. I had actually already surmised that from your reaction to these photos. Again, I wasn't projecting that onto you, the full being of William Palminteri who is way more than what he writes in these forums. I was writing it to the Bill Palminteri I have before me in the words he writes.</p>

<p>The world that's relevant here is the one where we create dialogue without faces and without knowing each other terribly well. I go by what I read. In this case, I thought I would try to draw you out more. If you disagree with how I've characterized your words, don't just yell at me, tell me what you really meant and where I've misunderstood or mischaracterized you.</p>

<p>I'm happy to ignore you if that's what you'd prefer.</p>

<p>Bill, Fred...chill.</p>

<p>Somebody thinks Tanyth's work is lousy? (still wondering about that myself)</p>

<p>How about Robert Frank's: <a href="

</p>

<p>Now that's some reeeally crappy stuff, right? I love it (turn up the volume).</p>

<p>"still wondering about that myself"</p>

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>I am too. That's why I wanted to discuss her work with you further. That's why I wrote my initial post here. Did you have any reaction to what I said in my original post about her work or the accompanying text?</p>

<p>Fred, please be specific about the points I should address. I don't feel I've been "reacting" here so much as participating in some kind of flow. I like the mix.<br>

<br /><br />I don't encourage Bill P or anybody else to "defend" their responses...I just said their responses are "defensible"... I'm not a big fan of consistency vs responsiveness and I'm troubled by my own desire to win arguments.<br>

<br /><br />Berkeley's stuff does seem technically way downhill from standard P.N aspirations and it's possible that she doesn't give a damn. Perfection's cheap in digital era, maybe imperfection's valuable...<br>

<br />Speaking of which, Patti Smith, in the youtube link above, ain't no beauty, neither nohow. If you want some even crappier turn-ons, check out Frank's Rolling Stones super-8 on youtube.</p>

<p> Whoa....these Berkeley pictures are causing strong reactions here. Bill P., I honestly wasn't giving you any heat, and apologize if I gave you that impression.</p>

<p>Fred mentioned an answer to my question, that in this case, Berkeley's selection of atypical subjects, is mirrored by atypical technique. I do not think this is by accident and/or incompetence, though I cannot rule out the possibility that it might be.</p>

<p> Bill P., I worked at a 1-hr less than ten blocks from where I live, which is in an upper-class neighborhood, but I doubt the customers were above-average in their photography from what I saw, which made most of my Photo 101 students from the same time look like geniuses. If TB's work was due to accident or sloppiness, we'd see more variations, wouldn't we? It's that wall-to-wall consistency that points to intent for me.</p>

<p> I certainly want to make it clear, before someone accuses me of it, that I do not think Ms. TB's work to be masterful. It <em>is</em> extraordinarily unusual, and obviously powerful enough to elicit strong opinions (mostly negative here).</p>

<p> TB's subjects are not just everyday people. They are unusual in their looks, most <em>very unusual</em> . Some are borderline freakish, in my opinion, as are the transgender subjects. Steve Gubin was thinking along the same lines I was when he commented about Diane Arbus (and I'd like to throw in Bruce Davidson), who explored this topic long ago, in depths that haven't been oft- visited since. Berkeley does not seem to be exploring them in the same way. She demystifies her subjects, and emphasizes their normalcy. This is rice-paper-thin ice to be skating on.</p>

<p> As to the apparent "bad" technique, I'd also like to say that at least one other possibility exists. There have been many artists who, for a variety of reasons, have downplayed their skills.</p>

<p>I just checked, and see that Ms. Berkeley graduated BA from City University, MFA from Columbia University, so it is fair to say that she <em>knows how to use light and do post-processing </em> competently.</p>

<p> Since 2004, she has racked up enough shows in reputable institutions and galleries to establish a decent track record.</p>

<p> All of this doesn't mean one has to like her work, of course.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 20, 2009; 02:51 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Bill, Fred...chill.</em><br>

<em>Somebody thinks Tanyth's work is lousy? (still wondering about that myself)</em><br>

<em>How about Robert Frank's: </em><a rel="nofollow" href="

target="_blank"><em> </em></p>

 

<p><em>Now that's some reeeally crappy stuff, right? I love it (turn up the volume).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, no problem here. I wrote back to Fred and offered to start over, but it never got posted, and I jst realized it.</p>

<p>So I'll say it again, Fred answered me like a gentleman, and I'll clarify any position of mine that he likes.<br>

I have no hard feelings and I look forward to informative and constructive dialogues.</p>

<p>I have serious doubts about a lot of the stuff out there, anyone involved in the gallery scene is aware of the politics involved, etc.<br>

The video you linked to is interesting, but I never liked most videos ever since they became popular through MTV, etc.<br>

I always liked "Club at the end of the Street, by Elton John.<br>

Here's the link....<br>

<a href="

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't feel I've been "reacting" here so much as participating in some kind of flow."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then, please, don't react, just "flow" on any of this: ;)</p>

<p>"I am struck by the deliberateness of style here and the way technique and content ("message") go together."</p>

<p>"the awful commentary does a lot to undermine my experience of the photos"</p>

<p>"It [the commentary] seems to be at odds with the actual presentation, which doesn't express "hunted" by any means." (<em>I'm already rethinking this. Perhaps there is a "hunted" quality that is not only "hunted" but also "haunting."</em>)</p>

<p>I think the two things I'd most like your views on, because they are percolating for me, are:</p>

<p>"I do wonder if the obvious consistency of photographic style goes too far in not allowing me to experience these women as individuals but, instead, as a collection of "specialness,"</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>"I suppose it's a "style" not to have any of the women look at her or into the camera but, after a while, even that starts to feel imposed."</p>

<p>Please don't feel obliged to discuss any or all of this. I just thought some dialogue back and forth about the work itself could be productive. Many of us seem to be unsure about the work. A series of monologues about it, for me, is less helpful than more direct engagement with each other about it.</p>

<p>She's done an amazing job of matching the background -- texture, color, line and "flavor" -- to that of each woman. Also, I think the technique is intentionally "off" to match the [can't find the right word] ... smoothness or roughness of each subject.</p>