Has Lepage really turned a page in art history?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, are you more accepting of Lincoln as subject than Johnny Depp? I may be misunderstanding, honestly, because what I've understood you to say about the pop status of certain subjects seems to counter your current argument about the relative unimportance of the subject.</p>

[jtk]

<p>:-)<br>

Fred, I read Doris Kearns Goodman's "Team of Rivals" on someone else's enthusiasm, was astounded. Big experience. Then Obama mentioned its importance (during primary) and the deal was done for me. He read it again after election, incidentally. Transformative, unlike Depp, so Lincoln's portraits got attention.<br>

The man's not the issue here so much as the photographs: Depp, being an actor in 21st Century, comes wrapped in ultimate "production value" presentation (think Annie L)...Lincoln usually (not always) suffered the awkward photographic values of his era.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And, because of the transformative role of Lincoln and who the man was, he and Depp would have to be approached very differently by an intuitive portrait photographer. </p>

<p>Doris Kearns <i>Goodwin</i>, btw.</p>

[jtk]

<p> Depp is an expensively packaged product. I was once paid $650 to photograph a shelf of soup in Safeway (studio strobes, Super Angulon, 4X5 etc). Lincoln's photos recede unacceptably more often than stand out, making the best magnetic.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>But it's about how Annie portrays and what she expresses about "that expensively packaged product." (Assuming the subject itself is not the only thing that matters.) Is she in tune with who and what her subject is and does her approach acknowledge that? We are all packaged, just as we are all "bound," as Don E put it elsewhere. She seems to be willing to work with what Depp himself has helped create. (Who's to say that what he's created is not somewhat unique to and reflective of him. He's certainly a different persona than, say, Robert Redford.) Do her photos transcend the package, the subject, and operate more universally? For me, yes. Do we want Depp as he is at home with his kids at the family barbecue or do we want an acknowledgment of his significance to his cultural milieu? It's not an either/or question, obviously. I don't think Annie is attempting to give us that backyard view of Depp personally, the "real" man, outside his persona. But I think she's a success at presenting the package with enough transcending universal identifiers (and this is where the universal becomes personal to each of us) so that the package as presented gets through to a personal emotional place . . . for her and the viewer. The mask can reveal as much as it hides . . . maybe?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I guess we shouldn't forget that apart from content and presentation, the reader's personal values in viewing the image are very important. This may relate also to most reponses to this post. My reaction to Lincoln is therefore much more well disposed than to that of an actor like Depp or Pitt, neither of whom I really am very impressed by, at least as photographic subjects (although Streep and Blanchett, as actors, occasion better responses). Lincoln was such an amazing man that I am more inclined to be favouable to a good presentation of him. With Depp, it is irrelevant (to me). Karsh was a rather stylised photographer, but he did present Kruschev, Churchill and Hemingway and others in a manner that was different than other photographers did, and thus "presented" the person in an original and interesting way. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, Annie L rarely hints anything "about" or "inside" her subjects. She wraps them with "universal identifiers" the way Campbell's Soup ads do their chicken and rice. She seems to have been told, in advance, what her subjects are "supposed" project. Do you think she's actually listened to many of them? Further, to contrast her images with a few of Lincoln, there may literally be no "real" people inside hers, behind their "masks". There's an Elizabeth inside Annie L's Queen, but it took the movie to look for her.</p>

<p>Avedon's famous portraits often came in pairs, one of mask (for $$) and the other without (for RA). Perhaps a trove of insightful images by Annie L will be found for her Centenniary (sp?).</p>

 

[joe_jackson4]

<p>"I guess we shouldn't forget that apart from content and presentation, the reader's personal values in viewing the image are very important."</p>

<p>Indeed, Arthur. When people perceive anything (photos, paintings, movies, music, people, buildings, cars, candles, ham and cheese sandwiches, beer, etc...) their minds respond... Different minds respond in different ways, of course. Our senses/minds may have certain "pre-programmed" similarities in terms of our responses to various stimuli, as we all know. There are, however, considerable differences in personal experience and psychological development, both of which are an intrinsic part of the process of moving from the womb to the tomb, naturally... :)</p>

<p>A particular individual's response (honest or otherwise...) to something presented as "art" therefore tells us something about the individual's mind... It tells us precisely <strong>nothing </strong> about the value of the work as "art" to anyone else, other than the trivial fact that a similar mind (in certain respects...) may possibly respond in a similar way... :)</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Some individual responses to a photograph, its presentation on an individual's blog, and the associated discussion:</p>

<p><a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/the-worst-photo.html">The Worst Photograph Ever Made</a></p>

<p>Enjoy... :)</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>On a related note, I have to say that I've found that the response of an "artist" to criticism of his/ her work is very often far more interesting to me than their "art". The response of a fan to criticism of a favoured artist's work can be also be very revealing, I think... Well, I'm free to interpret their reactions in certain ways, anyway... :)</p>

<p>I know quite a number of "artists" on a personal level, and they can certainly be interesting people to deal with... :)</p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, my Lincoln point has to do with what some say, seeing something important about him in certain of his images...they seem to see very little in most of them (that's my experience).</p>

<p>By contrast, I suspect we see nothing important in Depp's images...just packaging...just the "mask" Fred mentioned. Avedon's portraits, both unassuming-heroic and aged-exhausted-failing of Eisenhower tell me more than does Karsh's heroic cartoon of Churchill.</p>

<p>Reframing: I think poor presentation (the relatively uninteresting Lincoln portraits) makes subject (Lincoln as subject) less interesting the few that provide good presentation (Lincoln as sensitive or Lincoln suffering). By contrast, good presentation (of Depp, Hilton, today's celebs in general) doesn't inspire or even draw attention because we expect it...but put Depps pirate hat on Hilton and that'll make a briefly interesting new subject.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Lincoln as sensitive or Lincoln suffering."</p>

<p>How is that conveyed to you? It may or may not be coming directly from Lincoln. If your neighbor picks up on the same suffering, is it because Lincoln suffered or because the photographer knew how to convey it. To interpret a photo as conveying sensitivity or suffering, one has to pick up on and interpret "identifiers" (a visual language; tools) which the photographer utilizes to elicit a response. And since the photographer is most likely aware of utilizing such a tool to elicit a response, is there not an implied universality in that (symbolism, iconography) usage? The photographer knows people will understand, will get it. "Universal identifiers" apply to the photo of Mr. Lincoln every bit as much as to Campbell's Soups labels. (One's tastes will determine which they prefer to look at.)</p>

<p>Portraits are not necessarily about their subjects. One may think they are learning "important" things about the man or woman whose face has been captured. And, even with a great portrait, one may be completely fooled about who the subject is. That's because the portrait may be speaking through the subject as well as (or not at all) about the subject.</p>

<p>An expression on a subject's face, taken by a good photographer at the right moment, may convey winsomeness. That doesn't mean the subject was winsome. You haven't learned anything with that portrait. Just felt something. Then again, some portraits correspond amazingly, just like they were capturing a fact in the world.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>

 

 

<p >"...good presentation (of Depp, Hilton, today's celebs in general) doesn't inspire or even draw attention because we expect it...but put Depps pirate hat on Hilton and that'll make a briefly interesting new subject."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >John, yes, but only very briefly should it command our attention, preferably the period between two breaths would represent ample consumption of one's time. Society's most stupid infatuation with the celebs is something that should be washed out of our minds by age 35, conicidentally the age at which Cyril Connolly once characterised (in his book "The Unquiet Grave - Palinurus") as the limiting age at which he would accept or reject a person, based upon their ability to tell him something new (paraphrased as "If someone has little to say by the time he or she has attained age 35, he or she is to be rejected as a thinking human being and friend" - a rather severe, but important test I believe).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If I correctly understand you, John, it is a shame that Lincoln did not benefit from a good photographer/portraitist. A very much missed opportunity. Contrast that to the revealing photographic portrait of a young southerner of the time, caught after an abortive attempt to assassinate a northern politician, and waiting in irons for his own death (in Janet Malcolm's book "Me and Nikon"). Incredibly revealing study, of him, ...of man.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"A particular individual's response (honest or otherwise...) to something presented as "art" therefore tells us something about the individual's mind... It tells us precisely <strong >nothing </strong>about the value of the work as "art" to anyone else, other than the trivial fact that a similar mind (in certain respects...) may possibly respond in a similar way... :)"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you reduce this situation to zero, that may be true, Paul. I tend to be more optimistic. While what I personally appreciate or value is ultimately of primary importance mainly to myself, I think that sharing insights between thinking persons is valuable. An open and curious mind can always benefit from the thoughts of others - otherwise it would be misplaced to have created university departments and other institutions of learning - in which the goal is to engender human intellectual development, while communicating different values, opinions, concepts, historical background and criteria.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Paul's evaluation of the Lepage work (essentially wrought "in absentia") is just that, just as he has also postulated. While I may challenge the level of honesty or integrity with which it was made, I am very happy to accept it. </p>

<p > </p>

<br />

 

 

</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I think you're pretending photographs can't convey significance in non-verbal ways. If I wanted to explain how some of Lincolns photos convey certain things to me (and evidently others), and most don't, I could try as an exercise...but I'm no poet so it'd miss the significance, just as criticism usually misses literature (from the pen of an Updike it's literature on its own, which is another matter).</p>

<p>I've noticed that you're hesitant to recognize the significance in your own photos, when I comment on them (always with appreciation). I suspect you do that for the same reason I won't detail the Lincoln photo differences...the images tell the story, words tell another story ...probably a very other story.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not pretending anything. I'm being quite genuine. Nothing gets me more honest than portraiture.</p>

<p>I think you've misunderstood me if you think I'm saying photos don't convey significance non-verbally.</p>

<p>Of course they do.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean there aren't universal identifiers at work. And it doesn't mean that a photographer can't be conscientious about what tools he uses to get what effects.</p>

<p>In the Opinions thread (by Paul Wilkins), you make the statement "I don't think many of us consciously try to shape responses to our photographs."</p>

<p>My immediate response to that was to think, "What a shame!"</p>

<p>But I suppose it's likely true and that's why there are so many insignificant photographs floating around. They are not made by people who don't feel passionate about photographs or about their subjects. They are made by people who don't consider how to convey that passion or significance. You sell yourself short to place yourself in that camp. You're a better photographer than that.</p>

<p>You're wrong if you think I don't recognize significance in my own work. I don't often have much more to say than "thank you," especially in the forums. If you follow my critique pages at all, you'll see I have quite a bit to say on various subjects regarding my own work and get much more into the nuts and bolts. I usually do prefer hearing what others have to say about my work and allowing them to get the significance from the images themselves rather than from what I may have to say about them. But none of that means I don't put a lot of thought and effort into what my approach and technique is saying about my subjects, what emotions I may be conjuring up or expressing, etc. and quite specifically thinking of ways to tweak the conveyance of what I consider to be significant.</p>

<p>Perhaps it's more precise to talk not about shaping the responses to one's photos but to talk of shaping one's photos in order to provoke certain responses. As photographer, I can easily let go of the viewers' responses and I can try to ensure a certain amount of latitude and ambiguity in the nature of those responses. I am clear that it's not simply by magic that the emotions get carried through. Lots of people are passionate about certain subjects and make lousy photographers. Part of the craft is shaping visualizations to response.</p>

<p>It was you who put down the notion of universal identifiers (I assume you did, by quoting the words back to me and using them to describe Campbell's soup). I'm not asking you to list all of them or even be conscious of them specifically or individually with regard to the Lincoln portraits that move you. I'm just asking that you recognize that they are at play and that a decent photographer works with that, just as they work with contrast, tonality, lighting, exposure, and a mix of chemicals or software called Photoshop.</p>

<p>Perhaps technique is related to image quality and craftsmanship. And we kind of all know what passion and emotion is. But unless, like some others in these forums, you think that you're creating photos just for yourself or that it's all completely subjective (and I don't think you're in that camp), you are using photography also to communicate. That requires some conscious attention to cause and effect, stimulus and response. It doesn't just happen and it surely doesn't happen because Lincoln is important.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John and Fred,</p>

<p>Not without interest, your repartee, but what in H... does it have to do with the post? </p>

<p>Why not formulate the point or question you are discussing, and write a new post? I and others would no doubt enjoy contributing to it,</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Arthur </p>

 

[kristina_kraft]

<p>Arthur,<br>

No, I didn't see "Europa" and "Dancer in the dark", but I've just read it the plots. <em>Dancer in the dark </em> is too strong for my senses! And <em>Europa</em> movie is not for me either.<br>

Von Triar produced <em>Dogville</em> ! I found that fact just reading about him. <em>Dogville</em> continues on, to - <em>Manderlay </em> as a second part.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Kristina,</p>

<p>Although he is using a type of theatre in "Dogville", in the manner that Shakespeare used a minimum of props, Von Triar seems to be turning a page in cinematography by his example, although it may not lead to any movement in film making. "Europa" is stunning visually but mainly for what it says about the chaos of a defeated country after war, and the effect of such chaos on people. Although somewhat heavy, "Dancer" is interspersed with musical comedy that lightens the story. I believe it provides a worthy reflection on human values. </p>

<p>The makers of "The Image Mill" are trying, it seems, to also push the boundaries of the art of cinematography (and elsewhere, of theatre), although it can probably be argued that the presentation of a history of a particular region is perhaps not the best vehicle for that.</p>

[kristina_kraft]

<p>Arthur,<br>

in that case "Dancer" could be fine to my senses. No one likes to see not just drama, but tragedy, injustice in the movie. I never listened Bjork, but I know here style and a few songs. Not my type. It would be interesting to see her in that movie together with Chatrine D. Yes, you're right about human values.<br>

What do you think about Ingmar Bergman, a Swedish producer. Famous not only by his movies. He was producing also for the theatres. He also worked with Von Triar. I watched "Fany and Alexander".<br>

"The Image Mill": Now you caught me! Not the best presentation of a history. Why not?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Have to leave in a minute on a short trip. Ingmar Bergman's "7th Seal" is a classic, and others. I was really saying that historical presentation does not easily lend itself to exploring new art forms (but I may be wrong - I often am!).</p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, Fred and I have been trying to focus on an aspect of photography...I agree that it's not closely related to LePage, but your own comments have drifted a long way from LePage and "corner turning", as well as from "Philosophy of Photography" (no problem...imo the best threads do drift).</p>

<p>I agree enthusiastically with you about LePage's accomplishment and it's proximity to corners. belated though it may be (Abel Gance was one of those who turned LePage's corner decades earlier).</p>

<p>Fred, here's the crux: "...requires some conscious attention to cause and effect, stimulus and response. It doesn't just happen..."</p>

<p>It feels unlikely (untrue) that your images are successful because of your "conscious attention to cause and effect, stimulus and response." I agree that your successful images don't "just happen," but I think you're pretending conscious causality : you want to be linear, "philosophic", when in fact you're working from a pre-conscious place..a place you don't seem to acknowledge.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John--</p>

<p>I see it as a combination. I don't mean to give short shrift to the non-verbal and pre-conscious aspects of how I photograph. Yes, you are right. Much of it is that. And maybe I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here because you seem to put the conscious intentions down so much, almost as if they aren't worthy of talking about. At the same time, when I and others talk about "creativity," which is another take on "pre-conscious place," or at least the less linear side of making a photograph, you get exasperated. You can be hard to understand.</p>

<p>My approach is to be more and more into my gut, let myself express what's inside me, try to find stuff inside others to express, and do it as genuinely as possible (which does not mean "naturally," as you and I have agreed on before). I see photography for myself as the counterpoint to "linear" (still not sure what that qualification means) philosophy. At the same time, just like when I play piano, I am better able to express the music when I've practiced my scales and done some finger exercises, when I photograph I am better equipped when I've done some thinking about what kinds of things convey what kinds of feelings.</p>

<p>I don't practice the scales on stage in front of the listeners and I don't think about those photographic things when I'm in the moment of shooting (generally speaking).</p>

<p>There are different aspects of practicing scales. The most obvious is to get your fingers limber, get your legato smooth and your staccato not to sound like a hammer on nails. But, while I do them, I also change them each time to see what kinds of expressions I can get from various arcs of the scale handled different ways. Where do I peak, at the end? somewhere in the middle? Do I start strong and drop off from there? All of those things have a different feel and effect. When I'm sitting doing an hour or so of scales in each of the 24 keys, it's not just to loosen up my fingers and remember which keys have which sharps and which flats.</p>

<p>You have recognized the importance of the presentation of subject. And I assume you mean by that not just the chemicals used in the darkroom and the type of paper, the way it's framed, the pop of the light, the richness of the shadows. Those are, of course, crucial. I've thought quite a bit lately about perspective, especially being as tall as I am. I have noticed in many photos how differently shots from above and shots from below can make me feel, of course with lots of other factors at play and affecting the outcome. That doesn't mean I go to take someone's picture and stand there and logically plot out the perspective that's going to read as "thrilling" or as "sexy" or as "cruisy" or "mysterious." It gets us back to the pre-conscious stuff. I think having considered it when I'm at galleries or viewing books gets absorbed and affects what I do with myself when I'm shooting. So, some amount of consciousness . . . more than I sense you're allowing for . . . gives my gut more power when I'm in the moment.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I think we're just about on the same page.</p>

<p>I don't associate "preconscious" et al with "creativity" ...but that's a quibble. IMO "creativity" is something someone else ascribes to us for no particular reason, I don't think anybody "has" it.</p>

<p>Your piano practice metaphor works beautifully. Further, it seems to me that skill development (practice) is sometimes (even ideally) more inspiring than finished work.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>"While I may challenge the level of honesty or integrity with which it was made, I am very happy to accept it."</p>

<p>Arthur, you offered a link to what I considered to be a rather tourist-oriented public projection show thing, tarted up a bit with a few software-driven gimmicks... In all honesty, it came across as a not-particularly-compelling cross between one of those "multimedia presentations" (of the type that were ten-a-penny on CD-ROM encyclopedias and suchlike in the late '90s...) and a rather pretentious take on the "video walls" you often see at big pop/rock concerts. And what was being shown to me in this history-making artistic masterpiece...? Some archive images from Quebec. Well, whoopee.</p>

<p>Instead of challenging the "honesty or integrity" of those that aren't particularly into such things (other than as something to take a look at when visiting Quebec or something...), perhaps you should learn to accept that some people may not be all that impressed by such presentations. Sorry if that needles anyone's precious little soap bubble of an "artistic" ego or something, but there you go...</p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, I've learned a lot from your posts and, again, am eager to see LePage's work directly.</p>

<p>I'm averse to Bergman (nausiated especially by Winter Light) but have always respected his appeal to others. Bergman films generated many great B&W still press-release photos and in B&W cinematographic respect they hold their value across time more than most, even if the ideas seem stale (to me in 2009). I don't like Chekov much either, but lots of smarter people do.</p>

<p>Back to LePage, there appears to be only one of "those who aren't into" his work enough to disparage it here. It's amusing when we have limited personal accomplishment, yet attack our obvious betters. Presumably that reflects on me and my response to Annie L :-)</p>