wimmen Tanyth Berkeley

william l. palminteri · November 21, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135">Phylo Dayrin</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 20, 2009; 07:10 p.m.

This could be a textbook example of what a histogram shouldn't look like.

</blockquote>

Photography, especially in the context as it is being discussed here, is not about what a histogram should or shouldn't look like. Not only are you not right with this statement, you're not even wrong.

" Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! " Wolfgang Pauli

</blockquote>

Phylo, I've argued against histograms many times, but in this case I use them to show what I'd consider a much better exposure.

I never use histograms myself, as I've said before, I enjoy getting the exposure close to "right" at the CCD, and use pre-print software for what it's intended to do, NOT make a bad picture into an acceptable photo.

The reason I made the statement that you quoted is that the histogram is worshiped as the arbiter of final exposure correctness by so many shooters that I figured I'd use their measuring stick to see what's what.

Personally, my eye told me immediately that there were serious problems with the exposure. If that's what she wanted, well that's what she got, but I didn't need the histo to verify what I saw.

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · November 21, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1495971">Greg Thomas</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 21, 2009; 12:05 a.m.

I'd love to see some serious photography by this person, approaching the level of work you turn out (Yes, that's a compliment), and then I wouldn't care what the person did.

</blockquote>

What's not serious about her work? Judging by the discussion here I'd say it's quite serious indeed. And I doubt she would be able to convey this project as well as she did by producing perfectly lit, posed and composed images that so many here on photo.net think is a requirement for a photograph to be considered a work of art.

</blockquote>

Greg, it's like this for me. If an artist has the skillset of a Jean van Eyck, then that artist can spray paint mufflers all day long and hang 'em all over town.

I don't know why they'd bother, but that's another issue.

But if that's ALL they're capable of doing, then they're putting me to sleep.

I don't see her work as being anywhere near "serious". Cohesive, sure, it's uniformly unappealing to me.

We agree that "perfectly lit, composed, edited, etc. shots are not the way to go for many great shots to be great.

When I shoot the heavy grit of the city streets at night I rely on the subject to tell me the truth (and it does), not editing software.

It's amazing to me that when I've mentioned the painful overuse of editing software on this site, the place goes wild, voodoo drums start up, and the chanting becomes deafening.

Bill P.

mike dixon · November 21, 2009

the histogram is worshiped as the arbiter of final exposure correctness by so many shooters that I figured I'd use their measuring stick to see what's what.

In this forum, that is most-definitely not the case. The "correct" exposure is the one that creates the effect the photographer desired. Intent and realization matter; post-processing doesn't.

The look in the Berkeley's Orchidaceae series is easily and consistently attainable using slide film and no post-exposure processing; I've used it a number of times in the past, though for different subjects and purposes (<a href="http://mikedixonphotography.net/sydneycol05.jpg">an example</a> ). I'm sure it's attainable by other means, as well. My point is that talk about histograms and Photoshop avoids the substantial issues raised by Berkeley's work.

william l. palminteri · November 21, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3811263">Steve Gubin</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 21, 2009; 01:12 a.m.

.....Very refreshing when what I mostly come across are gear discussions from acquisition monkeys, histogram analysis (perhaps Bill and I run into the same type, for whom histos are indeed the rage), or the benefits of the hottest new Photoshop plug-in.....

</blockquote>

Steve, it's amazing to see so many great shooters on one thread talking about the craft, and not the machinery.

It's about time!

I love your use of the language, "aquistion monkeys" really gets me!

And yes, I'll bet that we share the same distrust of "shooters" who use histograms to get the exposure right, not their eyes.

I've seen many people miss the shot because they're so busy screwing around with the data on the CCD.

And those plug-ins, Jeeeeez! Poreless vinyl skin from outer space, I can hardly wait!

Bill P.

mike dixon · November 21, 2009

Personally, I find the Orchidaceae series rather fascinating, though I don't exactly like the photos. They have the excellent effect of drawing me in and making me think about why I'm not comfortable with them. As a work of art, I'd say that makes them quite successful.

I think a large part of my discomfort may be related to John K's concept of the girls being "meat puppets." Perhaps it's my own cynicism showing, but I think that discussions of ideal types and superficiality are so common now that a series focused on those issues is almost trite. If the series really told me something about the individuals involved, it would go beyond playing to currently popular themes, but it doesn't.

william l. palminteri · November 21, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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="" /></a>, Nov 20, 2009; 07:51 p.m.

Bill--

I think of artists like Mozart and artists like Yoko Ono or Berkeley or Duchamp very differently. I've often said there's much modern art I don't need to see more than once or twice and wouldn't necessarily hang on my wall or listen to again and again. I appreciate it in a different way. The kind of "technique" and "craft" involved in Mozart's kind of music vs. some of John Cage's music varies wildly.

</blockquote>

Fred, I also take what's put in front of me at face value, more than you might imagine from what I sound like on the boards.

Here's my position.

I listen to everything from Maynard Ferguson to Dyke and the Blazers, and I love it all.

But when someone tells me that Jimi Hendrix was a great guitarist (and I love Jimi's work), I tell them that Jimi Hendrix was great at being Jimi Hendrix, but was he great?

Howard Alden is a great guitarist. There's a difference.

I try to choose words very carefully, the English language is still evolving and falling all over itself.

When I hear the word "great", for example, there is a huge amount of "weight" involved.

For information to be conveyed, certain conventions have to be agreed upon.

And yes, I really enjoy rap, no kidding.

Berklee School of Music now offers (since 2004) a course in turntable technique.

<a href="http://www.berklee.edu/opi/2004/0217.html">http://www.berklee.edu/opi/2004/0217.html</a>

But is it great music?

I'll leave that up to the historians, but I suspect that the contributions made to social change will be similar in scope to the ones made by Yoko, et.al.

Art in all its forms has always been a great vehicle for social change, and the more articulate the presentation, the more clear the message.

To stay on topic, T.B. puts forth a message, sure. It's the grammar that I don't agree with. In the end, it ain't no big deal.

Bill P.

luis_g · November 21, 2009

One of the things that make Ms. TB's pictures difficult for the viewer is that she deliberately avoids, if not reverses, some of the core conventions of portraiture. There is no attempted intimacy (although Berkeley went on to photograph one of her albino subjects extensively, and in a more conventional manner). Not even Avedon's quickie version. As she says, she wanted the subjects to wear their "... blank public face or the commuter’s poker face...". Most portraitists openly reject that and work hard to get past that masked point, and show us some kind of private, intimate, insightful, privileged view. There is no stripping of the mask. They are about the mask, and the idea that the mask's veil is transparent -- and in that there is transcendence.

TB's subjects do not yield and reveal themselves to us, they shield themselves from us.

Her portraits also deal with another concept. Lots of artists focus on the idea of alternate realities, and heightened awareness that leads to rare air ways of seeing, perhaps best typified by William Eggleston's famous quote "I am at war with the obvious". The opposite of that (continuum) is: "The obvious is the last thing we see". The mask the faces that TB's subjects wear is the obvious. On any trip on a train in any major city, we've all seen them. A very few street photographers have worked with them en situ and with random subjects. TB sifted for hers, changed the context/location/lighting, but kept the faces. In a strange way, I see these pictures having a distant tenuous tie to Walker Evans' Subway Portraits.

william l. palminteri · November 21, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 21, 2009; 07:39 a.m.

One of the things that make Ms. TB's pictures difficult for the viewer is that she deliberately avoids, if not reverses, some of the core conventions of portraiture.

</blockquote>

Luis, that's the part I enjoy about her work. I agree with evrything you've said. When I (rarely) shoot portraits, I always strive for the reality of the person that I shoot, which is why I have to spend time with the subjet to find out the truth.

The "formula" portaiture puts me to sleep.

It's Berkeley's technique that grates on me, nothing more.

Bill P.

mizore · November 21, 2009

What's the intent of a properly exposed photo that shows more of the subject's facial blemishes? TB wasn't eliminating the blemishes with Photoshopped selective blur plugins; she was defocusing the blemishes/surface with the way she handled light. We notice the blemishes on first glance, but often forget about them as we develop rapport with people (and there's closing time and beer eyes).

The technique used in those shots is also the opposite of the techniques used for (and useful in) most botanical shots, where the details are as sharp as possible and the background as poster like as possible. Julie was quite perceptive about the backgrounds, the trees behind the woman with pigtails, for instance. These aren't casual snaps in Central Park.

jtk · November 21, 2009

Minor correctives:

1) August Sander was engaged in a study of physical "types." That's why he photographed.

While it was careless of me to suggest Sander was a fascist, he was in fact a faux scientist who directly or indirectly provided ammunition for Hitler's attempted eradication of "mental defectives" gypsies, gays, Slavs, and Jews.

However, Hitler (who I hadn't mentioned and who hadn't come to mind) wasn't a definative "fascist," he was a National Socialist. Fascism was invented in Italy, the symbol of fascism was the bundled sticks, "fasces." Mussolini was more properly fascist.

2) Ceasar Lombroso was a criminologist who, like Sander, was engaged in "research" about physical types in relation to behavior (Sander used photography, attempting to make association between types and employment). <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~njbuff/conference_fall05/papers/libby_hennessy.htm">http://www.stanford.edu/~njbuff/conference_fall05/papers/libby_hennessy.htm</a>

In recent years we've seen Sanders-Lombroso-like resurgence of similarly obnoxious theories...current claims that criminality can be predicted at age 3, and earlier (from a now disgraced Stanford professor) with "The Bell Curve," which identified blacks as a genetically inferior race.

aplumpton · November 21, 2009

August Sanders was open to persons of all social and economic sectors of Germany of his time, something few have documented anywhere and so successfully. His work will stand for a long time. John, you have brought to our attention a most interesting photographer and an even more interesting circle of persons. Her subjects are intriguing, even enigmatic, and her photographic approach quite directed. I have the feeling she is not so much photographing these persons in their natural state as seeking expressions that communicate what she wishes to. I have the feeling that some of her subjects must appear quite differently in different frames of her contact sheet and that their more common expressions are not being seen. While Sander's portraits have an often severe expression, almost like mug shots of detainees,one gets the impression they are natural. By choosing specific physical features, Ms Berkeley, is providing a much more specific viewpoint and possibly one that may not carry the same weight as Sander's social study.

mizore · November 21, 2009

Nothing I can find on line suggests that the German National Socialist Party considered August Sanders a supporter of Aryan principles. And I can't see him as a complete genetic determinist, especially considering the rest of what Sanders said shaped human beings:

"[w]e know that people are formed by the light and air, by their inherited traits, and their actions. We can tell from appearance the work someone does or does not do; we can read in his face whether he is happy or troubled,"

</blockquote>

Berkeley is deconstructing the girl shot as depicting conventional beauty in certain conventional relationships with the camera man (most of the time, the woman being photographed is being photographed by a man and is relating to the photography as if it was a flirtation, see any of the top rated portraits of women on this site, especially photographs of brides). It's work that is useful in a time when the typical girl shot is more and more a construction that no living woman can present in real life. I've seen a video online of what is done to make a glamour face shot, including Photoshopping the eyes to make them look larger.

Preview <a href="http://www.amadelio.org/berkeley_carucci_rose/berkeley_carucci_rose_film_dvd_trailer.htm">here</a> (contains nudity) of a video about four women photographers, including Berkeley, on love, sex, and family. Ashley MacLean and Traci Matlock are people I hadn't heard of before so this Google photo chase has been fun.

joe_jackson4 · November 22, 2009

John, I just saw pictures of people's heads... Simple recordings of the light reflected off the skin and hair, etc... Photographic "portraits", as some people call them.

Given that there are literally billions of human heads in the world - and most people over the age of five are fully aware that they can have different features - it's really rather difficult to have any great interest in these particular examples.

Julie H · November 23, 2009

I find it interesting that Paul Wilkins sincerely (he's always sincere) takes a photograph to be a container with objects in it.

A photograph doesn't contain objects. The finished photograph is the object, the thing. It's the whole thing; the only thing.

Photographs are not object-based images (i.e. vector art; discrete objects made from outlines with fill). Photos are pixel (or silver) based, continuous tone. All of the pixels in a finished photograph of the kind we are talking about here are there because it pleased the artist to have them as they are; all of them.

Why do people so commonly resist seeing a photograph as a whole rather than as some sort of collection of canned objects?

[Note that this object-based attitude also affects how one makes pictures.]

b_hayden · November 23, 2009

<blockquote>Photographs are not object-based images (i.e. vector art; discrete objects made from outlines with fill). Photos are pixel (or silver) based, continuous tone. All of the pixels in a finished photograph of the kind we are talking about here are there because it pleased the artist to have them as they are; all of them.</blockquote>

This is just as incorrect as the assertion you're fighting against, and for the same reason. A photograph is both of these things, and many others, depending on the photograph in question.

joe_jackson4 · November 23, 2009

Julie, other people's on-line snaps are clearly a disposable commodity these days... I click, I skim, I move on. Very quickly.

For whatever reason, pictures of complete strangers' faces/heads rarely interest me... Just eyes, noses and mouths... Big deal... OK, if they're pics of some remarkably appealing hyperfoxy chickstress or something, well, that's different, obviously... Not the case here, truth be told, therefore I found myself dismissing them as worthless (to me) garbage in a matter of seconds.

Julie H · November 24, 2009

For whatever reason, pictures of complete strangers' faces/heads rarely interest me... Just eyes, noses and mouths... Big deal...

</blockquote>

You were expecting to find "hyperfoxy chickstress," or movie stars, or other celebrities in this forum?

You have many times posted about your disappointment at what you find here. Yet you keep coming back. You secretly love us? Or peeping at Philosophy of Photography turns you on in some naughty sort of way?

joe_jackson4 · November 24, 2009

"You were expecting to find "hyperfoxy chickstress," or movie stars, or other celebrities in this forum?"

Why not? Photographs of such people are highly popular and seem to generate much interest in many people, after all. Actually, I vaguely remember the subject of celebrity being discussed here in the past.

Now, in all honesty, I can't say that I'm all that interested in photos of celebrities myself - they're just human beings, doing what they do to get by (or not...) - and, for very similar reasons, neither am I particularly interested in "portraits" of strangers. No reason to be.

I am, however, sometimes reasonably content to look at pictures of lickalicious supercuties. Eyes, noses, mouths, legs, T&A... It's all good.

joe_jackson4 · November 24, 2009

Just to clarify my comments there, I just don't seem to find people photos (of complete strangers...) all that interesting, in general, unless they happen to be doing something interesting... Or perhaps the environment they're in is interesting to me...

The thing is, the girls in that link are basically just stood there doing nothing particular of note in front of some not-so-fascinating-to-me foliage... So all I can really do is look at their heads. Is that interesting to me...? Nope.

edrodgers · November 24, 2009

I find these images to be beautiful, not only from a human standpoint, but a photographic one. It has nothing to do with who made them, or how. If anyone is annoyed with the low technical quality or lighting, or the subjects, then I think it's because they are upset that their technical skills don't compensate for their lack of artistry.

jtk · November 24, 2009

"Nothing I can find on line suggests that the German National Socialist Party considered August Sanders a supporter of Aryan principles. "

There were never such phenomena as "Aryan principles." Germans weren't "Aryans" any more than the blackest Bengalis.

I mentioned Sander (singular: not Sanders) in connection with the biological determinism of various Europeans and Americans only because he participated in a then-dominant pseudo-scientific error that survives today as racist fraud (eg Bell Curve).

It happens that an effectively identical "intellectual error" was used to slaughter millions in death camps (remember?). Yes, there are plenty of Nazi websites, but I don't have the inclination... this is a photo website.

I didn't assert any connection between Sander and Nazis (not the same as "fascists"), I was referring to cynical utilization of biological determinism. I erred by mentioning "fascism" ... that was sure to fire someone up unnecessarily.

Sander was evidently denounced by Nazis: he'd espoused (in writing) the wrong flavor of vintage faux-science (which he pursued photographically).

Sander's portraits (I have a fine poster of his baker, no place to hang it) are superficially similar to Irving Penn's "Small Trades" photos... Sanders embraced a standard Northern European prejudice about biological determinism, and yes...Hitler's closely parallel theory grew to monstrosity, surviving today in some quarters of the US. By contrast, Penn seems to have seen equality in humanity, across races and cultures.

<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=rrnC5TztV0EC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=august+sander+photographer+biological+determinism&source=bl&ots=GnOge1Dqzh&sig=1PbsRbMjnemlExr7iuUEzFLwn2M&hl=en&ei=fw8MS-GWJ4vIsAOqov2lAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=august%20sander%20photographer%20biological%20determinism&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=rrnC5TztV0EC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=august+sander+photographer+biological+determinism&source=bl&ots=GnOge1Dqzh&sig=1PbsRbMjnemlExr7iuUEzFLwn2M&hl=en&ei=fw8MS-GWJ4vIsAOqov2lAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=august%20sander%20photographer%20biological%20determinism&f=false</a>

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/08/irving-penn-obituary">http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/08/irving-penn-obituary</a>

Norma Desmond · November 24, 2009

Something's been bothering for several days about the title of this thread.

I just realized how "wimmen" [sic] was spelled. I believe the more usual alternative spelling is either "wimmin" or "womyn." The point was to leave "men" out of it. I'm not sure, John, if you were being ironic with this spelling or it was unintentional. I finally realized it this morning. Thanks for bearing with me. Typographers never rest. Getting through the NY Times without wanting to kern headlines is a major challenge. ;)

lightwait · November 24, 2009

What is it we're seeing in these faces?

Is it merely a few relationships outside the norm? Cheek bones set too far apart? Mouths open? Mouths not as wide as the should be in relation to the eye set?

Why should these "off" relationships disturb us?

Regarding technique, why not throw in a dash of chiaroscuro here and there? Or, perhaps a little flash fill off the golden sand? How about a touch of sweat mist on those cheekers? Wouldn't these sorts of things (generally) invite a trivial, 'uglies can be pretty too' reading?

What are we doing when we "flatter" a subject with our adjustments and choices? Aren't we saying, ironically, Lie for the camera?

What does 'best light' really mean in this context?

I'm not sure what the photographer is trying to say, but I'd like to think she is asking us to ask about ourselves -- causing, persuading, tricking us into reflecting on what our visual processing really consists of.

Norma Desmond · November 24, 2009

dual post. sorry.

lightwait · November 24, 2009

One of the things that kind of unnerved or bothered me was the sense of recognition that the photographer had put her finger directly on something.

Sign In

wimmen Tanyth Berkeley

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in