Your Background

[cyanatic]

<p>And this thread started out so nicely.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Steve, I don't know if I was being clear in my discussion of Jeff's work, I don't know if it was clear that I was offering an art critique that was comprised of many levels of observation. That is what this site is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about our being, among other things, honest with each other isn't it? That isn't always nice. (I could be nicer in the way I express difficult things.)</p>

<p>Art is from where we know not. We don't know why as a species we have the ability to express ourselves creatively in art. Part of the contexts that art provides are deeply personal. Art is capable of fully engaging its viewer. Questions arise. Who made an art object and why? Those questions are important to a broader discussion of art appropriate for this forum, in my opinion. I am temperamentally inclined to view art primarily as an activity, not necessarily seeing art as what that activity produces.</p>

<p>Julie wrote "A photograph can't be a Rorschach (it *is* figure), but it can turn the tables -- we are being read." We are being read, a camera lens illuminates the mind of the eye behind it and art illumnates the world beheld by that mind, simultaneously. Artists put a lot of themselves into the world, both of the impersonal and of the deeply personal. I'm sure we are all aware of that fact. What should be clear is that we are responsible for what we put out in the world. Knowing that, it shouldn't be surprising that others will hold us responsible for what we put out in the world in the way of photographic images.</p>

<p>Can we speak to those specifics? How? It can be awkward, and accompanied by strong emotion. And those discussion are self revealing. For example, Lex has said he contributed pictures that were also pictures of himself, part of a shared alienation if I understood his written words correctly. I can relate to that. Partly photography is a respite for me, partly a grappling, and even so, it is something I enjoy. It is important to me to hear those kind of personal details. It was nice that Lex offered that to us. I don't know, but it takes some guts and hardness to put our art out there in the world, not knowing fully what it exposes about ourselves and what it exposes about the world we live in. Anything can happen. Those unknown elements are part of art's fascination.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Steve wrote: " ... unless Brassai posed this shot ... "</p>

<p>LOL. He's shooting at night (before modern lighting) with a Voigtlander Bergheil with a single lens (a Heliar 10.5 cm) on a tripod using 9x6 cm glass plates. What would you guess the ISO is for that baby?</p>

<p>He not only posed the "given" people, he hired (and posed) actors, and, if necessary, used himself in his own pictures -- not as self-portraits but playing a part.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Show us some of yours. I don't feel limited. I'd like to see why you do."</em></p>

<p>Given the type of photographs I make, I worry a little that an "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" approach would lead to some strange sightings. I remember Carlos once commenting on a self nude I did that he wonders if this could lead to a fraternity of old dudes (among my regular commenters) doing nudes of themselves and Steve was more than a little reticent not only to do it but even to picture it! :-)</p>

<p>The art of critique has little if anything to do with the art of making the same type of pictures one is critiquing, IMO. I've <em>heard</em> why he does. That's enough for me.</p>

<p>I actually do feel quite limited and it's a little strange to say that out loud but it leaves me room for breaking some of my self imposed limits which is exciting.</p>

<p>I'll address just one comment to Charles's comment about Jeff's work. One of the reasons I like reading critiques of others' photos is that they sometimes ring true to me and my own work. A bunch of what Charles said does ring true for me, particularly about the tendency to replace what are considered old cultures and paradigms with new ones, when I think I'm being brave but instead just adopting a different safety net.</p>

<p>Take that nude self portrait. "Brave" or some form of it was probably the word that most stood out to me in a lot of the comments. I knew almost immediately that it wasn't brave and was helped to see that in the very brief comment of a very good commenter. It was, in fact, as he put it, tentative. Knowing that is sort of a good thing in that it's a truth and on some level the photo actually showed my honesty (about myself and my tentativeness). But in showing that it revealed a lot more, it revealed some of my limits, which I surely do have and am constantly excited to try to overcome. In many ways that photo was as cowardly as it was brave. Only because I was willing to reveal the tentativeness without at first knowing it was someone else willing to "confront" me with it. Another way to say "confront" here is "bother to care."</p>

<p>What often is at work in my own background is this exploration and struggle of hiding behind the mask, showing the mask, trying to reach beyond the mask. If I do that at all authentically, I expect to occasionally if not often get caught hiding behind something myself. Because that's what I do and have done and it's hella (did I just say that!) hard to change.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The art of critique has little if anything to do with the art of making the same type of pictures one is critiquing,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I agree with that statement, but I think the comment that one can only make a limited number of photos of a certain type of subject says far more about the commenter than anyone else. Limits are personal boundaries. The comment about what number of photos can be taken of a specific type of subject has little to do with my photo and that's why I asked to see something. I would like to understand why Charles feels so limited.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A bunch of what Charles said does ring true for me, particularly about the tendency to replace what are considered old cultures and paradigms with new ones,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> The comments on my photo of Kiki appear to derive from an inability to understand a newer culture.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Julie, an excellent question. One of the best I have seen in a while. The photographer is responsible for everything in the frame including the background. Since you are compositing you are probably paying way more attention to the bg and have way more control as well. As a portraitist, I have total bg control in studio and my location work usually starts with a search for the right bg instead of good light. Why? A truck load of lighting gear takes care of creating good lighting including lighting/coloring/patterning the bg in small locations or controlled tonal contrast with subject either subtracting light from subject or lighting subject or subtracting light globally with a vari nd then adding back light on subject. Great timing though, I don't regularly composite, but am heading out to catch the light at the right angle at a location to match a studio lighting setup next week. I expect compositing shows up on the Digital Darkroom forum where I infrequently visit but perhaps should drop in once in a while.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"The comments on my photo of Kiki appear to derive from an inability to understand a newer culture."</em></p>

<p>Maybe. Maybe not. I took the comments to be not about the culture <em>per se</em> but about its symbols, signs, and the way culture is used and, more importantly conveyed, in photos and what that can say about our own acculturation as photographers.</p>

<p>Interestingly, culture is often the real background to a lot of photography and art.</p>

<p>And, when I said this . . .</p>

<p><em>"A bunch of what Charles said does ring true for me"</em></p>

<p>. . . I had in mind that it rang true in terms of my own work.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie H</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 27, 2013; 05:15 a.m.<br>

Steve wrote: " ... unless Brassai posed this shot ... "<br>

LOL. He's shooting at night (before modern lighting) with a Voigtlander Bergheil with a single lens (a Heliar 10.5 cm) on a tripod using 9x6 cm glass plates. What would you guess the ISO is for that baby?<br>

He not only posed the "given" people, he hired (and posed) actors, and, if necessary, used himself in his own pictures -- not as self-portraits but playing a part.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Way to publicly expose my ignorance, Julie. I hope you're satisfied. ;-)</p>

<p>Charles -- Sorry if it seemed as if my remark was about you. It was, partly, but it was meant more as a lighthearted general observation on the direction in which this thread was headed. I want to digest your further thoughts (they're interesting and merit discussion, I think) before I comment on them. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Steve, actually what I exposed is your very good sense in not buying ridiculous numbers of photo books ...</p>

<p>***********</p>

<p>Bob Bill, your bringing up lighting has completely grabbed my attention. My first thought was a snarky, "That's like a painter claiming to use paint to work out his background -- like he could use anything else!" But I realize that's not parallel. Because photography is analytic not synthetic.</p>

<p>We're dealing, not with what we add, but with what's already there. Or is it?</p>

<p>I'm asking people to answer not the question of "When a tree falls and nobody's there, does it make a sound?" (if you don't see/notice/analyze the background/light, is it there?) but rather, I'm asking "If you kind of, sort of, just barely, out of the corner of your ear, think maybe you notice the sound of a tree falling, did it make a sound, or was that just ear-wax moving around?"</p>

<p>[i'm having fun with the idea right now, but I am truly interested. The wheels are turning, the gears are possibly meshing, and I will hope to post something serious, even earth-shattering, or at least ear-wax jiggling tomorrow morning (I am only capable of thinking clearly early in the morning).]</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"The kid's red sneakers provide just a little punctuation mark which doesn't occur in the b/w version." Fred.</p>

<p>Very observant, Fred. A catch light.. the wrong terminology but you take the meaning.</p>

<p>Which makes me think of objects within the photo part of the glue of foreground/background but have something to say.</p>

<p>For instance the coke can in this photo. Has it something to say..."coca cola the real thing" .</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Haiku</a>. It seems to me with its shortness, and with its cutting contrast, it should be possible to do a sort of visual Haiku with photography. Background would have a prominent place in a Haiku photographic form? Are there any examples? Has anyone tried to do that before?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the photography of Michael Kenna and <a href="http://www.f45.com/">Rolfe Horn</a> could be described as visual haiku. And has been. But it's not so much due to the background as to the very spare compositions and consistency in form and theme.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Back grounds/foregrounds... clever manipulations.</p>

<p>But have they something to say?</p>

<p>Perhaps we should call them Art for something to say.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Perhaps, Fine Art.</p>

<p>A clever pretty picture with nothing to say....but.</p>

<p>Hey, I'm a very clever pretty picture...with all that stuff...which means sod all.</p>

<p>Just a thought to share.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Tell me, reach out to me....</p>

<p>What do you have to say....?</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Some ramblings which Allen inspired:</p>

<p>Backgrounds, foregrounds . . .<br>

Figure, ground . . .<br>

Wholes, parts . . .<br>

Objective, subjective . . .<br>

Perspectives, world views . . .</p>

<p>If I am truly self-aware, can I always make out these distinctions?<br>

Are there any such distinctions for a solipsist?<br>

Does it really matter in the end?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Does it really matter in the end?"</em></p>

<p>Michael, I can only tell you how it matters to me. When I hear a critique such as Charles offered above, I look for ways that I can apply it to my own work and to my own abilities to be authentic. I wonder how much my own background has influenced me, how much I want it to, and how much I want to try to break free from it, to whatever extent that may be possible. I look physically at my photos and see what uses I make of backgrounds, what things I've become dependent on and what things I create for myself as I become independent. Photography and art have an aspect of the magical, but they are not all magic. Some of it requires thought, consideration, exercise, practice, rethinking, just as some of it requires instinct, probably some innate talent, and a lot of other things. If I want not to remain static, not to be monotone, not to only adopt others' voices, then, yes, all this matters. Some will say just get out there and shoot. I would say that's bad advice, in a vacuum of having some kind of inner/emotional/intellectual depth or, as Allen succinctly utters, <em>"something to say."</em></p>

[charleswood]

<p>Thanks Lex for that Haiku information.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Michael - "Are there any such distinctions for a solipsist?"</p>

<p>Is that the philosophy Dr. Johnson refuted by stubbing his toe?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Allen - "Has it something to say..."coca cola the real thing" ."</p>

<p>Maybe. I'm not sure. I've argued that Jeff's photo of Kiki is not a photograph of Kiki's authenticity and that the background in that photo works to suggest that possibility. That background consists of images from a highly sexist subculture. Kiki's placement against that background suggest to me that Kiki colludes with that sexist subculture's precepts in order to 'fit in'.</p>

<p>In contrast, your photograph of a woman seems to show a woman who is displaying true feeling. But a coke can represents the quintessence of commercialism, unreality. We all know that Coke isn't the real thing, it's contrived water. Tears are water, and the woman shows them. I'm not sure what to make of that juxtaposition.</p>

<p>How would you compare and contrast the themes expressed in both Jeff's and your photographs?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Background is the living skin of the day.</p>

<p>Light is the <em>living</em> in that living skin -- beyond the chemistry, the physics, the cellular mechanics. [Again, thank you Bob Bill for prompting me to realize this.*]</p>

<p>Think of the face of somebody you know. Can you tell me what their skin is like? But if it blushes, if it pales, if it yellows, or becomes spotted or bleeds, then can you tell me? What parts of it "make" the face? All, some, none? When does it surface into particular recognition?</p>

<p>You can't make a skin; it has to grow. Imagine a face that grew from start to finish in one day. That's the skin of the day as the light grows it. The flicker, the shimmer, the watered silk of blush and pale and bleeding.</p>

<p>Bob Bill is "scouting" for a skin. He's "casting" the face that he'll find when he adds the eyes (his portrait subjects -- that part of the face that you consciously look at and pay particular attention to). Notice that he has to go and look, just like you have to be asked to go look "at" the skin of "somebody you know" (as I did above). It requires a particular effort to see it.</p>

<p>[*It is just this kind almost random germination that I love about this forum.]</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred, can you please be more specific regarding the comment(s) Charles made earlier?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, it is Charles's post which is second below Jeff's photo of the woman holding the Jack Daniel's bottle:</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4890042">Charles W</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 26, 2013; 05:54 p.m.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Charles, I'm not sure that Johnson himself stubbed his toe, or rather that he suggested that Berkeley do so to refute his own idealism. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred -</p>

<p>If I understand correctly, the key to your response is being authentic. Did you take Charles as asserting this when he likened his camera to a samurai's sword?</p>

<p>I must admit that I am having some difficulty here, so whatever elucidation you could provide would be most appreciated.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, you didn't read the post I directed you to, which didn't mention samurai swords. The one I'm talking about is a good post and worth considering well beyond Jeff's photo. As I said, I considered how it pertained to my own photos and growth as well. As I said, it's two posts below Jeff's photo.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4890042" rel="nofollow">Charles W</a> <a href="/member-status-icons" rel="nofollow"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 26, 2013; 05:54 p.m.</p>