Looking at a photo for more than ten seconds

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>That's the first I've seen of those photographers in name and work, Julie. I wish I had the motivation to develop a roster of other photographer's work from past and present as you, but there's just so much time in a day. But I'm glad you can remember all them and post links to them, Julie.</p>

<p>I agree with your assessment of Kepe's work. The connectedness of 'evidence' in photographic reality or the lack there of going by that google search collection is that he's made it too obvious with his dazzling but odd and unique abstracts that he's found or created a world in reality that no one has access to and thus can't relate or confirm whether it's real.</p>

<p>I mean where did this guy live to find all these various unfamiliar objects? They don't look like they're randomly found as if one would stumble upon them in the natural world. They look more like they're arranged, setup and maybe even manufactured which suggests more of a "mark making by the artist" concept (really good quotes from Tillman). I don't see this as any different from computer generate fractal patterns seeing there's nothing to ground the viewer. I'm left with "It looks great but what is it and why?" unresolved questions.</p>

<p>They look better as a collection as an overall design due to their contrasting appearances seemingly reducing them to functioning as interior design pieces. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Tim, I actually thought of you this morning when reading the intro to one of the Kepes books. Here is just a bit (the whole thing might kill you ... ). This is so ridiculous, so wildly over-the-top ... and it's written by a fellow at the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at MIT (where Kepes worked). Here you go:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The wide array of Kepes' art derives its primordial strength through its metaphoric contact with the earth, in all its diverse extravagance. His earth-eye senses the writing of light in fields and on forest floors, light glimmering in nests of vegetal splendor and well-being. In his vision, this earth light is woven into nature's fecundity. ...</p>

<p>"... An example: in <em>Bread and Light</em>, seeing dives into being and bends round the fundamental food. A wedge of nurture becomes light -- becomes wheat -- becomes bread -- becomes food -- becomes sharing -- becomes seeing -- becomes love -- becomes light. This potent emblem is a gateway to a cosmos filled to its last corner with portent, a portent of goodness that Kepes undertakes to capture in this work, which is both hieroglyph and icon."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Made even me laugh and think, wouldn't it be fun to pop that juicy bit of baloney on photo.net? And here it is.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Wall is completely different from Crewdson.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"comparing the Paul Graham photo to a Jeff Wall staged street photo, it's similar in feel"</p>

<p>I think I agree, but I'm still thinking ... :)</p>

<p>Noting that 1) I really like the picture Steve picked out, but; 2) it's not typical of Graham's work. Which is just fine; I just want to point that out. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>"How do Seydou Keita's backgrounds compare to Irving Penn's backgrounds ... "</p>

<p>I was thinking that very thought while writing that post. I really want to look at the Penn stuff and will do so tomorrow morning. No time right now. I look forward to it (I love this kind of one-thing-leads-to-another).</p>

<p>Or, you might ask about Wall's founding picture of the wrecked room that deliberately shows that it's a construction. Kind of the inverse of the accidental real seeping in.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I am going to be much more evasive than you (Avedon is beloved by many; and/or I am a chicken). The painter Philip Guston once said, in a speech:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"To know and yet how not to know is the greatest puzzle of all. We are primitives in spite of our knowing. So much preparation for a few moments of innocence -- of desperate play. To learn how to unlearn."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's my opinion that that applies to Penn but not to Avedon. Keita is too remote from me to say one way or the other -- except that for me looking at his work, it seems, in some respects, to <em>start</em> from an unlearned place.</p>

<p>Just saw your newest post. Don't f*$k fashion; his work with the Japanese guy is just scary weird. Come on, you know you love it!</p>

[Julie H]

<p>This morning, looking at <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/penn_miyake_fashion01.jpg">an Irving Penn fashion photo</a> done for/of the work of Issey Miyake. Scanned this morning just for you, and <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/penn_miyake_fashion01.jpg">found here</a>.<br>

<br>

Looking; thinking:</p>

<p>Because it's fashion, of course it's about the crotch, so Penn gives us two; one in flesh, one in metal(ic).</p>

<p>Fashion as hiding place; fashion as armor. Fashion as identity; fashion as chrysalis.</p>

<p>Hatching.</p>

<p>Tension nodes everywhere. Horns, lowered; black insect eyes. But also pathetic in-turned puffy pajama feet. And nowhere is there a (real) face beyond the central black eye of the doubled crotch.</p>

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

<p><a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/penn_nude01.jpg">A Penn nude</a>. This is just a pleasure to look at. Needs no words. A <em>real</em> nude. Gorgeous. (Note that the seemingly blown whites are in the original and are a common feature of Penn's style.)</p>

[Supriyo]

Forced assignments in schools have killed many of our passions.

[Julie H]

<p>Boy, Supriyo. Your post sent me down all kinds of memory lanes. Not going to tell what they were, but I'm happy to be back.</p>

<p>Phil I (finally!) remembered you'd linked a Gibson photo a few posts back. It is good. For some reason (or no reason), the bit of fabric or whatever that lighter patch is that is at the center of the lady's back, just makes the picture for me. But I hate that the large letters, which I enjoy as <em>letters</em>, say 'BAR.' That is just such a 'duh' killjoy for me.</p>

<p>Risking your wrath, I'm finding myself thinking that Phil likes scene transition locations -- doors of all kinds.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Forced assignments in schools have killed many of our passions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Especially when they have a huge influence on end of term grade averages. I'm reminded of the poster design assignment based on visually communicating the concept and title behind "Form And Purpose" as an end of year project attending The Art Institute Of Houston.</p>

<p>The winner of the poster contest illustrated the title with a drawing of a giant paper clip towering and casting a long shadow over a very tiny short stature group of suit and tie office workers. I looked at that poster for more than ten seconds not because it attracted my attention but confounded me in how it was communicating "Form And Purpose".</p>

<p>In fact the seconds are still ticking by as I'm picturing the poster in mind still trying to figure that out.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>This morning I have an imaginary picture stuck in my head. Here's the story:</p>

<p>Yesterday, I cleaned, with soap and water, a very fine piece of raw quartz that it took me forever to find, and that I need for a composite I'm working on. Scrubbed it carefully, gently with a brush under warm water and diluted dish soap, feeling its texture and weight; studying its facets and shape. Dried it carefully and put it where I could study it further throughout the rest of the day.</p>

<p>So, last night I had a dream. I was doing underwater photography (I never do underwater photography) of seals. They were darting in and out of sight, in and out of darkness, the way seals always do in nature films (which is the only place I've ever seen seals). As one very nice one passed very close to me, I thought it was not quite the way I wanted it to be, so I freeze-framed the scene. And then proceeded to, carefully and gently, scrub the seal with a brush and soap (underwater?). Mainly around its right front flipper and neck. When it was done to my satisfaction, I un-freeze-framed the scene and the seal was gone into the darkness in the blink of an eye. At which point I thought to myself, "You should have marked it or something; how will you know which one it is?"</p>

<p>All morning, I've had the image of myself scrubbing the seal underwater, stuck in my head. The light, the feel, the temp of the water, my fussy watching to see that I got it nicely clean ...</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Good lord, that Crewdson bird pic is even worse than mine!</p>

<p>All my bird composite projects are failures, to my mind.</p>

<p>I feel like I understand their chemistry, and I try to ... mesh it or meet it with mine, but it's like the sun and the stars; you can't see the latter when the former is shining. In other words, my own is too loud or central to let their flittering subtlety work with it in the same picture. Birds alone don't interest me; I want to find where they and I meet.</p>

<p>This project I'm getting ready to do is going to be my last bird effort. I quit shooting them last winter but I have two years of unused prior shooting (more than 20,000 birds, and they're good quality -- I have gotten better as the years go by ... ) to choose from, so I want to give it one last try. Here's hoping.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>A photograph or any work of art no matter how good doesn't solve anything, if anything things are made more ( unnecessarily ) complex</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Reminds me of annealing ... heat up a substance and cool down slowly, it assumes a more stable form. The previous form had been a metastable one, thus an illusion. Perhaps some artworks act as mental annealing. Watch --> Weave complexities --> let the mind cool down --> a new simpler truth is realized that is more pervasive than the preexisting one.<br /> <br /> Not sure what I am babbling ...</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p> so I freeze-framed the scene. And then proceeded to, carefully and gently, scrub the seal with a brush and soap (underwater?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Not to divert from the discussion, but Julie's dream reminds me of 4K videos (or even better with 8K coming in future) where any frame of a video can be made into a nice 8 MP still image. The photographer's job at that point becomes more of selecting a frame rather than reacting in real time. How does our attitude towards photography change with such technology becoming possible.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"Reminds me of annealing ... heat up a substance and cool down slowly, it assumes a more stable form. The previous form had been a metastable one, thus an illusion. Perhaps some artworks act as mental annealing. Watch --> Weave complexities --> let the mind cool down --> a new simpler truth is realized that is more pervasive than the preexisting one."</p>

<p>That's <em>really</em> good.</p>

<p>And yes to the dream/video ideas. (I hope everybody knows it's okay to laugh at the dream; I am ... ) I was thinking that maybe it's become automatic for me to manipulate the visible. </p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Supriyo Battacharya: <em>Reminds me of annealing ... heat up a substance and cool down slowly, it assumes a more stable form. The previous form had been a metastable one, thus an illusion. Perhaps some artworks act as mental annealing. Watch --> Weave complexities --> let the mind cool down --> a new simpler truth is realized that is more pervasive than the preexisting one.</em><br /><br /><em> Not sure what I am babbling ...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>I agree with Julie. That<em> is</em> really good, and it makes sense. A concise way of expressing the affect that some photographs have upon me. Babble on. (No pun intended.)</p>

[Julie H]

<blockquote>

<p>"Reminds me of annealing ... heat up a substance and cool down slowly, it assumes a more stable form. The previous form had been a metastable one, thus an illusion. Perhaps some artworks act as mental annealing. Watch --> Weave complexities --> let the mind cool down --> a new simpler truth is realized that is more pervasive than the preexisting one."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>[Note: I think this is in <em>dis</em>agreement with the quote it references from Phil, but I'm ignoring that. Phil may choose to comment ... ]</p>

<p>The reason I think that's "really good" is because it's a "really good" formulation of the unspoken Nicene Creed, or the blood and body consumed with eyes closed, of photography. Assumed without noticing that it's been assumed.</p>

<p>Except for modern heretics like Paul Graham, or Rinko Kawauchi, or Wolfgang Tillmans or many more. The assumed-without-knowing-its-assumed mindset of almost all photographers is probably why such heretics seem so incomprehensible or nonsensical. If not annealing, what's the point? What are they doing?</p>

<p>Stanley Wolukau-Wanambwa writing about Paul Graham:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"We are accustomed to the uniformity of deep focal clarity, and to the way in which it suggests that an any moment each of us is coincident with, or consubstantial with anyone else (the 'false democracy' to which Graham referred). ... Graham foregrounds the selectivity of viewing, and does so in a compositional format [diptychs and triptychs] that very closely resembles human sight in all its partiality and relativity, and in the uneven specificity of his pictures he unearths an unattended commonality ... "</p>

<p>"... the activity of seeing is coupled with the unattended absences that perspective inevitably generates, so that the cohesive expression of Graham's images might alert us to the limits of conventional perception."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David Chandler writing about Rinko Kawauchi:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"... a very distinctive approach to editing and bookmaking based, unaccountably it seemed, on simple traits of visual association that appeared to unlock an entirely new register of indeterminate emotional complexity. In this style, individual images could be exquisite, but mattered less and less: subordinate to the series and the sequential flow of the book, they lacked any sense of consistent formal restraint and there was no apparent striving for composure. The visible world drifted in these photographs from coherence, moments of incredible detail and almost tactile sharpness, into incoherence, a dissolved and amorphous reality, as if the photographer were trying to grasp the fugitive atmospheres of a dream."</p>

<p>"... Wolfgang Tillmans, an important influence on Kawauchi's sensibility ... once referred to his own rejection of something he called the "language of importance" in pictorial traditions. In tune with Tillmans, everything in Kawauchi's visual universe becomes similarly charged with potential for the camera."</p>

<p>" ... The rhythms of this life are recorded, rather than its set pieces: and here a breath, a touch, and a glance -- the things that happen inside the moment and that can never be clearly seen -- are as imperative as the instances of everyday grace that might present themselves, or the small miracles that we might discover. It is reasonable to suspect that, for Kawauchi, it is these rhythms, life's minor vibrations, as much as its pressing details, which harbor memory."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please note that this is not a matter of either-or. Photographers who do not assume, who are aware of "annealing," circle it, question it, use it, flirt with it, refer to it without doing it ... But <em>awareness</em> is new; it no longer assumes.</p>

<p>Also, please note that a lack of annealing does not mean there is (necessarily) mystery. It simply means that that photographer believes that the idea of annealing is an illusion.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>A quick response:</p>

<p>The two Winogrand's are just outstanding, and I don't recall seeing either of them before. The first one, more easily, that's just so delicious (Winogrand making such good use of color?), but I'm thinking the second is slower but maybe more nutritious.</p>

<p>I knew the Sternfeld (no <em>i</em>) by it's title; without looking. I love his work. It confounds me that you compare it to the Crewdson. No comparison, to my eye. Won't argue with you, but, but, but ... </p>

<p><em>Car 2</em> doesn't seem to be in the same league as the above (minus Crewdson ... ) but I'm still thinking. I'll probably have more to say in the morning. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>I'm having a good old time with the second Winogrand picture (<em>Houston 1964</em>).</p>

<p>To my eye, it's very sexual -- not in the sense of f****** but in the germy sense of the messy, swampy, generative intermingling. The overwhelming feeling of plunging into/downward; the feeling of the central woman falling into the light (though she's surely simply floating); the gooey, tangled-bank messiness of the furry (vegetation?) at the top, all the bits and pieces of stuff on the pool; the sexy shape of the pool -- like the torso of a bent woman ... or worm?; the "entering" figure on the pool ladder at the top, like sperm into an egg.</p>

<p>Equally interesting was a discovery about image presentation. I wanted to look at the picture off-line, so I found it in the big <em>Garry Winogrand</em> (2013) compendium put out by the SF Museum. And the picture was completely different. Weak. Trivial. Still. Flat. <em>WTF??</em></p>

<p>It's because it was paired, in the book's page spread, with this picture, <em><a href="http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6huleKl9W1rw3fqbo1_1280.jpg">Los Angeles, 1964</a></em>, which is a very well-known Winogrand of a side-to-side man/woman in car; man with Band-Aid on his nose, glaring at Winogrand (at us). That very strong side-to-side movement and especially the man's intense, hostile stare, completely obliterate the effect of the <em>Houston, 1964</em> picture.</p>

<p>I stared at the pair (<em>Houston</em> on the left, <em>Los Angeles</em> on the right) for a long time, puzzling over how layout can totally kill at least one of the pictures in a pair. Try it if you can get the two images open together.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>When 1st graders were asked to copy the Hido picture, <a href="http://www.photoeye.com/bookteaselight/bookteaselight.cfm?catalog=TR333&image=2">look at how they try to deal with the sky</a> -- kind of feeling for the sun, even though they can't really find it. I'm not sure if the stop sign's size is their own idea or not. I'm sure the orange ground and the cutout tree must be because of materials provided and coaching by their teacher.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>All of the images mentioned here are worth staring at. Personally I have found two aspects that often make me stare at things (excluding the cases where I am staring consciously to find info): one, nostalgia (e.g. even ordinary images from my hometown, I can't resist, I have been perpetually homesick), two, some sort of hypnotic effect due to either a sense of falling or other unnatural motion. The Houston, 1964 picture gives me a sense of acrophobia, at the same time, I am immensely attracted to the pool in the middle, as if I have to get there at any cost. This apparent conflict keeps me fixated on the image, while (may be) the brain is trying to figure out what is going on. The dreamy archetype of the image comes to mind initially, but doesn't stay long. For me, it is the new sensation that prevails.</p>

<p>Now, coming to the question of archetypes, 'simpler truth' to me is not necessarily an universal archetype (simpler not= universal). The term <em>simpler</em> was used to contrast with the previous complexities the mind was in. In fact (it is just my opinion), the easy to figure archetype(s) is the first thing I notice in a picture. I feel, given enough time and an image that <em>works</em>, one can move away from universal archetypes and pursue personal truth. Still archetypes could be involved there, but those would be individual archetypes.</p>

<p>Images that end up in universal archetypes and don't let me go anywhere are kind of boring. What fun is there to figure out something that everyone else figures out. Artist that doesn't whisper in my ears ..., uses a megaphone ...</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>I would pair it with something that looks up from below, may be. (thats my personal archetype)</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Like, you are so sure of everything in the image and suddenly you find something different.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Disorder or complexity that is integral, innate. That can't be scraped off.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Wow! All those linked photos washed over me for more than ten seconds, I'ld say some the strangest and out-of -body seconds I've experienced looking at still photos.</p>

<p>The <em>Houston 1964 </em>immediately hit home for me. It perfectly encapsulates the feeling of several years of my living in that town in the '80's & '90's. I immediately got a flashback to an incident that lasted only seconds back when I got my first apartment as a 20 year old attending the Art Institute Of Houston that has stayed with me for the rest of my life. I just wished I'ld photographed it at the time.</p>

<p>Houston, Texas was built too quickly by people who were only in it for the money and lots of it due to the oil boom with regard to skirting zoning laws and showing lack of quality of life concerns in urban design and planning. </p>

<p>I lived at the Beverly Hills Apartments that seemed to be dropped into the middle of an industrial complex and urban subdivision (mixed use on steroids). There was an unmarked warehouse/clinic/storage facility looking building with one door facing the street next to the apartment complex. I decided one day to open that door and saw a rather pinky red faced man laying face up on a gurney with a white sheet covering his body and a man in a white lab coat standing next to him quickly turning to look at me. I immediately slammed the door because I knew I was looking at a corpse and that building must've been either a morgue or funeral home. </p>

<p>That's Houston in a nutshell. Just wish I could've come up with a photograph that would encapsulate that moment as the <em>Houston 1964.</em></p>