Some Background Ramblings Part 2
From a previous version of this blog
About the images.
Firstly, Why so many pictures? I`ve been asked this many times, andthere are many reasons. The technique attracts me because it gives me far far more control in creating the overall image. I am afforded the use of a full range of photographic devices within any one piece and am constrained only by the physical realities of the scene I have chosen. I leave the buildings where they are, the roads don't lead off in imaginary directions and if there`s a pole or a lamppost interfering with the composition I try to shoot around it. The changes that occur in my work are real ones. Time of day, the weather, the movement of people and vehicles all conspire with the camera`s many functions to make the overall image as dynamic (or static) as possible. It`s pushing it to call the work documentary and Im not trying to sell it as such but consider that within one fabricated piece, there are several - often many hundred photographs that remain faithful to the moment in which they were shot. As such, my pieces are representations of the many actual realities of a scene. The second reason for shooting so much is more personal. when I was in photography school we were thought to compose, light, shoot, process and display in a thoroughly professional manner. I often found myself dissatisfied with my work though. I felt that I was creating little; rather I was applying accepted visual rules to my own ideas. I felt that I was learning to shoot through other people's eyes and little of my work seemed personal to me. It was like flipping through the pages of a fashion magazine, or any magazine with advertising shots, or looking in the window of a modern portrait studio. I have no problem with any of these genres of photography. They all have their merits and many of my own photographic heroes have excelled in one or all of them. But I found them too clean. We shot clean, processed clean and touched up.... clean, ending up with images that were just shadows, worse - misleading and idealized illusions of real situations or real people . For me they did`nt seem to represent anything. Here`s my point... I realize that I manipulate my images, indeed, my work is quite obviously a fabrication, it does not try to trick anyone in this regard. But it is not an idealized fabrication. It is a complicated, untidy and often flawed version of reality which to my eyes has much truth to it and is far more human. We live in unbelievably complicated times. We are bombarded from everywhere by sounds, imagery and information of all sorts. I want to create imagery that betrays at least a sense of this subtle chaos that often rules us. I dont claim that any one of my images is intended as a simple metaphor for the complexity or untidiness of human society, yet for me at least, the metaphor is present and it is one of the stars I steer by.
The second obvious fact about my work is that it all revolves around cities, and different cities at that. It is difficult to shoot a sustained photographic project, set loosely and in so many different locations and consider it a cohesive body of work, let alone one that actually means anything; Yet this is what I wish to achieve and in time I hope that the breadth of the work will contribute much to that meaning. The first reason for choosing cities is simply that they intrigue me. The second reason is that they are the best fit to my technique . The variety of lighting conditions, the changing scenery and the physical aspects all play well into my schemes for using different media and interpretations for different areas within a piece. This for me is a very important thing . People may like or dislike my work, but none I think can claim that it is not visually engaging. I have seen supporters and detractors alike linger over these pieces, taking time to absorb them. The work demands more effort from the observer as good work should! And, I hope, it rewards in full. I`m not detracting from conventional single image photography, not at all! Good work is good work and I have seen amazing work in galleries all over the world by photographers I could only hope to emulate. But I`ve often seen work that is visually flat and dimensionless and worse... repetitive. And this I refuse to add to. The third reason is equally important and relates both to the construction of the work and the metaphorical aspect I addressed earlier. Cities are in themselves simply an amalgamation of millions of individual components and individuals that combined, amount to a visual, cultural and physical expression that is far greater then the sum of its parts and just as unique as any of them. Not dissimilar to joiners if you follow? Cities are held together physically by synthetic adhesives; And socially by pre-established rules and day to day - moment to moment decisions. The construction of joiners as an artistic expression is not so different in my opinion. As I said earlier, I find the joiner a suitable metaphor for the complicated and untidy nature of human society. But I also think it is an apt metaphor for the physical and social aspects of the urban condition. The final reason I shoot cities is their relevance. As of late 2005 more then half of us live in cities. This is the first time in history when the predominant mode of human habitation has been urban. The world is getting smaller while we are multiplying. Our cities are slowly becoming more and more multicultural. I have set this project in a variety of cities around the world, but I have never intended it to be a kind of showcase or travelogue. I look at cities as a phenomenon and each location is a different color on a different part of the spectrum of that phenomenon. The location of the image is never given in the title, though some may be obvious. The work simply tries to take in as many models and flavors of urban life as it can. Diversity and change is rooted in the DNA of each piece but also in the project as a whole. I hope to continue and expand on this as I produce more work and take in more locations.
About the images.
Firstly, Why so many pictures? I`ve been asked this many times, andthere are many reasons. The technique attracts me because it gives me far far more control in creating the overall image. I am afforded the use of a full range of photographic devices within any one piece and am constrained only by the physical realities of the scene I have chosen. I leave the buildings where they are, the roads don't lead off in imaginary directions and if there`s a pole or a lamppost interfering with the composition I try to shoot around it. The changes that occur in my work are real ones. Time of day, the weather, the movement of people and vehicles all conspire with the camera`s many functions to make the overall image as dynamic (or static) as possible. It`s pushing it to call the work documentary and Im not trying to sell it as such but consider that within one fabricated piece, there are several - often many hundred photographs that remain faithful to the moment in which they were shot. As such, my pieces are representations of the many actual realities of a scene. The second reason for shooting so much is more personal. when I was in photography school we were thought to compose, light, shoot, process and display in a thoroughly professional manner. I often found myself dissatisfied with my work though. I felt that I was creating little; rather I was applying accepted visual rules to my own ideas. I felt that I was learning to shoot through other people's eyes and little of my work seemed personal to me. It was like flipping through the pages of a fashion magazine, or any magazine with advertising shots, or looking in the window of a modern portrait studio. I have no problem with any of these genres of photography. They all have their merits and many of my own photographic heroes have excelled in one or all of them. But I found them too clean. We shot clean, processed clean and touched up.... clean, ending up with images that were just shadows, worse - misleading and idealized illusions of real situations or real people . For me they did`nt seem to represent anything. Here`s my point... I realize that I manipulate my images, indeed, my work is quite obviously a fabrication, it does not try to trick anyone in this regard. But it is not an idealized fabrication. It is a complicated, untidy and often flawed version of reality which to my eyes has much truth to it and is far more human. We live in unbelievably complicated times. We are bombarded from everywhere by sounds, imagery and information of all sorts. I want to create imagery that betrays at least a sense of this subtle chaos that often rules us. I dont claim that any one of my images is intended as a simple metaphor for the complexity or untidiness of human society, yet for me at least, the metaphor is present and it is one of the stars I steer by.
The second obvious fact about my work is that it all revolves around cities, and different cities at that. It is difficult to shoot a sustained photographic project, set loosely and in so many different locations and consider it a cohesive body of work, let alone one that actually means anything; Yet this is what I wish to achieve and in time I hope that the breadth of the work will contribute much to that meaning. The first reason for choosing cities is simply that they intrigue me. The second reason is that they are the best fit to my technique . The variety of lighting conditions, the changing scenery and the physical aspects all play well into my schemes for using different media and interpretations for different areas within a piece. This for me is a very important thing . People may like or dislike my work, but none I think can claim that it is not visually engaging. I have seen supporters and detractors alike linger over these pieces, taking time to absorb them. The work demands more effort from the observer as good work should! And, I hope, it rewards in full. I`m not detracting from conventional single image photography, not at all! Good work is good work and I have seen amazing work in galleries all over the world by photographers I could only hope to emulate. But I`ve often seen work that is visually flat and dimensionless and worse... repetitive. And this I refuse to add to. The third reason is equally important and relates both to the construction of the work and the metaphorical aspect I addressed earlier. Cities are in themselves simply an amalgamation of millions of individual components and individuals that combined, amount to a visual, cultural and physical expression that is far greater then the sum of its parts and just as unique as any of them. Not dissimilar to joiners if you follow? Cities are held together physically by synthetic adhesives; And socially by pre-established rules and day to day - moment to moment decisions. The construction of joiners as an artistic expression is not so different in my opinion. As I said earlier, I find the joiner a suitable metaphor for the complicated and untidy nature of human society. But I also think it is an apt metaphor for the physical and social aspects of the urban condition. The final reason I shoot cities is their relevance. As of late 2005 more then half of us live in cities. This is the first time in history when the predominant mode of human habitation has been urban. The world is getting smaller while we are multiplying. Our cities are slowly becoming more and more multicultural. I have set this project in a variety of cities around the world, but I have never intended it to be a kind of showcase or travelogue. I look at cities as a phenomenon and each location is a different color on a different part of the spectrum of that phenomenon. The location of the image is never given in the title, though some may be obvious. The work simply tries to take in as many models and flavors of urban life as it can. Diversity and change is rooted in the DNA of each piece but also in the project as a whole. I hope to continue and expand on this as I produce more work and take in more locations.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home