Landscape submission posted off

The box has gone.  I never thought it would leave the building.  Like last time, to get the submission in a coherent state and ready to go, took so long. It's that last bit, you know, where you've finished everything, think you're done, but then presenting it and making it work as a whole submission is a really big job.

How do I feel? Fatigued and a little deflated. I don't have that woohoo feeling at all. So much effort goes in to the course and assessment submission. I can't stop myself investing the time, but I can't quite reconcile it either. If I enjoyed it thoroughly, that would be justification enough, but I haven't, for much of it. I tie myself in knots, become really frustrated and am never, ever satisfied. My expectations are high, too high, both of myself and perhaps of the guidance I'm seeking, augmented by the long-distance nature of learning with the OCA. Either which way, it is neither a balanced or harmonious way of working.  I am become too intense and unsettled in the process of making work. Issues challenge me to the core and I find myself trapped, my escape delayed, for an age, by my own intellectual limitations.  

Although ultimately, I have forged a path, and now the module is complete, I am proud of my work.  I made it to the finish line. And in a way that I feel is true to myself, yet fitting of the course.  I am pleased I didn't default altogether, it was a close call. I have to think carefully before committing to level three however. I need to be clear as to why I'm doing it, as there must be many less demanding or troubling ways of spending my time.

For now however, October will be taken up in the present, 'spring-cleaning' this blog.  As I deferred for nine months, there is period of absence on here which was replaced by write-ups in the submission. I have lost impetus with blogging and have been fairly withdrawn in my study all round. Maybe now the pressure is off, I'll stop feeling so grumpy...or maybe I'm at the age when it is an acceptable pastime to be grumpy!!

  

everything is a remix

This is a really useful video about 'copying', to remind those, like myself, who beat themselves up from time to time about how original (or unoriginal) an idea is. COPY, COMBINE, TRANSFORM. It's all cool and nothing is new, not really!

http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

Post Winter Reflections

I'm back. Apologies for my silence and absence.

I'm not going to focus too much on what I have been up to over the past six months but instead pin down my thoughts as they are now.  As always, any points I make are personal reflections. I try to be honest, occasionally provocative, so please feel welcome to offer any views...

TECHNICAL PROCESS

I want to make reference to this article on the old Joerg Colberg site.

For me, process alone almost never makes a good or interesting photograph. Process is not enough. Sure, it might take you months and months mastering it, sure, getting your photograph might involve all kinds of tricky aspects. But at the end of the day, I look at photographs as, well, photographs.

As students we are encouraged to experiment with the technical process of taking a photograph particularly traditional methods. This is no bad thing, although I do think there will come a time in the not too distant future when this is no longer valid or plausible. There is a notion that we can 'elevate' our photography from 'mainstream' to 'artisan'. We can take our art and ourselves seriously and differentiate what we 'make' from the photos 'taken' by the 'unwashed'. I'm making henious assumptions of course and reflect the implied criticism at myself. By using film, old film cameras, toy cameras, wet film or collodian processes we add a level of complexity to our photography that evidences our commitment, interest and passion.  These are the processes with an eye on the past where you find the 'connoisseur' photographers hanging out, including some big names in contemporary photography Dijkstra, Crewdson, Soth amongst many more. So we are in good company...but for how long?   

Do not rely on the process as that which solely determines the quality of the work. If your process is prominent use its strengths. But at the same time push against the process itself, so that the end result is a good photograph - and not some photograph produced with some process. 

Joerg Colberg and indeed I recall Roger Ballen saying as much at his masterclass, that the technical process is inconsequential...a good photograph is a good photograph. There is a danger that the level of technical complexity is positively linked to its perceived value, particularly in the eyes of an impressionable student...such as I!

In a discussion with my tutor following my submission of assignment two sometime ago now, I recall lamenting about the fact that if the images I took were too easy to take, they held no value to me...I needed it to be difficult to achieve. Like a painting that has taken hours and hours of toil, an image seems like child's play in comparison. His response to this was, quite rightly, the actual taking of the photograph was the final step in a process that required a significant investment in time that should be considered within the making of the image. 

But I do wonder whether other photographers, such as myself, who wish their images to be viewed alongside paintings in an art gallery feel the same. The hours needed to make a painting far outweigh those of a photograph and therefore reducing its perceived value. And that by adding a level of technical complexity to the taking of the image, it enhances its inherent value, craft or otherwise. From what I know of galleries and the esteemed photographers of the day, it seems so. But I am not convinced that heading back to the past to demonstrate our commitment or 'seriousness' has longevity for budding photographers of the future. For a start it isn't at all practical, it is costly, and supplies are becoming scarcer by the day. And more importantly, we are denying ourselves the technology that our forebears would most certainly have used if it had been invented.  We don't use typewriters anymore, we use computers and for good reason. I think common sense should prevail really. Or am I missing something? Please convince me otherwise.

So what will the post-contemporary photographers be using to demonstrate their conviction to the sport? Or will they lie in fear of being marginalised as an art-form as I fear we are today. Perhaps we will differentiate our prowess within the content or the context of the photograph. I'm too much of a 'laggard' to capably predict the technology or trends of future art photography. But still, my hunch is the emphasis on the technical aspects will need to be reduced to an absolute whisper. Photography needs to lose its imperialism, believe in itself as an art form, integrate amongst other mediums and stop getting hung up on the mechanics. 

Based on what I have just shared and bringing this back to my own study, you will not be surprised to hear that I will not be pursuing photography with the large format camera anymore. I don't quite get it anymore!

I would prefer to invest my energies, as I tend to do naturally anyway, in the deliberating of life issues that seem impossible to unpick and that I endeavour to respond to through photography.  And indeed how I can expand the limitations of the camera to enable me to visualise my thoughts in pictures will continue to be one of my greatest challenges. But as mentioned above, I do think if I can view photography as an artistic pursuit and 'park' its worth as an indexical medium, there is lots of scope for me to explore.

WORKING PROCESS

By 'working process' I mean the bit from idea conception to taking a photograph.  The bit the course demands much evidence of. I sometimes feel that the image, through the process of academic study and mentoring is lost...the process and evidencing is valued greater than the end product.  And that is perhaps where I feel a little at odds with the academic route of studying photography. I think it is great that we are encouraged to study, read around the subject and visit galleries, but at the end of the day, I don't want to be assessed on my book-keeping...the bottom line should be the image.

Within the landscape module in particular my feedback has been 'process-centric'. The advice was sound and helpful and indeed has influenced my method of working, but it seems that the academic pursuit judges the final images on the systems/processes that are in place...and this is the bit I don't get, well I do, but I don't. There is a mild air of institutionalism that is bothering me. Perhaps I'll under-perform and regret writing this. But you know, changing spots at forty isn't easy and I'm going to stick my head above the parapet on this one and follow my instincts. I work hard, I do my homework, my work should be underpinned by this grounding and be reflected in it.

It is also worth mentioning, whilst I accept we're not in school, I do think there should be more guidance on the theory we're expected to know about, without feeling obliged to embark on UVC. For example, three intensive days of theoretical desk learning or some kind of face to face would bottom it out...I do think it is unfair demanding students to find it all out by themselves...we can of course pick it up as we go along, which we do...but as I have heard more than once, 'we don't know what we don't know'. So help us out!! Photography is a living, breathing thing and this seems a fundamental aspect that I think needs either less emphasis or more resources.

This kind of corroborates the comments Sean O'hagen in the weareoca article

JA: How important is it for students to be able to write about their practice?

SO: A student in Belfast asked me that last year. Plaintively. In fact, he said, could you give a talk about how we could write about our work? I thought that was revealing. They need practical help on this sort of thing. I think a lot of visual people find it difficult to make their ideas concise. I’ve also noticed a lot of pseudo-conceptual blather at degree shows and when I did degree show selections for Source magazine and the Photographers Gallery. Paragraphs of ill-digested theory and really mundane or derivative photographs. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I sometimes think there is a bit if a crisis in the teaching of photography. I really think po-mo [post modern] theory should be held back to post graduate stage. Learn to take or make good pictures first, then you can theorise all you like. And read Robert Adams: Beauty in Photography or Along Some Rivers. (A lot of photographers are great writers – Adams, Arbus, Shore…) Or read Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language. It’s full of practical tips on how to write concisely and directly. It’s important. Or, if you are really no good at it, get someone else to do it.

I don't necessarily agree that the theory needs to be delayed to post graduate study, but equally it is clear that in many institutions we're not getting it right. And I must admit, in my case at least (I am slightly OCD, but I'm sure many enthusiast could be defined as such) I over-read, over-analysed and stopped taking photographs.

Also, much of my reading is/was of contemporary theorists...that's what seems relevant to me. Yet, a reference I made by a reputable online blogger wasn't valid in an academic context and I was advised to source the theorist who originally came up with the concept. Current musings versus the classics from the past...is one more relevant than the other...one more valid than the other and if so, at what point can current musings count. Is there some kind of theoretical elitism, again it maybe necessary to qualify in an academic context, but not at all helpful!

INSPIRATION
Right now, John Stezaker and Kurt Schwitters.

THE BLOG
Well, I have done an about turn, twice...I decided to put this online blog on hold as I was concerned that not unlike 'the gaze of a camera' I was progressing in a self-conscious, committee-driven way.  I was becoming too self-aware rather than allowing my images to mature.  So I made the decision to write a digital diary (written blogs haven't worked for me in the past) and develop ideas without the temptation of seeking approval to bolster my conviction. I have to make the work regardless of whether others like it and I was worried by developing projects and sharing online it was going against this notion. So a digital diary seemed a good solution...and provided the proof that the course required. This worked to start with, but I found it difficult to contain it...I couldn't close out a topic, kept continuously adding to posts/topics...so none of the subjects ever really finished, and the whole thing got bigger and more unmanageable.  So I'm back online and I will share musings and thoughts but not the images until I've reached a point of finality.

WHAT'S NEXT
It's pointless publishing what I plan to do because I rarely keep to plan, but having said that, all my efforts over the next few months will be preparing material, particularly written material, for assessment.

After that, and if I make it to level three...its annihilation!

Online Portfolio

So, my portfolio and occasional blog posts can now be found at www.pennywatson.co.uk. This blog is hibernating for the winter. Ta, ta for now.

Being Afraid

This post is not specifically related to halloween, although I suppose by looking in to the darkness you could consider it on-topic. Well, today was a write-off...it rained torrentially all day, non-stop...so we built a fire, cosied up on the sofa and watched a film.  We watched Up. The children had seen it before. I hadn't. And I was not expecting to be reduced to a blubbering wreck within minutes of watching it and then finding myself unable to shake off my morosity for the rest of the day.

It was one of those well-written stories where it talks at one level to children, but the adult messages were so poignant. I was so sad.  My youngest tried to reassure me, 'don't worry mummy, they aren't real life'. Why was I feeling so rubbish?...I think the film touches on universal fears we are afraid to think about and by fast forwarding through life, distilling it to its bare essentials, the film makes it difficult for you to ignore them...And that got me thinking about fear and what we're afraid of and whether by recognising and addressing those fears they no longer command a presence. But we're human and such an ask is probably too much. However, perhaps it is something you could explore photographically. I quite like that idea. Perhaps the first step in this instance would be for me to acknowledge the fear of my fears that the film mobilised in me. They are, I warn you, a little morose.  They all relate, in part, to the impermanence of life and certainty of death and I am sure are common to many.  I fear that:

- I won't know how I will die and if it will be painful and prolonged.
- I may lose a loved one
- I will never know what is after life (while alive at least!)
- I may have regrets
- the years take you towards old-age, deterioration and certain death
- ill-health or bad things may happen to loved ones or myself
- the everyday routines of life may drain the joy of youth away
- quality of life may actually be preferable to quantity
- I'll be old before I know it
- my children may not like me when they grow up
- I may reach old age and feel disappointed with myself

So, a film, ironically with the title Up, made me feel hopelessly down and unexpectedly face my own fears of death...honestly!! I would have been better watching an '18' classified psycho-thriller! I know death has been written about extensively in the context of photography but one cannot ignore the cruel irony and slightly disturbing 'truth' derived from the permanence of a photograph and how it makes a mockery of our own temporarity.

The video footage above was taken in 2006 with what was then a new camera with video capability. It was a 'tester' video, to see how the camera worked...nothing more. Yet now, all three subjects in this video are no longer here. Whilst not wanting to state the bleeding obvious, they are though, right here in this video. I'm not making much sense, but giving this a little thought, I can see that to address the fear of death itself, through photography, could be cathartic. Anyway, I'm not sure how, or if, this is relevant or helpful to my study, certainly not for the moment, but it may be something to consider at some point in the future...given that the subject of 'death' will be relevant forever more, I guess there's no rush!!

Some more inspiration

So I find myself time deficient and unable to find the time to keep this blog up to date at the minute. But for now, I am going to list a few photographers that have specifically informed my work or inspired me of late...you will see there is a thread developing. And when I finally write up my posts on recent work it'll become clear how it fits in.

Letha Wilson
This is not a site I found easy to navigate, but I have found little else on line to direct you to (try the visionfield blog here to see her work). It is her photographic sculptures of the 'idealised' American landscapes that interests me. She has effectively 'butchered' the images by physically altering the print. She folds, crumples, covers in concrete, scribbles the photographs to create sculptures. It is taking the tactility and physical aspect of the photograph and transforming it in to something else. As has been documented about her work, it is pushing the conventions of landscape photography in a new direction. Her work interests me because it is altering the aesthetics of the ideal/picturesque American landscape to create something entirely different.  She is an artist who has used photography as an integral part of her artistic practice...no longer isolated from art.

Chris Engman
There is an excellent interview on the eyecurious blog about his work here. Similarly to Letha Wilson's work he creates sculptures but rather than of the photograph, it is within the photographs themselves...he intervenes in the landscape to question the objectivity of photography and the meaning of truth...and how manipulated images maybe more 'truthful' and authentic than one that is not.  He considers himself an installation artist who puts great labours in to his images, choosing not to take digital shortcuts. He himself compares his approach to be more akin to a land artist such as Robert Smithson than a landscape photographer. He makes use of the language associated with the landscape genre but his intervention challenges this. There is something playful and laborious about his installations that are engaging on many levels.  My interest in this work is his intervention in the landscape and his acceptance that objectivity is indeed futile.  His workmanship and play on the restrictions of a two dimensional medium work very well.

David Smith
His first concept 'anthropocene' (which I had to look up and according to wiki, means 'an informal geologic chronological term that serves to mark the evidence and extent of human activities that have had a significant global ecological impact'). Not unlike Mishka Henner, Smith appropriates internet photography such as google street-view and maps...which it seems have so many others. His prints are created from thousands of digital files composited of aerial views and then making use of formal patterns and motifs to create beautiful abstract yet orderly chaos within the pictures. This project aesthetically highlights how different perspectives can alter understanding and meaning of the landscape.

His other project called 'arecibo' (I had to look this up too and wiki tells me it is a radio telescope and is the world's largest single-aperture telescope). This project again makes use of internet imagery and whilst I am less sure about his motivations behind the project, the abstract aesthetic appeals to me. Again, not exactly the same, but food for thought for me on composites and making new images out of existing images.

Thomas Devaux
This website I find annoying, however, it is his collage work in gallery 6 that is particularly relevant to my work. And whilst I find the work a little eerie and a little sinister in places, some is exquisitely and weirdly beautiful.  His process and how he arrrived at the montages and indeed re-works of paintings one can learn from. This video elaborates on the process of getting there. The idea of deconstructing and rebuilding to create something new is fascinating and troubling but does again suggest greater freedom in the field of photography...another reminder to break those shackles.

Tom Hunter
He has some amazing work on his website, although it seems strange to me that he states 'internationally renowned artist' on the entry page. If you're internationally renowned, then why do you have the need to say it...anyway, Tom Hunter's work will be shown in the up and coming Seduced By Art exhibition. The work that particularly interests me is highlighted here where he utilises the form and reinvents classic gestures and symbols prevalent of famous masterpieces in a contemporary environment. There is something quite compelling...firstly the recognition that the compositions, postures and content of classic artwork that can be applied to contemporary photography and that it is still so relevant, reminding us that universal truths are not time limited either. His work will give me another nudge to explore the classic paintings of the past. I have just received the Seduced by Art Catalogue which is a good start.

Vernacular Photography
A new term to me meaning photography by amateurs or unknown photographers who take everyday life and common things as subjects.

Future of Photography

On the 1000 words Photography Magazine blog there is an interesting lecture on the future of photography, see here. It's an hour long but if you have the time it is well worth watching.

Key points of interest for me:

- the future of photography is today, technology is no longer a limitation
- digital versus analogue - there is porosity between the two, lines are becoming blurred
- photography of the future will be more to do with how with circulate, organise and consume images than how we make them
- photography is gaining freedom - appropriation, reorganising found photographic material and the diverse physicality of the output are examples of this.
- how will we edit, filter and organise archives
- the web means images are not filtered and are often recontextualised...current online consumption of images is to do with quantity/frequency over quality.
- because of the volume of imagery now being uploaded through sites like facebook, for artists/photographers to create something meaningful, it forces them to do something out of the ordinary and may increase the pace of this.
- The physical object is becoming more important.  What value is there to see it in a gallery rather than online.
- you can no longer disentangle photography from art.
- the medium of photography is no longer just a camera, it is the whole process

None of this is new, but it does reinforce views I have heard and read elsewhere recently.  There are a number of photographers mentioned within the video that I will come back to as they can inform my photography.

Jo Teeuwisse

This works for me.  Jo Teeuwisse is a Dutch historical consultant and bought 300 old negatives at a flea market in Amsterdam. Wow, what a find. I think the approach of overlaying the archival photos, which are of soldiers in war-torn France, on the present day locations, is really very powerful.  A similar treatment has been used by Shawn Clover and I am sure I have seen other examples too in the past.

There are three things that interest me in particular about Teeuwisse's work.  The first is that it offers a suggestion as to how one can reconcile the challenge of photographing the past in the present. This is something that I ponder not infrequently about bygone eras within the Lakes and how current landscapes belie what has been before.  The second is that it is yet another example of how one can use photos as a vehicle for a greater purpose and not an end in itself. In this case, the purpose of the photograph is less relevant than its ability to support the greater goal, which in this case is 'to give a deeper understanding of our history'.  The third aspect, not unlike the work of Mishka Henner or John Stezaker, is the continued trend to 're-work' or 're-use' images from the past and alter or transform their meaning by adding or subtracting something from the image. In Teeuwisse's work I personally find this 're-work' does give deeper meaning and relevance to the subject by bringing history back to the current day which does make it relevant to us, now. And it enhances what were clearly already strong images that she acquired.

It won't stop raining here...ever...this is one from the archive. Unlike other resources such as precious metals, petroleum and patience, it seems there is an endless supply of the wet stuff!!

Liverpool Biennial

On Saturday, by the skin of my teeth, I was able to attend the OCA study visit to the Liverpool Biennial. We visited four galleries (The Bluecoat, The Tea Factory, FACT and Open Eye) and a good few artists work were viewed during the four hour tour of the Biennial...sensory overload - yes, exciting - hmmm!

The theme was 'the unexpected guest'. Peter gave us some pointers early doors about what to look for...whose work was inspired by the theme and whose work was interpreting the theme and note the difference. What does the work mean and to whom? How can you apply this to your own work? Why have the gallery put the work up?

Strangely with the exception of the Stuart Hall video, much of the work seemed to originate from overseas. And this in itself I think adds a level of confusion and complexity.  Trying to decode meaning in the images/art when it is overlaid with cultural and societal references unfamiliar to you makes it so much harder to find a way in. This in some ways inhibits your ability to read what is before you but perhaps conversely allows for greater interpretation. And to a certain extent this is may be why I left the day feeling like I hadn't connected with much of the work or that it wasn't communicating to me...perhaps I was the unexpected guest.

The Stuart Hall film by John Akomfrah is perhaps the exception. It was informative, confusing, troubling and complex in its composition and sequencing.  Filmed over three adjacent giant screens, I found, not unlike watching a tennis match, your head was too-ing and fro-ing through the multi-faceted film backwards and forwards from screen to screen throughout.  It was quite an extraordinary piece and the credits at the end of the film suggested it was quite an undertaking with dozens of names appearing. The film was entrenched in the idea of identity with regards race and the tapestry of landscape through memory, largely centred on the UK. My question with regards this film is just that. It was a film...with the use of stills within it, but clearly the images were supported with sound and moving footage. When does a photo-film become a fully-blown film? And does it matter? If you compared it to films shown in art houses, how would it stand-up or compare?

Many photographers (this is probably a misnomer, I should probably say artists) are using alternative ways to exhibit their photos. But this was an art festival, not specifically a photography festival...and that starting point was evident throughout the day. In the room next door to Akomfrah's film, Dora Garcia's Outside used several big box TVs which had spatial impact even if the content didn't. Artists such as Sun Xun created a large-scale installation over three decorated walls with the the use of wallpaper, painting and film animation. The distinction between photography and other art forms and how photography is utilised as a form of expression seems to be a 'non-issue' in this environment. Anything goes. The issues of representation or depiction that embroils journalistic photography just isn't there. Any medium is used in order to facilitate the communication.

Go to a photography exhibition and there is much clearer boundaries and expectations of the viewer and indeed of the photographer. The presentation of photographs is relatively uniform and conventional because of this.  Although there were some really nice touches to heighten the photographic experience at the Open Eye gallery, with both exhibitions (Kohei Yoshiyuki's and Mark Morrisroe's work).

The use of torches in the exhibition of Kohei Yoshiyuki's The Park work was an interesting touch.  Although the content of the work I have seen at the Exposed exhibition at the Tate Modern previously which certainly lessened the impact of the work for me.

And what was this being 'plunged' in to darkness all about?  It made sense with the Kohei Yoshiyuki's work, but it's use, for me anyway, was unnecessarily excessive at other venues.

The photograms by Mark Morrisroe appealed greatly just for the refreshing use of bright colour and vivid aliveness that for me, seemed to be lacking in the rest of the work we'd seen that day.  A lot of work is so earnest and serious, which I know is a reflection of life, but surely there is scope for a little more humour. We're British for goodness sake, it rains all the time!!

Although there was a cheeky piece of work by Akram Zaatari I think it was, reenacting childhood photographs and posing adults in their place which then totally alters the inference of the image. There is quite a lot of work out there which is exploring such themes at the moment.  Clarisse D'Arcimoles, Irina Werning, Joachim Schmid, John Stezaker, all come to mind.

Sabelo Mlangeni's work gave the impression of a bygone era given his choice in aesthetic and way of presenting his documentary work in the Tea Factory, but were infact taken relatively recently. And there was more than a little influence of the South African photographer Roger Ballen evident in his work.

So what to take away from this...for me, at the moment, exploring the artistic ambitions of photography is what interests me and this was a useful trip to scope the possibilities.