Thought this was already posted but apparently not?

                This is the first time I’ve had such a negative reaction to observing and evaluating another artist’s work, photographer or otherwise.  My issues with Christopher Williams focus strongly on his methods of production, technological and otherwise.  I’m completely okay with his apparent expression of distance between producer and consumer of art, the viewer.  I think his approach is a very targeted essay on the subject.  And maybe it’s just the article’s hero-worship of Williams and comparison in an almost negative quality of Nan Goldin’s work that strikes me core so violently.  I feel in love with Nan’s intimate body of work years ago and I got overtly defensive.

                Once you get past the masturbatory praising of Williams in the article, the examined difference between him and artists like Goldin becomes apparent: Photographs are frequently labeled as ‘better’ or having a significantly improved quality when they make some kind of emotional connection with the viewer.  This connection can be furthered by a context given by the producer, or passed on thru education about their work.  Some artists close that gap between subject and viewer to a very close level.  Williams, on the other hand, seeks to remove such context and emotional connection from his work and the viewer that he overly simplifies, practically eradicates signifiers and commonalities in his work.  This I’m okay with.  I’ll address my problem in a moment.  His mind’s inner workings are ironically familiar to me as well, as someone else who also will fanatically absorb information about the oddest subjects in some bewildering pursuit of arcane knowledge.  In a round-about way, thru his own research he becomes closer to his subject than the majority of other people, though he methodically releases this information and context in a controlled way, thru interview and public speaking.  Other people can certainly make the connections between his unusual subjects and the knowledge behind them, though that’s far from the common reaction to be gleamed from his work.

                Apparently, in his effort to distance himself and therefore the viewer, Williams’ work is actually produced by a professional studio.  I still can’t fully wrap my head around this; other artists have certainly let the physical labor of taking a photo or making an art piece fall into hired hands.  But to the extent, they still regain some creative control by composing the shot for example.  I don’t know the details of the instructions Williams gives these studios, but it’s readily apparent that all the technique and classic structure is by the photographer’s hand.  I can’t even bring myself to call Williams’ a photographer, if he’s so removed that he’s neither composing the final work nor taking the picture.  I think there’s other ways he could certainly remove himself, hyperbolically so, and retain creative license.  If he wants to enlist the widespread technical access our generation enjoys, why not direct a shoot via Skype?  Or Tweet instructions, within a 150 character limit?  These methods might actually add something other than distance to the work, but at a certain point there is a barrier to creativity where you loose the ability to credit yourself for work.  Friends and family have given me ideas to build photography project foundations upon; would they be able to consider themselves the photographer?  Because at that point their involvement is more personal and detailed than Williams. 

Project #2:"Heads Tails Left Right" (aka 'Rules' project)

Finalized Rules:
1) Decide a starting point.  Walk around Ashland from that point; when I come to an intersection, decide path to take via coin flip
2) Search out for that ONE image on each walk.  Not to take multiple image and choose a best, but to actively find the specific image that communicates what I'm hoping to express in this project
3) Shoot in B&W; not "shoot in color, see what comes up well later", but specifically recognizing what will produce a better end result sans color
4) Avoid plants as a subject matter, avoid using Rule of Thirds as a crutch.  Consider how random pathway (rule 5) will affect end image, and leave room for further work
5) After image is 'found', dictate out path taken via copper wire and physically overlay it onto photo.

Dodging and Burning brushes are gateway tools to bad Photoshop

Project "Duality": Using the same image (a scanned self-portrait), edit in Lightroom and Photoshop to give two very different character readings

I've been racking my brain for rules for this new project: not that I'm having trouble making up rules, or funneling previous project ideas into this, but making sure all 5 rules flow together organically.  3 rules is easy, 5 gets a bit tricky.  Here's what I've come up with:

Rule 1: Shoot in B/W film.  Getting the technical out of the way, I've really neglected using film, as much as I love it.  Also need to take my time with the shots, bring a tripod for that crisp clear focus, which leads to
Rule 2: I get one shot per pass.  This will be clear in a moment
Rule 3: Start with a street head up in the hills of west Ashland.  Plan on walking downhill.  The goal here is to be patient, take my time, continually analyze my surroundings, because this is where rule 2 comes into play: I'm only going to take one shot per 'trip'.  I'm not even going to take multiple attempts at the same shot: gotta make it count.  This amounts to 30-some walks.  And to make every trip different,
Rule 4: Every intersection will be determined by coin flip.  I normally take the path least taken, or the one that feels more interesting, but if I repeat start points I want these paths to be different.  And the paths play an integral part of the work too, because the final 5 I choose will be overlaid with a copper wire path that traces my steps with GPS.
Rule 5: errata; don't make plants the subject (to break away from my favorites), don't use accent lines along the 1/3 rule, push boundaries and the edge of what makes some photographs "comfortable", especially because the wire shape will block some of the image.

End result would ideally by physical, and I will probably print and frame some of these, but in the meantime I'll scan the wire shape and digitally overlay it onto the film scan.  This could be fun!

     New project: I lucked out in that the assignment was more Scanograms, something I've already had an interest in. However, certain limitations restricted me from simply continuing the work I had already done.  So I set out to answer a question: how do you 'write' a prequel to a story set up in a body of photographic work?  One without any clear narrative?  That's what I've tried to do here.  The pieces work on their own, but also form an intricate partnership with my other works; while they are crisp and clean, scientifically precise in their presentation, this is messier, more personal.  These works represent what I do, as a botanist, collecting specimens in the field.  I'm trying to convey a sense of roughness and urgency that's cleaned up between now and the later botanical prints.

     The challenge for this assignment was to produce a "Photograph that was also not a photograph".  Obviously interpretations for this riddle are going to range from the literal to the conceptual.  I went for something a bit more rational; to me, photographs as a technology are a certain kind of passive imprint.  Something more enveloping than say a specific scrawl on a blackboard with a piece of chalk.  An all at once imprinted record of the scene in front.  The spray-painted border of this subject is like that; just as light hits the camera sensor or film without human guidance (we can aim light and control the limits, just not move the particles themselves), so did the paint particles fall onto the sidewalk.  And this image is also not a photograph because it's subject matter is a lack of subject; the traces are there but whatever occupied the space prior is missing.  Open to interpretation I know, but I'm content with these colors as well as the presentation of shapes that make up this Schrodinger's Photograph.

Notes and Response to "Practices of Looking: Image, Power, Politics”

• Western culture is more visually defined rather than audibly, being a swirling amalgamation of television, movies, images and clips.  Even music is herald to the video age, as was written “Video killed the radio star”
• Question of Photography, or many other arts, as being ‘high’ or not.  And if there is high art, is there low art?
• Contextual differences on definition of ‘high art’, as well as what makes up culture
•  “Culture is a process, not a fixed set of practices or interpretations”
• Visual media as a primary way to communicate cultural information was boosted from the rapid spread of internet access post-90s
•  “We live in cultures that are increasingly permeated by visual images with a variety of purposes and intended effects” – visual generations aided by the spread of internet, which includes increased data transfer as well as access on an ever-broadening number of electronic devices
•  We don’t view art is individual pieces anymore; every picture, every photograph.  Every film and every experience is duplicated thousands of time over.  Added to that is the frequent personal absorption within the confines of our own spaces, not amassed in public.
• Representation of the subject, what the artist chooses to put into the picture, depends much on context and intent, but regardless of artistic license or manipulation, still remains a concentration of cultural signifiers
•  Photographic “truth” lies just as much in certain signifiers that related a sense of trustworthiness, as much as they do tricks to fool the eye.  Cameras still function autonomously, following the controls of the photographer to record the image in front of the lens.  There is no bias through the camera, only through what the photographer has chosen to take a picture of.
• Ideology and propaganda reflect the photographer’s intents as a whole, but can certainly influence the chosen work
•   Typography was ignored in the visual media example of OJ Simpson’s magazine cover comparisons; written word has become visual imagery itself, not just simple text but evolving into carefully chosen words of meticulous font and detail, entwined around pictures and frame
•  Images (and signs within images) do not have a given value, they attribute those ( based on monetary, social, political power, etc) in particular social contexts

      A very close friend of mine will often talk about my photography, and while he is not trained in the arts, he gives me a much different perspective.  One that is usually imbedded within political histories and cultural appreciations.  And one night we were recanting the day we had in town, and he mentioned "the lady in the gallery we spoke to, she mentioned they didn't display any photography, only 'high art'.  What is high art?".  I had no real answer to him.  If he had asked me "What is a Metasequioa glyptostroboides?" I could've answered him with qualitative facts and figures.  But I can't do that in diagnosing 'high art', and photography's place within.  Even me believing that photography is capable of being HA is disagreeable by some.  Ultimately I agree with the reading, in that it is subject to culture, both of the time of the art's creation and the time of the art's appreciation, and this includes photography.  One aspect I considered later is that some critique photography's lack of 'classical training', though certainly you can approach photography with as detailed and deft hand as any oil painter, let alone any chemist.  I think many aspects of visual media, photography included, are finding themselves rubbing ever closer to one another.  Boundaries are being crossed, media hybridized, to a point that is finding itself increasingly difficult to differentiate between the classical formats.  There will always be the classics to appreciate, but rather than trying to focus contemporary works into rules set into play centuries ago, why can't we acknowledge and enjoy the evolving spectrum of art, from it's inception to the brilliant family tree that produces so many wonderful fruits of creation?

   It's been a loooong time since I've regularly written for a blog.  This time it's not about plants!  Also this time I have relatively solid deadlines to encourage me not to flounder.  Let's see how this turns out.

Sempervivum 2014

   For my first post, starting fall term on a fresh (and fabulous) start, I'm looking at some particular work of mine that I've really enjoyed, and the inspiration from a few artists that will hopefully influence how I continue my work, both in general and this particular project.  Some of my friends and family are probably familiar with the work itself that I've recently made, but bare with me as I'll be writing more in-depth than I do on my Facebook photography page.

Sedum 2014

Crassula 2014

  These pictures started out as a way to closer analyze plants, but not in a purely macro photography method.  Macro photography frequently grants you only part of the picture; Victorian botanical illustrations were side-profile pictures documenting the entire plant top to bottom.  So out of that tradition came these prints, adapted for the modern 21st century.  I used a scanner instead of ink, and felt that the black background contributed a contemporary aesthetic feel. 

Cacti 2014

Aloe 2014

   I hope to continue this project, following in the steps of other natural photographers who's methods are as much important and unique to their work as the art they produce.  Photographers such as Chris McCaw, who's self-admittedly mistake led to a phenomenal series of landscape work in Sunburn.  His one of a kind photographs aren't just of the land, but are directly influenced by the pathway of the sun.  I hate to make a pun (spoilers: I don't) but the images are burned into my head for the quality and uniqueness of photography I want to create.

Petapixel.com 2013

DreamBeing.com 2013

   Another artist I find inspiring is Hiroshi Sugimoto.  One way in particular is because he has such a diverse body of work, subjects that frequently have nothing to do with one another and methods that are fantastically experimental.  While his seascapes are definitively serene, his work with exposing large prints to electricity are shockingly (hah did it again) energetic.  And he clearly gets so much joy out of trying new things!  There is clearly an unseen joy to his work, a quality that emerges only from having so much enjoyment in taking these pictures.  At times I've wondered if my work isn't focused enough, and then I remember how many successes Sugimoto has had, and remind myself to never not try something new for fear of something as finicky as focus on a particular subject.

NYTimes 2010

Lenscratch.com 2010