Photo Proposal

Jordan Land

Photo Seminar

                Through my wanderings around many towns and cities, it’s become apparent that one of the most common words appearing on signs and notices, banners and readings, is the word NO.  More ‘No’s’ than ‘Yes’s’, More ‘No’s’ than ‘Open’ or ‘Closed’.  And we read these without a second thought.  But what are the values that this readily apparent word imposes?  And how do they effect us? I want to explore how the physical word NO becomes a part of its local environment, and how as a signifier it communicates a certain thought process.  The chosen word in the photography should not and will not be the subject, but will still be legible in the photograph and an easily identifiable factor of the depicted environment.

                I strongly believe that displaying work is just as important if not more so to facilitating an artist’s desired expression.  I don’t believe that this work could be fully experienced through simple large prints (I will print large forever!), beautifully framed and isolated from one another.  Ideally, I would occupy an entire space with very large prints, overlapping in a very erratic juxtaposition.  A vibrant disconcerting array of images that sharply run into one another, not smoothly blend.  However, I lack the space and funds to approach such a project.  So instead, I will opt for a digital projection that enables a similar kind of layout.  The photos will be arranged, irregularly, within a ‘photo sphere’ that enables the user to digitally look around.  I can further expand this by displaying it on the largest screen I can find on campus, within the Meese Auditorium. 

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!