Revised Artist Statement: Take 3

It’s taken a while, and I’m still not completely content (will I ever be?), but I’m an artist who deals with the photographic medium. I take photographs and I make movies.  I’m most interested in how the subject (I prefer to have one subject in my frame) interacts with their surroundings and the viewer. Most of my subjects are aware that there will be a viewer, but they don’t know who it is. They aren’t exactly sure why I want to take their picture. However, I choose them because I see them as someone who has become a chameleon to the space.  They need the space and the space needs them. But, this is my opinion and I use digital manipulation to enhance my own beliefs.

I take a lot of time and care in my process. My photos are taken with a long shutter speed on film, which in turn, begs my subjects to be still.  This allows for a certain element of awkwardness. These days a photo can be taken in 1/500 of a second. I’m taking around two minutes to focus my camera and to take the photo. I’m making the subject frozen in time—I’m catching a moment and stretching it for as long as possible. 

Go to the Art Institute RIGHT NOW.

Free February and the basement photo gallery is housing some amazing works right now. The exhibition is titled, "In the Vernacular."  

I just discovered Tina Barney because of the exhibit. She's does what David Benjamin Sherry does with color but one hundred times better. 

I also enjoyed this photograph by Larry Sultan:

Looking Up or Into Grids

Review of Megan Lee's Work from 2/5

At her work's basic core, Megan makes grids. Her work exhibits lines intersecting, or barely intersecting, with other lines; shapes becoming shapes; shapes almost becoming shapes. There is a rhythm to her work. There is a past, future, and present. 

Last Friday Megan presented two pieces. Both pieces were barely discernible when I first walked into the space. For one of her works, the above statement must sound obvious, because it was a projection of strings cross-cutting each other. We were only able to view this piece once Megan turned off the overhead lights and flipped on the projector. The projection created its own space in the corner of the room. At first the corner resembled a jail cell but upon further examination, the grid felt a lot safer. Some people, such as Kelly, didn’t want to step into the space, but others, like Tina, really enjoyed being in the shadows of the grid. Zac gave Megan the parameters to do this work, and the parameters were to use string as a surface, to play with a corner, to use light in some way, and to read at least one remark every hour while working (from Wittgenstein’s “Remarks on Color”). Even though the material for the sculpture was laid across the projection screen, a space was created from light and shadow, and the space felt monumental.

Megan’s second piece was created from parameters she gave to herself. She had to use string as the main material, break or blur the framing edge, and employ a duality or dichotomy. As I already mentioned, my eye didn’t go to Megan’s sculpture when I walked into the room. Just like Malevich’s Supremacists Composition: White on White, this work was white string on white wall. If I had to guess, I would say that Megan completed Zac’s parameter project before working with the white string sculpture, for it plays with both light and [absence of] color. Once lights were directly pointed over the strings, shadows created a three-dimensional quality to what appeared to be a flat piece. The work consisted of two grids whose horizontal lines could intersect with each other if there wasn’t space in between them. Therefore, the blank, middle space was given agency—it was charged. I originally perceived the horizontal lines to not intersect with each other, but as I moved around the piece I realized that this was not the case. However, the viewer immediately begins to wonder how the two grids interact with each other in the space between them.

I can’t wait to see what else Megan is working on. I especially appreciated the sculptural aspects to her work this time around. The sketch and collage grids have changed immensely now that Megan is working with light, shadow, string, and potentially color. At first I thought her work was subtle, but that’s only upon first glace. Megan’s work says a lot about how we see and feel, the viewer just needs to take more than a moment to let it all sink in. 

Abby's Parameters

A sample: 

Line of Inquiry 2: THE WORK OF DAVID BENJAMIN SHERRY

Kim Gordon

David Benjamin Sherry is another artist the class suggested for me to research. I must admit, when I first started scanning the links on Google, I was a little disappointed. This guy did an interview with Urban Outfitters? Ew. But I won’t blame Sherry (or the class). However, on a slight tangent, the article spent two-thirds of the interview talking about how he’s gay and how he did drugs when he was twelve. One-third talked about how fashion photography can be art once you do more than photograph a model in front of a backdrop. Anyways, back to Sherry, because he is an artist with merits, and not just an Urban Outfitters flavor-of-the-week.

Sherry is from Woodstock, NY, and as his hippy background would suggest, his photographs are heavily saturated in colors and have a certain tie-dye affect. The vibrant colors in Sherry’s work could also reflect an influence from David LaChappelle, as Sherry was his intern for one summer. Sherry’s education is extremely impressive. He went to RISD for his undergraduate training, and studied at Yale for graduate school, where his mentor was Philip Lorca-Dicorcia. David Benjamin Sherry does a little bit of everything with his photographs. Some are fashion-based editorials. Other pieces of his work are experimental landscape photographs. He even does the self-portrait now and then. The photographs that totally stun me are the portraits that manipulate the space and the subject to be one hue. There is a green man, in a green meadow, surrounded by a green forest. There is also a photo of a blue ban, with a blue ball in his mouth, in a blue room. To me, this is eye candy. I see passion and love for what he’s doing, but I don’t necessarily see a concept. However, that’s completely fine. I’m attracted firstly to aesthetics and that’s what stands out in Sherry’s work. The class mentioned that I would like these photographs for his use of color and how he stays away from digital manipulation. I found out from my research that that isn’t necessarily the case, but Sherry does depend a lot on manipulated all that he can during production. Most of his photographs have a nostalgic quality, as if they came right out of my mom's photo album from her flower child days. It's ironic how he and others try to achieve this look through digital means. (Another tangent: proof that pixels can't match the archival quality of analog. Ha!)   

Do I see my own work like the work of David Benjamin Sherry’s? No. Definitely not. But, I do appreciate it. To me, I hope that my work falls somewhere in between that of Sherry’s and that of Jeff Wall’s. I love the outlandishly surrealistic qualities of Sherry’s photographs—it’s like being on an acid trip. Personally, I’ve never been on acid, but I guess I can trust Sherry, because according to that Urban Outfitters article he has definitely tried the stuff. 

Rain and I at Teepee

Line of Inquiry 1: THE WORK OF JEFF WALL

A Sudden Gust of Wind

Jeff Wall is a Canadian photographer who is famous for his large scale, cinematic, backlit cibachromes.

Wait, wait, wait—let me back up for a second. A backlit what?  A Cibachrome is a “dye construction positive-to-positive photographic process used for the production of slides on photographic paper.” Thank you, Wikipedia! So, essentially, Wall is known for installing his works as phototransparencies, each one individually lit to expose its color purity and image clarity.

I could talk about Wall’s numerous awards and academic accolades. I could talk about his wide array of published essays. However, all I’ll say is that the man isn’t failing in the achievements department. Instead, I’d rather talk about why Jeff Wall deserves such notoriety.

Wall plans and composes most of his shots, but they all have a very cinematic style. He explores the history of representation in art (Mimic is famous for its racial undertones), and contemporary culture in his staged photos. Wall is based on conceptual art, and sure, his work goes beyond photography—his work includes sculptural design and even some digital manipulation inside the frame. He tests the boundaries of forms, both in human and in inanimate object subjects. For example, Milk captures a man tosses a glass of the said liquid. Wall stated in his 1989 essay, “A natural form, with its unpredictable contours is an expression of infinitesimal metamorphoses of quality. Photography seems perfectly adapted for representing this kind of movement or form.” I can appreciate Wall’s work because it goes beyond just the cinema “scope”. If that were all I was interested in, I would have just stuck to make moving images—I would have concentrated on frames that move 1/24 of a second. Instead, what I love about the medium of photography is what is frozen, what is encapsulated at a moment. A professor once told me that a photograph captures what is now dead at the moment right before it was about to die, and makes it live forever. I love how Wall never lets go of these moments. He combines he love for the conceptual and the cinema in his pieces.

In contrast, I see Gregory Crewdson’s work to be much more one-dimensional. Crewdson’s work, even right down to the elaborate productions, is all about the cinema. Looking at one of his photographs makes me wish I were just watching the movie that’s based on it. It’s less about the concept and more about its advertising qualities. They’re movie posters.

I also love how there is a quality of street photography and reportage in Jeff Wall’s work. His studio is the world, essentially. He uses the world and its natural habits as his inspiration and recreates them. The photos are captivating even when I look at them online. I’ve never had the chance to see the actual light boxes, but I can still imagine they’re aural qualities. Jeff Wall is the ultimate. Some people consider portraits as headshots. Well, I don’t. Wall’s portraits are slices of life, lit (yes, that’s a pun) by the social attitudes of his subjects, or the culture surrounding the object(s) in the frame. 

Mimic

Milk

Photograph by Gregory Crewdson

Charlie

Kodak Gold 35mm, 200 asa, daylight but shot with tungsten lights. 

This kid hates to pose.

Parameters

Parameters Set By Abigail:

1) photographs

2) need two people

3) no women

4) no faces

5) three photos

6) black and white 

Parameters Set By Me:

1) ask someone else for my parameter. ask the question, "what should I take a photo of?"

2) color

*Thought harder. I will be producing a single image that captures a fleeting moment. It will be shot on film and the photo will be large in scale. 

READING RESPONSE

AGNES DENES

I want to delve into the mind of Agnes Denes., and in doing so I shall be diving into my mind and into the minds of artists preceding Denes and me. All this wor is very heady, but it’s the conceptual that goes into the beyond and flexes the thought muscles. However, I want to exclude my own work when talking about the conceptual because I firmly believe that it is based in aesthetics and the processes of film-based photography. But, I shall say that however the however, I only believe this at the moment. My thoughts about my own work are radically shifting over time. 

What does Denes mean by ‘using intellect and instinct to achieve intuition’?

Denes's entire manifesto is based on the idea of working with a paradox, her first claim to the paper. Going off of that, Denes wants us (more specifically, me) to use my previous knowledge and past experience to come up with my intuition. I can’t pull my intuition out of thin air—intuition is based in intellect and instinct.  There entire basis of using this “gut feeling” is to think, but to think with purpose. There is no room for randomness in intuition. 

What is the point Denes is making by laying side by side the inquisitions of Paolo Veronese and Galileo Gallilei?

Veronese and Galilei were both artists that committed blasphemy, according to the Church, while completing their works in art and science, respectively. Though there is no stated conclusion from Denes, the juxtaposition itself makes it clear that their sole purpose wasn’t to piss the Church and its people off. Instead, they were in exploration of their own thought, and in turn, they were strong and committed to an idea that they believed in.  Art is for you and not for an institution. These are two men that are the epitome of using intellect and instinct to achieve intuition. 

How does Denes think of time? How does this compare to your notion of time? Describe.

Denes has a concept. It is called Syzygy. I can neither pronounce it nor understand it, but I won’t write it off entirely just yet. She does mention how Syzygy is a “hypothetical center of the universe. It forms a visual metaphor for space/time continuum.” Now, this is starting to make me think about Back to the Future and all of… that. I don’t think that this was Denes’s intention. Time and space are directly related to each other, I understand that.  To me, time is less inspiring and something much more nefarious. It is something I’m constantly trying to win over. Even in photography, time is of the essence. Depending on a shutter speed, I can or cannot take the photo I intend to make. In that case, time is directly related to light, so, in turn, is it related to space? I think so, but I’m not sure if that’s Denes’s point. 

Is art intentional? (Denes) What does intentionality mean to you?

Before I answer this question, I want to refer to a quotation from “Uses of Art.” “... Art is a precocious child that can communicate with children as well as adults; all it take is five minutes of their time and a frame.” If the whole frame bit is just referring to the proverbial frame, then I agree entirely and this is the best definition of art that I’ve ever heard.

On to: intentionality. Denes describes intentionality as “the mental act… a referent of consciousness, something known by the mind whether it exists or not is an intentionality.” So is art intentional? Not always. It can’t be. If an artist sets out to make a piece of work, then yes, yes it is. Even if an artist is in free thought, there is always the subconscious at work, as well as the previous experience. The product is shaped by intentionality, even when the artist is not aware. But, what about the non-artist artist? What if you have no intentions of having your work seen? What if the intentionality comes from the curator who finds a work of art and places it in a museum or gallery? Is the intention always there? Even from the non-artist artist?

To me this is a chicken or the egg question. 

What are edges?

Borders. Dividers of space. 

What is your mountain and what do you do with it?

My mountain is finding the mountain. Right now I’m somewhere at the base of the Alps or the Himalayas or the Sierras (see, I can’t even pick a range) trying to find what mountain to climb. Though I do intend to climb it, tackle it, discover all it’s cliffs and trails. My mountain will be my biggest challenge and I don’t think I will come down from that mountain until I grayed and wrinkled. In the words of Denes, I can’t wait to be creatively obsessive. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS TO A YOUNG ARTIST

If I had to write a letter to a young artist (myself?) what would I say? Do I believe all the radical bullshit written by Kerry James Marshall or Joan Jonas or Jessica Stockholder or William Pope. L or Lawrence Weiner? I know I just called it radical bullshit, but it’s not totally false. There is some merit to these words, these ideas. “You must respect and find a haven for yourself in your work” (Joan Jonas). Yes. Do that. “There are no right answers” (Jessica Stockholder”. Thank god. “Synthesize, synthesize, synthesize” (Kerry James Marshall). This is true. If you don’t start working and keep working, then how do you expect to get anything done? The hardest part for me is the beginning. Getting out of bed. Telling myself that I “will take those photos… soon. Write those thirty pages for my play tomorrow.” That’s the biggest bullshit of all. And this is my sole point. It doesn’t matter what you do at first, you just need to do something. You’ll probably hate it. If you don’t, then that’s a freaking miracle. But at least you have something to show for yourself. Make the act of doing work your practice. Specify along the way. 

Artist's Statement: Different but the Same

My artwork is told through a photographic medium, whether the pictures are moving or still.  More specifically, I work in the realms of production design and environmental portraiture. I find or create a world for my subjects: a place where their story can be told to the viewer—a person who doesn’t know them at all. More often than not, my subjects are strangers to myself, and I project my own beliefs that I gain in the moment of introduction onto the image. This is done through depth of field, camera angle, art direction, and digital manipulation. My photographs are usually taken on reversal film, but I scan my images to make digital prints. I can’t explain why I use film except that I take more care in my process.

It’s almost impossible to not be critical of those I don’t know. My biggest want with portrait photography is to figure out how we as people become biased towards those strangers. I want to show the viewer my point of view when I see my subjects, but I also want to force myself to take on a new perspective from series to series. If I can force myself to see with a new lens, can you? Also, I like to think about what makes a portrait of a celebrity important. Can I make an image using the same techniques, but with an unknown subject, have the same value? To me, it’s all about who we are looking at (you through my eyes).

Points of Inquiry

1. Write a short research essay that explores the aspect of theatricality in the works of Jeff Wall. How does portraiture come into play?
2. Do the same for the artwork of David Benjamin Jerry.

I'm thinking instead of producing a set of images for this week that I'm not invested in, since I'm using the film chemical process, that I'll thoroughly explore the works of other artists to pique my own interest. It was also suggested by the class to do more research than to do an exercise. 

Artist's Statement

I’m like many artists out there: I don’t want to be labeled as such. 

What’s with my combative attitude?  I more or less woke up one day and decided to tack on the Art Theory and Practice major my freshmen year of college. I had no formal training besides weekly ceramic classes at the Ridley Tree at the tender age of seven. So how did I get from there to here? Why am I coming to terms with my newfound title today?

I guess this begs to ask, “Who am I?” Though the question is existential and definitely cannot be answered concisely and definitively, I can say what I know so far. Right now I’m Rosalie. Right now I’m a filmmaker interested in aesthetic technique. I’m passionate about production design/art direction because I like telling the story that the actors and the camera can’t tell, and I especially like how space can subtly change the tone.

And then there is a part of me that doesn’t necessarily fit that mold: I also love to take portrait photography. The only criteria I have set for me in the past is that I am unfamiliar with my subjects. I find strangers more universally relatable than my best friends. I can look at them with a fresh perspective and the viewer, also a stranger to my subject, can do so as well. I recently stepped outside US borders to take portraits of strangers when I went to India and explored a whole new type of foreignness in my subjects. I see my critical eye in all of my pictures. It may be through the editing in Photoshop or in the focus, angle, and depth of field. It’s almost impossible to not be critical of those I don’t know, and how does my photography express that? My biggest want with portrait photography is to figure out how we as people become biased towards people we don’t even know. Also, how does that differ when considering our opinions of people we think we know (celebrities)? Considering that, what makes a portrait of a celebrity important? Can an image using the same techniques but with an unknown subject have the same value?

These are the questions that I’ve explored and continue to explore with my art. I’ve asked myself a lot of questions, as is evident here, but I want my images to call attention to the questions I ask myself. I’ve shown viewers the people that I’ve shared brief, awkward three-minute encounters with, but now I want to show them how the unknown can be so familiar.

That’s my mumbo jumbo. When I know how to make sense of it all, this, assumingly, will become a bit more clear.