Last week was a long, eventful week. I forgot about a number of things. I'll try to remember a few others though.
I met Marlene early in the Winter '12 quarter during a grad student meet-&-greet at Mellow Mushroom. I don't exactly remember that meeting, nor do I recall when she (according to Tai) touched my hair and made some commentary about it. Since we had a similar type of hair (and hair is a big thing in the Black community) we always had a running joke about being kindred spirits due to that. Instead of calling me her brother-in-arms, she'd refer to me as her brother-in-hair.
Our rapport, however, had considerably more depth than that. We took to each other right off, as I'd frequently see her hanging out in the computer lab with two other friends of mine who were work-study technicians. Marlene and I found that we had other mutual acquaintances outside of SCAD and caught up for margaritas (for her) and chips & salsa (for me, since I don't drink) to talk about life, love and photography. That was near the end of Winter and I was really flattered that she was already familiar with my work from outside of SCAD. I had assumed I'd be a completely unknown quantity.
Over the months that followed, Marlene and I would talk and text often. She was constantly cluing me in on people I should know or meet in the local arts community, places I should check on, opportunities I should look into, etc. As I'm older than she, it would be wrong to say she viewed my like a little brother, but it was a sibling-like rapport and though I didn't know her as long as others due to my time here at SCAD, we had grown comparably close as friends.
This was a constant theme in her life. She affected many others in the same way. Dru, Justin, Deidra and Tai who know her longer and better than I feel the same way of her, as do others who didn't know her as well. It's a tough loss within the dept and for me. I've lost a friend who had only begun to enrich my life, someone who I assumed I would share many more experiences within my career as an artist and I in hers. I'm still very stunned.
Yesterday, there was a guerilla-style memorial to her on an unused wall next to a print lab. Huge prints of Marlene's tacked up salon-like. I don't know who did it and judging by how it was put up, I know that SCAD will pull it down. But I thought it was awesome. To me, it said "Here's someone who meant something to us as students. This is our dept. She deserves our respect. We love her and knew her talent and she deserves to be featured. In our school. Because these are our walls."
I don't know who did it and I don't want to know. It doesn't matter. I'm sure the school will take it down and paint over the holes. I hope whoever did it the first time does it again.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Objects of Objectification…
I am inspired, somewhat, by Cammi's post from last week.
Over the course of 7 days I worked on two pieces for Open Studio. Originally, I had no plan for the presentation of these photos since I didn't honestly think they would get in. I had, however, been struggling with the "how" aspect of presenting the images should there ever be a situation in which I'd need to do so. Matting and framing just didn't really fit the images (it is perfect for some types of images but I think presentation should match the work).
I felt pretty strongly that the presentation should be as much a part of the work as the work itself. I've done this a number of times before, with the prints I've done directly onto plexiglass or the ones I've done on metal. Ultimately, though, I did those prints because (to me) it just looked cool. Being on a transparent surface or a metal one didn't really have anything to do the work and I felt as if the pieces for Open Studio (and, by extension, all twelve from the series from which I pulled those two) should be more intentional in terms of presentation.
When I exhibited the pieces on glass, I got a lot of "Cool photo; how'd you do that?" comments/questions but they're very separate and they didn't resolve one another. I thought that the abstract pieces might be more complete in a mixed media presentation but printing on plexi is out of my budget until further notice. Then, I came across Pam Moxley's work at Mason Murer when going to see Deanne's work.
Pam Moxley does a lot of mixed media presentations of painting, distressing, texturing, exposing an image and then coating it. The piece I saw was one of the only one's I remembered from the gallery itself. I really wanted to try it and luckily Travis knows all about this process and was willing to coach me through it. I'm extremely happy with the results. Extremely. Professor Turk (who watched and guided me through the creation of the work in her own, enthusiastic way) was really excited about them and how they turned out. She even, at one point, as we were talking about it referred to it (the panels and the resin) as "almost turning them into a sculture."
I've never been into sculpture but have been fascinated by it. Sculptures have a physical presence that you don't get from a photo. I'm glad that I found something that lends that quality to the images so that they feel like a piece instead of just a picture. I was concerned for some time that I wouldn't be able to sort that out. I've also given thought to what I'd call the series. Objects of Objectification came to mind but I don't know if I'm married to that yet. It's a though.
For those interested, more of Pam Moxley's work can be seen on her website:
Pam Moxley
Over the course of 7 days I worked on two pieces for Open Studio. Originally, I had no plan for the presentation of these photos since I didn't honestly think they would get in. I had, however, been struggling with the "how" aspect of presenting the images should there ever be a situation in which I'd need to do so. Matting and framing just didn't really fit the images (it is perfect for some types of images but I think presentation should match the work).
I felt pretty strongly that the presentation should be as much a part of the work as the work itself. I've done this a number of times before, with the prints I've done directly onto plexiglass or the ones I've done on metal. Ultimately, though, I did those prints because (to me) it just looked cool. Being on a transparent surface or a metal one didn't really have anything to do the work and I felt as if the pieces for Open Studio (and, by extension, all twelve from the series from which I pulled those two) should be more intentional in terms of presentation.
When I exhibited the pieces on glass, I got a lot of "Cool photo; how'd you do that?" comments/questions but they're very separate and they didn't resolve one another. I thought that the abstract pieces might be more complete in a mixed media presentation but printing on plexi is out of my budget until further notice. Then, I came across Pam Moxley's work at Mason Murer when going to see Deanne's work.
Pam Moxley does a lot of mixed media presentations of painting, distressing, texturing, exposing an image and then coating it. The piece I saw was one of the only one's I remembered from the gallery itself. I really wanted to try it and luckily Travis knows all about this process and was willing to coach me through it. I'm extremely happy with the results. Extremely. Professor Turk (who watched and guided me through the creation of the work in her own, enthusiastic way) was really excited about them and how they turned out. She even, at one point, as we were talking about it referred to it (the panels and the resin) as "almost turning them into a sculture."
I've never been into sculpture but have been fascinated by it. Sculptures have a physical presence that you don't get from a photo. I'm glad that I found something that lends that quality to the images so that they feel like a piece instead of just a picture. I was concerned for some time that I wouldn't be able to sort that out. I've also given thought to what I'd call the series. Objects of Objectification came to mind but I don't know if I'm married to that yet. It's a though.
For those interested, more of Pam Moxley's work can be seen on her website:
Pam Moxley
Sunday, October 14, 2012
TED Talk with John Maeda from RISD
John Maeda: How Art, Technology and Design Inform Creative Leaders
"Art is about asking questions that may not be answerable."
This was a quote from a John Maeda, the president of RISD. I was browsing TED Talks seeing which ones jumped out at me and decided to watch his talk. The subject was how art, technology and design are shaping leaders. There were a number of things I enjoyed in the talk, beginning with his description of how his teachers would say he was good at math and art but his father would tell people he was just good at math. My father never did that to me but I had a girlfriend who did that (as an economics major in college, I was also good at math). At any rate, one of the many reasons I refer to my relationship with her as past tense but I digress.
Also amusing was his discussion of the Apple II computer. We had one growing up and my dad (who has a side fascination with computers and technology) still has it, actually. I was also fascinated with it much in the same way he was. Aside from the passing amusement, I thought his analysis leadership of today as contrasted against the traditional model to be particularly interesting.
"Art is about asking questions that may not be answerable."
This was a quote from a John Maeda, the president of RISD. I was browsing TED Talks seeing which ones jumped out at me and decided to watch his talk. The subject was how art, technology and design are shaping leaders. There were a number of things I enjoyed in the talk, beginning with his description of how his teachers would say he was good at math and art but his father would tell people he was just good at math. My father never did that to me but I had a girlfriend who did that (as an economics major in college, I was also good at math). At any rate, one of the many reasons I refer to my relationship with her as past tense but I digress.
Also amusing was his discussion of the Apple II computer. We had one growing up and my dad (who has a side fascination with computers and technology) still has it, actually. I was also fascinated with it much in the same way he was. Aside from the passing amusement, I thought his analysis leadership of today as contrasted against the traditional model to be particularly interesting.
Traditional Leadership Creative leadership
One-Way Interactive
Bring right Being real
Orchestra model Jazz Ensemble
Community in Harmony Community in Conversation
One of them I thought was also intriguing is how he categorizes Traditional Leadership as being open to limited feedback with Creative Leadership being open to unlimited critique. It's not that I always viewed the words "critique" and "feedback" as exact synonyms but I've never viewed them as being so different as this particular context.
At any rate, as I try to look at how society's views are being shaped and changed in general (society's views change and evolve of time; it's inevitable and the question is never "if" but "how"), Maeda talks about one of the places where a definite shift is occurring. It's a short watch but an interesting one. Plus, the opening quote stuck with me, especially as we often seem to expect to either "get" art or have art that is this complete box that answers all the questions or whatever. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's confusing or we just won't get it. That's okay, we don't have to "get" everything just like not everyone will "get" everything we do. Hopefully we create something that gets us talking even if we don't get all the answers in the end.
I saw a performance art piece at Whitespace once that I felt taxed by my patience and my ability to be open-minded and appreciative of art in general. I was frustrated by it and didn't have pleasant things to say about it for the most part. But an hour or so after it was over, my friends and I were still discussing it. One has to consider it successful if it so affects a group of people. The last thing I want from my own work is for it to be forgettable.
I saw a performance art piece at Whitespace once that I felt taxed by my patience and my ability to be open-minded and appreciative of art in general. I was frustrated by it and didn't have pleasant things to say about it for the most part. But an hour or so after it was over, my friends and I were still discussing it. One has to consider it successful if it so affects a group of people. The last thing I want from my own work is for it to be forgettable.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Dumbing ourselves down by absorbing information?
Last quarter, Suellen Parker gave me some links on things she felt could help me expansively consider the themes I've been shooting. One was an interesting article prompted by a book written by Nicholas Carr entitled The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to Our Brains.
As someone who considers himself an intellectual and an information spunge, I'm keenly interested in this since, like many other people, I use the internet to gather information. On the outset, I thought Carr's discussion was going to be about how things like Twitter cause us to dumb down our way of corresponding with others. Oddly, he pointed to the very process of attaining information as the source of the issue.
The short version is that the internet — with its wealth of information, literally at your fingertips and absence of individual restriction — facilitates a state of inattentiveness that runs counter to the human method of "information-attainment-then-reflection-upon-said-info." With the internet and its endless series of links from one site (and pool of information) to the next, we are discouraged from reflection on the info we gather. All we do is absorb with an declining compulsion to process. We can convincingly argue that it is difficult to read lengthy text on a computer screen, but when we do, we go down the rabbit hole of exploring link after link after link.
According to Carr, we're no longer processing the information we've gather. It may simply merit an amused chuckle if not for the fact that our brain adapt to the way we use it without a judgement upon whether that use utilizes it as a resource in the best manner. The brains just out for simplicity and efficiency.
One thing that hit home with me was his mention of social media and the manner in which it encourages interruption and disruption. Constantly checking one's newsfeed, glancing at new tweets, etc, all these things interrupt our day with little bits of information and our brains grow to accept this as "the way." Not so much a argument in favor of printed media (which does not allow for interactive, interruptive data) as much as a call to use the internet differently and make a concerted effort to just focus.
It's a slightly different way of talking about some of the ideas on which I've been shooting: the barrage of "shared info" invading our space and time. I considering not posting a link on principle with the hope that people would read about it in printed form, but that's a little unfair. Here's a link to the transcript:
http://ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-nicholas-carr-internet-and-brain-0
As someone who considers himself an intellectual and an information spunge, I'm keenly interested in this since, like many other people, I use the internet to gather information. On the outset, I thought Carr's discussion was going to be about how things like Twitter cause us to dumb down our way of corresponding with others. Oddly, he pointed to the very process of attaining information as the source of the issue.
The short version is that the internet — with its wealth of information, literally at your fingertips and absence of individual restriction — facilitates a state of inattentiveness that runs counter to the human method of "information-attainment-then-reflection-upon-said-info." With the internet and its endless series of links from one site (and pool of information) to the next, we are discouraged from reflection on the info we gather. All we do is absorb with an declining compulsion to process. We can convincingly argue that it is difficult to read lengthy text on a computer screen, but when we do, we go down the rabbit hole of exploring link after link after link.
According to Carr, we're no longer processing the information we've gather. It may simply merit an amused chuckle if not for the fact that our brain adapt to the way we use it without a judgement upon whether that use utilizes it as a resource in the best manner. The brains just out for simplicity and efficiency.
One thing that hit home with me was his mention of social media and the manner in which it encourages interruption and disruption. Constantly checking one's newsfeed, glancing at new tweets, etc, all these things interrupt our day with little bits of information and our brains grow to accept this as "the way." Not so much a argument in favor of printed media (which does not allow for interactive, interruptive data) as much as a call to use the internet differently and make a concerted effort to just focus.
It's a slightly different way of talking about some of the ideas on which I've been shooting: the barrage of "shared info" invading our space and time. I considering not posting a link on principle with the hope that people would read about it in printed form, but that's a little unfair. Here's a link to the transcript:
http://ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-nicholas-carr-internet-and-brain-0
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Woman on a Ledge… on twitter.
http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/2012/09/24/atlanta-police-arrest-falcons-defensive-end-john-abraham/
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/258151/40/Falcons-DB-arrested-at-Atlantic-Station-
Sadly, this is the closest I can get to what could have been a travesty.
A few days ago I was talking to Alex Hadjidakiss about this. On September 24th, a woman at the Twelve Hotel & Residences in Atlantic Station was on a balcony threatening to jump. Alex happened to be headed to Target with his wife and saw all the commotion. According to him (and I believe every single word of this, not only because I trust him but it's completely in line with the sort of society we're becoming) people were on their balconies and in the street watching.
Now, that's not uncommon. People have been jumping off of ledges (or threatening to do so) in front of crowds for ages. These kinds of things have always drawn onlookers, regardless of whether that is what the person on the ledge wants. What was interesting about Alex's account was that he said that there were so many people on their cell phones taking pictures, even other people hanging off of their balconies as well.
That is the strange society of voyeurs that we're turning into.
We're developing a culture where people jump off of ledges (or, let's just be honest, sometimes they just threaten to for the attention) and we watch, take videos and post them on facebook. We tweet about it. "Talk about the crazy shit I see while watching the sunset #ontheledge." Or something like that.
I'm glad the woman was unhurt. I can't imagine how traumatic it would have been to watch it actually happen. As far as I can find, it didn't even make the news; what made the news was the Falcons' player who was either determined to go back into his house (he lives in that building) or determined to cross police lines to get a better view. He was arrested and charged with obstruction of firefighters and obstruction of police officers.
I wish I could have gotten photographs of all these people taking photographs of a woman on a ledge. I am even more inspired now, as this is sicker and more perverse than anything I could come up with.
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/258151/40/Falcons-DB-arrested-at-Atlantic-Station-
Sadly, this is the closest I can get to what could have been a travesty.
A few days ago I was talking to Alex Hadjidakiss about this. On September 24th, a woman at the Twelve Hotel & Residences in Atlantic Station was on a balcony threatening to jump. Alex happened to be headed to Target with his wife and saw all the commotion. According to him (and I believe every single word of this, not only because I trust him but it's completely in line with the sort of society we're becoming) people were on their balconies and in the street watching.
Now, that's not uncommon. People have been jumping off of ledges (or threatening to do so) in front of crowds for ages. These kinds of things have always drawn onlookers, regardless of whether that is what the person on the ledge wants. What was interesting about Alex's account was that he said that there were so many people on their cell phones taking pictures, even other people hanging off of their balconies as well.
That is the strange society of voyeurs that we're turning into.
We're developing a culture where people jump off of ledges (or, let's just be honest, sometimes they just threaten to for the attention) and we watch, take videos and post them on facebook. We tweet about it. "Talk about the crazy shit I see while watching the sunset #ontheledge." Or something like that.
I'm glad the woman was unhurt. I can't imagine how traumatic it would have been to watch it actually happen. As far as I can find, it didn't even make the news; what made the news was the Falcons' player who was either determined to go back into his house (he lives in that building) or determined to cross police lines to get a better view. He was arrested and charged with obstruction of firefighters and obstruction of police officers.
I wish I could have gotten photographs of all these people taking photographs of a woman on a ledge. I am even more inspired now, as this is sicker and more perverse than anything I could come up with.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Is Photography Over? Day One, part 1
This is a four-part series tackling the very vague question of "Is photography over?" conducted at SFMOMA including a number of people established in the world of photographic arts. I mentioned this in class a week or so ago. Two panel groups convened for an hour over the course of two days. Group one included seven people:
•Peter Galassi - chief curator of photography at MOMA NYC.
The panel opens with an acknowledgment that "the question is a blunt instrument" that's intentionally vague and deliberately open to interpretation. They purposely used the word "over" instead of "dead." They also state up front that they didn't form the panel and ask the question because they thought that the answer was "Yes." They set it up because they felt it was an important question to ask and be discussed. The core of what they intended to get at was: if there's something over in photography, what is it and, by extension, does it even matter (that thing, not photography, though one could certainly have an opinion on either)?
•Peter Galassi - chief curator of photography at MOMA NYC.
•Blake Stimson - teaches art history and critical theory at UC Davis.
•Joel Snyder - professor and chair of the Dept. of Art History University of Chicago.
•Douglass Nickel - Andrea B. Rosenthal professor of modern art at Brown University. Curator of photography at SFMOMA for 10 years.
•Vince Aletti - former art editor and photography critic for the Village Voice.
•Corey Keller - associate curator for photography at SFMOMA.
•Philip-Lorca deCorcia - exhibited art photographer (noted for his series Heads) and chief critic for the graduate school at Yale.
The panel opens with an acknowledgment that "the question is a blunt instrument" that's intentionally vague and deliberately open to interpretation. They purposely used the word "over" instead of "dead." They also state up front that they didn't form the panel and ask the question because they thought that the answer was "Yes." They set it up because they felt it was an important question to ask and be discussed. The core of what they intended to get at was: if there's something over in photography, what is it and, by extension, does it even matter (that thing, not photography, though one could certainly have an opinion on either)?
People interested in the event and the panelists had to address the question and while digital photography was touched upon, it was not a central theme. In other words, it was not about this tired notion of "The digitalization of photography is killing photography." I'm glad it didn't go there. Joel Snyder (a man whose outlook I disagreed with in many ways; something I'll come back to later) did a good job of making a case for the digital process within photography as it relates to art. As an art history professor, he references how in the early days of photography it was always references as "mechanical" which was a way of speaking to the fact that it was reproductive in nature and it was only reproducing something that was actually there, it required no artistic talent and could be done by any button-pusher and/or a person who understood the chemistry aspects of it. He goes on to touch on some early aspects of photographs as art was the literal cutting and pasting method but the photo itself was very much a matter of reproducing or documenting art instead of being it.
The way he wraps it up is to point out that we are now at a point where the photographer as an artist can manipulate photographs as never before and that the photo is now a canvas for the photographer's vision. As someone who resisted a conversion to digital photography (I'd like to say that I've just made it a part of my workflow but I haven't shot film for about 3 years; I don't rule it out shooting 120 again, since I can scan for free here at SCAD) because it "didn't give me the images I composed in my head" it was reassuring to hear that from someone who I'd assume on the surface would be dismissive of the digital process. I've had pretty heated discussions with people on how there should be some sort of separation in this world of image-making, where there are photographers on one side and "digital artists" on another, as if the latter category through the use of computer tools are no longer allowed to use the word "photographer" to refer to themselves. Personally I think that's a.) crazy because it's b.) beside the point.
I really liked diCorcia's outlook the most, general-speaking. While I consider myself an intellectual, a lot of the panel's discussion could be viewed as overly cerebral, so I enjoyed his candor. At one point, Joel Snyder is going on about how what photography has lost is this quality he noted when he was young: how in going to a gallery, all the photographs which were there showed us something new/innovative about photography. Now, by contrast, the photos which go up are just aesthetically please, I guess. Part of me wants to dismiss that as the classic "Things we're better back in my day and this generation does nothing new or imaginative." talk. diCorcia counters that with "You're saying the first man who rubbed two sticks together made fire and everyone else is a bunch of pyromaniacs." Or, in my interpretation, photographer's in Snyder's younger days were innovating (like the first man with fire) and apparently now everyone's compelled to use what they did to do something destructive (like pyros).
At any rate, it's a good watch if you have an hour. Part two of day one is more interesting but some really good discussion in part one.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Artist talk: Allison Jackson
This was a link that Suellen Parker sent to me at the end of last quarter which prompted a revision of my artist statement (more clearly: it prompted me to add another page or two to my condensed statement for a new, long artist statement).
http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_jackson_looks_at_celebrity.html
Prior to last quarter, I'd never heard of her but after hearing her discuss her work, I'm really intrigued. One of the things which really struck a cord with me is her view of how we (as a society) have begun to crave this intimate access into the lives of others. She focuses on celebrity and political figures, whereas I think we're turning our voyeuristic eyes to one another. With an intention similar to my own, Alison Jackson also uses objects to obstruct the view and emphasize this voyeuristic feeling as if we're seeing something we shouldn't see. Something dirty or private (or both) that we shouldn't see but we want to believe has actually happened.
Though she said it in regard to Princess Diana's death, her statement that the world looked upon the details of her passing almost like it was pornographic (that is, the world to a lustful, graphic gratification in picking over the gritty details), I see us doing a similar thing to one another. The way in which we view the downfall of others in reality TV or watch someone breakup or have a meltdown on Facebook is nearly perverse.
I like the way in which she discusses her methodology. She crafts these situation to make the viewer think it is real, even to the extent that she must now put disclaimers up. Of course, I also craft my own reality in a photo, choosing that over documentary style which might or might not show the story as I envision it in my head. As I move forward, I'm trying to tackle this idea of authenticity/reality and whether or not it is necessary for my work.
http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_jackson_looks_at_celebrity.html
Prior to last quarter, I'd never heard of her but after hearing her discuss her work, I'm really intrigued. One of the things which really struck a cord with me is her view of how we (as a society) have begun to crave this intimate access into the lives of others. She focuses on celebrity and political figures, whereas I think we're turning our voyeuristic eyes to one another. With an intention similar to my own, Alison Jackson also uses objects to obstruct the view and emphasize this voyeuristic feeling as if we're seeing something we shouldn't see. Something dirty or private (or both) that we shouldn't see but we want to believe has actually happened.
Though she said it in regard to Princess Diana's death, her statement that the world looked upon the details of her passing almost like it was pornographic (that is, the world to a lustful, graphic gratification in picking over the gritty details), I see us doing a similar thing to one another. The way in which we view the downfall of others in reality TV or watch someone breakup or have a meltdown on Facebook is nearly perverse.
I like the way in which she discusses her methodology. She crafts these situation to make the viewer think it is real, even to the extent that she must now put disclaimers up. Of course, I also craft my own reality in a photo, choosing that over documentary style which might or might not show the story as I envision it in my head. As I move forward, I'm trying to tackle this idea of authenticity/reality and whether or not it is necessary for my work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)