Oh the Polidori wins hands down. Technically (although they could both benefit from holding the camera level), compositionally, politically and emotionally. Red blackboard (could it be real?) is just the icing on the cake. Who doesn't have memories of being in school. A shoe factory? Don't think so. ~m
I don't think nostalgia should be factored in, as McMillan has plenty of school shots as well. Besides, this is about human destruction and tragedy, not "I liked kindergarten". In fact the whole comparison is troublesome. It's hard to compare one photo out of a huge body of work as representative. I don't know much about Polidori, but McMillan's got some amazing work (even better than the one you chose to represent him). Imagine if someone took one of your paintings to compare in such a way, You'd want them to choose a good one, right? Anyhow, I suspect you are suggesting that the subject makes the photographer in some ways. That may be partially true, but if we examined 100 photos from both people, I'm certain the best photographer would come out on top, or we could surmise they were both just dandy at taking pictures. (McMillan's is level, the angles come from perspective)
It's a common misconception that holding the camera level means only not tilting to the left or right. While "tilting" is a common problem "pitching" the camera lens up or down causes "verticals" to fall in or out distorting the perspective especially in wide angle lens such as the ones used to photograph interiors. Verticals can tell their own story. In the Polidori photo he's pitched up slightly (verticals fall in) and rotated left. He's composed the shot to be dead on the red blackboard. Fine, fix it in post or not. The McMillan photo is slightly more troubling. Upon closer examination it appears to be two photos stitched or one photo taken on a really bad lens, I'm guessing a stitch since you don't fly all the way to Pripyat with a Lomo (actually I probably would). The give away is the bow or "warp" on the horizontal plane where the fluorescent lights run. The verticals also fall out on the left side, in on the right side and somewhere else in the middle. Shot on digital hence any detail in the windows is blown out. It's good if it's documentary but don't mistake this for fine art, because if it is then it's slumming...
Haha, you haven't been introduced to art reinforcement principals yet, so I'll let it slide. Check out some more of McMillan's work before you get too worked up and use more words like "slumming". He's quite good.
Quite good then, but still not great. Let's admit then that these photos are about "access" and not necessarily perfecting the craft or understanding the underlying questions and posing new ideas. Like Madonna writing a childrens' book or Linda Eastman photographing her famous friends, their importance lies in the fact that they are somewhere where we can't go. Upon closer inspection McMillan's web site for these photos says only that he is concerned "...in the relationship between nature and culture". That's it, where the rest?! Polidori on the other hand seems to have written and interviewed volumes on the subject of why he photographs and what his influences in art and film have been. Polidori also photographs commercially as well to support his projects. He gets his hands dirty doing those icky photo jobs that "artists" don't want to touch. McMillan works as a professor teaching art and as I understand but has the dubious distinction of sucking up about a decade-and-a-half worth of the "A" grants out of Manitoba. He's a well funded tourist. The difference between these photographers is that one is quite "good" the other is great.
Great is not necessarily easy to come by. (I think he gets pretty darn close sometimes though, and to see some of my favorite photos hardcopy, might bridge the gap). I don’t really know how good Polidori is, from this one tiny green internet photo, and I had McMillan as a professor at the UofM, so obviously I’m influenced by this. Even so, I’m not interested in saying who is better. I am leery about art hierarchies, knowing they are fraught with contradictions and biases. I opt to just call it art, and look for parts I can understand. What I've been arguing against is (when you said) "don't mistake this for fine art, because if it is then it's slumming...”. Dictionary.com says:
Slumming –verb (used without object) 3. to visit slums, esp. from curiosity. 4. to visit or frequent a place, group, or amusement spot considered to be low in social status.
Fine Art –noun a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.
Of course you used a specific term, “Fine Art”. This “Fine Art” that McMillan isn’t eligible for due to his success with grants and professorship, actually is a term coined by the aristocratic elite(17th Century?), separating the folk art and craft (like chaff from the grain). The only art allowed in galleries, was painting and sculpture. Lowly things like drawing were not included, and photography had not yet been invented. Only old white men were allowed to exhibit. That being said, David sounds like more of a “Fine Art” candidate than Polidori, who “…gets his hands dirty”.
Even so, I get what you’re saying. You personally appreciate Polidori’s photography skills and hard work. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you don’t have to detract from McMillan who may be pursuing different ideals than what you’re looking for. Truth be told, I butted heads with McMillan constantly in his photography class, and most of my pictures were in protest of his narrow (technical, mathematical, right and wrong) view of what photography should be (which at the moment reminds me of you). He seemed really focused on certain ideals, and he seemed to take it all quite seriously. I would submit assignments questioning this absolute truth (for example an entire series of intentionally under exposed photos {which drove him crazy, but still got me a B+ with my theories backing it up}). Even with my disagreement, I would never suggest that what he’s doing isn’t art. And the slumming comment doesn’t make much sense to me either. He’s from Winnipeg for goodness sake! Here is a line by line breakdown in response to your final comment:
“Quite good then, but still not great. Let's admit then that these photos are about "access" and not necessarily perfecting the craft …” McMillan is a huge photography nerd, with tons of technical knowledge, I would say acess is a big part though, with any photography. “…or understanding the underlying questions and posing new ideas”. THE questions? Maybe not the same questions you’re asking, but he does inquire, I’d say (especially having heard him speak on the subject). Posing new ideas? With Photography? Or about Chernobyl? I’d say he does both. “Like Madonna writing a childrens' book or Linda Eastman photographing her famous friends, their importance lies in the fact that they are somewhere where we can't go …” I don’t understand the comparison. Where did Madonna go, that we can’t go? “Upon closer inspection McMillan's web site for these photos says only that he is concerned "...in the relationship between nature and culture" You seem QUITE sensitive to adjectives. It makes me {only} CONCERNED. =P “ That's it, where the rest?! Polidori on the other hand seems to have written and interviewed volumes on the subject of why he photographs and what his influences in art and film have been. Polidori also photographs commercially as well to support his projects. He gets his hands dirty doing those icky photo jobs that "artists" don't want to touch”. Good for Polidori, I will check his website at your recommendation. A lot can be said be said with the words behind a picture, something I’m learning more about. “ McMillan works as a professor teaching art and as I understand but has the dubious distinction of sucking up about a decade-and-a-half worth of the "A" grants out of Manitoba. He's a well funded tourist”. Bourgeoisie! Fine Art! “The difference between these photographers is that one is quite "good" the other is great”. …in the opinion of Mondotrasho (does that mean lots of trash , like lots of trash talking?) When I suggested you post some of your photographic work, it wasn’t a sneaky trick. I’m sure you got the point that nothing is above criticism, but that also doesn’t mean it’s going to feel good or get you anywhere further down the road. The art reinforcement I mentioned earlier is our (a few of us bloggers) term for positive stimulus regarding art. If we want to communicate better and increase our breadth of understanding, and imagination, if we want to feel intrinsically compelled to make art, positivity is the best tool. Sorry if I lost sight of that at any time in our debate. If I’m going to affect my environment, the people I interact with, I want it to be in a positive way. And honestly, if you had posted that portrait of Isabel, or a photo of equal quality, It would have had me singing a different tune (just like your last few chess moves =P). How’s that for a mad rant?
I guess for me, the thing is that Polidori's image is from 2001 and McMillan's first images were taken in 1994. I find it a bit weird that Polidori would go and document the same body of work in much the same manner as McMillan did 7 years previous and continued for 11 visits. Who's better, who cares, find your own body of work.
So for Denis, it seems that uniqueness is an issue. Makes sense coming from someone (Denis)who evades conventional categorization with his wood sculpture painting thingies. Although, I would say just because one person has done something, doesn't mean another person can't do it. I don't think taking a picture of a place should be like territorial pissing.Making a painting for me is affected by the tradition of image making and painting. I follow a lineage of picture makers, and my uniqueness comes automatically, like a snowflake. On the other hand,in this metaphor, I still consider myself snow, a small part of a greater whole.
Anyone can see the intensely complex web of possible perceptions, values, ambiguity and contradiction that can arise in looking at and talking about (and most problematically, evaluating art from a non-subjective position). This knowledge is sort of... post modernism... I think...Isn't it?
Oh ya! Sky's link is interesting to compare. It has the same human tragedy component, communicated through a man made environment's decay, but adds a naked person. Nudity is a symbol of freedom and innocence, like the story of Adam and Eve. It makes the images even more tragic juxtaposing humans in a natural state, next to the destruction that is inevitable with current human belief systems. In other words, we are doing it to ourselves, which may be more tragic than if it just happened. Of all 3 I would say I like the ones from Sky's link the most (not that they are better, just the poeticness of it appeals to me). Then there's Edward Burtynski(?) and even Steve Guthro!
I looked at sky's link and forgot to mention anything about it. Kind've like sticking a gnome in all your pictures, only a little more provocative! What would Byrtinsky's photos look like with a nude lady in it?
hmmm.
I can definitely see the corelation.
And interesting, I though P. had done the Chernobyl first, but apparently not. hmm. but it doesn't really matter whether it's the chicken or the egg anyways, I just like that they are similar and different.
I think that it does matter who did it first, because in contemporary photography (or art in general), the idea is to explore an issue and give it your voice. There is nothing strikingly different is the two artists work, therefore nothing new is being said, therefore the second one should become a mute point. You can shoot the same subject, but you should treat that subject differently, give it a fresh look.
That is actually a perfect example "micro". That lady has a body of work that consists of her taking photos of famous photos, that was her idea, her way of looking at the world. If I started taking photos of famous photos, then I would be doing what that lady does, I would be copying her. If however, I elaborated on her idea, taking photos of, say, I don't know, grad photos. Then I would be expanding her idea, creating my own dialogue. The problem I have with the Polidori images, is that they don't stray very far from the original, he is not expanding on McMillan's dialogue, he is simply taking the same sort of shots of the same subject matter.
Ok, they are too similar for your liking. Even so I bet I could make a selection of each photographers work, and show them to people who have seen both their work, and that identifying them to be the work of each person wouldn't be that hard. I would bet I could design the test to be passed 90% of the time (my test would be rigged, see later in comment*).What I take to be most poignant from your last comment is about "...her way of looking at the world."
This is it for sure. Conveying our unique experiences, communicating who we are and what we think of all this, is a very common pursuit. I think it's not just artists, it's probably everyone who wants to do that. Artists do it in a slightly different way, perhaps searching for ways to include beauty and imagination, following traditional forms, even when the form is traditionally breaking out of those forms (its own) at its core. This is what makes it so darn hard to define. With the case of the lady we were discussing (what's her name, photos of photos), what is she saying exactly? I would suggest her work questions current ideas of originality. If her life involves masterful photography, why can't she photograph it (probably serious avante guarde when it first came out). I would bet someone in her family has a picture of her with her pictures of pictures. In this case the chain continues as a meaningful object, communicating. Photos of photos of photos. I think originality is both inevitable, and impossible. The inevitable comes from trying to reproduce work. No matter how hard you try and copy, how good your forgeries are, you can't literally recreate the same thing again (and we try this all the time, in different forms, like cloning as an example). As for originality being impossible, it gets more complicated. Let's say since copying is impossible but things can still be pretty darn similar, we could safely say there is a gradation, a scale going from very darn similar to , very darn different, and your either on the scale or not comparable (remember Sky's opposite of unicorn). Simply belonging to that scale implies a similarity, and you're either on it or your not.
Photography is made different by either the place you stand, how tall you are, the environment, when and where you press the button, and how you process everything. The processing that McMillan uses is not unique. The same chemicals and processes are used in one artist's development as are in the next. Also, as I mentioned before, McMillan had a system of right and wrongs when making photos. This system of ideals was taught to him, not pulled out of a hat. Polidori and McMillan were likely taught the same damn ideals (which come from people who cant stand the ambiguity, and have to say things like "all art is..."). That generation of photographers wanted photography to mimic natural visual perception. In other words, they want to portray their subject, as close to how it looked (in real life) as possible. So if they have the same chemicals, the same lessons, the same area, it is no wonder they align on the scale of similarity. Even so, as I mentioned with my test idea, there is enough that one human brings to his/her art, to make it entirely unique, whether they like it or not. I would select photos based on favourite colours or kind of shots, or something that would make them obviously different photographers, different people. That's the key factor, the human part. I haven't studied these two to find it yet, but I am utterly convinced they have different "...ways of looking at the world". I wish sometimes I could see through somone elses eyes, or that they could see through mine, but that is never the case (not 100% anyway). In my little world of ideals, if Polidori did come as a derivative of McMillan, he could set it all right just by saying that (maybe in an artist statement somewhere). I did ook at a bit more of Polidori's work. He has lots of 'human disater' photography, besides Chernobyl. I suspect this (Pripyat Photos) was perfectly in line with what he was doing in the first place, and even though there was some weird dude from Winnipeg doing it (his only disaster series from what I can tell), Polodori was not hung up on it, and decided to have a go. There are certainly more than 2 people who photo Winnipeg 'realistically', and the more the better I say. And they should all fly to Pripyat and take underexposed photos of stray dogs. Well that's my opinion.
"Then I would be expanding HER idea, creating my OWN dialogue".
Great comments, Dave. I would add that the human/individual is apparent in the *selection* process, which happens more than once. In photography, you *select* what to photograph, you *select* the angle, exposure, format etc., and you *select* what photos to present (at a show, on a blog, whatever). That last step is evident even if you just stuck the camera out the window of a car and clicked the shutter ;)
If I took a batch of a hundred my own photos, unedited, and gave them to several people on this blog and asked them to make a post using just two or three of them, their own individuality would come through in their selections - even though the photographs themselves would not be their own.
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
Shoe Factory, David McMillan
25 comments:
Oh the Polidori wins hands down. Technically (although they could both benefit from holding the camera level), compositionally, politically and emotionally. Red blackboard (could it be real?) is just the icing on the cake. Who doesn't have memories of being in school. A shoe factory? Don't think so.
~m
I don't think nostalgia should be factored in, as McMillan has plenty of school shots as well. Besides, this is about human destruction and tragedy, not "I liked kindergarten". In fact the whole comparison is troublesome. It's hard to compare one photo out of a huge body of work as representative. I don't know much about Polidori, but McMillan's got some amazing work (even better than the one you chose to represent him). Imagine if someone took one of your paintings to compare in such a way, You'd want them to choose a good one, right? Anyhow, I suspect you are suggesting that the subject makes the photographer in some ways. That may be partially true, but if we examined 100 photos from both people, I'm certain the best photographer would come out on top, or we could surmise they were both just dandy at taking pictures.
(McMillan's is level, the angles come from perspective)
Have you guys seen this?
http://www.mirukim.com/nakedcityspleen/
It's a common misconception that holding the camera level means only not tilting to the left or right. While "tilting" is a common problem "pitching" the camera lens up or down causes "verticals" to fall in or out distorting the perspective especially in wide angle lens such as the ones used to photograph interiors. Verticals can tell their own story. In the Polidori photo he's pitched up slightly (verticals fall in) and rotated left. He's composed the shot to be dead on the red blackboard. Fine, fix it in post or not. The McMillan photo is slightly more troubling. Upon closer examination it appears to be two photos stitched or one photo taken on a really bad lens, I'm guessing a stitch since you don't fly all the way to Pripyat with a Lomo (actually I probably would). The give away is the bow or "warp" on the horizontal plane where the fluorescent lights run. The verticals also fall out on the left side, in on the right side and somewhere else in the middle. Shot on digital hence any detail in the windows is blown out. It's good if it's documentary but don't mistake this for fine art, because if it is then it's slumming...
Haha, you haven't been introduced to art reinforcement principals yet, so I'll let it slide. Check out some more of McMillan's work before you get too worked up and use more words like "slumming". He's quite good.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~dmcmill/
Just "good" eh? You don't say.
I didn't say just good, I said QUITE good. Let's see some of your awesome photography.
Quite good then, but still not great. Let's admit then that these photos are about "access" and not necessarily perfecting the craft or understanding the underlying questions and posing new ideas. Like Madonna writing a childrens' book or Linda Eastman photographing her famous friends, their importance lies in the fact that they are somewhere where we can't go. Upon closer inspection McMillan's web site for these photos says only that he is concerned "...in the relationship between nature and culture". That's it, where the rest?! Polidori on the other hand seems to have written and interviewed volumes on the subject of why he photographs and what his influences in art and film have been. Polidori also photographs commercially as well to support his projects. He gets his hands dirty doing those icky photo jobs that "artists" don't want to touch. McMillan works as a professor teaching art and as I understand but has the dubious distinction of sucking up about a decade-and-a-half worth of the "A" grants out of Manitoba. He's a well funded tourist. The difference between these photographers is that one is quite "good" the other is great.
Great is not necessarily easy to come by. (I think he gets pretty darn close sometimes though, and to see some of my favorite photos hardcopy, might bridge the gap). I don’t really know how good Polidori is, from this one tiny green internet photo, and I had McMillan as a professor at the UofM, so obviously I’m influenced by this. Even so, I’m not interested in saying who is better. I am leery about art hierarchies, knowing they are fraught with contradictions and biases. I opt to just call it art, and look for parts I can understand.
What I've been arguing against is (when you said) "don't mistake this for fine art, because if it is then it's slumming...”.
Dictionary.com says:
Slumming
–verb (used without object)
3. to visit slums, esp. from curiosity.
4. to visit or frequent a place, group, or amusement spot considered to be low in social status.
Fine Art
–noun
a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.
Of course you used a specific term, “Fine Art”. This “Fine Art” that McMillan isn’t eligible for due to his success with grants and professorship, actually is a term coined by the aristocratic elite(17th Century?), separating the folk art and craft (like chaff from the grain). The only art allowed in galleries, was painting and sculpture. Lowly things like drawing were not included, and photography had not yet been invented. Only old white men were allowed to exhibit. That being said, David sounds like more of a “Fine Art” candidate than Polidori, who “…gets his hands dirty”.
Even so, I get what you’re saying. You personally appreciate Polidori’s photography skills and hard work. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you don’t have to detract from McMillan who may be pursuing different ideals than what you’re looking for. Truth be told, I butted heads with McMillan constantly in his photography class, and most of my pictures were in protest of his narrow (technical, mathematical, right and wrong) view of what photography should be (which at the moment reminds me of you). He seemed really focused on certain ideals, and he seemed to take it all quite seriously. I would submit assignments questioning this absolute truth (for example an entire series of intentionally under exposed photos {which drove him crazy, but still got me a B+ with my theories backing it up}). Even with my disagreement, I would never suggest that what he’s doing isn’t art. And the slumming comment doesn’t make much sense to me either. He’s from Winnipeg for goodness sake!
Here is a line by line breakdown in response to your final comment:
“Quite good then, but still not great. Let's admit then that these photos are about "access" and not necessarily perfecting the craft …”
McMillan is a huge photography nerd, with tons of technical knowledge, I would say acess is a big part though, with any photography.
“…or understanding the underlying questions and posing new ideas”.
THE questions? Maybe not the same questions you’re asking, but he does inquire, I’d say (especially having heard him speak on the subject). Posing new ideas? With Photography? Or about Chernobyl? I’d say he does both.
“Like Madonna writing a childrens' book or Linda Eastman photographing her famous friends, their importance lies in the fact that they are somewhere where we can't go …”
I don’t understand the comparison. Where did Madonna go, that we can’t go?
“Upon closer inspection McMillan's web site for these photos says only that he is concerned "...in the relationship between nature and culture"
You seem QUITE sensitive to adjectives. It makes me {only} CONCERNED. =P
“ That's it, where the rest?! Polidori on the other hand seems to have written and interviewed volumes on the subject of why he photographs and what his influences in art and film have been. Polidori also photographs commercially as well to support his projects. He gets his hands dirty doing those icky photo jobs that "artists" don't want to touch”.
Good for Polidori, I will check his website at your recommendation. A lot can be said be said with the words behind a picture, something I’m learning more about.
“ McMillan works as a professor teaching art and as I understand but has the dubious distinction of sucking up about a decade-and-a-half worth of the "A" grants out of Manitoba. He's a well funded tourist”.
Bourgeoisie! Fine Art!
“The difference between these photographers is that one is quite "good" the other is great”.
…in the opinion of Mondotrasho (does that mean lots of trash , like lots of trash talking?)
When I suggested you post some of your photographic work, it wasn’t a sneaky trick. I’m sure you got the point that nothing is above criticism, but that also doesn’t mean it’s going to feel good or get you anywhere further down the road. The art reinforcement I mentioned earlier is our (a few of us bloggers) term for positive stimulus regarding art. If we want to communicate better and increase our breadth of understanding, and imagination, if we want to feel intrinsically compelled to make art, positivity is the best tool. Sorry if I lost sight of that at any time in our debate. If I’m going to affect my environment, the people I interact with, I want it to be in a positive way. And honestly, if you had posted that portrait of Isabel, or a photo of equal quality, It would have had me singing a different tune (just like your last few chess moves =P). How’s that for a mad rant?
Well done! ;^)
I guess for me, the thing is that Polidori's image is from 2001 and McMillan's first images were taken in 1994. I find it a bit weird that Polidori would go and document the same body of work in much the same manner as McMillan did 7 years previous and continued for 11 visits. Who's better, who cares, find your own body of work.
I think Polidori started doing this in 1985. He also has a big retrospective at the Musee d'art contemporaine in Montreal right now.
I have a feeling that McMillan's work is derivative of Polidori's.
Who's our eye in the sky in Montreal right now? Wolfie, have you seen this show yet?
By the way, thanks so much Mondo and Macro, I love it when people go back and forth like this.
So for Denis, it seems that uniqueness is an issue. Makes sense coming from someone (Denis)who evades conventional categorization with his wood sculpture painting thingies. Although, I would say just because one person has done something, doesn't mean another person can't do it. I don't think taking a picture of a place should be like territorial pissing.Making a painting for me is affected by the tradition of image making and painting. I follow a lineage of picture makers, and my uniqueness comes automatically, like a snowflake. On the other hand,in this metaphor, I still consider myself snow, a small part of a greater whole.
Anyone can see the intensely complex web of possible perceptions, values, ambiguity and contradiction that can arise in looking at and talking about (and most problematically, evaluating art from a non-subjective position). This knowledge is sort of... post modernism... I think...Isn't it?
Great discussion, guys ... but no one has commented on my link! ;)
http://www.mirukim.com/nakedcityspleen/
What do you guys think of Miru Kim's similar/different work?
Oh ya! Sky's link is interesting to compare. It has the same human tragedy component, communicated through a man made environment's decay, but adds a naked person. Nudity is a symbol of freedom and innocence, like the story of Adam and Eve. It makes the images even more tragic juxtaposing humans in a natural state, next to the destruction that is inevitable with current human belief systems. In other words, we are doing it to ourselves, which may be more tragic than if it just happened. Of all 3 I would say I like the ones from Sky's link the most (not that they are better, just the poeticness of it appeals to me). Then there's Edward Burtynski(?) and even Steve Guthro!
I looked at sky's link and forgot to mention anything about it. Kind've like sticking a gnome in all your pictures, only a little more provocative! What would Byrtinsky's photos look like with a nude lady in it?
hmmm.
I can definitely see the corelation.
And interesting, I though P. had done the Chernobyl first, but apparently not. hmm. but it doesn't really matter whether it's the chicken or the egg anyways, I just like that they are similar and different.
I just checked dictionary.com again, "quite" is an adverb. I still think I'm funny though.
I think that it does matter who did it first, because in contemporary photography (or art in general), the idea is to explore an issue and give it your voice. There is nothing strikingly different is the two artists work, therefore nothing new is being said, therefore the second one should become a mute point. You can shoot the same subject, but you should treat that subject differently, give it a fresh look.
What about that lady who photographs famous photographs (for an example off the top)? I think we run into problems anytime we say "art is about..."
That is actually a perfect example "micro". That lady has a body of work that consists of her taking photos of famous photos, that was her idea, her way of looking at the world. If I started taking photos of famous photos, then I would be doing what that lady does, I would be copying her. If however, I elaborated on her idea, taking photos of, say, I don't know, grad photos. Then I would be expanding her idea, creating my own dialogue. The problem I have with the Polidori images, is that they don't stray very far from the original, he is not expanding on McMillan's dialogue, he is simply taking the same sort of shots of the same subject matter.
Ok, they are too similar for your liking. Even so I bet I could make a selection of each photographers work, and show them to people who have seen both their work, and that identifying them to be the work of each person wouldn't be that hard. I would bet I could design the test to be passed 90% of the time (my test would be rigged, see later in comment*).What I take to be most poignant from your last comment is about "...her way of looking at the world."
This is it for sure. Conveying our unique experiences, communicating who we are and what we think of all this, is a very common pursuit. I think it's not just artists, it's probably everyone who wants to do that. Artists do it in a slightly different way, perhaps searching for ways to include beauty and imagination, following traditional forms, even when the form is traditionally breaking out of those forms (its own) at its core. This is what makes it so darn hard to define. With the case of the lady we were discussing (what's her name, photos of photos), what is she saying exactly? I would suggest her work questions current ideas of originality. If her life involves masterful photography, why can't she photograph it (probably serious avante guarde when it first came out). I would bet someone in her family has a picture of her with her pictures of pictures. In this case the chain continues as a meaningful object, communicating. Photos of photos of photos. I think originality is both inevitable, and impossible. The inevitable comes from trying to reproduce work. No matter how hard you try and copy, how good your forgeries are, you can't literally recreate the same thing again (and we try this all the time, in different forms, like cloning as an example). As for originality being impossible, it gets more complicated. Let's say since copying is impossible but things can still be pretty darn similar, we could safely say there is a gradation, a scale going from very darn similar to , very darn different, and your either on the scale or not comparable (remember Sky's opposite of unicorn). Simply belonging to that scale implies a similarity, and you're either on it or your not.
Photography is made different by either the place you stand, how tall you are, the environment, when and where you press the button, and how you process everything. The processing that McMillan uses is not unique. The same chemicals and processes are used in one artist's development as are in the next. Also, as I mentioned before, McMillan had a system of right and wrongs when making photos. This system of ideals was taught to him, not pulled out of a hat. Polidori and McMillan were likely taught the same damn ideals (which come from people who cant stand the ambiguity, and have to say things like "all art is..."). That generation of photographers wanted photography to mimic natural visual perception. In other words, they want to portray their subject, as close to how it looked (in real life) as possible. So if they have the same chemicals, the same lessons, the same area, it is no wonder they align on the scale of similarity. Even so, as I mentioned with my test idea, there is enough that one human brings to his/her art, to make it entirely unique, whether they like it or not. I would select photos based on favourite colours or kind of shots, or something that would make them obviously different photographers, different people. That's the key factor, the human part. I haven't studied these two to find it yet, but I am utterly convinced they have different "...ways of looking at the world". I wish sometimes I could see through somone elses eyes, or that they could see through mine, but that is never the case (not 100% anyway). In my little world of ideals, if Polidori did come as a derivative of McMillan, he could set it all right just by saying that (maybe in an artist statement somewhere). I did ook at a bit more of Polidori's work. He has lots of 'human disater' photography, besides Chernobyl. I suspect this (Pripyat Photos) was perfectly in line with what he was doing in the first place, and even though there was some weird dude from Winnipeg doing it (his only disaster series from what I can tell), Polodori was not hung up on it, and decided to have a go. There are certainly more than 2 people who photo Winnipeg 'realistically', and the more the better I say. And they should all fly to Pripyat and take underexposed photos of stray dogs. Well that's my opinion.
"Then I would be expanding HER idea, creating my OWN dialogue".
We are ever one, and apart, a group of isolation.
Oops. Part of that didn't make sense. It's hard to get the idea out without spending hours on it.
Great comments, Dave. I would add that the human/individual is apparent in the *selection* process, which happens more than once. In photography, you *select* what to photograph, you *select* the angle, exposure, format etc., and you *select* what photos to present (at a show, on a blog, whatever). That last step is evident even if you just stuck the camera out the window of a car and clicked the shutter ;)
If I took a batch of a hundred my own photos, unedited, and gave them to several people on this blog and asked them to make a post using just two or three of them, their own individuality would come through in their selections - even though the photographs themselves would not be their own.
Post a Comment