Response to the Unseen Gulf War

The Unseen Gulf War by Peter Turnley - The Digital Journalist

Though the images are grim and distressing, I understand Peter’s Turnley’s statement for the reason he feels these photographs must be shown. He wishes to show the realities of war without placing judgment on them. But by photographing only the aftermath of war in this series, he displays only the loss and death, thereby making the viewer extremely conscious of the effects of war. Here the purpose and necessity is not show; there are no scenes of fighting and gunfire, no triumph. In this way I think Turnley offers his opinion about war, even if he is not trying to be judgmental.  In no way could someone view this wasteland he shows as a victory in the traditional sense. The destruction is made painfully clear. Additionally because most of his photographs are bodies instead of just rumble, he points out the human element of what can sometimes be seen as a machine interaction between two group entities. With the subtitles that accompany his work, Turnley offers even more context to the viewer, stressing this as a reality and not something in a far away land.

By ending his letter in the opening with “I would like to propose that we discuss a portfolio of these difficult images now, as a future war in Iraq grows more likely every passing day,” Turnley indicates that he hopes his images make visible the reality of war; perhaps he wishes to use them to sway people from the inclination to enter another war. He says he represents no personal point of view in these photographs, but its seems impossible that after close contact with the subject he cannot help but feel some pain at the consequences of war. After all, he terms war a “necessary evil,” evil being an extreme choice of word regarding his opinion.  No one can look at war and not feel a strong opinion, what ever it may be.

Response to LOMOgraphy

BBC NEWS | Europe | Lomos: New take on an old classic

ACP - Why I don't like LOMOgraphy

I am drawn to LOMOgraphy by its saturated colors and philosophy of spontaneity, but really my qualifying it as good or as art is not going to be based on how it was taken, but rather the content. Perhaps its saturation and abstraction leads instantaneously to an aesthetically pleasing image when we disregard subject, and this easily achieved prettiness is why we want to disqualify it as true art. But the fact is that anyone can take a photograph today, from disposable, to SLRs to digital cameras, everyone can have access if they are willing to pay the price. So I don’t think it is a crime if LOMOgraphy has created a following aided by hype and accompanied by increasingly expensive equipment. It is a choice of the person taking the pictures how they want to take a photograph, and it is our choice as an audience whether or not we will accept them. Rejecting LOMOgraphy as the easy way out and a no-brainer I find snobbish. A bad LOMOgraph is going to be just as bad as a bad photograph from any other camera. A good LOMOgraph – someone had to decide what and how they were going to take that photo, and if they just got lucky, doesn’t happen to all of us once in a while? The point is, they went somewhere with that camera with the intention of capturing the world, just like any other photographer.

As to its consumer-friendliness, I think it is inspiring how something simple can bring many people together; a show like Trafalgar Square is beautiful because of its large scale in which many small parts come together. No matter how “good” each one is on its own, they become splendid when brought together as a group. If you think LOMOgraphy is being egocentric in a quest to impress with spontaneity, just ignore it. But I think people’s eagerness to share their lives with others is not born out of this technique; it merely provides an interesting and alternative route. In this digital and Internet age, we increasingly all want to share images of our lives, how we capture those images doesn’t seem all that important.

Class Shoot no. 9: Truth

Response to Photography as a Weapon

Photography as a Weapon - Errol Morris Blog - NYTimes.com

It is true that we tend to believe that photographs present the truth, but often it depends on the picture’s context. In journalism we rely on the reporters to give us visual information, either to aid interpretation or to provide evidence. We trust them. But of course, if the publication is not one with whose views we identify, we are much quicker to dismiss this photographic “evidence.” Based on the type of periodical, for example The New York Times versus a tabloid, we have certain expectations of realism or sensationalism.

The thing is, in art, we do no mind the manipulation of photography because the photograph represents the opinion of one person, the artist. Conversely, periodicals are supposed to be unbiased, working for the public good to heighten readers’ awareness of a subject. The difficulty with photographic documentation is that the photographer is always making choices about how to make his picture. The framing and inclusion of objects, focus, aperture, shutter speed, color, black and white, all are choice that influence how a photograph is interpreted. We are quick to accuse photographers of fraud, even without the use of Photoshop,  because we feel cheated of the truth, forced to see something only one way. It becomes very personal and about our own right to freedom.

Perhaps this is why grainy photography and film documentaries work so well. We think that the truth is being presented as it is because the photographer did not have time to contemplate his composition.

A photograph tricks us into thinking it is reality because our eyes process images of the surround world everyday, But photographs are not what we see, it is what someone else gave us to see. Photography can be interpreted and employed in a myriad of ways. Morris aptly concludes his essay explaining how photographs can supply both sides of an argument; speaking to the altered photograph of four Iranian missiles, he write “Photographs can be used — to borrow Heartfield’s phrase — as weapons. They can be used to warn us about the dangers of impending war. They can also be used to ratchet up the blind forces of rage and unreason that drag us into conflict.” It is the  context of a photograph  that makes all the difference.

 

Class Shoot no. 8: Deviant

these all say deviant to me, but for different reasons...

Response to Manufactured Landscapes

Zeitgeist Films | Manufactured Landscapes

Edward Burtynsky [ Photographic Works ]

While watching Manufactured Landscapes, I couldn’t help but feel an incredible sadness creep over me, sort of like the transition from dusk to night. There is a staggering sensation of beauty and stillness, but also of loss and a realization that you cannot go back. When confronted by the work of Burtynsky, you see astonishingly vast landscapes and for a moment revel in their magnitude and orchestration of elements and color, only to then recognize them as products of human alteration and waste, plummeting you down into its grim reality.

I think Baichwall was able to well convey the massiveness and beauty of Burtynsky’s work while placing it in a context and dialogue; yet she did not thrust a certain evaluation upon viewers, allowing them to formulate their own opinions. Baichwall adds to the discussion of Burtynsky’s work by allowing the viewer to know more about the background of the photographs: how they were made, what Burtynsky’s was thinking while shooting, and presentation of actual interaction with the people who where photographed as part of the landscapes. She adds a human element to Burtynsky’s work where he eliminates it, only referring to the human involvement. This leads me to see how Burtynsky, while at one time claiming no political viewpoint over the landscapes he was photographing, could not help but to eventually advocate environmental causes. These landscapes no matter how beautiful, eerie and strange they may seem, are real places. Humans are impacting the planet and in turn hurting themselves and not matter how much it seems like we cannot go back, we still cannot let the world turn into a wasteland.

The film also put into contrast Chinese versus American lifestyle. I think that when looking at the pictures of masses of people in China, we are astounded by their similarity, which contrasts with the American championing of individuality. Certainly no one desires to live a life of drudgery and in low living conditions, but the mentality of being part of a group effort and not standing out as an individual is promoted by many Chinese. In the film, workers on big projects were asked if they were proud to be part of something for their country. They often responded, “its just work,” but still this is not viewed as a strange question.  Consider the opening ceremonies for the 2008 Olympics. China was trying to put forth an image of common pride and happiness, harmoniously working together for the greater good. The choreography of thousands of perfectly timed performers certainly displayed this. This ideal of cooperating for the bigger organism differs from that in America; we believe that we have the right to be noticed. Along with the realization that we are part of the influence on Burtynsky’s landscapes, this concept is part of why these images are so striking for us. I think because of this, I can interpret these landscapes as a way to visualize and disclose the notion that we are part of a global environment and it is really only together that we will actually be able to reverse the mess we have wandered so deep into.

free shoot cont.: back home

Free Shoot: Devon

Free Shoot: on a plane...

Class Shoot no. 7: Triangles

Reflection on Landscapes

I cannot say that I find landscapes a very inspiring subject. It just seems to me that the real thing will always be more satisfying than a simple photographic reproduction, no matter how breathtaking and spectacular the picture may be. And so, in order not to set myself up for disappointment, I tried looking at the world in a different way (or rather several). I allotted myself the time to go out to a “scenic” area – I thought it would motivate my desire to take pictures of landscapes. And it did in a way. It gave me the chance to only think about my project, take me away from everything else, and because of this I was able to study what I saw around me.

I think that in the 150+ photos I took, the landscapes became less about what I observed as a passive viewer than about what I placed within them. Obviously with the obstruction photos I was seeing how I could manipulate objects on site (not necessarily manually, but by moving myself and the camera around) to find ways these things could interact with or hinder the other.

I suppose this was sort of the idea I had when I explored placement of horizon line and capturing the sun; with both subjects, I was arranging elements in the frame, often abstracting them, but with the obstruction pictures, this theme took a much more concrete approach. I think because of this they might interact more with the viewer, instead of just creating an abstract canvass to “contemplate.”

Still, I am glad that I took several approaches to photographing landscape, as it lead me to the subject of photographing the sun. I found that I like the eerie near glowing quality of the land created by the very short exposures and the mesmerizing spot of the extremely bright sun-shape captured. I think it may be a subject I shall return to again. In short, an assignment that forced me to reexamine a subject I had dismissed before.

landscapes: the chosen ones...