reflection on panorama project

The panoramic project was an interesting introduction to a new format/technique of photography, difficult for me because it is a completely different frame with which to view the world. When taking photographs, or even just looking around on an everyday basis, I am constantly putting a photographic or film framing around everything, making compositions in my head. However, I cannot as easily do this for a panoramic; I can take a wider view of something, but cannot see the distortion that will appear in a photograph.

For this reason, I experimented a lot and took many different panoramic scenes to explore how they would turn out. One of the immediate things I thought of when out shooting was to take vertical panoramas. I thought this would be an interesting way to see the world. We are accustomed to gazing at a landscape/scene and panning just slightly or looking out of the corner of our eye to get a wider picture; however, what we do not register as often it the up and down “landscapes” around us. 

I was pleased with the way my vertical panorama of the stacks turned out, but did not chose it for my final print because I thought the tide pool imagery added was unnecessary. It seemed like a fitting and conceivable subject – I could image sea life under those translucent tiles – but to this image, already distorted by the format, I felt it did not add anything, and perhaps even detracted from the overpowering luminescence of the tiles. This is why I decided to go with the horizontal format, feeling that the manipulated length added in the middle hallway complimented it. Hearing feedback, I would like to go back and merge the two formats, but I am unsure what would happen when the bowing distortion of the vertical combined with the spanning view of the horizontal. Overall, I think it was an intriguing project, but now that I have a better sense of panoramas, I think future forays would have more of a discernable direction. I would also like to try more vertical panoramas, I like the alternative slice they offer.

Response to work by Dorothea Lange and Ansel Adams of Japanese Internment Camps

My art history seminar actually just looked at Adams and Lange’s work of Japanese internment camps recently, talking about how the Japanese American body was represented. ­­­­Elena Tajima Creef wrote an essay in which she describes how Adams tried to reinscribe this body with patriotism and loyalty. She argues, which I can see clearly in Adams work, that he tried to represent these interned individuals as counter-images to that of the wartime imagery of the Japanese as the enemy. He has two broad categories, those of landscapes, which he imagined instilled some kind of strength and endurance in the Japanese Americans, as well as portraits, many shot from below, in “American” clothing, and often of schoolgirls, giving a heroic and all-American purity. What I think is important to note is that Adams, in trying to champion his subjects, takes away part of their identity. They must fully relinquish all that is Japanese in order to be considered loyal to America.

What Adams photography does not reveal is the stark living situation and militaristic qualities of the internment camps, some of which was captured by Dorothea Lange. Lange was restricted to what she could photograph (never guns or watchtowers for example), but she still managed to portray her subjects as tragic players. What translates in her photographs is the immense amount of time spent by these individuals waiting and the loss they were forced to endure by these imposed situations. Many of Lange’s photographs were not published at the time, perhaps because they might have invoked the same sense of national shame we feel now, but was crucial not to display during the war. In light of this, do we think Adams photographs are just and fair representations of the Japanese American? Were they effective in revealing, perhaps not the atrocity of the camps, but the lack necessity of such institutions? Is it alright to shed all “essential Japaneseness” in order to validate a point? If Lange’s more tragic images had been seen, would it have incited outrage at Japanese American treatment, or would it simply have been ignored in the effort to visualize the Japanese as enemy? Lange too sought to demonstrate patriotism, but combining this image with heartbreak was perhaps not what the American (white) public of the time wanted to see - or at least the government did not.

Still a source of national shame and delicacy, these images are important in that they depict the experiences of the interned Japanese Americans, but they are only a thin slice and some times distorted image of the reality of this experience. For this reason, recounts and opinions from the Japanese Americans that survived this ordeal, whether  in writing or photography, like that of  Toyo Miyatake, are an important part of giving these individuals agency, translating an experience in which they we once subjugated.

Response to my gleaning on Family Photography and Eugenics

Articles: bell hooks, In Our Glory. Shawn Michelle Smith, Baby’s Picture is Always Treasured 

I find both hooks’ and Smith’s theories about the role of photography in asserting racial identity intriguing and historically ironic when placed side by side. . As hooks points out the accessibility of the camera allowed African Americans to produce their own images and tell their own history and narratives. Conversely, the white middle of the late 19^th/early 20^th century tried to preserve their racial strength through use of eugenics, baby books and photographic documentation. What I wonder is how conscious modern, especially young, communities are of the meaning of photographs within their family and racial contexts? One could say that because of double-consciousness African Americans, or any American racial minority, would inherently be aware of the power that claiming photography gives their community because they are aware of their position in America. But then are whites too conscious of the historic use of photography and the baby book that Smith explores? Smith suggests we have lost the eugenics meaning of baby documenting from the early 20^th century, and made it into something sentimental, but the hidden racial meaning could still remain.

Can “sentiment, then, fully account for the nature of our desire for baby’s picture?” Surely we don’t want to acknowledge or see some supremacist racial desire underlying our family photos but by denying it aren’t we just saying this practice is normal and natural? And thereby letting whiteness remain invisible? But is this really the case? Don’t we all to some extent have connection to old family photograph and our heritage what ever it may be? I think these types of photos invoke nostalgia, pride and curiosity about our pasts in many people. Can we accept hooks’ and Smith’s analyses as applicable to all modern Americans, black or white respectively? But still, something rings true in their writing, revealing hegemonic meanings and promoting counter hegemonic practices. I think part of the reason I have such a strong connection to my own family photographs, overwhelmingly those of my mother’s side, is not only because I have fond memories of them, but because I attempt to reclaim my culture history; like hooks writes, “(re-member) evokes the coming together of severed parts, fragments becoming a whole…using these images, we connect to a recuperative, redemptive memory that enables us to construct radical identities, images of ourselves that transcend the limits of the colonizing eye”

I found these essays so intriguing, that I hope to some time do an interview/photographic survey project of the images and recounts of biracial/multiracial individuals in relation to their own family photos. My own family being a part of this group, I think these people would have a unique perspective to offer in reference to these two contrasting historically informed uses of photography. Too often we are made to choose one or the other, but these histories have been blended within our own bodies and can be seen through our photographic memories.

framed photo of anthony his mother gave me, looking rather a lot like those white middle class babies of the eugenics era. nice work anthony! ;)

picture of my brother and I that he decided to post on his facebook account, for whatever reason. still has the same regard for  me and probably still wishes I would kiss up.

Panoramas

I haven't decided which one in going with yet...

Response to Leni Riefenstahl

Leni Riefenstahl: 1936 Olympics | | guardian.co.uk Arts

Where There’s a Will: Books: The New Yorker

Leni Riefenstahl: PHOTOGRAPHY/OLYMPIA 1/18

I’m not sure I find Leni Riefenstahl’s photography compositionally very interesting. I feel as if I have seen many of these images before, whether in Greek statue, or sport and “anthropological” photography. But perhaps this the point of her importance as a photographer; she made advances in how photographs were taken, especially of moving bodies, so that her innovation has now become the norm. One of her Olympia photographs (below) that I find intriguing is completely unlike the others in that it hides the whole form of the body and abstracts the sky with the absence of dramatic clouds and the dark surface cutting across the top.

As far as the Nuba series, they are informative documentary photos, if all you are looking for is representations of visual culture, but there are more compelling documentary photographs out there. I think it is the subjects that are intriguing in the photographs and not the photograph itself. I find it interesting that she said “to explain the absence of imperfect specimens from her gallery, she later told an interviewer that old, ugly or disabled Nuba hid themselves in shame.” Is this really true? Or was she making aesthetic or idealistic choices? Also I hope the text accompanying the photographs are just bad translations, because otherwise it is fairly condescending.

Still you’ve got to hand it to her for being a stubborn and persistent woman. As Judith Thurman wrote in the New Yorker article, she had a narcissistic self-assurance, and a denial for her admiration of Hitler, for which she was criticized (along with producing other Nazi-related film), would have “endanger[ed] the ruthless suspension of self-doubt that her identity had, from childhood, depended on.” So she stuck to her guns on all matters, which makes her a model of a feminist woman. She was exceptional in her time for her talent and determination to not let being a woman stop her, even if she did use her beauty as her means of advancement. So whatever the controversy and mythology surrounding her, there is no denying she was influential. Had she made her photography and film in another time, perhaps we could be more dismissive as well as reproachful, but the fact that she lived over one hundred years with so many stages in her life is impressive and telling of how much history and change has happened in the last century. Commanding women will always have my respect for their advances in pushing and redefining gender, but in this case it is a little hard to separate the woman from the tainted character.

Response to Annie Liebovitz

Annie Leibovitz’s Disney Dream Portrait Series

A Photo Editor - Annie Leibovitz and the Queen

BBc Executive Resigns over Film of Queen - New York TimesAnnie Leibovitz - Photo Gallery

American Masters

For me, many of Annie Liebovitz’s portraits capture as sense of intimacy combined with wit or drama. This drama is especially drawn out in her larger montages created by the lighting, settings and postures of subjects. Whether it is a portrait of the queen or a tableau of Disney princesses, there is a sort of ethereal or otherworldly quality that seems to imbue the light. This seems especially applicable with our look at utopia/distopia images. There is something that seems so real about these pictures, as if you are standing in the same room, yet they are fantasized and a bit idolized. I suppose in part this is what happens when you take portraits of celebrities. There is a sort of convention of how to display these people with glamour*; even if they are depicted as “just people” we are still ever aware of their special-ness, whether it be their beauty, talent, intellect, or power.

I would say she has two general categories: the portrait solely displaying the face/body as the subject, and then the portrait in which she creates a imagined film still. This brings up the question of the portrait artist; is it about the artist or the subject (especially if they are someone well-known)? It seems to me that Liebovitz is able to retain her style in photographing a huge range of people, and is not afraid to assert herself to obtain to picture she would like – as seen in the short documentary of her photographing the queen. Looking at her images now, I realize how many of her photo shoots I have been exposed to (in print magazines, etc.); in many of them I was drawn to their magical quality, but there did not seem to be much poignancy after that. However, when photographing celebrities or fashion, there does seem to often be a sense that the subject/image is not necessary, but enchanting nonetheless. Although I’m not sure how I feel about all of the messages sent by her photographs, I do admire Liebovitz for carving out her own distinctive niche in the realm of portraiture – an area where the photographer can be just as important as the subject. 

Reflection on Stop-Animation and Free/Class Shoot Selection

While at times a frustrating and tedious process, the stop-animation project was worth the effort and especially interesting because of the collaboration with the music class. I have worked with both film and photography (of course) before, and though stop-action could be placed between the two, it takes a very different approach and sense of patience. Since I chose to animated inanimate objects (more in my scraped first-draft than the final), the initial shooting took a very long time for not much “film.” When I chose to redirect my approach, it was much easier to shoot, both because I photographed not only inanimate objects, but also because I worked-in a narrative. This choice I think really gave my film a clear direction and point while still remaining light and fun.

As for the collaboration, it seemed an interesting way to combine two media/classes, but was a little disjointed. My partner and I first discussed and then I set down the images of the film and finally he responded with music made up from noises of matches lighting, rattling, blowing out, etc. I am not sure how he felt to be the second one to respond, but it seems to me that one partner has to “go first” in this project. Either music can be made, and then stop action added in response (something that would yield a different result, and which I don’t believe happened in these particular projects) or the stop action can be complied and sound then edited to fit with the sequence of images. Of course you can always go back and forth and edit something in the film or sound, but something happened first. An interesting project may to have each partner work on their parts separately and then just put together in the end; the result would probably feel somewhat disjointed, but as long as there was a common theme, they each would have generated their product on their own. Overall I think my partner and I were satisfied with the relationship we set up for this project and did not worry too much about forcing something, but rather went with the flow.

The free/class shoot selection process was revealing of my own tendencies as a photographer. Not that I have only one subject, style or color palate when I shoot, but certain themes do reappear. I think it will help me to be more conscious of my affinities when I go out to shoot and perhaps steer me towards a final project. So then what am I drawn to? Abstraction, texture, oddity? What I call arrangements? I think I just need to go out and take more pictures.

arrangements

selections from free/class shoots

Stop Motion Animation: Grow For Me

animation: elizabeth jones

music: casey latter