“Bloggers have to ‘earn’ the right to be read”
October 16th, 2006Posted by Karl Zipser
Journalist and critic Nancy Geyer made this comment on The Thinking Eye:
. . . it seems to me that too many blogs, even the best of them, are falling into the trap of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” — they become mutually self-promotional, as if the bloggers don’t have to “earn” the right to be read. When I read a blog I’m looking for a thoughtful, informative, critical discourse without the distraction of all the networking that is going on.
Here is a professional giving free advice. Is Nancy Geyer on the mark?
. . .
October 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Today is 25 October 2006
November 1st, 2006 at 7:22 am
“A photograph is always linked to a moment in time, the moment it was taken.”
An interesting statement, but ultimately meaningless if taken in general terms. Sure there are likely many photographs where the moment in time they were created can be linked to the image but there are also many, many images that are not linked in any meaningful way to a moment in time that they were taken.
To justify the statement one will have to provide “evidence” of the moment in time one is speaking. Take Colin’s leaf. What moment in time was that then? Well, it’s in colour, that leaves out a few million years of the past but speaking within the context of this forum there is no identifiable “moment” as far as I can tell. Certainly no definition of the word moment that cannot also be applied to a memory transferred to canvas.
If the statement actually refers to the mechanical and technological “quickness” that photography affords us for grabbing negatives as partially filled canvases then it’s the same argument as saying that speed of work ties the work to a moment. I don’t see it.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:46 am
“An interesting statement, but ultimately meaningless if taken in general terms.”
Let’s take the statement in context then. We have a painter, Dan Bodner, discussing the creation of images. Relative to painting or drawing, which are processes that develop images over a potentially long period of time, and which may refer to no particular time in their subject matter, photographs are almost instantaneous in capturing light coming in the camera at that moment. I cannot think of a tighter connection to a moment in time than that.
True, Colin escapes the feeling of the moment in his leaf. This is an intentional use of photography to escape the connection to a particular moment. If there were a drop of water in the picture, and this drop of water reflected a cloudy sky, then the element of time would enter the photo more explicitly.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:00 am
Yes, so it is the speed of the initial capture that ties the work to a moment in time yet so much of my work takes weeks of visiting and revisiting to create. There is also often no intent on my part to capture a particular moment. To say that a photograph is always linked to a moment in time because of the mechanics of light hitting a sensor is to bring unfair generalisation to a whole genre of art. It is also a generalisation that is not true or, at the very least, is meaningless. The question, “what moment in time is Colin’s leaf image tied to?” can only really return the answer “the moment in time that the shutter was released”. It means very little.
Then take this image:
http://www.makingimages.co.uk/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=221
The negative was captured on a photo sensor. Then weeks of work and of thinking and of changing and of trying/learning new techniques were applied to eventually create the image. Light was captured in an instant as physical fact but the image is no more tied to that small part of the creative process than it is to any other part.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:13 am
A photograph is usually linked to a short moment in time, less than a second. Not always.
The picture you link to above is linked to a moment in time. A week later, the subject could have a haircut. A minute later, the wind could blow her hair into a different position.
If I were drawing this person from life, it would take at minimum five minutes to draw these details. To render then with a similar degree of detail as in the photo would require painting over a longer period of time. The subject would change in that time, if only in position.
Remeber, this discussion only makes sense considering the relative time scales of capturing information from the light in painting versus photography. The post-processing time is not the issue, I think. Or else you still need to convince me. I’m interested believe me.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:31 am
There is a sense in which most photographs are linked to a moment in time.
The exceptions are Paul’s long moments, and photos taken with scanning backs which are very much not single moments.
With some genres of photography the momentness is extremely important (hence ‘the decisive moment’). However, in many areas the connection with a moment is trivial. For example I visited a particular location at least weekly for ten months in a project just ended. The photographs that I was making toward the end of that project were still fractions of a second – a particular moment – but they were also distillations of those ten months.
Post processing time is also not an irrelevance. If a photographer is using that time to perfect an initial visualisation, then it doesn’t matter whether the processing takes seconds or years. But if a photographer is creating something new from the base of the negative or raw file, then the connection to any original moment weakens. Further, it is routine for photographers to combine images in processing. This may be to use pictorial elements from more than one original, but it is increasingly likely to be done to use different tonal elements from more than one original. Are these photos connected to one moment, or two, or more. Or is the momentness an irrelevance?
A photograph can be heavily tied to a particular moment, but there are significant exceptions such that there is no identifiable moment at all. And there are many types of photo where the connection is trivial, or irrelevant, or a confusing way of thinking of the resulting artwork.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:48 am
“The picture you link to above is linked to a moment in time. A week later, the subject could have a haircut. A minute later, the wind could blow her hair into a different position.”
Interesting you should say that. Much of that hair, bottom right quarter, is from another photograph. Same girl, different hair growth, combing etc. I clearly failed in my attempt at subtle integration as your subconscious picked up on “hair”.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:25 am
John,
I am fascinated by what you are doing. I will look more carefully at your pictures. I looked quickly before in order to reply to your comment.
-K
November 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Karl,
You write that bronze can fall without braking…
Perhaps yes but more certainly not:
Bronze is soft and tender metal.
Any shock (unless it occurs against a generous fat carpet, a bed or your bare foot), will leave visible traces none can enjoy!
Regrettable example: a few days ago a visitor knocked down one of my statues (Ambition to Be) and, among other consequences, I record a deep line of breaking in the bronze mass, at the level of her left foot.
We can safely deduce that we will not count that many pieces lost on the floor but, certainly, we will observe deformations, fractures and breakings.
Additionally, we will probably acknowledge the necessity to fully sand blast the piece and redo a proper patina.
Let’s be clear, we are here talking about lovely problems to solve!
December 17th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Interesting. I’ll have to throw down a bookmark and check back.
-EJ
December 30th, 2006 at 7:39 am
[…] In this imaginary still-life, the vessel is seen directly from the side, but the table top and fruit are seen from a different perspective, from above. We seem to look down on the table top while looking at the vessel from the side. This merging of different perspective points lends an interesting quality to the imaginary drawings. More examples of her “multiple viewpoint” imaginary drawings are here, here and here. […]
December 30th, 2006 at 7:42 am
[…] In this imaginary still-life, the vessel is seen directly from the side, but the table top and fruit are seen from a different perspective, from above. We seem to look down on the table top while looking at the vessel from the side. This merging of different perspective points lends an interesting quality to the imaginary drawings. More examples of her “multiple viewpoint” imaginary drawings are here, here and here. […]
December 30th, 2006 at 7:52 am
[…] In this imaginary still-life, the vessel is seen directly from the side, but the table top and fruit are seen from a different perspective, from above. We seem to look down on the table top while looking at the vessel from the side. This merging of different perspective points lends an interesting quality to the imaginary drawings. More examples of her “multiple viewpoint” imaginary drawings are here, here and here. […]