Category: Coursework

MA Bibliography as of 10 April 2019

Posted on Posted in Contextual Research, Coursework, Informing Contexts, Project DevelopmentTagged , , , , , , Leave a comment

ADAMS, Robert. 1994. Why People Photograph. 1st edn. New York: Aperture.

ARNOLD, Darrell. 2011. ‘Hegel and Ecologically Oriented System Theory’. Journal of Philosophy 7(16), [online], 0_3. Available at: http://ezproxy.falmouth.ac.uk/docview/1170929513?accountid=15894.

ARNOLD, Darrell. 2011. ‘Hegel and Ecologically Oriented System Theory’. Journal of Philosophy 7(16), [online], 0_3. Available at: http://ezproxy.falmouth.ac.uk/docview/1170929513?accountid=15894.

AZOULAY, Ariella. 2016. ‘Photography Consists of Collaboration: Susan Meiselas, Wendy Ewald, and Ariella Azoulay’. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 31(1 91), [online], 187–201. Available at: https://read.dukeupress.edu/camera-obscura/article/31/1 (91)/187-201/97593.

BARKER, Emma. 1999. ‘Introduction [IN] Contemporary Cultures of Display’. In Emma BARKER and Open UNIVERSITY (eds.). Contemporary Cultures of Display. New Haven: Yale University Press in association with the Open University, 8–21.

BARNES, Richard. 2018. ‘Civil War — Richard Barnes’. [online]. Available at: http://www.richardbarnes.net/civil-war-1/ [accessed 9 Aug 2018].

BARRETT, Terry. 2000. Criticizing Photographs: An Introduction to Understanding Images. New York: McGraw Hill.

BARTHES, Roland. 1977. Image Music Text. New York: Hill and Wang.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. ‘Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography’. New York Hill and Wang [online], 134. Available at: http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?q=camera+lucida&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#0.

BATE, David. 2016. Photography; The Key Concepts. 2nd edn. The Key Concepts. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

BATE, David. 2016. Photography; The Key Concepts. 2nd edn. The Key Concepts. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

BEAR, Jordan and Kate Palmer ALBERS. 2017. Before-and-After Photography; Histories and Contexts. 1st edn. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

BEAR, Jordan and Kate PALMER ALBERS. 2017. Before-and-after Photography: Histories and Contexts. Bloomsbury. Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/959280 [accessed 20 Jun 2018].

BENJAMIN, Walter. 1931. Selected Writings 2, Part 2 1931-1934. Edited by G. Eiland, H., Jennings, M.W., and Smith. Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press.

BERGER, John. 1972. Ways of Seeing. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

BOERMA, Pauline. 2006. ‘Assessing Forest Cover Change in Eritrea—A Historical Perspective’. Mountain Research and Development.

BRIGHT, Deborah. n.d. The Machine in The Garden Revisited American Environmentalism and Photographic Aesthetics. Available at: http://www.deborahbright.net/PDF/Bright-Machine.pdf [accessed 14 Mar 2019].

BULLOCK, Stephen H., Nora E. MARTIJENA, Robert H. WEBB and Raymond M. TURNER. 2004. ‘Twentieth Century Demographic Changes in Cirio and Cardón in Baja California, México’. Journal of Biogeography 32(1), [online], 127–43. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01152.x [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

BURTON, Christopher, Jerry T. MITCHELL and Susan L. CUTTER. 2011. ‘Evaluating Post-Katrina Recovery in Mississippi Using Repeat Photography’. Disasters 35(3), [online], 488–509. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01227.x [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

BURTYNSKY, Edward, Jennifer BAICHWAL and Nicholas DE PENCIER. 2018. Anthropocene. Gottingen: Steidl.

DARWENT, Charles. 2007. ‘Weblet Importer’. [online]. Available at: http://danielgustavcramer.com/infotxt.html [accessed 1 Apr 2019].

DAY, Andy. 2019. ‘Every Photograph You’ve Ever Taken Is a Lie: Steve McCurry, Tom Hunter, and the Problem With Visual Storytellers | Fstoppers’. Fstoppers [online]. Available at: https://fstoppers.com/documentary/every-photograph-youve-ever-taken-lie-steve-mccurry-tom-hunter-and-problem-334178 [accessed 13 Feb 2019].

DELEUZE, Gilles. 1997. Essays Critical and Clinical. University of Minnesota Press.

DELEUZE, Gilles. 2002. Desert Islands: And Other Texts, 1953-1974. Los Angeles: Semiotexte.

DELEUZE, Gilles. 1997. Negotiations. NYC: Columbia University Press.

DERGES, Susan. 2018. ‘Susan Derges’. [online]. Available at: http://susanderges.co.uk/ [accessed 6 Jul 2018].

DUPRE, Ben. 2007. 50 Ideas You Really Need to Know- Philosophy. First. London: Quercus Editions, Ltd.

DURDEN, Mark (ed.). 2013. 50 Key Writers on Photography. First. Milton Park: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

EWING, William A. 2014. Landmark: The Fields of Landscape Photography. New York: Thames and Hudson.

FLUSSER, Vilém. 1983. Towards a Philosophy of Photography. English. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

GARNETT, Joy and Susan MEISELAS. n.d. ‘ON THE RIGHTS OF MOLOTOVMAN Appropriation and the Art of Context’ [online]. Available at: http://www.firstpulseprojects.com/On-the-Rights-of-Molotov-Man.pdf [accessed 15 Jun 2018].

GERRARD, Sophie. n.d. ‘The Dunes’. [online]. Available at: https://www.sophiegerrard.com/work/the-dunes/.

GERRARD, Sophie. n.d. ‘The Dunes’. [online]. Available at: https://www.sophiegerrard.com/work/the-dunes/.

GILL, Stephen. 2018. ‘Stephen Gill Portfolio’. [online]. Available at: https://www.stephengill.co.uk/portfolio/portfolio [accessed 6 Jul 2018].

HAND, Martin. 2012. Ubiquitous Photography. Cambridge: Polity Press.

HEIFERMAN, Marvin. 2012. Photography Changes Everything. First. New York: Aperture.

HENDRICK, Laura E. and Carolyn A. COPENHEAVER. 2009. ‘Using Repeat Landscape Photography to Assess Vegetation Changes in Rural Communities of the Southern Appalachian Mountains in Virginia, USA’. Mountain Research and Development 29(1), [online], 21–9. Available at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.1659/mrd.1028 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

HURN, David and Bill JAY. 2009. On Being a Photographer. Third. Anacortes, WA: LensWork Publishing.

JAY, Bill. n.d. Occam’s Razor: An Outside-In View of Contemporary Photography. Third. Tucson, AZ: Nazraeli Press.

JOHNSON P and G ROGERS. 2003. ‘Ephemeral Wetlands and Their Turfs.’ Science for Conservation 230.

JUNIPER, Andrew. 2003. Wabi Sabi – the Japanese Art of Impermanance. First. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing.

KEMPTON, Beth. 2018. Wabi Sabi – Japanese Wisdom for a Perfectly Imperfect Life. London: Piatkus.

KLEON, Austin. 2012. Steal Like an Artist: 10 Things Nobody Told You about Being Creative. Steal Like an Artist, vol. 53. New York: Workman Publishing Company. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=NVZuUSJtpcQC.

KLEON, Austin. 2014. Show Your Work: 10 Ways to Share Your Creativity and Get Discovered. New York: Workman Publishing Company.

KLETT, Mark. 2003. ‘Yosemite in Time’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/yosemite-in-time/.

KLETT, Mark. 1979. ‘Rephotographic Survey Project’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/rephotographic-survey-project/.

KLETT, Mark. 2003. ‘Yosemite in Time’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/yosemite-in-time/.

KLETT, Mark. 1979. ‘Rephotographic Survey Project’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/rephotographic-survey-project/.

MILLER, Johnny. 2019. ‘Unequal Scenes – Locations’. [online]. Available at: https://unequalscenes.com/projects [accessed 4 Feb 2019].

MURRAY, Matthew. 2017. ‘Saddleworth’. [online]. Available at: https://www.matthewmurray.co.uk/saddleworth [accessed 25 Mar 2019].

MUYBRIDGE, Eadweard. 1979. Muybridge’s Complete Human and Animal Locomotion, Volume III. New York: Dover Publications.

OORTHUYS, Cas. and Willem van. ZOETENDAAL. 1992. Cas Oorthuys, Guaranteed Real Dutch, Congo. Uitgeverij DUO/DUO. Available at: https://www.google.com/search?q=cas+oorthuys+photographer&rlz=1C1ZKTG_enUS685GB690&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_pd7hrvPeAhUSSK0KHTqoBwIQiR56BAgBEBE&biw=1536&bih=723 [accessed 27 Nov 2018].

PARISI, Chiara. 2010. ‘Essays and Interview with Daniel Gustav Cramer’. Klat Magazine #04 [online]. Available at: http://danielgustavcramer.com/infotxt.html [accessed 1 Apr 2019].

PAULI, Lori. 2003. Manufactured Landscapes: The Photographs of Edward Burtynsky. 7th (2014. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada.

POLANYI, Michael. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. 2009th edn. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

RITCHIN, Fred. 2013. Bending the Frame: Photojournalism, Documentary, and the Citizen. New York: Aperture.

RITCHIN, Fred. 2009. After Photography. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

ROSLER, Martha. 1982. In, Around and Afterthoughts on Documentary Photography in The Contest of Meaning (1992). Edited by Richard Bolton. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

SCHIEL, Skip. 2018. ‘What Is Social Landscape Photography? | Teeksa Photography—Skip Schiel’. [online]. Available at: https://skipschiel.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/what-is-social-landscape-photography/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

SEKULA, Allan. 1982. ‘On the Invention of Photographic Meaning’. In Victor BURGIN (ed.). Thinking Photography. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

SHORE, Stephen. 2007. The Nature of Photographs. 2018th edn. London and New York: Phaidon Press.

SMILES, Sam. n.d. ‘Critical Contexts’. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/in-focus/mousehold-heath-norwich-john-crome/critical-contexts [accessed 13 Apr 2018].

SMITH, Trudi. 2007. ‘Repeat Photography as a Method in Visual Anthropology’. Visual Anthropology 20(2–3), [online], 179–200. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08949460601152815 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

SNYDER, Joel and Neil Walsh ALLEN. n.d. ‘Photography, Vision and Representation’. Critical Inquiry 141–69.

SOLNIT, Rebecca. 2001. Wanderlust: A History of Walking. London: Penguin Books.

SONNENTAG, Oliver et al. 2012. ‘Digital Repeat Photography for Phenological Research in Forest Ecosystems’. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 152, [online], 159–77. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168192311002851 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

SONTAG, Susan. 2004. ‘Regarding the Torture of Others’. The New York Times Magazine (23 May 2004), [online]. Available at: ttps://goo.gl/PwSVZ.

SONTAG, Susan. 1977. On Photography. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY. and CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION (U.S.). 1997. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/ [accessed 21 Dec 2018].

STERNFELD, Joel. 1996. On This Site : Landscape in Memoriam. Chronicle Books.

STERNFELD, Joel., Adam. GOPNIK, John R. STILGOE and FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE. 2009. Walking the High Line. Steidl.

STICHWEH, Rudolf. n.d. ‘Systems Theory’ [online]. Available at: https://www.fiw.uni-bonn.de/demokratieforschung/personen/stichweh/pdfs/80_stw_systems-theory-international-encyclopedia-of-political-science_2.pdf [accessed 12 Apr 2018].

SUZUKI, Risaku. 2015. Stream of Consciousness. Tokyo: Edition Nord.

SUZUKI, Risaku. 2017. Water Mirror. Tokyo: Case Publishing.

SZARKOWSKI, John. 1966. The Photographer’s Eye. 7th printi. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

TAGG, John. 1988. The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

TRACHTENBERG, Alan (ed.). 1980. Classic Essays on Photography. Sedgewick, ME: Leete’s Island Books, Inc.

TRACHTENBERG, Alan (ed.). 1980. Classic Essays on Photography. Sedgwick, ME: Leet’s Island Books, Inc.

VARTANIAN, Ivan, Akihiro HATANAKA and Yutaka KAMBAYASHI. 2006. Setting Sun: Writings by Japanese Photographers. New York: Aperture.

VON BERTALANFFY, Ludwig. 2008. ‘An Outline of General System Theory’. Emergence: Complexity & Organization 10(2), [online], 103–23. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34099391&site=ehost-live.

VON BERTALANFFY, Ludwig. 2008. ‘An Outline of General System Theory’. Emergence: Complexity & Organization 10(2), [online], 103–23. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34099391&site=ehost-live.

WALKER, John A. 1997. ‘ The Camerawork Essays: Context and Meaning in Photography ’. In Jessica EVANS (ed.). London: Rivers Oram, 52–63.

WALKER, John A. 1997. ‘ The Camerawork Essays: Context and Meaning in Photography’. In Jessica EVANS (ed.). London: Rivers Oram, 52–63.

WEBB, Robert, Diane BOYER and Raymond TURNER. 2010. Repeat Photography: Methods and Applications in the Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: Island Press.

WEBB, Robert, Diane BOYER and Raymond TURNER. 2010. Repeat Photography:  Methods and Applications in the Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: Island Press.

WELLS, Liz. 2015. Photography: A Critical Introduction. Fifth. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

WELLS, Liz. 2011. Land Matters: Landscape Photography, Culture and Identity. London ; New York: I.B. Tauris.

WELLS, Liz. 2011. Land Matters: Landscape Photography, Culture and Identity. London ; New York: I.B. Tauris. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1208/2011293251-b.html.

WELLS, Liz. 2015. Photography: A Critical Introduction. Fifth. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

WELLS, Liz and Simon STANDING (eds.). 2009. Relic. First. Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth Press.

ZIER, James L. and William L. BAKER. 2006. ‘A Century of Vegetation Change in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado: An Analysis Using Repeat Photography’. Forest Ecology and Management 228(1–3), [online], 251–62. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112706001770 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

‘History of Art Timeline’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/history-of-art-timeline.htm [accessed 19 Nov 2018].

‘The Repeat Photography Project’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://repeatphotography.org/intro/ [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

‘The Repeat Photography Project’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://repeatphotography.org/intro/ [accessed 20 Jun 2018].

‘What Is Repeat Photography? – Exploring Land Cover Change Through Repeat Photography’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://denalirepeatphotos.uaf.edu/index.php/about-the-project/what-is-repeat-photography/ [accessed 20 Jun 2018].

‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and Its Discontents :: Artificial Hells; Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://content.talisaspire.com/falmouth/bundles/590c4a61646be007c630a054 [accessed 22 Jun 2018].

‘The Collaborative Turn :: Taking the Matter into Common Hands; Contemporary Art and Collaborative Practices’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://content.talisaspire.com/falmouth/bundles/590c9d26540a2665d636d414 [accessed 22 Jun 2018].

‘İki Deniz Arası – Between Two Seas – Home | Facebook’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/ikidenizarasi [accessed 24 Jun 2018].

‘Highland Fury as Trump Rival Drives Golf Course Plan Forward | UK News | The Guardian’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/23/highland-fury-trump-rival-drives-golf-course-plan [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Embo’s Coul Links Golf Course Backed by Councillors – BBC News’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44537876 [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Councillors Defer Decision on Coul Links Golf Course – BBC News’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44371329 [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Coul Links Conservation Case | Our Work – The RSPB’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/our-positions-and-casework/casework/cases/coul-links/ [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Highland Councillors Defy Their Officials by Voicing Unanimous Support for Coul Links Plans | Press and Journal’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1491262/highland-councillors-defy-their-officials-by-voicing-unanimous-support-for-coul-links-plans/ [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Jenny Odell • Travel by Approximation’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.jennyodell.com/tba.html [accessed 27 Jun 2018].

‘You Talking To Me? On Curating Group Shows That Give You a Chance to Join the Group :: What Makes a Great Exhibition?’ 2018. [online]. Available at: https://content.talisaspire.com/falmouth/bundles/59145899540a2631415f8494 [accessed 8 Jul 2018].

‘John Hallmén’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.johnhallmen.se/2016/4/25/morning-stretch [accessed 8 Jul 2018].

‘John Hallmén’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.johnhallmen.se/2016/12/8/emus-hirtus-1 [accessed 10 Jul 2018].

‘Walead Beashty Cyanotypes – Google Search’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.google.com/search?q=walead+beashty+cyanotypes&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjttqT3uJzcAhWU0aYKHbPUBMwQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=733 [accessed 13 Jul 2018].

‘Alex MacLean, Aerial Photographer’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.alexmaclean.com/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

‘Marilyn Bridges Photography: Ancient and Contemporary Locations Worldwide, Prints and Books Available.’ 2018. [online]. Available at: https://marilynbridges.com/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

‘Yann Arthus-Bertrand’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

‘The Dunes — Sophie Gerrard’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.sophiegerrard.com/work/the-dunes/ [accessed 17 Aug 2018].

‘POWERS OF TEN AND THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE | Eames Office’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.eamesoffice.com/the-work/powers-of-ten/ [accessed 20 Aug 2018].

‘Kevin Murray Golf Photography | Golf Photos | Top Golf Photographer’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://kevinmurraygolfphotography.com/ [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘Golf Photography – Mark Alexander’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.markalexandergolfphotography.com/golf-photography/ [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘11 Tips: How to Make Amazing Golf Course Photos – Golf Photography by Kaia Means’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://golfvisuals.com/amazing-golf-course-photos/ [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘Paul Severn Golf Photographer /Golf Course Images/Golf Tournaments/Golf Picture Library’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.severnimages.com/index [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘Power and the Camera: Gregory Halpern Talks Intuition, Reflection and Representation • Magnum Photos’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/gregory-halpern-profile-intuition-representation/ [accessed 27 Oct 2018].

‘Learning from the Master • Inge Morath • Magnum Photos’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/learning-from-the-master/ [accessed 27 Oct 2018].

‘History of Photography’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/photography/photo-history.htm [accessed 19 Nov 2018].

‘Biography of Axel Hutte | Widewalls’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.widewalls.ch/artist/axel-hutte/ [accessed 20 Nov 2018].

‘Biography of Axel Hutte | Widewalls’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.widewalls.ch/artist/axel-hutte/ [accessed 24 Nov 2018].

‘Edward Burtynsky’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ [accessed 24 Nov 2018].

‘Work – Simon Roberts’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.simoncroberts.com/work/ [accessed 27 Nov 2018].

‘Coming-Soon–of-Love-War : Lynsey Addario, Photographer’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.lynseyaddario.com/ [accessed 27 Nov 2018].

‘Biography — Edward Burtynsky’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/about/biography/ [accessed 2 Dec 2018].

‘Edward Burtynsky’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ [accessed 3 Dec 2018].

‘Axel Hütte | Artnet’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.artnet.com/artists/axel-hütte/ [accessed 3 Dec 2018].

‘Cindy Sherman: Me, Myself and I | Art and Design | The Guardian’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/jan/15/cindy-sherman-interview [accessed 14 Dec 2018].

‘THE DETACHED GAZE | THOUGHTS AND SOURCES ON ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF SEEING’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://thedetachedgaze.com/ [accessed 16 Dec 2018].

‘The Anthropocene Project — Edward Burtynsky’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/projects/the-anthropocene-project/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Sprawling Anthropocene Project Shows Humanity’s Enormous Impact on the Planet | The Star’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/visualarts/review/2018/09/30/sprawling-anthropocene-project-shows-humanitys-enormous-impact-on-the-planet.html [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Edward Burtynsky – The Anthropocene Project – Photo Review’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.photoreview.com.au/stories/edward-burtynskys-anthropocene-project/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Anthropocene Art Show and Documentary Will Shock You with a View of Human Impact on the Planet – The Globe and Mail’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/reviews/article-four-year-collaboration-project-looks-to-evangelize-the-term/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Aerial Photographs Convey Humanity’s Devastating Effects on Nature’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://hyperallergic.com/474175/burtynsky-anthropocene-project/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Anthropocene Reveals the Scale of Earth’s Existential Crisis – NOW Magazine’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://nowtoronto.com/culture/art-and-design/anthropocene-burtynsky-baichwal-ago/ [accessed 10 Jan 2019].

‘Landscape Stories: 80/2014 Axel Hütte’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.landscapestories.net/interviews/80-2014-axel-hutte?lang=en [accessed 10 Jan 2019].

‘Axel Hütte’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.deutscheboersephotographyfoundation.org/en/collect/artists/axel-huette.php [accessed 11 Jan 2019].

‘Axel Hütte’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.zingmagazine.com/zing3/reviews/034_hutte.html [accessed 11 Jan 2019].

‘Aerographica – About’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://aerographica.org/about/ [accessed 30 Jan 2019].

‘Safety in Numbness: Some Remarks on the Problems of “Late Photography’’ – David Campany”’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://davidcampany.com/safety-in-numbness/ [accessed 30 Jan 2019].

‘Unequal Scenes – Locations’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://unequalscenes.com/projects [accessed 31 Jan 2019].

‘Layla Curtis’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.laylacurtis.com/work/project/45 [accessed 4 Feb 2019].

‘Matthew Murray — Elliott Halls Gallery’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.elliotthalls.com/matthew-murray [accessed 4 Feb 2019].

‘Sean O’Hagan | 1000 Words’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.1000wordsmag.com/sean-o-hagan/ [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘Francis Hodgson | 1000 Words’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.1000wordsmag.com/francis-hodgson/ [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘Charlotte Cotton | 1000 Words’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.1000wordsmag.com/charlotte-cotton/ [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘20+ Examples Of Media Manipulating The Truth That Will Make You Question The News’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://news.shareably.net/20-examples-media-manipulating-the-truth/?utm_source=fb_ads&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=con-20-examples-media-manipulating-the-truth-43210373-1828482422&utm_identifier=61ebf249-eb13-ab34-dacb-1fb2315789e6 [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘Pete Davis Tin Sheds of Wales’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.pete-davis-photography.com/sheds.html [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘Gaze | The Chicago School of Media Theory’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/gaze/ [accessed 3 Mar 2019].

‘Jane Austen Believed Beauty Could Come in Every Shape and Size. What Else Can She Teach Us about Wellness? – The Washington Post’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/jane-austen-thought-every-body-was-beautiful-what-else-can-her-works-teach-us-about-wellness/2019/03/08/9787dbda-3eba-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html?utm_term=.4a08d894ebcb [accessed 18 Mar 2019].

‘Saddleworth — Matthew Murray Photography’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.matthewmurray.co.uk/saddleworth [accessed 25 Mar 2019].

 

Week 10 – Daniel Gustav Cramer Trilogy (2003/2013)

Posted on Posted in Contextual Research, Coursework, Informing ContextsTagged , Leave a comment

I first encountered Cramer’s work some months back and was taken with it then.  I found it was quite similar in overall character and aesthetic to work I hade begun pursuing in the winter.  It reminded me of the work of Axel Hutte, about whom I had written extensively in past modules.  I also think Cramer’s Trilogy work bears resemblance to that of Risaku Suzuki.    Thomas Struth’s Haptic Green also bears some resemblance the Woodlands portion of Cramer’s Trilogy, but it seems to be much more intensely about colour while Cramer’s work is more about form.

We were asked to comment on the edits Cramer choose and whether we would have done it differently.  I happen to like the photos he included and while some may be stronger than others it is important to have some distinctions.  Also, I am certain those that I might think strong are not necessarily the ones someone else might choose.  And that is I think one o f the key points of Cramer’s work, as well of that of Hutte and Suzuki, that there is no intent to dictate the narrative to the viewer.  The mystery, masking of location and even to an extent subject, force the viewer to engage with the photograph to figure out what it is, where it might be, what is in the frame and what might be just out of the frame.  So, to that end, and because there is no real overall intention to Cramer’s work beyond the three broad categories, the photographs are not intended to hang together in a linear fashion to create a narrative and therefore can be viewed in any order as standalone images, each waiting for the viewer to create their own story.

Darwent noted of Cramer’s work they are “images shot through with story and place, but which demand we ignore both place and story. This is what we are, they say, but what are we?” (Darwent, 2007) Cramer’s images are tantalising, looking familiar and foreign at the same time, clearly of something almost recognisable, but what. He presents the viewer with a puzzle to which the solution will be based in the knowledge and cultural experiences of each viewer.  For example, the underwater photos were to me as a scuba diver immediately recognisable as such, but to someone who had never dived, may have been quite confusing and disorienting.  The woodland photos were likely more familiar territory for many, and I liked how Cramer choose to include a mix of photos, some of which seem to invite the viewer in and others that seemed to want to hold the viewer out.

It is very moody and atmospheric work.  It defies time and place merging both into the space of heady dreams and fantasy.  I wish it had been published as a book as it is one I would enjoy owning.

 

References

DARWENT, Charles. 2007. ‘Weblet Importer’. [online]. Available at: http://danielgustavcramer.com/infotxt.html [accessed 1 Apr 2019].

 

Week 9 – Reflections

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing Contexts, ReflectionsTagged , , Leave a comment

The guest lectures were especially good this week.  I found it really interesting and informative to here Liz and Addie from Elliot Halls talk about how they decide what to display, who to represent and how to strategically approach building a relationship with a gallery.  I was not surprised to hear how competitive the marketplace is, but I was a bit surprised at how patient one might need to be to attract the attention of the gallery world and how many years Elliot Halls had taken before deciding to bring someone in.  Not sure I have enough years left to hope to find my way in to a gallery.

I was also very intrigued by the work of Lewis Bush.  I was familiar with some of his work, but it was really good to hear him talk about it and the incredible depth of research he went to on each project.  It was also fascinating to see how far afield from photography he went to do research and stimulate inspiration.  While the subject matter he deals with is quite different than mine, what I found of interest was the similarity in the idea of revealing things “hidden in plain sight”.  This was true to a degree in Metropole, but even more so in Shadows of the State.  Many people go through life not seeing, really seeing, things that surround them every day.  My work on this course has focused on showing places to people in ways they had not been shown or in ways people had not seen for themselves.

Current Work

I managed to despite still running a fever to get out for a couple hours of shooting on Friday.  It completely exhausted me, but I came back with a range of good and not so good work.  My approach to work has definitely changed since the beginning of the course.  I now work virtually exclusively in Manual settings and there is a much more deliberate attempt to get the framing and exposure completely right in the camera.  I also go out with specific intentions of what I want to shoot.  I had been wanting to get better images of some of the dune slacks as well as some additional video in the glades and slacks to show the movement.  I was successful yesterday with the video as it was very windy, and the results were very dynamic in contrast to the stills.  I was not satisfied with the still images in the slacks between the wind disrupting the stillness of the water and the time of day, I felt the photos were soulless and uninteresting visually and they did not evoke any emotion.   A few of the detail shots did work out as did the glade work.

no post-0800
Dune Slack (unsuccessful as it fails to spark emotion or interest)

 

no post-0814
Dune Slack (successful intriguing above above, on and below the surface)

Coursework Reflections

On this week’s coursework and whether photography is art.  As I have written in a prior post, I think it is a something of a ridiculous question when it is phrased that way.  Is all photography art? Of course it is not. As Merry Foresta noted in the foreword to Photography Changes Everything, “most of the billions of pictures that are taken with cameras every year are made for purposes that have nothing to do with art.  They are made for quite specific reasons, some exalted and some mundane, and their value is dependent on how well they serve a purpose that, more often than not, has nothing to do with photography itself.” (Heiferman, 2012: 7)

Can photography be art? Again of course it can, though that judgement lies in the hands of the consumers and promoters, rather than with the photographer.  I cite as a relevant current example the documentary work of Don McCullin who never considered himself an artist, nor was his work made with the thought of it being viewed as art, and yet it sits today on the walls of the Tate Modern.  The art world and art buyers are fickle.  Sometimes its trendy, sometimes its rare, and sometimes there is just no accounting for taste.

References

HEIFERMAN, Marvin. 2012. Photography Changes Everything. First. New York: Aperture.

 

Week 8 – Responses and Responsibilities

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing ContextsTagged , Leave a comment

Are we desensitised to images of conflict today?

Can imagery provoke change – can it be the catalyst between thought and action?

Desensitisation has resulted as much through censorship and editorial acquiescence to perceived ‘sensibilities’ as it has to saturation of images.  It is the rare photograph of the burning Jordanian pilot or the burned Iraqi soldier that makes publication. The outrage after 9/11 of the photo of the severed hand is an everyday occurrence in a conflict zone.  Landmines, IEDs, and cluster bombs are just some of the horror inducing factors that prey not only upon the combatants, but the innocent.  How often have you seen a disembowelment or a dismemberment other than in a Hollywood movie where we all know it is nothing but special effects and no one was harmed in the filming?  Well look around and see how many soldiers have come home missing limbs. We are shown the aftermath and we all feel sorry for the poor soldier, but we don’t really know and therefore do not really care about the actual event that tore limbs from that person’s body.  How many children have been destroyed by landmines left behind?  We don’t know because no one takes or will show those photos and so we don’t care because it is not in our back garden and we don’t have to worry about where we walk or dig to plant our flowers or tatties.

An article in the Washington Post from 14 Mar 2019 is a perfect example of the censorship that goes into keeping people from seeing what really goes on in conflict.

“The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/14/marines-dont-want-you-see-what-happens-when-propaganda-stops-combat-begins/

 

“The true horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken.” (Sontag: 2004)

Perhaps the true horror is that photographs that should be taken or published are not seeing the light of day.  Perhaps we, particularly in Western society, have become too comfortable and complacent.  It is only when terror touches our lives directly that anyone sits up and takes notice, for a minute.  There are horrible things happening in every corner of the planet every day, example after example of man’s inhumanity to man, people suffering from overpopulation, disease, famine, lack of opportunity, social and racial oppression, war while we sit home and complain when our internet signal is too slow.  Yes, these are all big issues and they require political solutions on a massive scale such that no single one of us could buck that tide.  But if everyone buries their head in the sand there is no hope for anything but the status quo, while on the other hand if everyone went from a momentary “too bad for those poor people” to getting into the dialogue, then perhaps finally ‘thoughts and prayers’ could really become actions and results. And I am as guilty as the next person.

I suspect the question of whether a photograph can provoke action is actually a somewhat specious linkage of cause and effect.  Western societies have become increasingly egocentric in character, and while there are many even within these societies suffering, the inertia associated with comparatively comfortable lives is difficult to overcome.  My experience tells me that any stimulus, photograph or otherwise, is most often dismissed as “other” until the event in question directly touches the viewer.  Many of us live in cocoons of familiarity and believe there is more than enough to do to maintain the integrity of those cocoons, rather than reaching out to right wrongs we can see but can also easily ignore until they penetrate our cocoons.  And in fairness, the amount of strife, suffering and injustice is overwhelming.  Just thinking about it is enough to drag most people in the depths of despair and depression.  No one person can solve it all.  I don’t know how we motivate enough people to each do just a little bit to make a difference, but as much as I would like it to be so, I don’t think photographs, at least the ones allowed to go to print today, will do it.

The problem of malappropriation and the ability to reshape the meaning are equally significant problems inherent to the photograph.  Written essays are more difficult to reshape to a different purpose.

“The photographer’s intentions do not determine the meaning of the photograph, which will have its own career blown by the whims and loyalties of the diverse communities that have use for it.” (Sontag, 1977: 3)

The well documented example of the UKIP Brexit refugee photo is a perfect example, but also it is not difficult to see how the ISIS “execution” photo in this week’s course material could be used by someone of a different political persuasion to illustrate their point of view.  The fact that ISIS did not execute these people and their purpose was to make an argument they were not criminals (true or not) could certainly have been (and probably was) used to claim ISIS are savage by simply claiming the executions did take place.  Since no editor in the Western press would likely ever print a photo of 10 heads simultaneously spewing blood and brain tissue toward the camera, we are forced into ambiguity that can be easily manipulated to different purposes.

“In these last decades ‘concerned photography’ has done at least as much to deaden our conscience as to arouse it.” (Sontag, 1977: 21)

I would argue that photographic and editorial censorship and violence as entertainment have done far more to deaden our collective conscience than ‘concerned photography’.  How frequently have we heard the statement, war is okay until the public start seeing the body bags coming home?  How much effort has been put into shielding the public from the realities because the leaders are afraid of the political fallout?  Most of the US Congress have never served in the military and many of their children will not either, so there is little personal risk to them in sending someone else’s children into battle.

 

References:

SONTAG, Susan. 2004. ‘Regarding the Torture of Others’. The New York Times Magazine (23 May 2004), [online]. Available at: ttps://goo.gl/PwSVZ.

SONTAG, Susan. 1977. On Photography. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

Week 4 – Into the Image World: Reflections

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing Contexts, ReflectionsTagged , , Leave a comment

I quite understand the use of advertising images to illustrate the points in this week’s material.  However, despite the fact that we are surrounded by these images daily, I found this rather difficult because for many years I have ignored them completely.  They have become noise to me.  I rarely watch them on the TV as I don’t watch much broadcast programming and it is only when I am in the market for something particular will I look for info on the product, and even then, I bypass the advert to look at the product itself in more detail.  I cannot say I am never swayed to look at something when I happen to see a clever ad, but it is quite rare.

Ads rarely capture my attention, but photos in an editorial context often do.  An example from the 21 February 2019 edition of the Wall Street Journal is below.  Self-admitted gearhead and former racing driver that I am and despite not generally being all that fond of Ferrari, this one stopped me in my tracks.

Ferrari Pista -WSJ 21Feb19

GIMME A BRAKE The flashy Pista can go from 0-62 mph in 2.85 seconds and return to a dead stop in 93.5 feet. Photo: Ferrari

And I find it an interesting photograph to try to analyse as part of this week’s exercise.  The denoted (signified) image is quite simple to discern.  The bright red image of a $450,000 super car with extraordinarily beautiful lines is rather impossible to miss on the tarmac.  Judging by the tire marks on the tarmac the car was repositioned at least a couple of times to get the angle of the light reflecting off the bodywork just right; the car was carefully posed. There is nothing to distract from this signifier and its placement along the diagonal further clarifies its dominance.

The connoted image is surprising more complex for such a visually simple and uncluttered image.  In concert with the caption it is clear this is very high-performance automobile borrowing aerodynamics and other design elements from F1 and GTP racing platforms.  There is surface beauty to be sure, but it is more than skin deep as this car is loaded with performance technology.  I suspect that the principal, though not exclusive, demographic Ferrari appeal to are men 30-55 with plenty of discretionary spending power.  This is a wealthy person’s toy, perhaps a symbol of status, and something that screams ‘look at me’ for the owner that wants to be noticed everywhere they go.

An oppositional view might be something along the lines of who needs a $450,000 car that can do 211 mph that hasn’t room in the boot for hardly an overnight bag.  It might be the red colour or the racing stripe that seem pretentious, or that Ferrari are notoriously difficult and expensive to maintain. Or it might be that a car such as this must use a tremendous amount of fuel and is therefore environmentally irresponsible.  It is absolutely not the car for someone who does not wish to advertise their wealth or someone in need of practical transportation.

I am a bit fuzzier on the negotiated view.  Perhaps it is along the lines of; it is a well-executed photograph of a beautiful, but altogether impractical and for most unattainable car.  In other words, wow that is nice, but…

 

Week 3 Forum – Is Every Constructed Photograph a Lie?

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing ContextsTagged , , Leave a comment

Are photographs in general and constructed photographs in particular “lies.”  Perhaps it is instructive to begin with the dictionary definition of ‘lie’: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive: an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

As I wrote in a prior article, no photograph can present truth, but that does not make every photograph a lie.  A lie is predicated with intent and it does not follow that every photograph by every photographer was made with the intent to deceive.  In fact, I believe, for most the intent is exactly the opposite; that is, most desire to represent a reality as they see it.  Heavily constructed photographs quite often make it obvious that it is not intended to represent reality and therefore, in keeping with the notion of intent, it is not a lie any more than a painter creating a scene is lying.  There are inherent limitations in the medium that make it impossible to recreate exactly what was in front of the lens, but technology keeps pushing and 360-degree cameras and holography will begin to challenge traditional 2-dimensionality.  Where it gets problematic, is where the intention in capture or publication of the photograph is to deceive.

I think of heavily constructed photographs much in the same way I think of paintings.  They are intended to be artistic in many cases and they are creations from the imaginations of the photographers.  It seems that often, even though there may be a degree of indexicality, something in the photo clues the viewer to the fantasy, joke, mood, or paradox it posits, and we then treat it as an artistic expression rather than a documentary photograph. There seems in these cases to be no intent of deception. The following two photos, the first by Sherman and the second by Rosler are not photos that would fool anyone into thinking they were meant to be realistic and purely documentary.

Sherman1

Cindy Sherman

Rosler2

Martha Rosler – House Beautiful

Publications (traditionally respected and tabloid), social media and individuals and organisations have discovered it is possible to ‘weaponize’ photography to fit their desired narratives to influence their faithful and persecute their perceived enemies.  Divisive politics, tabloid journalism and an erosion of civility and humanity are both caused and furthered by the highly selective use of photographic weapons. In the example below, an editor made a conscious choice to use the top photograph which carries a very different and quite inaccurate depiction of ‘reality’ and it seems clear there was a deliberate intent to deceive. The photographs were taken as Prince William was leaving the hospital with the Duchess of Cambridge following the birth of their third child.  He is quite obviously, as shown from the perspective of the second frame, indicating the number 3, while the perspective chosen in the first frame would connote and entirely different message.  Was the first frame real?  Yes, from that photographer’s vantage point it was what was seen, but was its out of context use disingenuous, and deliberately deceptive?  I think that it was.

35-examples-of-media-manipulating-the-truth-1

Source Reuters

The problem here is not one inherent to the photographic medium, but rather the ethics of those who practice photography and users of photographs.  Photographs are just an inanimate thing.  They hold no special powers on their own. They are only useful, destructive, pleasing, horrifying when they are in the hands of humans and when they are presented in some context.  If the ethics of photographer, publisher or social media user are questionable then the photograph can be misused like any other tool. And like any other enterprise where power, money, or fame are in play photography is subject to abuse by those who would use it, or allow it to be used unethically.

Week 3 Reflections – Images as Constructions

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing Contexts, ReflectionsTagged , , Leave a comment

I honestly do not know why I feel the need to argue this point.  Perhaps it is because I do not view myself as an “Art Photographer” and that I work very hard to capture the world around me as accurately and faithfully as I can minimising behind the camera manipulations.  Do I take the image (Sontag) or do I make the image?  It is possible to do both with photography and I think there is a difference.  A painter clearly makes their image and Cindy Sherman, Cecil Beaton elaborately create and stage the scene they are to photograph and so in that regard are much closer to a painter than a strict documentary photographer.  Martha Rosler begins with indexical photographs and then behind the camera heavily manipulates the original image to “construct” the political statement she wishes to convey.  She too is more like a painter.  These photographers create tableaus.

Every photographer makes choices, selections of what, where, how and when to photograph, but those selections are first and foremost from real things that are in front of the photographer’s camera.  One cannot photograph what is not there, or as Barthes put it “the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens, without which there would be no photograph.” (Barthes, 1981: 76) Certainly this is equally true for all photographers whether they come to the scene accepting it as it is, or if they choose to rearrange “what was there” before taking the photograph.  And this is where I feel the need to challenge the assertion that every photograph is a construction, or at least challenge the way the term is used.

Every photograph involves choice and selection, but I argue that is different than construction.  Just because I cast my gaze and that of my camera in a particular direction, I did not “construct” what is in front of me.  Only when I purposefully rearrange the scene by moving objects or posing people have I constructed the scene that will become my image.

To argue that the “camera” coverts the light from the four-dimensional scene into a two-dimensional representation of that scene and therefore the image is made, and while true, it is not something over which the photographer has direct control and is in my view a lazy argument.  By painting all photographs with that unnecessarily broad brush it fails to recognise the spectrum or continuum of photographic practice and creates a false equivalency between a Jeff Wall or Cindy Sherman and Edward Burtynsky or Lynsey Addario. While this spectrum has no distinct boundaries at any given point on the continuum, I think it useful to acknowledge that there are differences in practice without having to necessarily assign a label or pigeonhole any photographer.

I do believe it is valuable to consider the spectrum of photographies in more nuanced way.  Obviously, the grey areas in between are what create the difficulty and there are no hard and fast rules of distinction with regard to how much constitutes a truly constructed image versus one that is intended to be indexical.  It is usually the case that the most highly constructed images and studio portraits for example make no pretentions of being anything other than constructed and it is fairly obvious to even the most casual of observers.  With the advent of digital imaging, it is less obvious on the documentary end of the spectrum and there are plenty of documented cases of photographers and publications surreptitiously altering or intentionally choosing an out of context moment or vantage point to support a particular political or editorial point of view.

With the majority of my work out of doors and either landscape, wildlife, or action shots, I can with absolute certainty tell you the scenes in front of my camera that comprise my images are not constructed.  I acknowledge the argument that because the light that enters the cameras lens is transformed and ultimately results in something made there are those that would consider that a construction.  As well, any post processing is fundamentally an action that in some way alters that which the film or sensor captured and could be argued as constructive in nature. But I continue to hold that, as long as I am trying to remain faithful to that which was in front of my camera and not alter it in any substantive or significant way I am not constructing.  I am taking, with the tools at my disposal and all their inherent capabilities and limitations, a representation of what I saw, not making something that did not exist before I arrived or a representation of something that was not there. This to me is the essential distinction in what constitutes a truly “constructed” photograph.

The following image for instance involved me carrying 20kg kit several miles and sitting in the same place for about 5 hours observing the tens of thousands of nesting seabirds as well as predators like the ravens.  I took over 500 photos with 600mm and 840mm focal lengths.  I didn’t direct the pair of ravens to the Razorbill nest they raided, but my knowledge of bird behaviour and observational acuity allowed me to see the situation developing and record it in its entirety.  This is only one shot in a sequence.  Now I suppose one could argue the final product, since it was cropped slightly and minor adjustments to the tonal quality were made in Lightroom, was constructed, but again I don’t find that distinction nuanced enough, and it creates a false equivalency with staged or posed images.

Raven-5626

Raven Burglar – Ashley Rose

Another example would be the following photograph of a 9-day old colt out for its first run around the arena with its mother.  This photo required knowledge of how horses move and what positions are most telling about a horse’s innate ability and potential as a world class dressage horse.  This is an extraordinary example of an “uphill canter” and shows how well this young colt gets his rear legs under him and how light he is in the front.  Once again other than some minor cropping and tonal adjustment, nothing about this photo was constructed in my view.  Like the previous photo, planning, patience and a bit of luck were involved.

Falcon-6153

Falcon Caledonia at 9 days old – Ashley Rose

I know this notion of constructed versus not constructed is one that will continue to spark debate, probably for as long as photography exists.  It is complicated further by the ease in which digital photography can be manipulated and frankly weaponised.  And perhaps in the end the discussion is moot because photography has gone from the paragon of “objectivity”, to the perhaps the most suspect and mistrusted of the visual media.  Divisive politics, tabloid journalism and an erosion of civility and humanity caused and furthered by the highly selective use of photographic weapons taints the broader world of Photography.  It is an unfortunate reality of our time.

 

Week 2 Activity – Is it Really Real?

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing Contexts, ReflectionsTagged , Leave a comment

 

This week’s activity asked us to consider the following: 

  • Post a short response below that outlines your own position regarding the nature of the photograph as ‘really real’.
  • Reflect on whether photographs are so unlike other sorts of pictures that they require unique methods of interpretation and standards of evaluation.
  • Identify and respond to key ideas raised by Snyder and Allen (1975) and in the presentations.
  • Refer to writers, theorists, and practitioners to support your views.
  • Provide visual examples to illustrate your points.
  • Reflect on any aspects of the ‘peculiar’ nature of the photograph that are important for your work.

 

Is a photograph real?  This is of course a loaded question, perfect fodder for purely academic debate (and forgive the cynic in me that thinks it in the end so moot as to be of dubious import), and which must, as with most complex questions, be answered with the response, “it depends.”  It depends on what is actually being asked.  It depends whether beneath the veil of “real” are really questions of tangibility, accuracy (factual), reality (vs. fantasy), or truth. These terms are easily and often conflated.  It is obvious even before beginning this discussion that there can be no one universal answer that covers the breadth of photographic genres and indeed the range of photographs with any genre.

A photograph whether as a print in hand or on the screen is indeed real on a physical level in the case of a print, and a virtual level in the case of on-screen.  It exists, but it is not in fact the thing depicted, merely a 2-dimensional representation.

If the question is instead,” Is what is depicted in the photograph real?” Again, by virtue of the definition of a photograph, the image authenticates the presence of something that was in front of the lens from which light reflected and was subsequently captured on the film or sensor. But, further parsing of the question is required.  Are we asking about the reality of the subject?  The photographer’s intent and distribution channel will need to be considered. If it was an image of a news event published by a generally respected news outlet, there would be both an expectation and assumption that the image was a depiction of a real event.  If it is a highly constructed set with elements we know to be unlikely to have been in the same place at the same time and seen in an art publication or on a gallery wall, we are likely to correctly conclude that while the objects did stand in front of the lens, the scene is not ‘real’, that is not naturally occurring.  This question gets somewhat more complex when one asks, “Even if the scene is substantially ‘real’ (naturally occurring), has it been manipulated or altered?”

With analogue photography, this is somewhat less problematic because, while it is possible and certainly has been done, it is much more difficult to manipulate the image to add or subtract something from that which was present in the photographed scene.  Digital photography makes it far easier and more likely that something might be different than was actually in the scene photographed and then the question arises; “Was the alteration substantive?”  It makes a difference if someone cloned out a gravy stain on the tablecloth or replaced the Christmas turkey with a hippopotamus.  The latter would lead most people to conclude the photo was altered and represented some form of fantasy.

Then arises the question of accuracy.  To extend the example of Christmas dinner, if Grandma was in hospital and I put her in this year’s photo by using an image of her from the prior year at the table it is real, in that she sat at that table with the others albeit at a different time, but it is not accurate.  Another example arises with scene compression from a telephoto lens.  Consider the following photograph of the town of Dornoch taken with a long lens from a vantage point that suggests the statue of the Duke of Sutherland which sits atop Ben Bhraggie looms directly above the town when in fact it is at least 10 miles away.  Metaphorically, it was (and perhaps is) accurate.  This Duke was largely responsible for the Highland Clearances which reshaped the population of the Scottish Highlands and whose effect is still felt today.

 

IMG_0576

Dornoch Cathedral with Ben Bhraggie – Ashley Rose

Lastly comes the question of truth.  No photograph can ever represent truth.  Firstly, the camera with all the limitations of its lens, film/sensor, program and looking at a smaller segment of a scene than that available to the eye is trying to capture a 4-dimensional event which it then translates into a 2- dimensional entity.  I believe it is clear the photograph cannot be truth.  Furthermore, aside from a very few absolute truths, e.g. we are all going to die, all other truths are conditional.  They are subject to the limits of knowledge, personal and cultural perspectives none of which can be represented in a photograph.  Even “scientific truths” are conditional as we only know what we know.  For example, humans once believed truth was that the Sun revolved around the Earth and now, we accept as truth the opposite.  Each major religion holds its own version of truth.  So, truth in a photograph even in relative terms is always going to be a matter of perspective and therefore not really truth.

I have noticed some others referring to digitally created images as photographs.  While they may appear to be photographs and may even be printed as a photograph might be, they are not photographs. They are Computer Generated Images.  They were not created by the interaction of light with a photosensitive medium and they are therefore not by definition, photographs.

I am not convinced that in general photographs are so different that they require some completely unique form of criticism.  Of course, photographs bear traits which make them inherently different than paintings or CGI, principally that they carry a degree of indexicality that is a physical manifestation of the prerequisite of a photograph; captured reflected light.  Aside from that, they are of something, they contain some intent at meaning, they have a frame that includes and excludes, they include or represent a point in time, and they have a vantage point, so it seems Szarkowski’s five elements could be applied to virtually any form of visual representation.

“Even in the realm of serious and inventive photography there is no clear-cut break with older traditions of representation.” (Snyder and Allen, 1975: 165)

The seemingly endless quest for the silver-bullet of photographic uniqueness or critique is perhaps interesting to debate (for a while), but as it is ultimately moot, does it really do anything to advance photography?  As I wrote in a prior CRJ post, does it really matter whether Photography as an entirety is considered an art or not?  Are these distinctions important? To find anything close to a unifying theory would require a common language and commonality of culture and experience.  At the denotive level photography in many cases can overcome the language and cultural barriers to arrive at a somewhat common (but not universal) visual language.  However, at the connotative level, the meaning of any photograph is intractably bound to the language and cultural perspectives of the viewer and is therefore unresolvable in the universal.  As I sit writing this, I see out my window (in my language) a snow flurry.  If an Inuit were to see this (or a photograph of it) I have no doubt one of their 50 words for snow would be used to provide a far more nuanced description and meaning to the event I am witnessing.  I would likely have no idea what their version meant, and they would think my version to be crude and uninformed, yet we are looking at the same denoted scene.  A photograph of Daesh beheading someone is to me a horrifying and unspeakable act of human cruelty, while to them it is a triumph over an infidel enemy and worthy of celebration.

ISIS Beheading

ISIS Propaganda photo

These connotations will never be resolved no matter how many critical theory books are written or read except by saying the photographer does not have much control over how a photograph is viewed or judged.  What is trash to one person is treasure to the next.  So we as photographers are left to do the best we can to satisfy ourselves that we have achieved the intent we set out to achieve and then we can hope that someone appreciates it for what it was meant to be while at the same time hoping that it is not at the same time taken so out of context that it is used in a harmful or nefarious way.

Snyder and Allen’s writing seems to support these ideas.

“Thus, to formulate a set of critical principles for photography based on what is purely or uniquely or essentially photographic is as absurd and unprofitable as would be the adoption in its place of standards taken from a mummified canon of nineteenth-century painting.” (p 165)

 “The poverty of photographic criticism is well known. It stands out against the richness of photographic production and invention, the widespread use and enjoyment of photographs, and even the popularity of photography as a hobby. To end this poverty we do not need more philosophizing about photographs and reality, or yet another (this time definitive) definition of “photographic seeing,” or yet another distillation of photography’s essence or nature. The tools for making sense of photographs lie at hand, and we can invent more if and when we really need them.” (p 169)

Photography has the ability to be uniquely indexical even if it is not always used as such.  My practice, and I suppose my worldview are largely rooted in this approach.  I honestly believe there is enough wonder, horror, and interest in what exists around me that I feel no need in my practice to invent or construct something that does not exist.  I don’t use my photography to illustrate or overcome personal issues and while I know it is impossible to completely mask insights into me as a person, I want my camera to be far more of a window than a mirror.  I also generally don’t want to “look into the souls” of other humans because frankly, I am not very interested and often find myself at loss to read people the way an accomplished portrait photographer often can.  If my work is viewed, I want people to be focusing on the work and not on me.

References

SNYDER, Joel and Neil Walsh ALLEN. n.d. ‘Photography, Vision and Representation’. Critical Inquiry 141–169.

BARTHES, Roland. 1977. Image Music Text. New York: Hill and Wang.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.

SZARKOWSKI, John. 1966. The Photographer’s Eye. 7th printi. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

 

Week 2- Forum: Representation or Authentication

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing ContextsTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Roland Barthes in Camera Lucida wrote “From a phenomenological standpoint, in the Photograph, the power of authentication exceeds the power of representation.”  (Barthes 1981: 89)

The questions posed for this week’s forum were:

  • What Roland Barthes means and whether or not you agree.
  • The difference between ‘authentication’ and ‘representation’.
  • How the context in which we view photographs potentially impacts upon notions of authentication and representation.
  • How this impacts your own practice.

Last week I wrote a fairly lengthy post on Barthes’ Camera Lucida  which can be found at https://chasingthewildlife.blog/2019/02/01/key-writers-roland-barthes-camera-lucida/

I agree with Barthes on this point.  First, Barthes explains;

“I call ‘photographic referent’ not the optionally real thing to which an image or sign refers but the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens, and without which there would be no photograph.” “…in Photography I can never deny that the thing has been there. There is a superimposition here: of reality and of the past. And since this constraint exists only for Photography, we must consider it, by reduction, as the very essence, the noeme of Photography. What I intentionalize in a photograph is neither Art nor Communication, it is Reference, which is the founding order of Photography.” “The name of Photography’s noeme will therefore be: ‘That-has-been,’ or again: the Intractable.” (Barthes 1981: 76-77)

 

I believe Barthes notion of ‘intractability’ refers to the authentication of the existence of what was once in front of the lens.  Whether it communicates or is judged to be artistic is in the power of the viewer not the photographer and that is the element of representation.

Flusser speaks of distribution channels and how they affect interpretation (representation).

“The essential thing is that the photograph, with each switch-over to another channel, takes on a new significance…  The distribution apparatuses impregnate the photograph with the decisive significance for its reception.” (Flusser, 1983: 54)

Sontag likewise points out that photographs are mere fragments, and the context in which they are viewed changes them. Each context “…suggests a different use for the photograph but none can secure their meaning- the meaning is the use…”  (Sontag: 1979: 106)

Szarkowski discusses the idea that photography is not successful at narrative and then goes on to refer to Matthew Brady’s work during the Civil War by saying: “The function of these pictures was not to make the story clear, it was to make it real.” (Szarkowski, 1966: 9)  I think this relates to the discussion arguing that these photographs authenticated the horrors of the war; they were in front of the lens and the photographs brought that validation to those who viewed them.  However, how those photos were interpreted, that is what did they represent, would likely be quite different depending on whether one was from the North or the South, whether one fought in the war, or whether someone close was killed in the conflict.

Each of these suggest that representation is conditional upon who is looking and where they are looking.  However, authentication, existence at one time of what was photographed does not change even though interpretations on the significance and meaning of what was photographed will vary with every viewer.

Again Barthes; “…it is not impossible to perceive the photographic signifier, but it requires a secondary action of knowledge or of reflection.” (Barthes, 1981: 5) and “…the Photograph’s essence is to ratify what it represents. … No writing can give me this certainty.  It is the misfortune…of language not to be able to authenticate itself. …but the Photograph is indifferent to all intermediaries: it does not invent; it is authentication itself;…” (Barthes 1981: 85-87)

I have come to terms with the reality that I cannot control how my photographs are ultimately interpreted or judged, especially any single photograph.  I can influence a reading of a body of work to a small degree by how I choose to edit and curate a collection of work and where it is shown, but again the ultimate power to determine what that work represents lies in the hands of each and every consumer.

I am in control of what I photograph and when I photograph.  I am in control over the choices I make during that process and I can only hope that what I think and feel when taking that photograph is somehow revealed in the product in a way that it elicits a similar reaction in a viewer, but those reactions are beyond my control and therefore beyond the bounds of that which I can or should worry over.

References:

FLUSSER, Vilém. 1983. Towards a Philosophy of Photography. English. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

SONTAG, Susan. 1977. On Photography. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

SZARKOWSKI, John. 1966. The Photographer’s Eye. 7th printi. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.

Week One Activity – Informing Contexts

Posted on Posted in Coursework, Informing ContextsTagged , , Leave a comment

Practice and Intent

At the outset of this course of study, I was not sure how to categorise myself as a photographer or where my practice fit.  I entered the course on the basis of my wildlife work, which while important to me, didn’t fully represent either who I was nor who I wanted to be as a photographer.  After three terms, I can say with confidence that I am a documentary photographer whose practice is based out of doors.  My subject matter generally ranges between wildlife and natural history, landscape (natural and cultural), and human activities relating to animals or the outdoors and sport.  These all derive from my fundamental intent as a photographer to use my camera as a tool to capture things I see and find of interest, and to be able to share them with others who may not have had the opportunity to see those things, or for whom those things were otherwise unseen or unnoticed.

While I always endeavour to make visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing photographs, I do not consider myself a ‘fine art’ photographer and instead hope to render what I see as realistically as I can because I believe there is more than enough inherent interest and beauty in the world around us and that additional manipulations and contrivances are not necessary. It is very much for me, first and foremost, about ‘the thing itself’.

Critical Contextualisation

I recently posted a rather extensive article on Szarkowski and The Photographer’s Eye which can be found at https://chasingthewildlife.blog/2019/01/17/john-szarkowski-the-photographers-eye/ , that goes into some detail about how it fits my view of the current state of my practice and my evolution as a photographer.  However, to summarise, Szarkowski’s five interdependent elements that serve as the basis for how we as photographer’s take photographs, and how consumers of the work can view and judge that work serve to inform my way of making work.  In each of the sub-genres under the broad umbrella of Documentary photography in which I work The Thing Itself, Detail, Frame, Time and Vantage Point factor into every photograph I take.

While it is undeniably true that Szarkowski was very much an adherent to and proponent for Modernism, I believe these five principles largely stand up to the test of varied genres and “schools” of photographic practice.  They are both specific and general enough, and due to their avowed interdependence, to be applied with subtly shifting balances between the elements so as to be broadly applicable across the universe of photography.

That have been said, Stephen Shore in his book, The Nature of Photographs, to a degree builds from Szarkowski, but adds a couple of new and interesting elements worthy of further consideration.  Shore begins with an intention similar to that of Szarkowski.

“The aim of this book then is…to describe physical and formal attributes of a photographic print that form the tools a photographer uses to define and interpret that content.” (Shore 2007: 12)

“This book is an investigation of what photographs look like, and of why they look that way.  It is concerned with photographic style and with photographic tradition: with the sense of possibilities that a photographer today takes to his work.” (Szarkowski 1966: 6)

Shore posits that “A photograph can be viewed on several levels. To begin with, it is a physical object, a print.  On this print is an image, an illusion of a window on the world.  It is on this level that we usually read a picture and discover its content:… Embedded in this level is another that contains signals to our mind’s perceptual apparatus.  It gives ‘spin’ to what the image depicts and how it is organized.” (Shore 2007: 10) He calls these levels the Physical, Depictive and Mental levels respectively.

At the Physical Level Shore points out, “The physical qualities of the print determine some of the visual qualities of the image.” (2007: 16)  It occurred to me that on the one hand of course this is obvious, but then again as much of our distribution and sharing of images these days is electronic (virtual prints) it isn’t really at the forefront of my mind until it comes time to prepare an exhibition or mount a print for sale.  It matters a great deal to the final product on which paper, not only type but manufacturer, it is printed and by what process it is printed and by whom it is printed and whether the post processing platform was colour calibrated and matched to the print platform.  This has to date not been a particularly significant issue, but it stands to become one moving on to FMP and whatever form the final product takes.

In the Depictive Level Shore again borrows from Szarkowski by suggesting the photographer “imposes order on a scene” by “choosing a vantage point, choosing a frame, choosing a moment of exposure, and by selecting a plane of focus.” (Shore 2007: 37)  (Szarkowski’s Vantage Point, Frame, Time and Detail.)  When Szarkowski referred to detail he was speaking more about the narrative capacity of photography, but when he said, “The photographer could not assemble these clues into a coherent narrative, he could only isolate the fragment, document it, and by doing so claim for it some special significance.” (Szarkowski 1966: 8)  I do not believe it is a stretch to interpret isolating a fragment and granting it significance as an allusion to focal plane.  That is precisely what we do as photographers when we decide how to capture a scene.  We choose what is most important and that is where we focus.

Shore, like many writers before him including Szarkowski make the mistake of considering the photographic world three-dimensional when in fact it is four-dimensional.  True enough the photographic image is essentially two-dimensional, but it is representation of a four-dimensional scene and as such it is always an illusion and never the truth.

“The world is three-dimensional; a photographic image is two-dimensional.” “The picture plane is a field upon which the lens’s image is projected. A photographic image can rest on this picture plane and, at the same time, contain an illusion of deep space.”  (Shore 2007: 40)

Shore’s Mental Level seems to be the subjective counterpart to the objectivity of the Depictive.  The Depictive was more about the mechanics of depiction and the detail of what was depicted.  The Mental Level is about reading the photograph, assessing its meaning and significance.  It depends on both the Physical and Depictive, for without them there is nothing use as the basis for the mental image.  I think again in this way Shore is essentially reiterating Szarkowski’s view that his five elements are interdependent, and it is necessary to consider all in judging/ understanding a photograph.

There are strong similarities and parallels between Szarkowski and Shore, and while they may use slightly different wording, they are illuminating fundamentally the same concepts.  Shore’s use of photographs and a little more parsing of the elements provides a complementary perspective to Szarkowski.  As I stated in the linked article and briefly above I consider most of my work to be aligned with Szarkowski’s Modernist approach and as Shore is in my view quite generally consistent with that line of thinking I can see myself spending more time looking a re-looking at Shore’s examples as a means to continue to improve my ability to see and read photographs.

 

References

SZARKOWSKI, John. 1966. The Photographer’s Eye. 7th printi. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

SHORE, Stephen. 2007. The Nature of Photographs. 2018th edn. London and New York: Phaidon Press.