http://www.lenscratch.com/2013/04/sarah-stankey-one-for-birds.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lenscratch%2FZAbG+%28L++E++N++S++C++R++A++T++C++H%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
After working on my photography project, this series was sort of a sigh of relief. My favorite type of photographs usually capture the image of something nice or quant that I otherwise would not have seen. Most of the pictures in this body of work are of nature or have animals in them. Animals can be particularly challenging to photograph, especially rabbits that instinctually run away from oncoming large animals such as photographers. They don't pose, their movements are unpredictable, they are difficult to find, and you can't just go back and take more pictures.
I've been working most of the semester on taking pictures of a place that is not exactly picturesque and is heavy with social and environmental issues. There's a time and place for multiple layers of meaning and context and analysis and connotation, but sometimes it's nice to just look at some pretty pictures.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Work in Progress #4
One thing that I tried to do this time was to get some new angles and views, especially with the radioactive yellow pony. When I first started taking pictures of this area, I was generally operating from my default documentary style, recording the place generally from eye-level so that people would get an idea of what it would look like if they just walked around. Now, I'm manipulating the perspective much more, practically lying on the ground, ducking under thorny vines, or holding the camera above my head to get the shot I want.
I've also incorporated some text in this series. There are plenty of foreboding signs around, stating things like "no trespassing," "violators will be prosecuted," and "24-hour video surveillance," all of which should probably be rotated 180 degrees. It's the different waste industries that have trespassed and violated the land and community, either covertly or with bribery.
Anyway, those signs I thought to be a bit too overt, as I could convey the same feeling much more symbolically with the barbed wire. However, I did want the name Stericycle in the work somehow so to keep it anchored to the place. The gas line sign is a nice little reminder of what lies hidden beneath the ground, plus the pole appears the same yellow as our pony friend.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Google Reader #11
http://www.urbanautica.com/post/47099840771/richard-misrach
This body of work reminded me of my own project. In Louisiana there's a band of chemical facilities that first reached public attention as "Cancer Ally" I suspect that the environmental injustice story here is pretty similar to Keene Road in Apopka, where I have been taking most of my pictures.
The photos here appear off-putting. It is clear that something has gone wrong, with the unnaturally green goopy water, desolate landscapes, and odd industrial building. The grey-green color was most likely caused by a toxic soup of all the waste chemicals. In addition to causing cancer, the waste product has severely limited the diversity of flora and fauna that can survive in the ecosystem.
At this point, I can't look at these images without wondering about the demographic info of the area, local health issues, decreasing property values, zoning laws, environmental degradation, and what this place must smell like. Sites like these tend to be clumped together, out of site and mind of most people, but glaringly unjust to the people whose lives are personally affect every day.
This body of work reminded me of my own project. In Louisiana there's a band of chemical facilities that first reached public attention as "Cancer Ally" I suspect that the environmental injustice story here is pretty similar to Keene Road in Apopka, where I have been taking most of my pictures.
The photos here appear off-putting. It is clear that something has gone wrong, with the unnaturally green goopy water, desolate landscapes, and odd industrial building. The grey-green color was most likely caused by a toxic soup of all the waste chemicals. In addition to causing cancer, the waste product has severely limited the diversity of flora and fauna that can survive in the ecosystem.
At this point, I can't look at these images without wondering about the demographic info of the area, local health issues, decreasing property values, zoning laws, environmental degradation, and what this place must smell like. Sites like these tend to be clumped together, out of site and mind of most people, but glaringly unjust to the people whose lives are personally affect every day.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Reading Response Ch 6
At this little liberal arts school, I've been able to take classes in a variety of fields, and I realized that in my humanities classes I often end up defending science and technology. Here I go again.
According to this chapter, art and technology were viewed as separate when photography was developed (a true enough statement of the cultural views of the time). However, people, especially large groups of people, often don't understand very much. Before talking about technology (and thus the scientific research that enables it), let's talk about tools. Tools are just simple external objects that extend our senses or our ability to do things, things like spears, pencils, and eyeglasses. People usually aren't afraid of these because they are relatively simple and operate in the same spacial and temporal references that we do. In the case of the artist, their tools may include a paint brush and canvas, and I think that we can agree that the tools of art are inseparable from its ability to be created.
Paint brushes are simple. Cameras are complicated, which is the only real difference between tools and technology. A good indication of technology is that no one person would be able to build it. Technology is often viewed as separate and something other beyond that of paintbrushes because people don't really know how they work.
Even though camera's are more mechanical, that does not invalidate its artistic possibilities. No one is arguing that making haiku is not a creative process because it follows a rigid formula. Photography may be more bound to reality than other types of art, but just like a haiku, it manages to be art within its boundaries. Not only that, but the boundaries and limitations may even make it more artistic, because it may take more creative energy to create art with a less-flexible medium.
Q: Is viewing a photograph purely a subjective experience, or are some photos objectively better than others?
According to this chapter, art and technology were viewed as separate when photography was developed (a true enough statement of the cultural views of the time). However, people, especially large groups of people, often don't understand very much. Before talking about technology (and thus the scientific research that enables it), let's talk about tools. Tools are just simple external objects that extend our senses or our ability to do things, things like spears, pencils, and eyeglasses. People usually aren't afraid of these because they are relatively simple and operate in the same spacial and temporal references that we do. In the case of the artist, their tools may include a paint brush and canvas, and I think that we can agree that the tools of art are inseparable from its ability to be created.
Paint brushes are simple. Cameras are complicated, which is the only real difference between tools and technology. A good indication of technology is that no one person would be able to build it. Technology is often viewed as separate and something other beyond that of paintbrushes because people don't really know how they work.
Even though camera's are more mechanical, that does not invalidate its artistic possibilities. No one is arguing that making haiku is not a creative process because it follows a rigid formula. Photography may be more bound to reality than other types of art, but just like a haiku, it manages to be art within its boundaries. Not only that, but the boundaries and limitations may even make it more artistic, because it may take more creative energy to create art with a less-flexible medium.
Q: Is viewing a photograph purely a subjective experience, or are some photos objectively better than others?
Monday, April 1, 2013
Google Reader #10
http://www.lenscratch.com/2013/03/tom-wik.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lenscratch%2FZAbG+%28L++E++N++S++C++R++A++T++C++H%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
I've recently become interested in the subject of facades, both what they tell us and what they hide. I think that everyone has an image of themself that they choose to let the world see and then a more authentic self that takes time and effort and risk to get to know.
We can do something similar with our physical spaces. In my project with Apopka, the spaces I'm photographing generally have a defensive or secretive facade. A place like Baldwin Park appears sterilized and mass-produced.
The facade of the homes in this blog post are able to communicate that these are individual private residences. I do like the ones where the exterior of the house is shrouded in shrubbery; it makes the home feel more cozy. In the description, the artist says that such an image says, "Don't bother friending me," but I disagree, at least for the homes where the foliage appears natural or messy. From my perspective, those houses say, "If I let you in, then you're something special, and what happens here is not for the whole world to see."
Some of the other houses and their landscaping look too perfect and too fake. In this case, the facade says that image is more important than substance, and it works to hide what lies behind it.
I've recently become interested in the subject of facades, both what they tell us and what they hide. I think that everyone has an image of themself that they choose to let the world see and then a more authentic self that takes time and effort and risk to get to know.
We can do something similar with our physical spaces. In my project with Apopka, the spaces I'm photographing generally have a defensive or secretive facade. A place like Baldwin Park appears sterilized and mass-produced.
The facade of the homes in this blog post are able to communicate that these are individual private residences. I do like the ones where the exterior of the house is shrouded in shrubbery; it makes the home feel more cozy. In the description, the artist says that such an image says, "Don't bother friending me," but I disagree, at least for the homes where the foliage appears natural or messy. From my perspective, those houses say, "If I let you in, then you're something special, and what happens here is not for the whole world to see."
Some of the other houses and their landscaping look too perfect and too fake. In this case, the facade says that image is more important than substance, and it works to hide what lies behind it.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Reading Response: Ch 5
This was my favorite chapter so far, and many interesting points were brought up. One that stood out to me was hegemony in the representation of photography. It takes resources to get your work visible in the main stream, so the images presented will be limited by the people who are able to get their work distributed in such a way and what their goals are. In our economic structure, as this chapter pointed out, that goal is often to sell something.
Advertising used to be the art of communicating why your product was better than all of its competitors. However, much more subversive methods are utilized today. A popular tactic is to make the viewer feel inadequate in some way usually about something highly personal, visceral, or culturally significant. Things like your sexual life, body-image, or mental happiness. Photographs are usually about more than just what is in the frame. There's the context in which it was taken and in which it is being read, the intentions of the photographer, and in this chapter particularly also the industry supporting it. In images taken, selected, and modified for advertisements, I think the intentions are selfish, context is vain, and industry is bloated. Photography itself is not to blame, as it is a medium of communication, and perhaps we just need better things to communicate and better communities to do it with. However, since the photo is an image, photography may be a particularly easy medium to use when someone only wants to show the surface, whether that objectifies women or conceals labor relations. The art of photography then, I think, is to sculpt that connotative image that lies beyond the borders of the picture into something worthwhile.
Q: Does viewing hyper-real glamourous images of people function to reduce our perspective of real people into just images of people?
Advertising used to be the art of communicating why your product was better than all of its competitors. However, much more subversive methods are utilized today. A popular tactic is to make the viewer feel inadequate in some way usually about something highly personal, visceral, or culturally significant. Things like your sexual life, body-image, or mental happiness. Photographs are usually about more than just what is in the frame. There's the context in which it was taken and in which it is being read, the intentions of the photographer, and in this chapter particularly also the industry supporting it. In images taken, selected, and modified for advertisements, I think the intentions are selfish, context is vain, and industry is bloated. Photography itself is not to blame, as it is a medium of communication, and perhaps we just need better things to communicate and better communities to do it with. However, since the photo is an image, photography may be a particularly easy medium to use when someone only wants to show the surface, whether that objectifies women or conceals labor relations. The art of photography then, I think, is to sculpt that connotative image that lies beyond the borders of the picture into something worthwhile.
Q: Does viewing hyper-real glamourous images of people function to reduce our perspective of real people into just images of people?
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Work in Progress #3
At the start of this project I wanted to focus on a medical waste incinerator in unincorporated Apopka, but the nearby landfills provided ample photographic opportunities. In essence this project is about what we abandon and the lengths we go to in order to keep it out of sight and out of mind.
The top image does the best job at conveying that idea. The first version is pretty similar to how it was taken originally. There's the barbed wire of course in the foreground, keeping everyone at a distance, and the addition of the green leaves help soften the image, just like people need to both protect themselves and present themselves as affable. The barbs are more threateningly symbolic than practical. If anyone really wanted to get in, they could. The background, relatively out of focus, appears to be an empty field, perhaps prompting the viewer to ask why exactly is this being protected by barbed wire. Underneath the mask, out of sight, lies all of our dirty little secrets. We don't want to deal with our waste, so we just cover it up and say "Do not enter, violators will be prosecuted."
In the second version, the leaves and ground were modified to appear more dead, illustrating what lies underneath. The real substance of the hill in the background is literally garbage, things that are as good as dead to us. So now, everything is dead -substance and facade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)