Friday, November 1, 2013
Gary Winogram
Granted that simplicity is a virtue; beyond this it is too complex a matter to generalize about with impunity. One might add with reasonable confidence that simple does not mean vacuous, obvious, plain, habitual, formulated, banal, or empty.
The ability to produce pictures richly complex in their description would seem to be intrinsic to photography; indeed, this characteristic might almost be considered a simple fact of the medium. Nevertheless, much of the best energy of photographers during the past seventy years has been dedicated to the task of thinning out the rank growth of information that the camera impartially records if left to its own devices, in favor of pictures which have been --- for lack of a better word --- simpler. This has been achieved in many ways: by printing techniques that have allowed radical manipulation, by soft-focus lenses, stage lighting, high-contrast negatives, exaggerated grain, corrective filters, or worm's- or bird's-eye perspectives; by photographing details close up, or two-dimensional subjects (such as old walls); or simply by printing the picture very dark or very light. Stated this baldly these various experiments sound less interesting and less productive (and simpler) than they were in historical fact. In practice the struggle for visual coherence is continuous; when one problem is solved, a more difficult one rises in its place.
In photography the formal issue might be stated as this: How much of the camera's miraculous descriptive power is the photographer capable of handling? Or how much complexity can he make simple? Or, conversely, how much diversity must he sacrifice for the sake of order?
Consider Garry Winogrand's picture: so rich in fact and suggestion, and so justly resolved, more complex and more beautiful than the movie that Alfred Hitchcock might derive from it.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Paul strand post assigmnent answers
1 i tried to take pictures from different viewing angles.
2 i was trying to give depth to the subject of the photo.
3 first i chose a good spot with enough light but not too much, then i tried to get a good result.
4 i like how the shadows look.
5 no
6 i could try to take better light balanced photos
Pre/Post assignment questions
1 What lessons or experiences did you “synthesize and analyze” to come up with your original idea-- what was your assignment.
2 How did you evaluated your work, what were you looking to create for the assignment, and was this idea a good idea?
3 And what steps did you take to create your assignment?
4 What do you like best about your images?
5 Did you have trouble with some part of this assignment?
6 How could you improve your image or process?
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Julia Margaret Cameron
One of the greatest portraitists in the history of photography—indeed in any medium—Julia Margaret Cameron (British, 1815–1879) blended an unorthodox technique, a profoundly spiritual sensibility, and a Pre-Raphaelite–inflected aesthetic to create a gallery of vivid portraits and a mirror of the Victorian soul.
When she received her first camera in 1863 as a Christmas gift from her daughter and son-in-law, Cameron was forty-eight, a mother of six, and a deeply religious, well-read, somewhat eccentric friend of many notable Victorian artists, poets, and thinkers. “From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour,” she wrote, “and it has become to me as a living thing, with voice and memory and creative vigour.” Condemned by some contemporaries for sloppy craftsmanship, she purposely avoided the perfect resolution and minute detail that glass negatives permitted, opting instead for carefully directed light, soft focus, and long exposures that allowed her sitters’ slight movement to register in her pictures, instilling them with a sense of breath and life.
An exhibition of her portraits will be on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City from August 19, 2013 through January 5, 2014.
(yahoo.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)