I'm realizing that my work needs an underlying structure or something that relates the pieces. I think I have two things going on in these images, and I'd appreciate your feedback on whether I'm getting closer to that "recognizable something" that might distinguish some of my work. Candid feedback please, don't hold back.
Images at: http://tendrelphotography.zenfolio.com/roundlake
Thanks,
-Roger
(from Bobby:) Roger, read my comments below in the comments section first, then read what I wrote below in the body of this post -- which is about suggesting you might want to look at Yamamoto's work (I brough in his book to our last class with guest):
here's a gallery of his little prints (click here) (these are all printed small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand -- so that you could carry them and ponder them like a sacred object/talisman); and here is a video in French (click here), but with a translation of his words underneath. This seems particularly important:
"As you can see, my photos are small and seem old. In fact, I work so that they’re like that. I could wait 30 years before using them, but that’s impossible. So, I must age them. I take them out with me on walks, I rub them with my hands, this is what gives me my desired expression. This is called the process of forgetting or the production of memory. Because in old photos the memories are completely manipulated and it’s this that interests me and this is the reason that I do this work.
"If I take small photos, it’s because I want to make them into the matter of memories. And it’s for this reason that I think the best format is one that is held in the hollow of the hand. If we can hold the photo in our hand, we can hold a memory in our hand. A little like when we keep a family photo with us."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roger,
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know what those "two things" you think you have working are? And, also, if you have a better idea of what you are trying to say with this work. Then I could comment better about what that "recognizable something" is that you are after.
As for the images that work for me, and how they might work together: the tight shots of flowers don't do much, they seem very ordinary (although quite beautiful) -- same with the details of rusted metal. And the doctored images, where you have given a infrared look --these don't work at all for me -- they really feel too kitschy.
my favorites, and ones that I think do start to work together are #4, #6 & #13. There is something more pensive about these, personal, meditative, intimate -- if that is what you are after. Also the presence of water in the first two tie them together.
Again, I think you need to nail down the feeling/message you are trying to communicate. And the more personal you make it, the more powerful your work will be. Then you can ask viewers which images work the best to communicate that affect.
Also, if you still intend to add the words from your walk partner to your images, I need to read those words too while looking at the images to be able to comment on the larger project -- it's really impossible to envision/comprehend the larger installation without the other components.
ps, I was thinking about your critique last class, and it seemed that the images that stood out were the more tight shots, very specific details of leaves or tree trunks, peeling bark -- if you are after a more pensive, meditative image, that might be one way to go. then each image acts as a kind of sacred object to behold, and meditate on -- a talisman.
you might even consider doing something like what Masoa Yamamoto does, printing small on thick paper, carrying around or wearing down images, maybe carry on your walks, then pooting in boxes of deep box frames, like sacred objects gathered on your walk. I'll post some of his links in the body of your message.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteIt would be easier to give feedback in person so I'll probably do that on Wednesday at some point.
But I wanted to mention that what I remember about what you showed last class was the close up of peeling bark and also the shot of a leaf you had next to it. Those two worked together because of the similar shapes and forms. Almost like the peeling bark was a "negative space" image and the leaf was the "positive space," if that makes any sense. I liked how they played off of each other.