Det Kempke

wow

busy times really put a speed bump in research/production. luckily monica and i can finally start to catch our breath! to the rest of you - good luck.

anyways - after reviewing the videos in New Media class it really got me thinking about what can be done to not only improve footage, but also what can help our photographs in class. most of us neglect to really be aware of EVERYTHING that we are photographing. Instead of searching for a photographer that i really enjoy, i figured that it would be more useful to get someone that does not really impact me much - this led me to Det Kempke.

don't get me wrong, i do think Det is good at what he does. it's just not my cup of tea. what i do appreciate though is his awareness of what is around him, and also his ability to filter out subjects and items that may be distractive in a negative perspective. notice the above photographs. the first detail that is noticeable to me is that there is not much detail (recognizable labels, name brands, etc). i feel that if this photograph was set up by one of us on our college campus - some of us may choose to sprinkle empty beer bottles and cans within the cabinets, or even choose not to venture off campus and look for a more interesting location for this kind of shot. we need to be aware of what little details like this do to a photo/video. if these bottles said things like "Miller", "Rolling Rock", or "Coors" it would (at least for me) make this shot a lot less professional. are you getting compensated to advertise for this company? keep in mind that this advertisement aspect of photography can really take away from the "fine art" vision unless it is truly what you are going for. this was a big thing for me to bring up because in multiple videos in the New Media class had clothes that displayed our college name and many brand names. Just took away from the seriousness.

i wanted to throw this image in here because i am a firm believer in NOT faking location. if you really want to have a "strip club" feel or a supermarket feel, then go shoot in a strip club or supermarket (this may require you to call and ask permission obviously). do not set up a shelve with food on it in your basement and pretend unless you have the real stuff. you may think it looks good, but the viewer will notice the difference - especially with you not there to defend your photos all the time. do not be afraid to ask to use a certain area for a set. most people will be cool with it! I bet Det Kempke had to talk to a few people to be able to get into this location to shoot photography in a strip club.

do you guys agree with this?

For Jacki (and others, of course)

Jacki, it's always difficult to run into similar work, but ask Mary: your growth potential skyrockets!

http://www.jacquelinesalmon.com/prisonsantefolio.html#

http://prisonphotography.wordpress.com/

Andreas Kohler

Who doesn't like lounging in their underwear? I found such comfort in most of these at first glance, and I am not sure if I need to read into it much more, I enjoy the fact that I can appreciate them as someone's private moments before putting on the clothes they decide to wear for the day. I feel like a lot of people are curious as to what people do in their personal lives, and a series such as this pleases that nosy side to all of us.



On Andreas Kohler's has another photo that emulates the same feeling. Everyone who owns a mac has had at one point a "photobooth fetish". The way that people take photos of themselves and others with webcams is an interesting way of critiquing the way in which they would like to be seen, in my opinion. These portraits can really be an interesting way of getting to know someone.

One EyeLand

One Eyeland

Site to check out in addition to the conscientious blog.

Newer and a few randoms

Here is my twisted interest haha... people who don't pick up their dog's "business" drive me a little crazy, mostly because I have stepped in it before (gross right?) I am not sure how close I should get? Is the closer of the two too close?

Toeing the line between Document and Art

http://www.judithquax.com/

Recently I've been....

Alice Wells

"By studying the art of the past it is possible to learn two things: (a) something from our own responses about the nature and organization or our own visual systems and expectations, and (b) some notion of what the perceptual world of early man may have been like. However, our present-day picture of their world, like the museum pot which has been patched and mended, will always be incomplete and only an approximation of the original. The greatest criticism one can make of the many attempts to interpret man's past is that they project onto the visual world of the past the structure of the visual world of the present... man actively though unconsciously structures his visual world. Few people realize that vision is not passive but active, in fact a transaction between man and his environment in which both participate." -Edward T. Hall

A photograph is a representation of something passed, whether that be set up (staged), or not. The moment the shutter was released was captured and time has gone by since then. I think the quote above is essential for recognizing why we look at work from the past. People have been looking (vision as a active agent) at their world since they were born, this hasn't changed. Even so, if a person cannot see the world around them, they interact and there is a transaction between the person and environment. This transaction is carried out differently in cultures and spaces. But the act of vision occurs. The interaction between a photographer and their environment determines their path. What is left in the frame is how the viewer then interacts with what they are given. For the most part photographers take photos of things recognizable to the viewer (landscapes, faces, buildings, rooms, etc.) all of these things are related to because we interact with them. My point is that what is included in the frame is what will be related to, clearly. But I must constantly remind myself how important this is. So, for example if someone is taking a portrait shot, they have to consider the depth of field and distance to which their subject is placed. Does the photographer place the subject at a close distance to the viewer (within conversation range), at an unreachable distance, or a far distance? Each of these placements determine how the viewer of the photo will interact with the subject within in the frame. For example a bigger face will cause the viewer to back off, but a distanced face will draw the viewer in, just due to how our culture defines conversations between each other. A physical distance between two people is prevalent. The closer people get to one another, the more personal and beyond comfort norms.

For me, I am not so much dealing with this situation in my recent photos, but I still question it. In the past I was the model in much of my work, and this makes me ask: What does modeling in your own work do? Mainly, because I haven't seen anyone in our class try this. Maybe the intermediate people will try this for a fear project? Nonetheless I question if putting yourself in the frame "works." I did a lot of my own modeling last semester, but I'm still not convinced if it worked. I think that Alice Wells did some strong work here. She is the model and I feel like she knows how to interact with the camera in a way to question social distance and her as the subject. I think she understands the sort of conversation/interaction that happens by placing herself specifically within the frame and how the viewer then interacts with it. Simplified, one of the main differences between photographs is how the frame is set up (where things are placed). What I think we should remember, as quoted above, "vision is not passive but active...a transaction between man and his environment...man actively though unconsciously structures his visual world. This is the greatest thing about photography- that we actively structure our visual world! We should always look at previous artists because they have been doing the same and thus we can learn from them. We're all living in the same world, but how we see it is different, and in the case of photography, can be drastically different.

Allan Jenkins

Ok, so this just might be one of my most favorite artists recently! I think I strive very hard to do things similar. I like trying simple portraits and non-complicated "poses," but adding a twist to them. For instance, last semester when I used the shower door as a way of distorting my people, who were posed simply, and who I didn't ask anything specific of. Then this semester I have been trying my underwater poses, and my recent work with reflections- using simple poses, but with that quirk. This artist Allan Jenkins has truly accomplished that great way of producing a photo. He uses this old process called Cyanotyopes and then toning his images with tea!! How brilliant. I think this is a wonderful description of the "process." He makes the effort to figure out what works, and what doesn't, no matter the time or the product that it takes.

My question is: Is it worth sticking to what you know, and what you are comfortable with when taking pictures, or is worth risking time to follow a more unfamiliar path?

This is also the website. I highly recommend you going to it and checking out more. I find him truly fascinating, and you most likely will find him on my presentation on Thursday.

Ok, I lied...HERE is the website.

http://www.allanjenkins.com/

Aaron Lindberg

First off, if you need inspiration or want to peruse more photographers check out this website: http://www.oneeyeland.com/index.php

This is where I found Aaron Lindberg. When you first click on the link, this is the photo that you see:



I can't get any of his images off of his website, but I thought Matt and Sam V could benefit from this. When I first started doing portraits I was disinterested in what my end product was. I went around campus and asked people if I could photograph them on the spot, which was fun, and you get a variety of different people, but I needed something more. I think Lindberg does a great job of constructing an interesting composition with the props and poses he uses.

Steve Davis

Jacki's interest in photographing at GBCI inspired me to do more research on others who might be interested in photographing similar work. I came across and article called "Pinhole Photography by Incarcerated Girls at Remann Hall, Washington State" This article is a result of an interview with Davis himself as he described the work that he had done with the girls at Remann Hall, Juvenile Court. Here's a little clip of the article:

When working with the incarcerated youth of Washington State, Steve Davis used the camera in different ways and to different ends. He conducted his own long-term portrait project concurrently with workshops offered to the detained youth. At Remann Hall Juvenile Detention Center, Tacoma, Steve and his female students were not allowed to photograph each others faces. Steve’s solution was portraits of the girls with plaster masks, heads in their hands and similar visual devices. The girls’ solutions involved outstretched hands, evasive gesture, long exposures, and full utility of pinhole photography’s conveniently blurred results.

I find this workshop to be an extremely beneficial one, not only for Davis, but the girls who were involved in it as well. What most intriguing for me would be the fact that they are shooting these photos through pinholes, The pinhole camera holds so much symbolism in the girls' present living situation. It makes me feel claustrophobic.

Make sure you read the article, then look at Davis'Site

stupid recents

Alan Powdrill

Powdrill is the man. (see below).

That being said, I would like to take minute (or 20) to explain my feelings on portraiture. I really dislike basic studio head shots. A lot. But not when there are nice mustaches. If they were like... disgraceful mustaches Powdrill's pictures would not interest me, but these are great mustaches (again, see below). On a serious note, I really do not like studio head shots (but I do appreciate). MAKE YOUR PHOTOS INTERESTING. Do something to alter the basic/classic head shot to make it your own. Sure, they are a good thing to practice. But do something to the idea of a head shot to give it your own twist - to bring some emotion, thought, mental strain, deformity, meticulous planning, etc to them.Anyone can buy a nice digital camera these days and take nice head shot on automatic. you will not be there to say to a viewer: "I PROMISE THAT I DID NOT USE AUTO MODE!!! It was done on manual setting," and frankly you should not be given that opportunity. Give the portrait a twist. Or any project that seems average for that matter (ie. Ben beginning to experiment with light). This fear project should be a great starting point to discover one's potential to adding a little of yourself or your though process into your images.

Do you guys agree with this, or do you thing head shots are where it's at? (these ones are righteous. are they not?)

Recent!!

Ralph Eugene Meatyard

What does distortion do for a photograph? Why is our class so interested in it? I think that the majority of our class is exploring distortion in some form. But why? Is this solely related to our curiosity about how to distort? Or should we ask if there is a broad conceptual meaning for this.
Last semester I learned that my shooting style was to not include the face, or distort the face in some way (mask). I justified this action by my thoughts on communication. I think that there is a general lack of communication between people. The face itself contains vital communication sources: ears for hearing, eyes for seeing, mouth for speaking. We all know this full well and this is how we were always taught to communicate. But lately I think our communication has shifted to a combination of our thumbs and eyes looking at words on an electronic screen. I often ask myself why I often feel disconnected from the people around me. Is this a fault of mine; do I not spend enough time looking people in the eye and speaking from my heart, instead of typing it? Does this combination of trying to communicate disturb a more organic flow to how we used to communicate? Does it effect us at all?

I think that there is a great interest in the face of a person. For many reasons we look to the face of a person to define them. But going along with Mary's last post, what about those that have an "abnormal," face? What for them? Does this wound define how people communicate with them-absolutely. In all honesty, I don't want to communicate with people that make me uncomfortable. I'm certain it would be hard to look at any of the women in the photos Mary posted and not feel uncomfortable.

There is so much emphasis and visual interest in the face; that when distorted, it becomes something unusual. Ralph Eugene Meatyard uses masks or blurring to describe the faces of his models. As viewers we can recognize that the masks are unproportional and on top of the face that belongs to the person. But for me it makes me ask questions, like the ones above. Why are these images so interesting? I can best filter my questions in the subcategory of communication. I believe for me, this is where the answer for my interpretation lies.

Through my excursions to the prison, I find it increasingly more difficult to sort of ignore eye contact with the inmates. I want to look each of them in the eye and get to know their story. But this action solely defines how I present myself to them and how they appear to me. If they look me in the eye I will do the same, but considering that I am not good at hiding my fear, I ask if they will be able to sense that and I, in turn become more vulnerable to their presence?

I cannot explain what it feels like to spend the day walking around at the prison and come back to the St. Norbert island. Like Mary mentioned in her post, we don't really have to deal with that much shit here. It was so weird to come from the prison, where things are very quiet and systematic to my apartment, where my roommates were literally yelling, complaining about social group drama. It really made me realize that we are free. But yet, we put ourselves in similar positions as those within the prison encounter everyday. How free do we make ourselves? The inmates have no communication outside of the institution save visiting hours- that's it.

We have the glorious freedom to communicate with each other about ideas, feelings, concerns, and burdens everyday without having to be monitored. Mostly I hope to make us ask questions about our work beyond the technical stuff. What about distortion is so interesting?

Isabella Demavlys

In Without A Face, Isabella Demavlys portrays the victims of acid attacks in Pakistan. In places like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and now also Afghanistan, acid attacks have become a common form of violence against women.

"Acid attacks are a relatively recent phenomenon, with the earliest recorded incidents in Bangladesh in 1983. They have become possible as acidic products became household items. In Bangladesh, hydrochloric acid is sold as a toilet cleaner and a gallon can be purchased for just a few dollars, and in India and Pakistan a similar chemical concentrate is used for sterilizing kitchens and bathrooms. Since acid is inexpensive and easily accessible, it has increasingly become the weapon of choice." (Conscientious Blog)

It is incredible how easy we have it here! The only time we live in fear is if we hear or see that there is a bad neighborhood and we shouldn't stop through. I mean we obviously fear everyday things together as a world, like sickness, disease, death etc...but we are so lucky that we live, or go to school here, in a safe town. We would never expect something violent to happen here in De Pere. These women have come forward as signs to people who think things like this don't happen. We block out the bad, and most of us (meaning people in college) do not keep up on our daily news...the one place where we hear about the bad things. We can hear about the bad, but then don't you think we somewhat forget as soon as we turn off the TV, or at least it doesn't effect us as much, after we "separate" ourselves from it? I wish and hope that we can be a part of this kind of photography someday. I understand we need to go out and make money, and hopefully we can do what we love to accomplish that, but I think we sometimes "owe" it to use our photography for what is needed to be seen. I think it is just a way to show that we are doing our part as artists to use what we have to spread awareness. Now, I know that some things are more important then others, and some things are closer to people's hearts then other things, and we can't begin to show ALL of them...but we can at least make that small start and begin somewhere. This is something that I have been passionate about for awhile when it comes to photography, and I wish I could do it more.

That is one big reason I commend Jacki in taking on the prison...something she fears, but also something that brings awareness about this place we are only allowed to pass and avert our eyes from when driving down Broadway. To some degree I think it is more about the effort put into getting into the prison and getting the opportunity , then necessarily what we see at a critique. That just goes to show that even if we think it is impossible, we might as well try. The worst that can happen is that we receive a "no." Then we are just back to square one, and we find another route to follow. There is no harm in trying.

I guess my questions would be then...Do you think, if you had the opportunity to shoot something tragic to help spread awareness, you would take it? I guess more so...would it be something that interests you? And, do you think fear pushes us to do things we didn't think were possible?

Check our Isabella Demavlys's website. It has stunning work on it. Especially the continuation to these portraits. It is really compelling.
http://www.izabellademavlys.com/

Lastly, this is a short video that Shane had us watch in New Media Art a couple of weeks ago. It goes along with the problem the Demavlys is trying to bring to people's attention.

http://www.thesmalls.com/members/fedeforc/films/the-wedding.go

Recent

Mary Frey

This might be my new favorite photographer! She has such a sympathy and tenderness to the portraits that she has taken. I was talking to Shane the other day on how I wish I could look at my photography without an emotional attachment to it, but I think that is what makes some work really strong. Now, like with Monica's (and we talked about this alot after History of Photo) appreciation with deadpan photography, there is definitly a lack of emotion. I just find it very hard to separate myself from why I am doing these photos and the effect it has on me. Even if the photography itself is not emotional for me...taking the photos, and the effort I put into them, when I believe in them, is emotional. Mary Frey, has taken these pictures and used such good studio lighting. Her lighting reminds me of Jack, Monica and I's idol-Gregory Crewdson! That strong, potent lighting, that brings out that saturated color. I am crazy for that strength. I find these portraits so powerful. Just the way that she stages these pictures...they are beautiful. 

Check out her website also!! Its all amazing!

http://www.maryfrey.com/family/index.htm#title

My question is...Do you think your art is stronger when emotionally based or do you think it can be strong when you are separated from it?

Yann Arthus-Bertrand

Look at all the work by this photographer. Not only do they do these super interesting portrait shots, but shots from above the earth and animals as well. I find the portraits particularly interesting because even though the people seem drastically different in character they are placed a similar space. This same technique is rendered in the animal series. Granted that I think of space as a very intriguing concept; to place each person/persons in the same/similar background space lets us focus on the character of the people or relationship between animals and people. By looking at this body of work our questions are much more directed toward each person than how each is interacting with the context of their space, if every space was different. I think that this is an interesting background to put your frame around. For anyone working toward portraits, check out the body of the work. For those not working with people, look at the other photos on his site: http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/v2/yab_us.htm

For some reason I couldn't figure out how to load them individually. I know this is an extra step to take, but trust me, it's worth it to check out. Just put your cursor over the picture and click on the different photography series. The site I provided should take you to the English version.

My question for this time is: what does having the same background/background quality do for a body of photos. If a body of photos is shot in this way, is a singular photo from this series potentially just as strong, or should it be understood only in multiple shots? I think that this post would benefit most anyone looking to do studio lighting as a possible option or anyone who is looking to do portraits. Look how little the photographer provides within the frame, yet it still remains compositionally and conceptually strong.

Chris Mueller (not me)

It pisses you off when you find a artist doing the same work as you or a peer that sees your work and tries to do the same or similar work that you are doing without crediting you, right? What about a really good photographer with the same name as you, that has the domain name that you want? Beat that... I have known about Chris Mueller for quite a while now, but have pushed him aside and tried not to think about the guy. Similar to Mary's friend Alfredo or most traditional artists, Chris stages most of the work that he does. But he does it with a little of a twist.
Most of the work that he does is commissioned work, meaning that the guy gets paid from companies like Fortune, ESPN, General Electric, or Field & Stream for some of his photography sessions. However when I look at a lot of the personal work that Chris Mueller has done I can see how his commissioned work has rubbed off on some of his personal work and ideas. I am not really sure if these smoking pictures are commissioned or not (probably are), but lets just say they are not. If you look at a common theme to his projects you can see this repeating trend of "real life" situations. I find it fascinating how he can take this common occurrence that is typically normal like a person smoking in their car, flossing their teeth, or spending time with their daughter (he did that one for TIME) and make it look so staged. Not only that, but it puts us in a place where we normally are NOT. Or are we? haha. I guess in the smoking photos we could be a passenger. But in the flossing photographs we are a mirror. Have you ever been a mirror? I know most of his work is boring commissioned stuff, but I just get a nice little kick out of what he is able to do with some of the quarks of life. And his name pisses me off.
So, is there anything that is "normal" or an every day thing that happens in your life that could make a nice body of work?

More

Here are my more recent ventures. I can't decide how close I want to be or if I want to crop them the same way...

Here's to having fun!

http://www.denis-darzacq.com/hyper/index.html