Marilyn Minter

My cousin brought Marilyn Minter to my attention, and right away I was interested in her Green Pink Caviar collection. They have a commercial quality to them that interested me, but they were different...they are gritty, dirty but also rich with color.





All three of these represent different areas she focused on, and I believe that this project was one that came from another process which goes to show how important it is to explore anything and everything that you become aware of. I would love to see these peices in person. Here's a little peek into Minter's process..

In Green Pink Caviar Marilyn Minter continues her interest in blurring the boundaries between fine and commercial art. Co-opting advertising genres and related spaces, she takes on a new platform to direct her first video. The eight minute high definition video, Green Pink Caviar (2009) is a lush and sensual voyeuristic hallucination. Filmed with macro lenses, the video was inspired by a photo shoot where Minter directed her models to lick brightly colored candies while she shot photos from underneath a glass plate. The models' tongues mixed the colorful sugar with saliva, slurping and pushing color across the glass surface to simulate painting. Driven by her fascination with the body, Green Pink Caviar sets the stage for chance to happen.

Please look at her site, Minter can really keep me engaged with her use of color, but I can't decide if it's just different elements of the photos that get me. I don't feel as if I haven't seen anything like this before, but after reading her process I feel more intrigued by what she was trying to capture. I know we have talked about this all the time that our art should stand on it's own without explanation, but sometimes it really does make a difference in the way that I look at work. Like Dan's car hood that he spray painted and entered in the student juried show, knowing the story behind it made it that much more powerful.

Josef Sudek

While I do not agree with the whole of this quote I thought it was written very well and I took something from it...

"Sudek has come closer than any other photographer to catching this illusive goal. His devices for this effect are simple and highly poetic: the dust he raised in a frenzy when the light was just right, a gossamer curtain draped over a chair back, the mist from a garden sprinkler, even the ambient moisture in the atmosphere when the air is near dew point. The eye is usually accustomed to seeing not light but the surfaces it defines; when light is reflected from amorphous materials, however, perception of materiality shifts to light itself. Sudek looked for such materials everywhere. And then he usually balanced the ethereal luminescence with the contra-bass of his deep shadow tonalities. The effect is enchanting, and strongly conveys the human element which is the true content of his photographs. For, throughout all his photography, there is one dominant mood, one consistent viewpoint, and one overriding philosophy. The mood is melancholy and the point of view is romanticism. And overriding all this is a philosphic detachment, an attitude he shares with Spinoza. The attitude of detachment that characterizes Sudek’s art accounts for both its strength and weakness: the strength which lies in the ideal of utter tranquility and the weakness which is found in the paucity of human intimacy. Some commentators find Sudek’s photos mysterious but I think this is a mistake: the air of mystery vanishes once we see in Sudek’s photography a person’s private salvation from despair.”

Charles Sawyer 1

This line stuck out to me most: The eye is usually accustomed to seeing not light but the surfaces it defines; when light is reflected from amorphous materials, however, perception of materiality shifts to light itself. Sudek looked for such materials everywhere.

In the prison, this is how I try to approach the space, searching for light that defines the space, rather than looking for the materials that reflect the light and limit the space. In Chris' most recent post he commented on natural lighting and how strong it can be. I think this is what I am enamored with when I go to the prison, it is a beautifully lit space. Even with the industrial lights, it is glorious.

What is important when taking photos is that we have the ability to see things in a new "light," quite literally. I think that often for me I am too comfortable with just seeing things in documentary form, but to see the shapes and colors that a simple sun-lit window can cast is amazing. I try to see these things in the prison because it's what most people can easily miss.

In terms of light do we actually see the light situation within frame, or do we comprehend it at a simple form and try to make something of it? Simply, do we force ourselves to see the light and how it interacts with what is in the frame/muted or bold?

Rob Hornstra & Bert Teunissen

Since I have been slacking on the blogging lately I want to discuss two photographers. Well, I guess I do not want to classify it as "slacking". More like "cooling down" so I don't let my emotions get the best of me and go off on a tangent that is not necessary for this blog...

ANNNNNNYWAYS...

I was doing some photographic research a while back and I came across Rob Hornstra. But a series of three of his photos really caught my eye, and I think it was how they were aligned on a particular website that really grabbed me. (below)

So this is exactly how they were on the site. At first, I almost did not even realize that I was not looking at 3 people here. I was looking really fast. When I went back and spent some time with these - I actually discovered that I was looking at 2 portraits and well... a "portrait". The bag looks so much like a portrait to me that It really poses the question: "does a portrait have to be of a person or body part?" Obvious answer is no. There are many photographers that take these "portraits", but there is something there. It could be the positioning next to an individual standing just as tall as the punching bag - a detailed symbol? It was just an interesting direction and a possible direction that I may begin at some point.

BERT TEUNISSEN is a little different, and honestly caught my eye because his photographs of European homes reminded me of Gina's taxidermist photographs.

Teunissen traveled Europe studying the homes and architecture from the times where daylight was the main light source that are still functioning. This style of home was abandon some time after WWII. He traveled Europe over a 10 year span, documenting these living spaces only using the natural light that the architecture provided. Teunissen just published a book that displays these, and I highly recommend giving it a look at B&N.

First off I would like to say that I am a huge advocate of using natural light or using household objects as sources. This is mainly because I do not have access to studio lighting at the times when I work best (11PM-4AM roughly), so I can't say that I fully understand them... I am aware that using them could make some nasty imagery though, and I probably will eventually mess around with them at some point. I don't know why I just went off on that... Probably because I just really appreciate appropriate usage of natural sunlight. However, there is a good chance that he was using either a slave flash or an external flash. Not only does his lighting intrigue me, but his process is amazing. He meets these individuals and asks to join them in their house for a photograph. He has been able to do this for TEN YEARS and now has a great portfolio to show for it. I guess his dedication and interest in his individual process makes me envy the guy. What an example of why you sometimes just have to let your art continue to define you, and not always force yourself to create your art.

CHRIS

I would like to see some NEW stuff.

Work

Which ones work for you?

a la mode

Thomas Rousset

This guy is a weirdo. To me, anyway. I saw his photo on the opening of the conscientious site and I thought it was quite bizarre, and it is. The descriptions that couple each of his bodies of work are somewhat ridiculous. From what I got, he's basically trying to create a timeless scene. But how do you do this with modern materials? How can you create a timeless scene. Through looking all his photos on his site, they don't appear timeless to me. I do not think that time was overly apparent, but it was also not hidden. I would not have guessed that these were to be interpreted that way. By reading the descriptions it gave me more context to work through. I find his non-defined work just as interesting as when he couples them with a description of the supposed meaning behind them. Trying to create a dreamlike/timeless world is cool and all, but what could he be doing besides this?

I guess right now I am just frustrated with descriptions and labels constantly being placed onto...well everything. Would a person know that what they used as a bar of soap was actually never a bar of soap, but they used it in that context solely because it was labeled as soap? Will something that is actually constructed of timed material potentially ever really timeless? If we need to label our work, doesn't that limit our potential? I guess my thoughts are that if a bar of soap is labeled as body soap, can it still have the potential to become facial cleanser or does it have to always be body soap? In the prison a number essentially replaces the human. The human becomes something watched over, "Is 337 missing?" When a person is a number, who are they really? More importantly who can they be?

Soap will always be soap, unless it is labeled otherwise. Same with photography. If photos are constantly related to a description and justification, that's all it becomes. Our work should never have to be justified by us (the artist). Just as we can't tell people in the gallery that they are looking at a painting wrong, we cannot follow our work in a similar fashion. I know that I speak/write about this too much, but even if our work is bizarre, should we tell why?

I've done some pretty bizarre work myself. But when people asked me the meaning of them, I could not even establish a logical thought. It was like a wonderful collision of craziness, suppressed feeling emotion, and thoughts all meeting in one place. That's what the photo becomes, a meeting place of labeled things. I especially need to keep in mind that people attach labels to nearly everything and what is shown in the frame will always be interpreted and related.

So even horse on treadmill in water still seems a bit too much tied to the discription of timeless.

Saku Soukka

I found this work fascinating, and I am not all entirely sure. I wasn't going to pick Soukka because I didn't know why I was drawn to it, but I kept on going back to look again, so I finally decided to use his photos. His random use of color I think is stunning. The way he hides the face, even in the last one. We can see more of her, but we still get the sense that there is something to be hidden.

As we have talked about in past posts...why are there so many people working with distortion? I have been with my shower and now the underwater photos, then Monica with the foggy substance, and Chris with his contraption. What is our fascination with distorting a person or the things we see around us? There is obviously the same feeling everwhere. Soukka is working in Finland, and yet we here, are trying to accomplish I feel a similar thing by our distortion work. I think he creates such a chaos in his that we haven't felt in ours so much. I believe in my work, there is not so much a chaos, but almost a fluidity. At least that is what I am "trying" to accomplish as we near the end of this semester. I think I have struggled, and discovered quite a bit this semester...Struggled in a way that it has been hard for me to stay consistant when I shoot, but discovered because each time I shoot I see something new that intrigues me, and works in a large body of work. That makes me excited. I feel like I am going to continue to work with underwater work for awhile, trying different forms of camera to see what I can achieve. This is my work's distortion though...but what about Monica's and Chris's. Are you making it with the intention that someone feel something from it, and that in the end you will have something to fit in a body of work? With Jacki...are you finding that working in the prison is causing you to have so many different bodies of work, that you are struggling to find a pattern. Is a pattern necessary?

I feel that with Soukka's work, he has accomplished making a pattern with his work, but they are all so different. I would not have thought them to be able to flow so well, but his use of color (similar to Chris's in a way) makes them all blend so well. They just have such harmony. I appreciate his different elements that make it so.

new/more

Xavier Nuez

I discovered Xavier Nuez when I was at Art on the Lake by the MAM a few summers ago which was cool because I actually got to talk to him, but I thought that Ben would appreciate his use of light and color in his "Alley" series.

Recently he has posted another series called "Glam Bugs" Which I really enjoy. What else do you do with flies other than this(which is not Nuez's work):



But seriously... I think there's a real beauty to something so small. No one can really find that in dead bugs which most people are disgusted by.




I really think that it's cool that Nuez can make these everyday annoyances a piece of art. It definitely makes me think that I have to be more aware of my surroundings. That way I won't miss these kinds of opportunities.

New Stuff

Nick Hren

Awesome. This PHOTOGRAPHER is awesome. It's great to see someone around the SNC campus that does not participate in anything art department produce great work.


Nick is the true definition of a photographer , to me at least. He is probably one of the most "real" photographers, if not artists, on this campus. Nick does not do this because he wants to produce trendy work. He does not do this to impress people. He does not do this for anyone else but himself. Honestly, Nick does not even really know that he is an artist. Nick and I used to be roommates a couple of years ago, but have since grew apart with our busy lives controling most of our time. We spent many late nights suffering from insomnia together - writing raps, making stupid short movies, and talking about the most random things you could imagine... or couldn't. It is no surpise to me that Nick has so much talent speaking without words. He is so good with words when he does try to comunicate, but this is a completely differnt level of communication.
The other night I walked into the graphics lab, and there was Nick - scanning away. We sometimes complain or find it hard to shoot/develop/scan/edit. Nick is not an art major. He has a busy schedule. Yet he is able to find time to do something that he has a passion for. If this is something that we are going to school for, or possibly may end up doing as a career, this is the mindset that we must be in. After a while this "work" should become part of you. A connection should be there. If you are not excited to see the work that you have produced, maybe you are not doing the right thing/shooting with the right camera/shooting the right subject matter. Really , try to make a connection with what you are doing and it will eventually become a part of you that you must get out. You will be excited to do this!


Nick tried to get into our photography class a while back, but Shane would not let him because he did not complete the prerequisites to enter the class. Frankly, I am happy that Nick wasn't able to take the course. I think that if he were "under pressure " to produce, he would not make the beautiful, real, raw, work that he is producing. I have felt that some of us, including myself, have been doing work for a grade rather than something that we believe in. Honestly, who cares what Shane thinks of what you are doing. If it's something "real" to you, the process that he speaks of will eventually catch on and you will see great development of UNIQUE work.
When I saw this image all I could think about was the work that Sam has been doing with her grandma. Now I am not saying this to put Sam's work down, but there is a different feel to this photograph compared to Sam's work. I'm not sure if it is in the camera choice, the film speed, the depth of field, or all of the above, but I just get a genuine/real feeling from this photograph. Nick told me what his grandma told him right before he took this image. It was something like "the road is the arm of my mother, calling me home"... that's freakin deep. And the best part is - he captured this so well that I can almost get that feeling.


Anyways, I am presenting his work tomorrow, but I put different images up. Nick is a great photographer - and I think he could actually have some success if he keeps doing what he is doing. Little does he know that I added a special touch to this clothes line photo. The little blue specs are crayon fragments of mine that have been stuck on the scanner for forever... That's what I'm talkin about.

So the question of the day is: Are you doing the art you are doing for yourself, or are you doing it for Shane's approval/a good grade?

Consistency

After the trip to Chicago I have thought a lot about Kline's work. I know that this is not a new artist to anyone but he still interests me a lot. Seeing his work in full at the Art Institute I was amazed at the movement and certainty to his work. I would argue that his work is not complicated in terms of elements used or even technically. But it feels certain to me. He has a specific style that seeps through each piece of his work, but each is still different. I think that this ability can be carried through every medium. In photography it may be more difficult to come up with a particular style, and it is not necessarily a must, at all. But if your photos can be consistently different (retaining an idea through every shot) maybe it would become stronger with every new body of work. I struggle with this, just as everyone does. But in thinking about it, the fact that I want to retain some sense of likeness in each photo does not mean they cannot be vastly different and still tied together.

Wouldn't it make sense that each photo you take can be tied to one another? I know last semester that I never gained a specific direction in terms of staging my photos but each became an elongated way of expressing what I have from the start- disconnectedness. It was hard to see in one singular photo but could be better represented through multiple images.

Also getting to see Eggleston's work in the Art Institute amazed me. I think Eggleston is a prime example of retaining a sort of style throughout a large body of work. Seeing all of his imagery, it was consistent- one to the next. How can we retain that consistency in a small body of work, even if we do different things? Eggleston didn't settle for taking photos of tricycles at a different angle. Eggleston saw things in a different way, which made his work unique. In fact, it's not that different, because I'm sure we've all seen a tricycle in that same way, but Eggleston captured it.

How great is it that we can always continue to grow from what we see, others work? While Kline's work feels randomly certain, Eggleston sees things differently consistently, if that makes sense.

To summize my scattered thoughts: see things in a new way. Force yourself to look beyond a curtain (see the light and shadow). Force yourself to look beyond a tricycle and see a giant. It is possible and rewarding. Kline's work is intriguing to me because he retained a style along with Eggleston.

Ousmane Ndiaye Dago

This woman does what I have always wanted to try...Or one of the many things I would like to try... She has literally covered her models with the land. I think the whole idea of creating the body to create landscapes is brilliant. I have been trying to figure out ways of doing that without have it be a blunt nude photo. The idea of shooting nude and doing it in a tasteful way is always a constant challenge I think...What makes the body a landscape? How do we shoot it with the restrictions we have? Taking underwater photos has been hard because of the restrictions of using a swimsuit...I am trying to figure out how to work around that. I think Dago has really done something so beautiful is creating this faceless person, who looks statuesque, but is covered with things that are organic. What is more organic then the body itself...Where is this idea that we come from the earth orginally...? How wonderful to make these faceless people and bringing them back to the roots of oneself. They become a part of wherever Dago places them.