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.
2 comments:
See, I saw Eggleston a little differently. I have been familiar with him for a while. As a matter of fact, if you check out the new Spoon albumn, one of his photographs is used for the cover.
I don't think his images are so much about how he sees them. I understood his work as more of a process driven body of images. If you read about the technique that he uses - it is truly amazing. He does "dye-transfer printing". It's something that I have wanted to try, but don't really know how to get into (have not taken the time). The colors are generally much richer than a normal print, however, the image fades over time and is non archival. I think this process and the color he was able to capture intrigued him as an artist, somewhat similar to what I have been going through lately with some of my work.
"see things in a new way"
When you spend time with a process for longer than a few months you can start to grow in new directions with that process. Shane described it to me really well just a few minutes ago. I have had very different relationships with my art last semester and my art this semester.
In Intermediate I was such a tool. I would get bored and go to the next idea, not working with or trying to find that special quality within my original concept. For advanced, I have grown with my process and feel even more connected with my idea, I was faithful and it paid off. I have had new approaches, but I haven't strayed from what I have come to love.
Post a Comment