Thursday 16 May 2013

The Family Portrait




When photographing with children, portraits what do I hope to achieve? Today everyone (almost) in Western society has access to a camera and can, in some form produce family portraits so where does that leave the professional photographer? What today does the portrait achieve? What is its purpose in modern Western society?



Why do people use a professional photographer? Do they believe that as a professional you can produce something different, better? The best pictures are often the most casual and those pictures are, for the most taken by close family members. This casual aesthetic, the family snapshot is often used in art to say something, what I’m not sure but as a body of work it is sometimes created, sometimes appropriated and sometimes re-contextualised as in the work of Dutch photographer Bertien van Manen who uses it to great effect but do these pictures have any value outside her own personal family archive?



As a photographer I strive to achieve technically perfect pictures, a hang-up from my modernist influences but the bad results, the over-exposure, the scratches and colour casts which family members achieve by accident are often added to the aesthetic of the family snapshot and are often used for effect.





                 Bertien van Manen “Easter and Oak Trees”


With the casual family portrait what I aim for is what van Manen achieves; joyful, incidental and relaxed images (a result which also translates to wedding photography). This approach has been recognized by Pantall as part of a Northern European sensibility “in which the body is not a battleground for projected adult sensibilities” but shows van Manen’s children as being “one with nature, uncorrupted by the adult world. (British Journal of Photography. April 2013. P 71) Yet van Manen’s pictures are not contemporary family snapshots they were made in the 1970s, a period in my own childhood that I remember as being more free than today.



Is such a sensibility experienced today? As Van Manen states her pictures were made in a different era when “there wasn’t the hysteria about nakedness”. (British Journal of Photography. April 2013. P 73) However, her children under the protection of the family were never alone having been photographed by van Manen herself in the confines of her parent’s garden but as recent events have proved a bit of hysteria is not such a bad thing as many children in the 1970s were corrupted by the adult world. 




                            Bertien van Manen “Easter and Oak Trees”












 











 

Friday 3 May 2013

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living



The following piece was a response to Chris Grant-Peterkin's ongoing conversation regarding art which in the first sense began under that evil necessity, money. As Chris posits -

"it’s not just a question of who made the art throughout history but who got to commission it, influence it and ultimately consume it. I hope visual art trader will change this." 

In his lecture Reaching New Art Markets Online Chris writes


“Combine the time saving efficiency of the internet with an educated public confident in their artistic tastes, and change becomes not only essential but inevitable.  The art market’s reliance on galleries and the commission based system is strangling growth at the base of the art market. If visual art wants to lay a legitimate claim to reflecting culture then it needs to represent all of society, from the top to the bottom. Galleries helped artists break the grip of the Salons 140 odd years ago. Now the internet can help the public loosen the grip of the galleries, and create a new inclusive art market fit for the 21st century. In the 21st Century, the internet offers a limitless audience, limitless access to a limitless choice of art.”


My response - 


I believe you are right about the who got to commission, influence and consume art and the purpose of Western art has changed throughout history but ultimately money drove these changes whether it be the church, the State, the upper classes or during the industrial age, the middle-classes.


Today art is more of a democratic activity than any other time but ultimately I question it’s purpose and it’s a question I find confusing.

You use the term an “educated public”. I’m not sure the public is “educated”, simply confident in their aesthetic tastes. In my rather heated discussion with Caroline yesterday and today, she cited Damien Hirst’s shark piece and the argument came down to taste and it’s literal meaning because it was not made as a shark in formaldehyde whereas a painting of rhubarb was. Not knowing the ins and outs of Hirst’s piece undermined my argument but I will never know the meaning of every piece of art so what exactly is my argument?

I could be argued that Hirst is only as big as he is because of the backing of Saatchi which comes down to the start of your email money and commission. Much of Hirst’s work is bought because of who it is not what. I mean what are the spot paintings all about?

The purpose of art is such a fluid and organic thing that I am not sure I will ever be able to define it but it has to be more than the eye of the beholder surely, otherwise a child’s daubs of paint can be deemed art.

In contemporary life the internet is the new platform for art and its dissemination. Everyone is Spartacus shouting “This is art”, “No, this is art” but is it?

Is the purpose of art simply to please the eye of the beholder? Is it about, as you have written “reflecting culture”?

I think Caroline would agree with you when you write that art can be bought, created and enjoyed as “the joy of personal expression” but does this not again add credit to the child’s daubs of paint as art? I am all for hanging something on your wall simply because I enjoy it but is this enough, is it not empty formalism?

One of the main pluses of the internet is the bypass of the gallery, the commission structure and the “I believe that is good art and that is not” mentality which often comes down to taste but does the expert still not have a place guiding us through the good and bad minefield. BBC4 and other channels certainly air programmes that guide our education.

The internet expands our audience. I could have a picture sat in a gallery for a number of years and it takes someone to visit to see it. Apart from having dead money hanging on the wall I can now reach out to that person and they do not have to visit me. Then again you are bombarded with pictures because the internet is so accessible but simultaneously condenses everything to a certain visual size.

The internet has no gatekeeper filtering art but then why should there be. There is the argument “who should tell you what is or is not art, good or bad but then the opposite side of the coin is that someone more educated should help guide us.

Everything brings me back to the question “What is the purpose of art?” I have an idea of what it’s purpose used to be but what of today, is it simply, “the joy of personal expression”?

Personal expression is highly important but is it art?

I guess everyone is entitled to make art and simply put it out there for whomever to take as they want. Make it, put it out there and move on to the next piece. Everyone has an opinion, some more valid than others but who is to say the painting of the rhubarb is any less relevant than a shark in formaldehyde?

What exactly is the purpose of art?




 

                                            D Hirst The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living”, 1991



 The full lecture Reaching New Art Markets Online by Chris can be at:

Wednesday 3 April 2013

36 Return from Planet Zog - The Search for the Sea Empress



Captions
  
1. Manorbier Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales
2. Title Page
3. Title Page
4. Pembroke Oil Refinery, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
5. Amroth, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
6. West Angle Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
7. Amroth, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
8. Monkstone Beach, Pembrokeshire, Wales
9. Broad Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales
10. Angle Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales
11. Monkstone Beach, Pembrokeshire, Wales
12. Gosker Rock, North Tenby Beach, Pembrokeshire, Wales
13. Broad Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales
14. Swanlake Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales
15. Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire, Wales
16. Wiseman's Bridge, Pembrokeshire, Wales
17. Broad Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales
18. Monkstone Beach, Pembrokeshire, Wales
19. Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire, Wales
20. South Beach, Tenby, Pembrokeshire, Wales
21. West Angle Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales
22. Amroth, Pembrokeshire, Wales
23. South Beach, Tenby, Pembrokeshire, Wales
24. Broad Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales
25. Skrinkle Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales
26. Manorbier Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales
27. Swanlake Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales
28. Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire, Wales
29. Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
30. Broad Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
31. South Beach, Tenby, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
32. West Angle Bay, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
33. Skrinkle Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
34. Amroth, Pembrokeshire, Wales
35. Skrinkle Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales 
  

Friday 8 February 2013

11:30






  I was on a roof today in the winter wind and rain assisting in the thatching of a ridge, (that’s labouring to you and me). It was almost break-time and somewhere below over the scaffolding and through the glass roof of the kitchen the owner, her mother-in-law and a third woman carried out whatever it was they were doing. A thought occurred to me; I thought about Sturken and Cartwright’s discourse on the diet Coke ad and wondered if their reading of the objectifying gaze could be determined differently.


Was the man in the ad, the construction worker refusing to acknowledge the women’s gaze as Sturken and Cartwright posit? Maybe he’s conveying exhibitionism, highlighting the pleasure of being look at but maybe he is unaware of the women’s gaze. As Sturken and Cartwright set out a broad array of gazes can be determined but this one which seems to be a counter-balance to their reading seems to have been overlooked.


 In a similar vein to Jefferies neighbours in Rear Window (1954) could it be said that the construction worker is not aware that his audience of female office workers exists? This viewpoint is held in regards to the film when the gaze is deemed male and voyeuristic but is it the case in the diet Coke ad? 



Rear Window as Sturken and Cartwright highlight has been deemed an ideal example of the male gaze in relationship to the objectification of women as objects of visual pleasure and this concept has been reversed with a sense of humour in the diet Coke ad but what of the authors’ notion of the male gaze being deflected thus refusing to acknowledge the women’s looks? Could it not be possible that rather than deflecting their gaze, he is unaware of their looks? Maybe the women are conveying a voyeuristic gaze, a pleasure in looking while not being seen. Maybe the glass of their office building is reflective like many in American cities? Rather than looking into the mirror, what Berger defines as an object by which women use in treating themselves, first and foremost as a sight, the women, it could be said are looking through it, through the looking-glass.


 This gaze, the male gaze even from the women’s perspective is deemed not that powerful. Power, as Sturken and Cartwright suggests is gained through looking but like Jefferies the women’s gaze is deprived strength because of their confinement behind glass, a restricted field of vision and one that is very much like the television screen of the viewer. Although the camera’s gaze frees up this limited perspective. As Sturken and Cartwright posit male looking even from a women’s perspective is limited.  



The gaze has often been discussed in reference to the history of art and the diet Coke ad reflects these discussions as highlighted by Berger’s ideas but does the appropriation of the male gaze to the view point of women make this a female gaze or is it simply a male gaze from a woman’s perspective? Do women leer at men the same way as men leer at women? Does this reinforce Berger’s notion of the male gaze forming part of the female gaze, the surveyor and the surveyed and if the ad was made for the female gaze would the body not be on full display to the women, the ideal viewer? Does this imply that the man cannot be owned in a way that the female nude of painting can be because instead of the upper body facing the viewer he faces away?  His position in the frame it could be said thus reinforces Sturken and Cartwright’s notion of the deflected gaze.

Anyway its 11:30 so time for a cup of tea and a banana but I wont be taking my top off, it’s far to cold for that.





Bibliography

Berger J, 1972 Ways of Seeing Penguin Group: London
Sturken M and Cartwright L, 2001 Practices of looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture Oxford University Press: New York

Online

 Diet Coke advert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdrE1VMxzoE