Despite only needing to complete a couple of assignments, one of which is more than half ready I have decided to pack it all in. The major reason for this decision is my present state of health which is not that good and presents particular problems in pursuing photography, Stress makes my condition worse so I was less than pleased when I received an e-mail from the OCA in which I was accused of intimidating a study group (I am not sure how you intimidate a whole group) and that I called one of the tutor's "a silly woman". I deny that I used or even thought such an expression - it is simply not part of my vocabulary. The thought of having to defend myself in a hearing is just too much not least because I have very little or any faith in the OCA's management of such issues. It has always been one of my beefs with the OCA that they lack expertise in certain areas. In this particular case I was asked to respond to the accusation not knowing what in particular it referred to and whether the words in the e-mail were those used by my accuser or a 'précis' by the writer.
I thought it would be difficult to withdraw after getting so close to the finishing line but it was one hell of a relief. In the end adding another degree to those I already have is not worth risking my health. My primary aim was to become a better photographer and that I have done. It has been something of a roller coaster of a journey but on the whole it has been a positive experience brought about by working with some excellent tutors that offset the lesser able or on at least one occasion the apparently disinterested.
As to the future I can look forward to doing photography purely for the sheer enjoyment. Boy itr feels good!!!
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Sunday, 19 October 2014
Study Visit - 18th October 2014 - Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts UEA Norwich 'Reality'
It was the title of the exhibition, "Reality" that first drew my attention to the proposed study day. In the accompanying information was the statement - "REALITY contains works spanning across the 20th century to now, attempting to understand and represent the harsh realities that have concerned key British artists over the decades." As I was struggling with my project of Black and White Abstract photography it was my hope that the exhibition would provide clues/guidance to what is considered Reality and, on the assumption that abstract art is the representation of a non-reality, what falls within the world of non-reality.
The day was well organised and offered lots of opportunity to discuss various topics with fellow students and the attending tutors. There was also the advantage, for me, that the majority of the students were not photographers so offered a different perspective on what was being shown. My only criticism would be that, as always, nearly all the works of art were 'talked to death' as explanations and interpretations are offered. There was no opportunity to sit quietly and 'see' the work of art as a whole and to absorb its message without being bombarded with descriptions of ever smaller parts of the work.
We were shepherded round in the morning by a representative of the Gallery who was the perfect tour guide, the only missing element was the rolled umbrella held aloft, but clearly was under time constraints so that we lingered on some work only to be hurried past other works as time was running out. Any chance to consider any individual work in a meaningful way was lost. I realise it might be dangerous to allow students to wander at will forming their own opinions without the benefit of the tutors greater knowledge (you never know they might come up with fresh insight that challenges the preconceived notions of those in charge) but I would strongly recommend it as a way for the students to have the experience of most use to them.
A surprisingly expensive and not particularly good lunch allowed for the swapping of ideas and general conversation. It may be of significance that the major topics discussed were not the paintings we had viewed that morning but the delights/problems of being an OCA student and the strategies of survival mainly concerned with the anxiety levels we all experience as we struggle to understand the Course material whilst feeling very much on our own. The topic of discussion of most interest to me was the amount of contact and responses students had from Tutors. I have been very lucky throughout the Courses I have undertaken and benefited from Tutors who were prepared to offer support and guidance but listening to others this is not universal and some accounts made one wonder why the OCA did not have a better grip on what Tutors should be expected to do.
After lunch we returned to the exhibition, resurrected the paintings that we had talked to death in the morning and made sure, by further discussion, that they were truly dead. I would suggest that it would have been more useful to have allowed for a free roam by the students in the morning followed in the afternoon by an in depth discussion under the guidance of the tutors. Students need to have the opportunity to explore and discuss their own thoughts and judgments.
The question remains - did I achieve my aims? In the large part the answer is 'Yes' although the lasting benefit will come from the passage of time as what I learnt is assimilated into my general thinking. I do not believe that the exhibition achieved its stated aims but that cannot detract from it offering a fantastic collection of works that were challenging and thought provoking.
The day was well organised and offered lots of opportunity to discuss various topics with fellow students and the attending tutors. There was also the advantage, for me, that the majority of the students were not photographers so offered a different perspective on what was being shown. My only criticism would be that, as always, nearly all the works of art were 'talked to death' as explanations and interpretations are offered. There was no opportunity to sit quietly and 'see' the work of art as a whole and to absorb its message without being bombarded with descriptions of ever smaller parts of the work.
We were shepherded round in the morning by a representative of the Gallery who was the perfect tour guide, the only missing element was the rolled umbrella held aloft, but clearly was under time constraints so that we lingered on some work only to be hurried past other works as time was running out. Any chance to consider any individual work in a meaningful way was lost. I realise it might be dangerous to allow students to wander at will forming their own opinions without the benefit of the tutors greater knowledge (you never know they might come up with fresh insight that challenges the preconceived notions of those in charge) but I would strongly recommend it as a way for the students to have the experience of most use to them.
A surprisingly expensive and not particularly good lunch allowed for the swapping of ideas and general conversation. It may be of significance that the major topics discussed were not the paintings we had viewed that morning but the delights/problems of being an OCA student and the strategies of survival mainly concerned with the anxiety levels we all experience as we struggle to understand the Course material whilst feeling very much on our own. The topic of discussion of most interest to me was the amount of contact and responses students had from Tutors. I have been very lucky throughout the Courses I have undertaken and benefited from Tutors who were prepared to offer support and guidance but listening to others this is not universal and some accounts made one wonder why the OCA did not have a better grip on what Tutors should be expected to do.
After lunch we returned to the exhibition, resurrected the paintings that we had talked to death in the morning and made sure, by further discussion, that they were truly dead. I would suggest that it would have been more useful to have allowed for a free roam by the students in the morning followed in the afternoon by an in depth discussion under the guidance of the tutors. Students need to have the opportunity to explore and discuss their own thoughts and judgments.
The question remains - did I achieve my aims? In the large part the answer is 'Yes' although the lasting benefit will come from the passage of time as what I learnt is assimilated into my general thinking. I do not believe that the exhibition achieved its stated aims but that cannot detract from it offering a fantastic collection of works that were challenging and thought provoking.
What does it all mean??
Over the past few weeks I have been trying to gather my thoughts on the term 'abstract' and how it is applied to art in general and to photography in particular. It has been a journey that has been both frustrating and less than enlightening. The lasting impression is that there is no generally accepted definition of the term and virtually all attempts to proffer a definition are written in such broad terms as to be meaningless. For example the definition offered by the Tate gallery reads:
"Artworks that do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality but instead uses shapes, colours, forms and textures to achieve their effect."
All non-language art uses shapes, colours, forms and textures in some combination because that is the only way to communicate with the audience so that the key to the definition lies in the explanation that abstract artworks - do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality. The question that remains unanswered is what is it that the artwork does represent. It presumably represents something (it is difficult to imagine a representation of nothing) even if the interpretation we place upon the work does not match the intent of the artist. A recognisable reality has been created by the very act of the existence of the piece of work. In describing work of Mondrian and its development over time reference can only be made to the real world (for example see pages 51 -55 of Moszynska A (1990) Abstract Art London: Thames & Hudson) because the description has to be in a language that is understood by the reader. That language is of and determined by the world in which we live and has no reference outside of that world.
What was most noticeable in my researches was the number of attempts by different artists and group of artists to create the 'true' abstract or perhaps more accurately the 'pure' abstract. Arising from dissatisfaction with the abstract work of the time the pattern seems to be:- a determination to break away from the dominant works by a group of artists; the publication of a manifesto setting out the new 'truth'; a relatively short period of activity before dissatisfaction within the group or its disciples leads to a fracturing and a fresh attempt to reveal a newer truth. The cycle then repeats. To the outsider this suggests that there is no one answer to the question - What is an abstract work of art? other than it is an abstract because that is what the artist attempted to produce.
"Artworks that do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality but instead uses shapes, colours, forms and textures to achieve their effect."
All non-language art uses shapes, colours, forms and textures in some combination because that is the only way to communicate with the audience so that the key to the definition lies in the explanation that abstract artworks - do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality. The question that remains unanswered is what is it that the artwork does represent. It presumably represents something (it is difficult to imagine a representation of nothing) even if the interpretation we place upon the work does not match the intent of the artist. A recognisable reality has been created by the very act of the existence of the piece of work. In describing work of Mondrian and its development over time reference can only be made to the real world (for example see pages 51 -55 of Moszynska A (1990) Abstract Art London: Thames & Hudson) because the description has to be in a language that is understood by the reader. That language is of and determined by the world in which we live and has no reference outside of that world.
What was most noticeable in my researches was the number of attempts by different artists and group of artists to create the 'true' abstract or perhaps more accurately the 'pure' abstract. Arising from dissatisfaction with the abstract work of the time the pattern seems to be:- a determination to break away from the dominant works by a group of artists; the publication of a manifesto setting out the new 'truth'; a relatively short period of activity before dissatisfaction within the group or its disciples leads to a fracturing and a fresh attempt to reveal a newer truth. The cycle then repeats. To the outsider this suggests that there is no one answer to the question - What is an abstract work of art? other than it is an abstract because that is what the artist attempted to produce.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Back in the Saddle
After what seems to have been a very long break I have returned to my studies.Although yet to be cleared by he medics I am feeling a great deal better and have been out and about taking photographs and working on the black and white abstracts for my current project.
Yesterday took the opportunity to visit The Hepworth Wakefield which, together with the permanent exhibition of some of Barbara Hepworth's work, was exhibiting work by Franz West. A lot to take in and I am still inwardly digesting what I saw and my reactions. One immediate thought was the difference between abstract sculpture and abstract photography. To be a photograph the image should be of something that was in front of the camera whereas the sculpture being 3 dimensional and the product of the sculptor's vision and interpretation does not necessarily have to be anything that exists in the real world other than itself. Whilst I need to explore this as part of the written submission necessary for the project my current thought that abstract photography is an extraction that removes an actual thing from its context and presented to the viewer in such a way as to be open to any number of interpretations.
Also visited the Yorkshire Sculpture Park offering works by other abstract sculptors. It is perhaps to state the obvious but the placing of very large figures in the middle of a large field changes how one views the sculpture itself and the facility of walking round the figure changes ones perception of its form, its internal interaction and the sense of size.
Yesterday took the opportunity to visit The Hepworth Wakefield which, together with the permanent exhibition of some of Barbara Hepworth's work, was exhibiting work by Franz West. A lot to take in and I am still inwardly digesting what I saw and my reactions. One immediate thought was the difference between abstract sculpture and abstract photography. To be a photograph the image should be of something that was in front of the camera whereas the sculpture being 3 dimensional and the product of the sculptor's vision and interpretation does not necessarily have to be anything that exists in the real world other than itself. Whilst I need to explore this as part of the written submission necessary for the project my current thought that abstract photography is an extraction that removes an actual thing from its context and presented to the viewer in such a way as to be open to any number of interpretations.
Also visited the Yorkshire Sculpture Park offering works by other abstract sculptors. It is perhaps to state the obvious but the placing of very large figures in the middle of a large field changes how one views the sculpture itself and the facility of walking round the figure changes ones perception of its form, its internal interaction and the sense of size.
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Working whilst on study leave.
I am not to sure about the protocols of 'working' whilst on a study break although was reassured by my Tutor's suggestion that I spend time on the reading/academic side whilst waiting for the medics to sort out the problem of the tremor. As I am not too good at just 'twiddling my thumbs' I have decided to do what work I feel I am capable of (that sounds far more dramatic than I intended - it is only taking photographs that present one or two problems) so am in the process of responding to the comments made on Assignment 2. I can then research the issues surrounding 'abstract' photography which is the subject of Assignment 3.
Monday, 16 June 2014
Study Break
It has become necessary to take a study break as the medics sort out how to resolve the various issues surrounding my condition. It is rather an odd feeling as I am fully capable of doing the non-photographic work such as responding to my Tutor's comments on my assignment but find it difficult to get out there and take photographs.
Although the outcome is uncertain it is more than probable that I will have to develop a camera technique that allows for the increasingly severe hand tremors. One obvious answer is increased use of the tripod and this makes sense anyway as my next element of the Course is about landscape and seascapes in East Anglia. Fortunately landscapes do not change that much in the brief period of time to set up the camera. I have invested in a ball head for the tripod which speeds up the process considerably. Previously I had used a head that used three handles to set the camera in position and no matter how competent I became there was always a longer time lapse than was desirable except in best conditions. One other alternative is to use the higher ISO's available and set the aperture value so that a high shutter speed is achieved. On a recent outing this worked well.
The other thing is that anxiety/pressure increases the tremor. This is evidenced by the difference in taking photographs I enjoy taking as opposed to taking photographs I am obliged to take such as for the Course. I recently spent a couple of days at Flatford, Constable country, just wandering around shooting what I wanted without any thoughts of how the images would fit into a required output. I used the high ISO technique and the results were good. I did some tripod work and the benefits were obvious in capturing the evening light across the countryside and river. However use of a tripod is much more problematical if not impossible in street photography when photographing people. No doubt over time I will find what does and does not work.
Although the outcome is uncertain it is more than probable that I will have to develop a camera technique that allows for the increasingly severe hand tremors. One obvious answer is increased use of the tripod and this makes sense anyway as my next element of the Course is about landscape and seascapes in East Anglia. Fortunately landscapes do not change that much in the brief period of time to set up the camera. I have invested in a ball head for the tripod which speeds up the process considerably. Previously I had used a head that used three handles to set the camera in position and no matter how competent I became there was always a longer time lapse than was desirable except in best conditions. One other alternative is to use the higher ISO's available and set the aperture value so that a high shutter speed is achieved. On a recent outing this worked well.
The other thing is that anxiety/pressure increases the tremor. This is evidenced by the difference in taking photographs I enjoy taking as opposed to taking photographs I am obliged to take such as for the Course. I recently spent a couple of days at Flatford, Constable country, just wandering around shooting what I wanted without any thoughts of how the images would fit into a required output. I used the high ISO technique and the results were good. I did some tripod work and the benefits were obvious in capturing the evening light across the countryside and river. However use of a tripod is much more problematical if not impossible in street photography when photographing people. No doubt over time I will find what does and does not work.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
"CAPTURE" 12th May 2014 Sky Arts1
Mark Selinger (MS) was joined by Martin Schoeller (MSch), Photographer, and Matthew Modine (MM), Actor and Director, for this programme. I noted points of interest (to me) that occurred throughout the programme and then considered them later. I find that so much is talked about in this sort of programme that there is a tendency to miss the import of particular statements that have occurred in general conversation.
MM made the comment about simplicity of an image. He argued that by looking at the work of a photographer over that person's lifetime it is possible to detect a reduction of things within the images arguing that the aim is to get it down to the simplest gesture - the thing that best portrays the message that the photographer wishes to convey. He further suggested that the less things you have the greater the possibilities of what you put on the paper. On closer examination this statement appears paradoxical - most photographers include more than they think they will need in order to capture the essence they are seeking and have room to compose the picture in development. Equally what is a 'thing' is not necessarily something upon which all would agree.
During the programme a close up photograph of the actor Jack Nicholson was shown. Essentially it was just the actor's face so, at one level, there was only one 'thing'. At another level there was the individual elements of a face (eyes, nose, mouth) but as we drilled down into the picture individual bristles, wrinkles and skin blemishes became important. The number of 'things' increased to be almost innumerable yet each was important to the overall impact. As often the case in human portraiture the eyes were the part that conveyed the greater part of the message. It was the detail within the eyes that provided that impact and there condition and appearance offered us many clues about the person. Within a relatively small part of the overall image there was a multitude of 'things' that provided us with clues. It was far from 'simple' although at first glance it was just a face.
It is worth asking the question whether my interpretation of the image was influenced by my limited knowledge of the subject. I recognised the person immediately from having seen him in films, television programmes and reading about him in the media. Was this prior knowledge a 'filter' through which I saw the image and by which I attempted to fit what I saw with what I knew? Later in the programme a photograph of Richard Altman was shown and MS described as being "a picture of a troubled soul." I have only the vaguest idea of who is Richard Altman. I have no idea whether he is a troubled soul or not and certainly this was not the message I received from what I saw. What we see is a product of what we see when presented with an image and the prior knowledge we have about the subject matter. We will always attempt to fit the image into a schema even if we are unsure of the subject matter. There is no such thing as a virgin view.
Knowing the subject matter can be a barrier to us seeing what it is the photographer intended us to see. Equally knowing who the photographer is can be a barrier to seeing what is actually in the photograph.
In the programme MM talked about how the photographer creates an illusion by where the camera is pointed. When taking a photograph we ask ourselves - What is the story I wish to convey? Having decided the next question is - Where do I point the camera to 'grab' the detail/atmosphere that best portrays that story? Whilst I agree that this is a very positive way to approach photography what cannot be controlled is how the viewer interprets that image. What is within the frame of the photograph provides the opening chapter of a story that the viewer creates for herself. We create an imaginary world that lies outside the frame. For example in street photography we create a story for each of the characters that we see - why is the child crying; why is the man laughing; what are they saying to each other. Whatever the intention of the photographer that intention is unlikely to be understood by others in the way he wished.
MM made the comment about simplicity of an image. He argued that by looking at the work of a photographer over that person's lifetime it is possible to detect a reduction of things within the images arguing that the aim is to get it down to the simplest gesture - the thing that best portrays the message that the photographer wishes to convey. He further suggested that the less things you have the greater the possibilities of what you put on the paper. On closer examination this statement appears paradoxical - most photographers include more than they think they will need in order to capture the essence they are seeking and have room to compose the picture in development. Equally what is a 'thing' is not necessarily something upon which all would agree.
During the programme a close up photograph of the actor Jack Nicholson was shown. Essentially it was just the actor's face so, at one level, there was only one 'thing'. At another level there was the individual elements of a face (eyes, nose, mouth) but as we drilled down into the picture individual bristles, wrinkles and skin blemishes became important. The number of 'things' increased to be almost innumerable yet each was important to the overall impact. As often the case in human portraiture the eyes were the part that conveyed the greater part of the message. It was the detail within the eyes that provided that impact and there condition and appearance offered us many clues about the person. Within a relatively small part of the overall image there was a multitude of 'things' that provided us with clues. It was far from 'simple' although at first glance it was just a face.
It is worth asking the question whether my interpretation of the image was influenced by my limited knowledge of the subject. I recognised the person immediately from having seen him in films, television programmes and reading about him in the media. Was this prior knowledge a 'filter' through which I saw the image and by which I attempted to fit what I saw with what I knew? Later in the programme a photograph of Richard Altman was shown and MS described as being "a picture of a troubled soul." I have only the vaguest idea of who is Richard Altman. I have no idea whether he is a troubled soul or not and certainly this was not the message I received from what I saw. What we see is a product of what we see when presented with an image and the prior knowledge we have about the subject matter. We will always attempt to fit the image into a schema even if we are unsure of the subject matter. There is no such thing as a virgin view.
Knowing the subject matter can be a barrier to us seeing what it is the photographer intended us to see. Equally knowing who the photographer is can be a barrier to seeing what is actually in the photograph.
In the programme MM talked about how the photographer creates an illusion by where the camera is pointed. When taking a photograph we ask ourselves - What is the story I wish to convey? Having decided the next question is - Where do I point the camera to 'grab' the detail/atmosphere that best portrays that story? Whilst I agree that this is a very positive way to approach photography what cannot be controlled is how the viewer interprets that image. What is within the frame of the photograph provides the opening chapter of a story that the viewer creates for herself. We create an imaginary world that lies outside the frame. For example in street photography we create a story for each of the characters that we see - why is the child crying; why is the man laughing; what are they saying to each other. Whatever the intention of the photographer that intention is unlikely to be understood by others in the way he wished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)