GD: Before we begin I’m wondering why you chose to convey your thoughts by interviewing yourself?
GD: I tend to write rather slowly. This not only makes it challenging for me to regularly post blog entries, it also means that my entries may end up a little more pedantic than I would like. The photographic project I’m embarking on, which is directly linked to this blog, is concerned in part with spontaneity - with the struggle between control and the relinquishing of control. I want my thoughts to reflect some of that spontaneity as I share them here. Also… I think readers may find my thoughts more accessible in this format. It’s not entirely serious. There’s a little humor thrown in.
GD: You mentioned spontaneity and I want to ask you about that… but first could you provide an outline of the project itself?
GD: Sure. The subject is portraiture: specifically, portraits of my daughters and my eldest daughter’s best friend who also happens to be very close to our family. My intention is to photograph each of them over the course of a year, documenting their growth and development but also structuring narratives out of their individual and collective experiences. I think it is highly likely that the project will continue past a year… but for the moment I’m focusing on twelve months.
GD: This is terrain that has been explored by other photographers though, yes?
GD: Yes, absolutely. Sally Mann, Doug Dubois, Nicholas Nixon - these are just a few. By making immediate family and friends the subjects of their work they each share a common thread. The originality of their work is largely found, I think, in the unique relationships they forge with their subjects through the camera lens.
GD: So, for you, the originality of your project rests with the development of that unique relationship between yourself and the subjects?
GD: Exactly. An identifiable style - the distinct visual expression of the project - will emerge over time as a result of our growing relationships and the choices made in composition and editing which are shaped by circumstance and, ultimately, collaboration. These are not clearly mapped out beforehand. I may begin with an idea of how the project might look… but in the end it will develop organically. It is not subject to my control alone.
GD: Is this what you meant earlier when you spoke of ‘relinquishing control’… the spontaneity of the project?
GD: Yes. Obviously there is a need to exercise a certain control over the project. The choices of camera, lighting, formatting, printing methods, for example… these need to be determined by the photographer. But at some point you also have to relinquish control… and this is not only necessary but desirable. In this project I’m trying to minimize the conscious staging of poses before the camera lens. I want to diminish my role as ‘composer’ just prior to releasing the shutter. This is not always easy and there are some shots that reflect more control than others but generally I’m aiming for spontaneity prior to editing the images.
GD: Why is spontaneity so important to you? Is it important to your artistic expression?
GD: There is a famous anecdote in Pliny‘s Natural History. It refers to the ancient painter Protogenes who had struggled to render an image of a panting dog. Frustrated by his efforts to paint the frothing mouth of the animal - which, with each attempt, looked too artificial - he took a paint-soaked sponge and threw it at the picture. When the sponge fell the frothing mouth was complete… accidentally rendered by the sponge. Now Pliny uses this as way of demonstrating the good judgment of the artist and Protogenes, by way of example, reveals that great art is not always produced simply by the painters’ design. Sometimes the artist has to step back and let nature assist in order to produce the best work. Photographers, I think, are no less aware of this. Too much control can stifle the image.
GD: Are you suggesting that the image is unnatural if you try to exercise too much control?
GD: Not quite. Photographs aren’t natural so it seems strange to suggest that they can really be anything but artificial. And as much as some might want to believe that a portrait can capture the essence of a person we know that this is really just a myth. At the same time there are portraits that rise above others as compelling images and these are the ones that seem to capture an expression, mood or feeling that is ‘real’, at least, to the viewer. The reality is forged in the viewer’s imagination because the image is familiar. We can see ourselves reflected in it. I think it is entirely possible to stage a portrait that can reach the viewer in this way but generally the photographs that seem to do this most effectively are those that leave something to chance.
GD: Can you give examples?
GD: Well the first examples of staged portraits that come to mind are paintings and sculptures. Leonardo’s Mona Lisa has captivated viewers for over five-hundred years. Here you have an example of a portrait that can hardly be described as spontaneous yet it continues to move viewers precisely because it sustains the illusion of being ‘natural‘. In truth it is highly artificial, contrived… the sfumato effect, the golden light, the perfect skin. This is not how people appear naturally. Yet the illusion of her smile, the appearance of her eyes and hands are rendered in such a compelling manner that we forget we are looking at oil paints on a wooden panel. Instead we begin to imagine that we know the subject. She becomes ‘real’ to us. A staged photograph such as Yousuf Karsh’s portrait of Albert Einstein can equally be very powerful and compelling yet it is quite different from Arthur Sasse’s famous portrait of the same man sticking out his tongue. Spontaneity results in an image that renders a completely different image of the quiet, introspective man presented in Karsh’s photograph. Instead Sasse shows us humorous man caught in the moment. Although both of these portraits are outstanding, for me it is the photograph by Sasse that remains the most compelling because it is the one that most gives the appearance of a ‘truthful’ image. While Karsh’s photo builds up - monumentalizes - the man with solemn dignity, Sasse’s portrait strips down this public persona to give the compelling illusion of the ‘real’ man behind the photo. The same can be said for Karsh’s most famous portrait… his photograph of Winston Churchill. With only two minutes to take the portrait and a subject who was in no mood to be photographed Karsh was able to produce a timeless image by simply taking away the man’s cigar… fortuitously drawing a response from the subject that many felt captured the ‘essence’ of the man and his political office. It is not that it is any more ‘real’ than the staged photo of Einstein, it simply appears that way.
GD: Earlier you mentioned some of things that must be controlled by the photographer. Let’s talk about that. What equipment are you using for the project?
GD: As far as the camera is concerned I’m currently working with a digital SLR. I’ve recently shot a range of photos on a Nikon D90. The D90 has good resolution and it is portable. This translates into a camera that works effectively with my subjects who move quickly and don’t stand still for any length of time (on the whole). Along with this I’m finding that the kids respond well to the presence of the camera. With the D90 I can get a level of refinement in the image that is needed for the project while using a camera that does not does not make its presence strongly felt.
GD: Could you do the same with medium format?
GD: Sure but the results would be different… and not just in terms of resolution. To work with medium format I would have to rent. This is simply a matter of cost. But the minute you rent you are aware of the time factor. It conditions you to approach the subjects in a very different way. The clock is ticking and you simply can’t get the same level of spontaneity… nor can you access your subjects in the same manner. I know what I could get by working this way but that is not what I’m after.
GD: What about film?
GD: Well this is a big issue. Digital versus film. Most of the work that I’ve produced in the past has been 35mm colour transparency. Film is, quite simply, a very different thing. When you work with film you visualize the image differently from start to finish. Because digital is so flexible and immediate it has a strong appeal but you have to take into consideration that it changes your whole approach to the image - from the moment you compose the picture to the final stages of development. When I shoot with film I’m far more conscious of each image. I find that film makes me very conscious of the end result when I release the shutter… I’m picturing in my mind the finished print right at that moment and I’m striving for maximum control. With digital I’m looking at the composition but I’m aware of its tremendous mutability. So as I’m about to release the shutter I know that the end result may look very different. This works well with the aim of the project. It is better suited to this particular purpose than film.
GD: What about editing and the end result?
GD: Editing is a difficult and time-consuming process. The challenge lies not only in the selection of images but also the refinement and manipulation of those images to draw from them their full, expressive potential. For this project I’ll be using Adobe Photoshop CS5 Enhanced software to edit. The final prints however are another matter. I’m currently looking at digital conversion to dye-transfer. This will be costly and time consuming but it will yield outstanding results in the final print…
GD: Such as?
GD: Very high resolution and colour density. If you look at a dye transfer print by Irving Penn or Elliott Porter you’ll see this clearly. It is an old process but the results can’t be matched even by high level inkjet printers.
GD: One final question for now… does the project have a title?
GD: ‘Becoming’. That’s the working title for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment