Research

As previously mentioned, I'm beginning to struggle a bit with where to take my work. There appear to be two clear paths; either the work is becoming about the formal, compositional qualities of the image, or about the more aesthetic and evocative aspects of the image.

Candida Hofer's work reflects the structural compositional direction that is partially present in my work. She seems to work on the premise of documenting, and the locations of her images tend to be public spaces. Her images are stunningly composed and can be seen to work partly on the premise of impressing the viewer, I don't feel it's the direction in which I want to take my work.

Bernd and Hilla Becher's work is on a similar basis. It's also based around the structural qualities of the objects they photograph, and there's a definite focus on objectivity. These are gas cylinders, they should be boring, but by photographing and documenting them, it becomes about their appearance and their construction, the way the pillars are formed and how they interact with the natural landscape around them (when one is clearly present.)
However, while looking at work such as this, and Candida Hofer, I've begun to think I'd prefer to take my work in a much more subjective direction, than their objective, documentary one.
Also, while researching these artists, I found it incredibly interesting to note that both Andreas Gursky and Candida Hofer studied under Bernd and Hilla Becher. The similarities between the artists are obvious, but they've all worked with similar styles or principles in very different ways.

Gregory Crewdson's work is centred around narrative. The main way his narrative is created is by the presence of people. His images could be seen as photography's equivalent of big budget movies. They're highly staged and highly suggestive - they appear as a frozen instant from the middle of the event. It's the job of the viewer to create a narrative that covers the before and after.
In relation to my work, I like the premise, but the execution is obviously a long way from my style.

Duane Michals' work is also narrative based. Through a series of images taken at different stages of an interaction or occurrence, Michals suggests a narrative. The basic premise of these can be seen as relatively directive (as on the left, two men pass and appear to recognise each other in the street) but the work is left open enough for the viewer to create their own narrative around the images.

Physicality

My work so far has been digital – digital camera, showing work on a computer, support work in a blog – I’ve printed some of the images to see how they work in the physical world. (I've submitted these so you can have a look and see what I mean. I've left out the black and white image because it was just a quick experiment and there is a colour version of the same thing.) The plan is to eventually display the work in a gallery context, so it was worth having a look at how it translates on paper.


I also wanted to see what happens if the images are printed separately and joined physically, instead of joined digitally and printed as one.


As these images are of a large size, it’s also helpful to get an idea of how the proportions of the images translate. A number of them are very wide, but not very high, and I’ve been concerned that this will not work in print, because to get the height to reasonable size, they will end up too wide to remain effective. My eventual aim is to stick with a large scale, due to the nature of the work, but just to get an idea I’ve kept this set of print outs relatively small, just to get a feel for the physically of the work. I think even at this scale, I'm not sure I like the proportions of the longer images. It may be better to keep the photographs in portrait to add a bit more height, and possibly keep the number of photographs in the sequence a bit lower.


The process of printing and sticking generated a number of new considerations.


An issue that I have known was coming since the outset is the image quality from the camera I've been using (a Lumix compact camera.) This has been ideal for me to use - its light-weight, accessible nature has allowed me to work easily and more prolifically than a DSLR. I prefer working in this way initially, because I’m comfortable with the camera and this has meant I can just focus on what I was capturing and the possibilities of the images, rather than more technical considerations. However, as the camera saves the images as JPEGs, the quality won't be sufficient for my end needs and I’ll need to start using a DSLR, and RAW files to give me more control over the images and a much higher quality.

I also discovered that I do not like the effect of printing out the images individually and then joining them. I find the outcomes too scrappy, and it draws more attention to the individuality of each image in the set, whereas I prefer the effect of blurring the boundaries between the images. The digital joining has an effect much more suited to my needs.

The image with the hands is mounted in two parts due to space issues. I was testing printing a4 then blowing the images up to a3 so I split the initial image in two digitally and mounted them separately to gauge what the effect of this would be. I actually quite like the outcome - I like the juxtaposition of having a number of images digitally and smoothly joined, then re-split in two. I'm not sure yet, but the gap between the two could either emphasise the ideas of time and possibly narrative, or it might turn out to be an obvious throw towards it. More experimenting may sort this out. However, with this brief delve into layout and presentation and printing considerations, I feel I need to get back to the images themselves and where I want to go with them. I don’t feel these are strong enough.
An interesting effect present on some of the print outs, is that there's a quality to them that almost appears illustrated on close inspection. I think this is because of the quality of both the JPEGs and the way I printed, but it's actually quite a nice effect. This style is something I may come back to - it questions the nature of a photograph, and the conventions generally associated with taking a good one.

I still haven't explored either the surreal possibilities of these scenes, or the deliberate inclusion of figures to create a narrative. These will be my next aims.

Building Out

I’ve had a go at extending the scenes to capture the tops of the buildings, as well as the foreground – to create a whole impression of a scene. Looking at the images, it’s obvious that this has posed some problems – it’s not as easy as I thought it would be.

This must be down to perspective, and although it’s never been my aim to create completely smooth scenes – I like having the constituent parts evident within the image, a nudge to the viewer that this isn’t an attempt at an accurate recreation, but an impression – however, these links are really pushing it. A slight disjointedness is fine, but the tops of these buildings just don’t fit.

That aside for now, there is something working within this image. I captured two men walking through the scene, and this then points towards a narrative. It would be interesting to have another figure on the left hand side headed towards them, as part of a different photo making up the image. This would then imply a meeting between the two parties as they pass each other, but the way in which the image is created could also imply that they will not meet; these photos were not simultaneous, so perhaps one of the parties was gone from the scene before the other arrived.

The figures also create a strange sense of scale. Obviously these are large buildings and this is a fairly long stretch of street, but the figures are so small they almost appear insignificant. There’s something about them that reminds me of watching ants.

I revisited this location for the potential it previously showed. However, this really isn’t working as well as the image before. (The gaps are simply because I misjudged the angles I needed to cover the foreground.) The extended view of the street gives the building a wider context and lets far more light into the image. These both detract from the mysterious and evocative feel the building previously had. The repetitions aren’t as successful either; the door was a central, defining feature before, so it doesn’t need to be repeated, and the road signs don’t work as well with more space between them. As with the brooms right at the beginning, perhaps the key to successful repetitions is closeness.

The foreground of this image is fairly successful, as the double yellow lines and the pavement provide a flow through the image. I like the hands rubbing together at the side of the image. They provide a presence, but as the person is aligned next to the photographer, it could be seen they were photographed by accident, they were in the way. This provides a link between image and process; this figure is part of the process but not necessarily supposed to be involved in the image. Rubbing hands is most commonly associated with cold weather, so although the tonal qualities of the image are quite warm, there’s a possible implication of the cold.

Something that’s come up is the cropping of images. Up until now I’ve left them as they’ve been built, mainly because of the initial yard shot and the feet, as the layout of the images reflected a movement through the image, and the relationship between one part and another. However, this has become irrelevant now these are becoming about scenes as opposed to represented journeys and cropping the images makes them much tighter and stronger.

Cropping the image in this way makes it stronger, not only cutting off the scrappy arrangement of the top section, but this format allows a different relationship between certain aspects to occur. The image is now clearly framed on the left side by the body and hands, and on the right by the wall. The centre of the image is now dominated as much by the pavement as it is the building. The joining of images now appears sporadically throughout the image, as opposed to in a simple line as some have showed.

With this I tried building up instead of across. Doing this gives the feeling that this is a tiny slice from a scene, an instant, or a glance. There’s also something about it that feels distinctly voyeuristic, perhaps because it’s focused on such a small area, and that this has a garage door and windows, could be read as surveillance.

I like this one for the tonal qualities, and the elongated car on the left.

Buildings

I decided to see how buildings would work in this panorama-style format. They're actually pretty effective. I've kept to shooting at night because I love the quality of light, and it was quite successful last time. It also means the streets are relatively empty.

I like the way the windows work in this image. There is a voyeuristic feel to the image, as the lights on inside the building, and the colours inside different parts, denote activity inside the building, but we do not know what the activity is, especially as the majority of people will not even know the function of this building. I don’t even know myself. This will lead to the viewer constructing their own narratives.An issue with this image is the missing top of the building. It’s an almost complete representation of the building, so the missing section, instead of previous images where the gaps have added to the construction, it jars the viewer and makes the scene feel incomplete. Perhaps it’s the case that either more needs to be missing, or disjointed, or it needs to be more complete.
Another interesting point here is the architecture; it feels as if it’s been manipulated, through the repetition of features such as the white blocks and the doorways, but it’s actually just the building as it stands. This trick is something that may be worth experimenting with, to either find buildings with these kinds of architectural features and present them as if manipulated, or to actually manipulate buildings in way that makes them look natural.

 

Andreas Gursky’s work is useful to look at here. It can be almost impossible to determine whether his images are real or constructed, even when you know that these just can't be true, and this challenging of reality is something that really interests me. Gursky's images tend to impact on a formal, compositional level at first. The sheer size of them and the construction of the work is stunning. They also feel detached and observational in their presentations of the contemporary world.






I find this the most effective image I've taken so far (below). The lighting is moody and atmospheric, and the whole image has a film noire feel to it. The emptiness of the space adds to this, as well as the sense of scale – the building is far larger than the image, and this is a large image. It dwarves the street signs.

The repetition of the street signs, although obvious, doesn’t feel forced and there’s a similar tone to the flat wall in the car park – there’s a certain amount of fluidity in the image. It doesn’t quite feel like a photograph.
It’s an evocative image, and although the street signs can be used to anchor the image to a time and place, they are the only real clues as to where and when this image exists.
Out of the images used to create this sequence, I find the first image (far left) an interesting one. When just focused on that image, the eye is automatically drawn to the road sign because it is lit up, then the eye follows the line of the building to the right and is jarred by the signpost which is so much closer in the foreground when the eye was travelling deeper into the background of the image. This idea of playing with perspective and jarring aspects within panoramas is another thing I am going to consider.
The next step is to push it further and see what else these panoramas could become a stage for. It’s worth going back to the idea of a ‘hidden’ figure. There’s also potential for inserting the surreal into these – what happens if there’s a man in pink bunny suit at the far right?
I also need to start building upwards as well as just across because these feel too shallow in the centre where the subject is closest to the viewer.

Urban Ex

As my work appears to be gearing towards a focus on liminal spaces, the idea of exploring abandoned buildings came up during a group crit. After doing some research I've discovered there's a huge number of people doing urban exploration (urban ex.) The main motto seems to 'Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints." I like that.

One of the most interesting examples I found in relation to my work is this image:

It's obviously using a similar technique to how I'm working, and it works well in terms of urban ex because it displays the whole room in one image. The smoothness of the image is necessary in this context because generally, urban ex images are about showing abandoned places and should only be found places and objects, never set up. However, my work is not documentational, it's representational, and this is why I'm not using such smooth lines and joins.

A lot of urban ex images appear to be tone mapped, using HDR (High Dynamic Range) imaging. These are techniques I've obviously seen before but never knew the names for, or how it was done. I'm not sure if this is going to be something I experiment yet, it can often appear over-dramatic which can actually detract from the image instead of heightening it, it is something I am going to bear in mind.

I'm most taken with the asylums and hospitals that these people explore. The connotations of the space bring an obvious poignancy to the photographs and leads the viewer to construct narratives around the image. They also act as an insight into a world that is otherwise incredibly hard to access. It's also fascinating to see the decay of some parts/places against how well some parts are preserved, and some of the things that have been left behind.

Although I don't think it's going to be possible to start doing this personally (it's dangerous and I don't know how to break into places,) I want to bear in mind some of the qualities of the images urban ex-ers produce. These are partly the colour palette many of them seem to adopt, as well as this use of abandoned spaces, or at least used spaces while they're not being used. Also the poignancy and connotations of location and what this can bring to an image.

Joiner Images

I figure it’s time to do some research into what I’m doing. This panorama/joiner technique is something that’s been around for a long time.

David Hockney’s photo montages are an obvious example.

Although the technique is similar, Hockney's work is made up of many more images than my montages have been. They appear more as mosaics, and are reminiscent of cubism.

A series of photographs by Szymon Roginski are also based around the idea of cubism.

These images work on the montage principle, but are more sculptural, due to their 3D effect. Although impressive, I far prefer his other photography and so I think this more 3D, mosaic effect is something I should try to steer clear of in my work.

Using this basic technique, I run the risk of my work lacking any substance – this is a recognised technique, so it’s easy when looking at a joiner image to see it as ‘just another joiner image,’ and not appreciate the image for much more than its construction. This would be a disaster for my project.

Sam Taylor-Wood's panoramic images are closer to the realm that I want to be working in. The people in this image all appear in the same room, but come across as isolated, each absorbed in their own world. Because of the way the image has been put together, there's an implication that although these people were all in the same, there's a suggestion that it could have been singly at different times.

People in Spaces

I’ve gone back to the yard and had a go at putting someone in some of the repeated gaps between images. The gap between the brooms seemed to be a natural choice as it’s the clearest repetition.

However, because of the left-to-right reading, and the brooms being on the left side of the image, the figure is too easily and quickly introduced to the image. It comes back to the previous concern about subtlety; it’s starting to look like subtlety and suggestion might be the key to what’s making the images work or not.

 

I tried including the same figure twice to see what effect that would have. I don’t think it’s working. It might be a bit better if there were even more of her, perhaps using the space in a more functional way (e.g putting something in the bin) but I still don’t think this would be especially effective, and I don’t feel it’s the way I want to take this forward.

I still had a go though, but using figures in front of the same space of wall, and attempting to join the images as if it were a long stretch of wall. This was more of a play to get the idea out of my head. It’s a more fun style of image, and not functioning on much more then an aesthetic level, and it’s not even doing that to its full potential.

The path I was headed down before seems to have far more potential, and more exciting possibilities for me.

Car Parks and Night

To further experiment, I’ve taken my work outside. I’ve been working at night, because I wanted empty spaces and I love the quality of light that you get at night time in the city.

I chose these spaces because they’re relatively secluded in the evening, and I’m more comfortable working like this. I’ve also kept working with someone with me that I can stick in images if I feel it would work.

They’re all working on quite different levels, and with varying degrees of potential.

This image is the first time I’ve created the convex effect you can achieve with panorama style shots. It gives a nice flow to the image, and provides a strong through-line, even if things don’t quite line up around it. This is a far smoother effect than I’ve been working with.

The presence of a figure is also pretty successful in this image. At a  glance, it’s not necessarily evident that there even is a figure in there; it blends in with the image and almost has the same structural qualities of the lampposts. Once this is noticed, it alters the initial reading of the image. The viewer then either places themselves in the position of the figure, or becomes a voyeur. A number of questions are raised by the figure. Who are they? Why are they there? What are they doing? This leads the viewer to construct narratives around the image, with little to point to a certain reading. I like having this ambiguity in the work, and the idea of an open narrative.

The positioning of the figure works better than I feel it should; usually I don’t tend to like central things, but here it seems to work because it leaves a long stretch either side of the figure, and they become isolated within the image. Due to the nature of time created in the panorama, it also raises questions of how long the figure has been there. A brief pause during the instant of the photograph, or far longer?

I picked this location for the qualities of the wall; I like (most of) the graffiti on it, the long string of numbers which gives a sense of mathematics, and the lighting, and the grimy feel work well (and obviously subvert the idea of mathematics.)

The images have ended up very disjointed in their execution, and although a slight disjoint works, this is too much, especially because of the flat wall, and the lack of objects.

What does work is the flat plain contrasted with the depth on either side of the wall. It creates two worlds within the image; this flat canvas, that almost feels like a stage – like something could be about to happen – and then the ‘real’ world remaining behind this. I think the tree enhances it – the grimy feel of the image contrasted with nature, this brightly lit tree.

I feel like this second image isn’t working, but there’s a certain quality to it that I do like. There’s a definite flatness to the image which is very different to where I started, and it does something very different to the other images. It raises more questions about why these images have been joined together – it’s not to create a greater sense of scene, movement and time like the others. Perhaps it’s more about non-spaces, and the figure existing in a repeated part of the image starts to ask what it is to be somewhere.

I also like the quality of the image – parts of it do not feel like a photograph, such as the way the shadow falls around the legs. It’s fluid and I like this.

This was just an experiment in trying to purposefully jar the viewer by having an unexpected aspects completely interrupt the flow of the reading. It doesn’t work like this but the idea’s still intriguing, if I could find a much more subtle way of doing it. There’s something here about the brief flash of a presence that could be likened to splicing something into a film reel that doesn’t belong there. However, this is going to be much harder to achieve through still image, because you can’t make the thing go away again.

It looks like I've inadvertently begun working with liminal spaces. Car parks are a functional space - we use them, we pass through them, but they're not places we tend to stop in. The same is true of places such as corridors, train stations, airports... these are places we just pass through, or wait in - we use them as a means to an end. This spaces can be used as blank canvases, a space in which to create metaphors. It's interesting to use these spaces as settings for my images because it draws attention to a space we usually don't fully notice. It could also be interesting to explore what happens in these spaces, both in terms of their intended use, as well as more non-standard uses that may take place there.

Bar panoramas

The way I seem to work best is by just doing stuff. I need to work through ideas, scrappily, ignore quality, what I should be doing and just do it. It’s the only way I can explore what works and what doesn’t. You never know until you try (or at least I don’t.)

So I’ve experimented with a new location, but used the same joiner technique. I like the technique for the way it imbues the image with an inherent sense of time, and can also create unusual angles and perspectives, repetitions and gaps. It needs exploring.

I’ve stuck with black and white because I felt colour may have distracted from the image, and made it too busy and not visually tight. Also, black and white reflects the language of memory.

I don’t think these images are quite as successful as the yard had potential to be, but I can’t quite put my finger on why. Perhaps it’s because they’re busier. I chose a pub because it’s a familiar location to most people, but this one is an old building, and can almost have a homey feel to it.

Despite these not being too successful, I feel this one (above) has got more potential. Because of how we naturally read the image, we start at the top left with a pair of feet, and follow through the empty space to the third pair. The presence of people automatically begins to create a narrative. We don’t know who these people are, but we begin to assign characteristics to them in order to try and understand the image. We also begin to make assertions as to the relationship between the different sets of feet. Because they are all presented within one image, it alludes to there being a link, and the large space between allows a narrative reading to form.

Perhaps it also functions because it is a relatively empty image and therefore gives it a sense of simplicity that allows the viewer plenty of space to create narratives and appreciate the structural qualities, where the previous images were pretty busy, and then become more about studying the image than simply taking it in.