In the Country

Christmas holidays and an opportunity to play. Any work I did back at home over Christmas was going to be a bit of a new take on things, going from working in the city at night to the Suffolk countryside during the day (we don’t have many streetlights.) Also, I had easy access to DSLR, so had a great opportunity to make the quality switch to RAW files.
I tried some panorama-style shots of buildings to test whether this is where I should take things back to. I’ve realised it’s not. Although the building shots were possibly the key turning point so far, I feel I’ve taken it as far as I want to. Although there are some nice parts to some of these images, continuing working in this way just isn’t exciting anymore.
This could be likened to Roland Barthes’ ideas of studium and punctum. These images do have a studium – they hold a surface interest, there are some nice qualities about them – but there’s no punctum. They’re static images, there’s nothing there that grabs me and holds my interest. When I stop looking at the image, it doesn’t stay with me.

I think this image could be a turning point:

It was born out of play, but there’s something about it that’s got me excited about the work again. I know it has its flaws, mainly that the clear joins between the separate photos contradict the dream-like, unfocused qualities of the image. Also, the washed out blue of the sky in the far left image would’ve been lovely if it had continued all the way through, but the sun was sitting low in the sky and causing me a few issues.
Because the image is not clearly focused, the viewer has to deconstruct the visual clues within the image and reconstruct it within their mind to create their own interpretation and impression of it. The lack of sharp detail give the image a timeless/placeless quality, which means each viewer can reach an individual reading of it.
I think this style is something I definitely need to follow up and experiment further. I haven’t really worked with intentionally defocused images before, but I feel this path could have real potential.

Here's some single images that, although not directly relevant, every little counts;

Figures and Narratives

These images are an attempt at introducing figures to the scenes in order to create a narrative. I decided to reuse places I’ve already been to, so I could focus more on the person than the location.

Generally, the images aren't working; the figure is too self-conscious and self-aware. She is aware of her nature of a subject, and dominates a number of the images. These things go against the ideas behind the work, and the direction I should have been headed. I realised the potential of tiny, subtle figures in previous images, I seem to have reverted back to experiment-mode and just played with incorporating a figure, and finding ways to intentionally include a subtle actually proved harder to replicate since I was aware of what I was attempting. However, it’s not all bad, there are small parts in the images that hint to what does work successfully.
On top of this, I’m starting to find that everything I try that’s not working feels like it’s bringing me closer to something that does.

The ones in this location are working best; they have stuck much closer to the idea of more subtle figures. I also captured a man walking towards my figure (above) and this idea, considered at an earlier stage, does appear to work. I’ve retried multiple figures but this detracts from the repetition of structural elements within the images. I also feel it ruins the way in which I would want the audience to construct a narrative – if I’m going to follow the more narrative based route than the formal constructional one, I would want to create an open, suggestive narrative, rather than directional. I feel the use of a repeated figure could be too directional to the audience and be seen to be implying a meaning, rather than leaving the space for the audience to create their own.

The other thing these images raised for me was the use of shadow; in some images the shadow is clearly cut off, while in others there is a shadow without a figure to cast it. This could be an interesting thing to play with, but I’m not convinced it fits with the way I’d like to take my work forward.

The issue at this point is I’m finding myself less sure of how I do want to take my work forward. I have not yet tried bringing in surreal qualities to the images. I think it could work very successfully but it doesn't feel like my work. It's obviously important to challenge yourself and the way in which you work, but I also feel it's important to stay true to your own style, and big men in bunny suits just isn't the kind of thing I do.
Although I was excited about this direction initially, I’m beginning to feel as if it may have peaked too early, or perhaps I’m just taking it in the wrong direction.


To combat this, I’ve got a list of things I can try;

play more with subtle figures

new locations

try daylight

try landscape

try the surreal

try different people and combinations of people

use a high quality camera and keep the images in better quality

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.