Hello Everyone!
I hope you are all having a good time shooting your projects and being oh so productive.
Just a reminder of what we are expecting here on the old blog- and it's pretty simple- just read the chapter in the Cotton book, check out the corresponding blog post, and write an insightful, interesting comment!
You will need to register for a Blogger account but that is quite simple.
SO, for our first post and discussion-
Philip-Lorca di Coricia's "Heads"
The following is a brief review of this work- (and anytime I use someone else's comments on the photographs, it will appear in this yellow font color)
MICHAEL KIMMELMAN , NYTimes, 9/14/2001
Since the mid-1990's Mr. diCorcia has helped to redefine the tradition of street photography (Walker Evans's subway pictures, etc.) Nearly a decade ago he began photographing strangers caught in his strobe light. The ''Streetwork'' series turned pedestrians into unsuspecting performers and the sidewalks along places like Sunset Boulevard, and in Tokyo and Paris, into ad-hoc movie sets, the strobes picking passers-by out of crowds the way spotlights isolate actors onstage. The lights gave their gestures a sudden, baroque gravity and made everything around them seem contrived and weirdly portentous.
For the new photographs a strobe was affixed to scaffolding in Times Square; Mr. diCorcia stood farther away than before, using a longer lens. The result: crisp and stark portraits picked out of murky blackness -- just heads, no longer cityscapes, the surroundings now blocked by the scaffolding. They are simpler images and more intimate, the paradox of standing farther away being enhanced intimacy.
The cinematic quality stays the same, though, especially because Mr. diCorcia, like many photographers today, makes big, poster-size prints: 48 by 60 inches each, high-resolution digital scans. He took thousands of pictures from the end of 1999 to earlier this year to produce 17 photographs, 13 of which are in this show. The strobe functions like the light of revelation, a high-beam from heaven, and as usual, by stopping time, the photographs incline us to look at what we see every day but fail to notice, although the longer we stare at these people the more extraordinarily impenetrable they seem.
Unaware of the camera, they are absorbed in thought or gaze absently; they are how we act most of the time, walking down the street, in a crowd, focused on something or nothing. But enlarged and isolated, their expressions become riddles, intensely melodramatic and strangely touching.
Mr. diCorcia's pictures remind us, among other things, that we are each our own little universe of secrets, and vulnerable. Good art makes you see the world differently, at least for a while, and after seeing Mr. diCorcia's new ''Heads,'' for the next few hours you won't pass another person on the street in the same absent way.A few questions to spark discussion:
- Are these images an invasion of privacy? How would you feel if you walked into a gallery and saw a massive image of you that you neve know someone had taken?
- Are these images portraits, in the way you understand portraits are supposed to be?
- What do you think Kimmelman means when he says "...enlarged and isolated, their expressions become riddles, intensely melodramatic and strangely touching"?
13 comments:
1.Are these images an invasion of privacy? How would you feel if you walked into a gallery and saw a massive image of you that you neve know someone had taken?
As much as I want to say that these photographs are an invasion of privacy, I do not think that there is enough cause to call them so. No, these people were not asked their permission to be photographed, and I think that if they had a serious problem with being photographed, and should they ever actually find out the photograph was exhibited, then they could raise concern with the photographer.
This reminds me of times when going on holidays. When you visit somewhere, say a famous landmark or sight, and many people are taking photographs, do you expect everyone there with a camera to ask your permission to do anything with their photographs if you appear in them? I certainly wouldn't. Taking photographs in this instance is similar to what diCorcia has done. We go to these places with the intent of taking photos and not ever thinking of who will be in them. It's never a concern. DiCorcia is in a way doing the same. He doesn't know who will be in the photographs and isn't aiming to capture a specific person or set of people. It's determined by chance which individuals are photographed and which aren't.
Many people share their photos in a public domain such as the internet and they do not need direct permission from anyone pictured in their photographs to use them. If that was the case, then not a lot of photos online would be out there to see. Certainly not a lot of mine. I think that as gung-ho as we are on privacy, this is just something that we cannot control very well. Our appearance should really be the least of our worries with privacy issues anyways. So what if someone sees a massive image of you in a gallery. Most of the people there will most likely either not know you, or not really care.
Lastly, I think it would be rather interesting to be in an image used in a gallery. I'd like to see it. Granted, if the particular image was not so flattering it would not be as enjoyable, but that is beyond anyone's control including the photographer's. And being a fellow artist, I would understand the necessity(?) of the photograph and would feel comforted in knowing that if the tables were turned, deCorcia probably wouldn't mind being photographed himself.
2.Are these images portraits, in the way you understand portraits are supposed to be?
These images would not be portraits in the way I understand them. I think of portraits as a planned and well thought out composition. The images diCorcia photographed were thought out and planned, but the people who's portraits were taken did not know they would be taken. Normally people commission to have portraits made and have control over their look in the picture. They have a particular vision they want to come across. The people in diCorcia's photographs had no such thing in mind when they were photographed. Having a photo taken was probably the farthest thing from their mind.
The images diCorcia took show us real people being real. They are not being fake to portray a certain aspect about themselves that they want the world to see. Their faces make you wonder what's going on in their heads...what they're thinking about, which is infinitely more interesting than knowing right off the bat what a traditional portrait is telling us. I guess it can depend on the portrait as well, but still...
3.What do you think Kimmelman means when he says "...enlarged and
isolated, their expressions become riddles, intensely melodramatic and strangely touching"?
I think that Kimmelman is trying to say that when the photographs are enlarged and displayed as they are, you see so much more in the faces. You can physically see much more detail, etc. in the larger photos than with a smaller prints. You can see every wrinkle, freckle, whatever and they all have a story. You can also wonder how old someone is, how they got a scar on their chin, which side of the family they got their looks from. Basically we do not know what is on these peoples' minds or their histories and that is the riddle. It is something we will never know and that's part of the beauty of art.
Art gives us the chance to interpret it however we choose, and even if it is a different idea than what the artist intended it does not mean that it is wrong. DiCorcia
shows us that we are all individuals with a story to tell and he didn't have to do a thing with thinking of a message or story
behind his work. The people photographed do that for him. I think that you don't think about diCorcia's intentions behind the photographs as much as what the actual people in the images are thinking, feeling, going through, etc. All of these people are a mystery to us and we will most likely never know anything about them besides their physical appearance, and that being just their heads and faces. You feel for these people because you do not know what they're feeling or thinking. I think the expression "a picture is worth a thousand words" is very appropriate in this case.
**
And not to be nit picky or anything, but might it be possible to change the colour of the red font? It's kind of hard to read on the black background. I'm sorry. Maybe an orange or something? If you can't change it I can manage so no worries. :)
Thanks for the fantastic comments, Holly. Gold star for you in the book!
I will change the font color to something more visible.
1)I think for the images to be a case of invasion of privacy, the camera would have to be in a more intimate setting (ie: bathroom, dressing room,etc) than along the streets of a busy town. it's easy for someone to become embarrassed of something they see about themselves. hopefully any artist takes this into consideration before hanging life-size photo's of someone up in a gallery. with respect for the subject, i think the artist should have no worries of stepping over boundaries.
i think holly's comment about vacation pictures is very true and an appropriate response to the question of privacy.
2)i also agree with her on the question if these images can be considered portraits. people who have portraits made are prepared for the picture being taken. they conduct themselves in the way they want to be represented.
for the longest time i didn't like the way i smiled, so i would practice the way i wanted to look for a picture. these people wern't given the opprotunity to prepare (which, by the way, not one of these people looked bad in any of the pictures). this idea of not being happy with the way we look or may look at a certain time is a very revealing project. if the artist had asked any one of those people if he could take their picture that same moment i'm sure he would have gotten "no" because of the idea we all possess on how we should look (especially for a picture!)
3)i think Kimmel is creating new concept of "portrait". by enlarging and isolating people we are forced to see this person but with an interesting twist. their body language, the way they stand, their gaze all become important and make the viewer realize the depth and complexity these people all have.
1. Are these images an invasion of privacy? How would you feel if you walked into a gallery and saw a massive image of you that you neve know someone had taken?
I agree with what mandy said. These photos aren't an invation of privacy, because they're taken in a public place. Outside like that people expect to be seen and generally conduct themselves in such a way that really won't cause any harm if it's immorallized. This, however, has advatages for the photographer, since most people don't expected to be photographed at random, you get a more honest result. Which is very hard to get if you're taking pictures up close.
Now, what I do think is crossing the line is what Sophie Calle did.
If you'll remeber from your text, she's the one who followed one man to Venice and went through peoples stuff in hotel rooms.
2. Are these images portraits, in the way you understand portraits are supposed to be?
Continuing the trend, I too do not consider these portraits. Portraits to me have a more commercial aspect. Like Holly and Mandy both said, they really need to be planned out. I think the portrait-like quaities of the pictures were what the artist was trying to avoid by taking them from far away.
3. What do you think Kimmelman means when he says "...enlarged and isolated, their expressions become riddles, intensely melodramatic and strangely touching"?
I think he's refering to the unintrusive quality of the pictures. The facial expressions seen weren't planned out, so the viewer is left to guess what the person is thinking at that moment in time. Thus, the viewer may try to identify the subject to find the answer. Try to put themselves in the subject's shoes so to speak.
I would have to say I do not think this is an invasion of privacy. You can't blame a photographer for taking pictures of another person. It is not like meaning to do it on purpose. Even if the photographer means to do it on purpose. I don't think its about being obsessive or being a stalker. It's a form of art, rather you believe it or not.
You will get many pictures of people photographing different objects and other people are in the pictures. You can't change that. It just happens to be in the way of a person trying to take a photograph.
I don't think DiCorica even knows who will be in the photograph. I honestly think he is just snapping pictures as he goes. It not like he trying to take pictures of one excat person.
Most of the time WE DO NOT EVEN KNOW THE PERSON BEING PHOTOGRAPHED. How often do we know the people in the pictures in our school book or when we google search something? Not often. I am not talking about celebrites here. I am talking about random people like you and I. I honestly do not know anyone that I have seen in my books or online. Do you even know any of these people that are posted on the professor's blog? I certainly don't. So what privacy is it invading? We do not even know these people. We just glance the photograph and go on with the rest of our day or rountine. I see no invasion whatsoever.
I would love to be a massive image in a gallery. It is not an every day thing that happens to you. It is art. There is no right or wrong why of expressing the way people see art. To my knowledge anyone who is photographed is a piece of art.
1. Are these images an invasion of privacy? How would you feel if you walked into a gallery and saw a massive image of you that you never know someone had taken?
I would have to say that these images are not an invasion of privacy. Maybe I feel this way because it is not my picture. When something actually happens to you then you have a different view allowing you to feel different about the situation. If I happened to walk into a gallery and saw a massive image of me that I didn't recall taking I would feel weird and violated especially if the picture wasn't appealing. On the other hand I might feel another way if I actually liked the picture.
2. Are these images portraits, in the way you understand portraits are supposed to be?
I do not believe that these images are portraits. To be a portrait the image has to be planned out with willing participates. These images are more like snap shots taken real quick with no motto behide it.
3. What do you think Kimmelman means when he says "...enlarged and isolated, their expressions become riddles, intensely melodramatic and strangely touching"?
I believe he is saying that when the images are enlarged and isolated the imagination is allowed to fasinate about what they want that person to be doing or thinking. The on looker is allowed to give that face a life, a story. Weather it be fiction or non-fiction the viewer makes that persons story their own story.
Brandi Ashlock
1. Are these images an invasion of privacy? How would you feel if you walked into a gallery and saw a massive image of you that you never know someone had taken?
Well, I believe these images are sort of invasion of privacy. If a person took a picture of another person without his or her consent, then that is already an invasion of privacy. Moreover, to publish these photos, in my opinion, is highly unacceptable. Everybody should have their own freedom to decide what or what not to share with the rest of the world. If somebody put my picture on internet or publish them without my permission, I will be angry and well, embarrassing at the same time.
2. Are these images portraits, in the way you understand portraits are supposed to be?
At this point, it could be portraits. Because the photographer here has well-planned the lighting and his position relative to the subject. The disadvantage of this way of shooting a picture is of course being that an invasion of privacy and cause a sort of ethical issue. However, the advantage of this technique is that it will capture the nature of the person's true expression therefore keep the originality. Unlike to shoot a portrait with a person's acknowledge, in which case the person will try to create some kind of expression to impress the photographer, therefore loses the originality.
Hello everyone,I am answering number one and two and also responding dillon answer.
1.Are these images an invasion of privacy? How would you feel if you walked into a gallery and saw a massive image of you that you never know someone had taken?
I think it is an invasion of privacy. If I went to a gallery and saw myself I would be upset and shock. The reason is because if my images where put in a negative matter my reputation would be ruin. Nowadays I don't know what the photographer intetions are. I rather would like the photographer to come to me and ask for permission if my image was taken and put up in a gallery or else where.
I respect Dillon answer. When he is talking about the freedom of people(as being the subject in the photo) for sharing or not sharing their private pictures, he forgot to look at the problem from the artist point of view, which is that they also have a freedom of choice of their subject, and of course, it can be either an object or a person.:)
Who is right the people or photographer?;)
I would be a bit astonished if a picture of me was bigger than life in an art gallery. I'm not sure I would object to the photo, but I would feel very awkward knowing that even in the midst of my most private thoughts, I am being watched. I know that my thoughts are indeed my own, but the photographer is just on the other side of knowing my thoughts; he sees my outside persona, and knows that tehre is something going on in there.
1. Are these images an invasion of privacy? How would you feel if you walked into a gallery and saw a massive image of you that you never know someone had taken?
If it was just any photograph being displayed in public, I would say that this is an invasion of privacy. But to have my picture taken as such a wonderful example of art, it'd be more of an honor than anything else. I would really love to talk to the photographer and learn about how he can make such an innocent plain passerby look so extraordinary.
2. Are these images portraits, in the way you understand portraits are supposed to be?
According to the way I understand portraits, these photographs would definitely count among them. I do not think a portrait has to be well planned out. Art in general itself does not need to be well planned. Sometimes completely spontaneous pieces can turn out to be wondrous works of art as long as they contain the feeling and purpose of the artist. They photos are portraits because they show ordinary people in their rawest form. There are no setups and no poses, but just them in their world and own emotions. These photos show them completely unaware of the outside world and the kind of feelings they have inside are being shown instead of being masked. That is the best kind of portrait an artist can ask for.
3. What do you think Kimmelman means when he says "...enlarged and isolated, their expressions become riddles, intensely melodramatic and strangely touching"?
I think he means that when you enlarge the photograph, all the hidden details the naked eye cant see before emerges. Every little wrinkle, speck or a hint of a smile comes out like it didn't before. The more details you see, the more possibilities there are. Every wrinkle on the face may mean a new stress in their life and etc,. A person's life is so complex that even a photo of just their face may contain endless riddles to a bystander.
1. I feel the photographs are a bit of an invasion of privacy but on a pretty minimal level. If I saw myself in one of these pictures in a gallery, it would definitely surprise me. But for me, it would be somewhat similar to seeing myself on the news in the background. I guess the difference is between not knowing you're being photographed in the background of something and not knowing you're being photographed as the subject. I still wouldn't be upset or anything.
2. Yes, it is a portrait.
3. I think this just means that without the subject meaning to get a reaction out of us, he/she still does.
1) i would have to say that while they are in public, it is still an invation of privacy because they are unaware that their picture is being taken. it is not like they are celebrities and they have an expectaion that people will take their picture while being out in public.
If I went into a gallery and saw a massive picture of myself that i never knew was taken i would first be very surprised and then depending on how good a picture it is of me i would be either flattered, if it was a good photo or upset if it was a bad one.
2) i would say these images are portraits because it is an image that shows what these people look like, it does not have to be anything fancy or even very meaningful. A portrait is a likeness of a person created by an aritis such as painter or photographer, and these are images of the likeness of these people.
3)the expressions become riddles because they are taken out of context when everything but the face is left out of the photo. it is hard to understand why that perosn is making that face, if you cannot see what is going on around them. so because they are taken out of context, you have to make up your own reason and this makes the image more personal to the viewer.
1. It would really depend on the person. If the person is upset with it, the artist should take it down. I know if the artist took one of me, I would probably think back on what I was thinking at the time and if it corresponds to what the picture looks like. Quite honestly I wouldn't not mind at all.
2. They actually could be considered portraits. I think portraits and I think of an autobiography on a canvas. If the photo portrays who you really are, then it's a portrait.
3. You can pretty much analyze every single detail to make your assumption of what the person is thinking or doing. With more detail, your assumption is more accurate.
Post a Comment