pmun
Established
That comes across from your site - some nice work there - simplicity and devotion.
www.urbanpaths.net
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Am I permitted to suggest my own book,
Double Exposures: Essays in Portraiture?
The book aims to question and challenge
presumptions about portraiture, in part by
revisiting some of Sontag's observations
about Diane Arbus in On Photography:
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/770769
Many of you are familiar with my portraits
but the book combines my written essays
with the photographs in an effort to create
a more thoughtful inquiry into portraiture.
Sanders
Double Exposures: Essays in Portraiture?
The book aims to question and challenge
presumptions about portraiture, in part by
revisiting some of Sontag's observations
about Diane Arbus in On Photography:
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/770769
Many of you are familiar with my portraits
but the book combines my written essays
with the photographs in an effort to create
a more thoughtful inquiry into portraiture.
Sanders
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Wow. Congrats on having a book Sanders. The blurb.com site is incredibly slow loading the preview of your book, so do you think you could tell us about your essays? Looks like a fascinating subject.
Chris101
summicronia
Another book, which hasn't been mentioned yet is Refractions by Ralph Gibson.
This thin, but large format book, is a series of essays on various topics that explain the personal philosophy of a photographer (Gibson.) I am pretty sure that Gibson wrote it himself, his philosophy can be murky (he lives part time in Paris) or it can be crisp as is his photography (which is sprinkled liberally throughout his book), depending on the topic.
My favorite is the part on camera handling. It's so basic that one would think that there might not be a philosophy associated with it. And yet ...
This thin, but large format book, is a series of essays on various topics that explain the personal philosophy of a photographer (Gibson.) I am pretty sure that Gibson wrote it himself, his philosophy can be murky (he lives part time in Paris) or it can be crisp as is his photography (which is sprinkled liberally throughout his book), depending on the topic.
My favorite is the part on camera handling. It's so basic that one would think that there might not be a philosophy associated with it. And yet ...
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
The book has about 120 portraits and
35 pages of text. The text is a series
of reflections on the meaning of portraiture
-- not directly connected to the portraits
themselves, but presenting contrapuntal
ideas to the photographs, in an effort to
provoke thought about what one sees
when looking at them.
I haven't seen it yet so I hesitate to mention
it, but View Camera magazine is running
a feature on my book in the new issue due
out on newsstands this month.
pmun
Established
Sanders, contgratulations on the book and credit to you for your hard work. I was wondering how you propose to create a 'thoughtful inquiry into portraiture' when your subject matter is so specific ie naked women?
www.urbanpaths.net
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
P, thanks very much for your congratulations.
Of course the glib answer is: Read the book. I spent
nearly five years on it. It is difficult for me to try to
summarize it fairly here in a few posts and do it justice.
And I never feel at ease with it -- I end up worrying
that the summary sounds trite, or arrogant.
But that said, your remark goes to the very heart of my
work. Why do you presume that a collection of portraits
of naked women is specific, when half the world is women,
and they are all naked for much of their time on earth?
Within those two very broad boundaries, the collection
(to the extent it matters) covers all ages, sizes and colors.
And, more to the point: What is it about the subject of
naked women that you presume to be inconsistent with
a thoughtful inquiry into portraiture?
Last edited:
pmun
Established
Because men are conspicuous by their absence.
As far as can see, it doesn't cover all ages: babies, children and elderly people are excluded.
It's the compartively narrow scope of the subject you've addressed compared to the subject of portraiture which you claim to address; I dont' consider that thoughtful. Nevertheless, I think your approach to photographing naked women is thoughtful resulting in an impressive standard of portrait photography.
www.urbanpaths.net
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
And why does that trouble you?
If I had included only New Yorkers,
would that also trouble you?
What is it about the subject that's
leading you to these remarks?
That's what this book is about.
I do include women into their 70s in this collection,
and in all ages from 18 to 70. I don't cover children
for obvious reasons.
P, I am grateful for your kind compliment. But
I have to ask: Have you actually read the book?
If not, then I don't see how you can justify your
opinion that the work is not "thoughtful" in its
approach to portraiture.
The thesis of the book is that portraiture is an
inherently idiosyncratic exercise, and that the
"meaning" of a portrait is driven not only by the
person portrayed, and the person behind the
camera, but, mostly, by the presumptions the
viewer brings to it. And your remarks have
illustrated my thesis perfectly.
Last edited:
pmun
Established
Not necessarily, because I think New Yorkers are fairly representative (visually) of people generally in terms of ethnicity, sex and age.
Nothing about the subject, it's the inconsistency between your statement and the subject.
It's not that obvious, taking portraits of children is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (with parental/carer permission) unless of course you assume that portraiture is only of naked people.
No, I haven't read the book, I'm not challenging the contents, just the inconsistency stated above. I don't have to justify that opinion, because it's not one I hold. As I said before, ''I think your approach to photographing naked women is thoughtful resulting in an impressive standard of portrait photography''.
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
pmun
Established
Your portraits are striking for their lack of context and you state in the book that ''Portraits rise above their idiosyncrasies only when given some context independent of their subjects''. It follows that your photographs have not risen above their idiosyncrasies and perhaps this is also the reason for (or cause of) the apparent narrow focus of portraiture being only that of naked women.
Furthermore as ''The thesis of the book is that portraiture is an inherently idiosyncratic exercise'' it seems that you have demonstrated that (again according to your own premise) by removing context.
To be clear, I'm not challenging your approach to portraiture, but trying to determine the reason for its comparative narrowness within your stated aim to ''create a more thoughtful inquiry into portraiture''.
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
P, I had not argued that my portraits had or had not risen
above their idiosyncratic nature -- but you misunderstand
me, I think. When I speak of context, I am not referring to
what is visible inside the four corners of the portrait. Rather,
I am speaking of the context in which the viewer experiences
the portrait. A portrait by August Sander, standing alone,
does not tell you much. But a book of portraits by August
Sander, organized according to his purpose of creating a
typology of Germanic people -- now the portraits as a group
assume a larger meaning, beyond the individuals depicted in
them, because of the context in which Sander puts them.
Whether mine assume a larger meaning, within the context
of my book, I leave for you to decide.
pmun
Established
Sanders, thanks for discussing your book with me - a thought provoking work. As you suggest, perhaps I should spend some more time with it before reaching any definite conclusions. I must admit, while I was typing that post, I did wonder if you meant something else by 'context'. Anyway, from what I've seen so far, I think it will sell well. Best of luck with it.
www.urbanpaths.net
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I'm not sure whether "a typology of Germanic people" is the best term for Sander's intention in his portraits; that, most certainly, was not the context in which Sander put them.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I can only go on what little I know of Sander.
Certainly, the effect of Sander's work is to create
a typology. I thought that was his intent, based
on my readings. Here are how one online source
characterizes his work:
"Man of the Twentieth Century was Sander's
monumental, lifelong photographic project to
document the people of his native Westerwald,
near Cologne. Stating that "We know that people
are formed by the light and air, by their inherited
traits, and their actions. We can tell from appearance
the work someone does or does not do; we can read
in his face whether he is happy or troubled," Sander
photographed subjects from all walks of life and
created a typological catalogue of more than six
hundred photographs of the German people."
http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com/02/artphotogallery/texte/sander_text.html
If I have mischaracterized Sander's intent, then I
stand corrected (though I would like to understand
the basis for the correction). But my larger point
remains a fair one. Certainly the effect of Sander's
collection of his portraits into a single work is to give
them a context that illuminates them, in ways that
any one of them does not when standing alone.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
My gripe is more with the idea of a typology of the Germanic people that you mentioned. The word "Germanic" has a very specific meaning, referring to antiquity and to a cluster of ethnolinguistic groups. This kind of reference was very commonly used among nationalists in 19th and early 20th century Germany. If you have a 1920s photographer and you say that he wanted to document something "Germanic" it automatically sounds as if you associate him with right-wing German nationalism of the times, as if he was trying to assert some Germanic essence within his contemporary German society. I don't think this is something Sander can be associated with.
However, I also don't think he started from the idea of a typology, rather from a kind of collective portrait of society. A typology implies a category scheme, but when you look at Antlitz der Zeit there is no strong categorization - it's just a bunch of portraits of various people from a wide range of social stations vaguely put into some kind of order. I also don't think he had much of a particular national interest in the Germans, it was just that he worked in Germany, so he portrayed the society he lived in and was familiar with.
However, I also don't think he started from the idea of a typology, rather from a kind of collective portrait of society. A typology implies a category scheme, but when you look at Antlitz der Zeit there is no strong categorization - it's just a bunch of portraits of various people from a wide range of social stations vaguely put into some kind of order. I also don't think he had much of a particular national interest in the Germans, it was just that he worked in Germany, so he portrayed the society he lived in and was familiar with.
Last edited:
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
All fair criticisms: I stand corrected,
and thank you for the corrections. My
interest lies more in the result than the
intent, and I should have cabined my
remarks to that. Sanders
and thank you for the corrections. My
interest lies more in the result than the
intent, and I should have cabined my
remarks to that. Sanders
Haigh
Gary Haigh
Susan Sontag's book hit me with such force I said to a friend that the current (then ) exhibition was my last. Of course I changed my mind for reasons I won't enumerate here. Time magazine said that one of her words was worth a thousand pictures. Eventually I saw the difference between an intellectual approach to photography and the actual taking of photos over a long period of time. Apologies for sounding obscure. Barthes' book had little impact on me except that I read a beautiful translation of it and that understood very little of it anyway.
AgentX
Well-known
Just re-read Barthes and Sontag; picked up "The Burden of Representation" and "Burning with Desire," both collections of essays on photography and am working my way through.
Lotta reading time with a new baby sitting here.
Lotta reading time with a new baby sitting here.
Saganich
Established
Theory occurs when we start to feel too uncomfortable sitting on a powder keg. It creates a respite from inquiry into basic concepts allowing us to get back to dreaming. Philosophy should keep us on the powder keg by continuing to reveal and question basic assumptions and concepts. The point of philosophy ultimately is to understand the being of our being. I have always thought that photography offered a unique approach towards this since it relies on context rather then removing context as natural science tend to do. I also think that photography and photographs (taken as separate but related phenomenon) cannot be understood alone but as processes and objects we (as being) comport ourselves towards and perceive; that we intentionally do this. Starting with the phenomenon of intentionality leads to multiple inquiries into the nature of photographs and photography. We do photography in order to make a photograph for the sake of ?? We look at photographs in order to ?? for the sake of ??. Answering these fundamental questions tells us something about our being. Understanding something about our being hepls uncover the nature of photography and photographs. Those ?? are not to be mistaken for subjectivity but should uncover further questions about perception and time.