“Almost everyone has their own collection of pictures -the earlier ones may be organized in packets or drawers, some may be in albums, others scattered around in a disorderly fashion but impossible to throw away” (Wells, 2015)

A Question for Seller is a strange project; collecting family images that are sold on eBay, and displaying them along with the response from the seller as to how they had come to acquire the images.

Firstly, it is hard for me to imagine that people would but their own family images up for sale in such a frivolous manner. I understand that images fall into our hands from finds in old houses and sometimes charity shops but the deliberate sale of personal images I doubt.

In the late early 2000’s it was the common cry you heard in the office when unwanted items were talked about “put in on eBay” and we all had watched TV such as Bargain Hunt which leads us to believe that is value in junk.

This leads me to question the meaning and explanation around the collections – particularly if the question was asked before the sale. Could the seller not just invent an interesting meaning to what the images were to raise their value or just promote the sale. Other than accompanying text meaning to the photo’s come from what an individual viewer brings to them – their imagination, personal experiences etc.

As with all “art” of course it value is increased by placing it on a gallery wall, there are many examples of this in the art world Damien Hirst’s infamous sheep and a lot of the work of Andy Warhol – on cynical level her was just recreating what already existed, Brillo-pad Boxes, Campbell Soup tins etc

The course manual directs us to watch a video that is no longer available on YouTube and I can find no alternative links on the student website which is rather disappointing.

I have done a brief search on YouTube for the photographer and have looked at some of his work and watched the interview below.

Not knowing the context of the video the college was pointing us to it is hard to know what they are looking for when they as us to consider the questions below, but as this is art there is no such thing as wrong…

Do you think there is more to this work than aesthetic beauty?

Crewsons’ work is very cinematic in its colour palette, very reminiscent of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986) and the famous painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. So there is a beauty to them but it is certainly not a traditional form of beauty; for while the lighting and colour palette are stunning the subject and pictures as a whole give a sense of unease to the viewer.

How Crewson works is large scale, very much like a movie production – these scenes are staged and planned with many, many assistants involved. In fact, I  doubt that he has the physical capacity or skill to produce these images on his own – he is as a photographer is more akin to a Movie Director or Producer.

Do you think Crewson succeeds in making his work ‘psychological’? What does this mean?

I have no idea what is meant by psychological work – are you saying that they are there to make the viewer think?

I see images that are static, like a diorama, there is no movement everything looks very deliberately posed a lot of the time I can’t see what the photographer is asking me to think about – I more often wonder what was they photographer trying to say what was in his mind.

Many of the images are very dark and as I have said give a sense of unease, but at the same time are very ordinary (to an American audience) scenes.

Crewson himself as said he has enough of the story to bring the viewer in, but there care no answers in the images just questions so perhaps he does make psychological images because the stories the viewers see are from there mind not Crewson’s.

What is your goal when making pictures? Do you think there is anything wrong with making beauty your main goal? Why, or why not?

My main goal when I take a picture is to have something that I like, second is that someone else likes.

I take photographs unlike Crewson who creates them. Mainly a combination of street style and travel photography

I want to capture life, emotion that I see, I not trying to explore my inner self and lay it bare for the world to see in my photographs.

And there of course nothing wrong with setting to capture beauty in a photograph that is why we take certain styles of pictures. However, there is a fine line before this falls into the banal for example when photographers only every photography pretty girls.

This exercise asks us to view the above scene from Goodfellas and analyse what in the film world is called the mise-en-scene.

The scene is where the main protagonist of the film Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) takes his future wife, Karen (Lorraine Bracco)  on a first date to an extremely popular Copacabana Club in early 1960’s Manhattan.

Both our protagonist and his date are both working class people, or so Karen believes, however, the Copacabana Club then was a very high-end venue and the scene is littered with clues to the fact that Henry is far from the ordinary working class person Karen believes him to be.

• He is on first name terms with a seemingly unofficial “valet parking attendant”.
• They are able to skip the line and enter through that back door
• Again first name terms with many of the backroom staff at the club
• Henry tips everyone he comes across in the club – very generously
• Without asking another table is set for them in front of the stage
• There is a general air of respect given to Henry from staff and customers alike – drinks arrive bought by another table almost immediately

These clues show that Henry is a big deal; however, alongside this, the scene is cleverly accompanied by the song, “Then he kissed me” by The Crystals”, which if you listen to the lyrics is a girl describing her experience on a first date – something this scene also depicts. This gives another context to the clues above, Henry is a “big fish” out to make a good first impression.

The lighting and general colouring of the scene, whilst in context with a 60’s night club, also add to romantic setting reds, and dim light and the final reveal of walking into the club from the kitchen is very much reminiscent of a fairy-tale scene of a prince and princess entering a ballroom.

Finally, as the music quietens Karen as asks Henry “What do you do?”, Henry tries to avoid the question by pretending he can’t hear, but Karen presses, slightly uncomfortably he says “I’m in construction”, after being pressed that he that he doesn’t have the hands of a construction worker, he replies he’s a union rep. Again this is a clue that he’s not a construction union rep, but something in the criminal world but he is trying to keep that from his date to keep up the good first impression.

I have to admit I have been an admirer of this scene since a first saw it at the pictures back in 1990. In three minutes, Scorsese perfectly summarises Henry: A worldly, dynamic, resolute and determined man. Who will take shortcuts and spend some money to achieve his goal and get ahead of someone else. Someone who believes he can buy anything. Although, how he enters the club is not glamorous, the result is. This entrance is a metaphor of his career, entering through the side entrance to arrive at the top.

This is Barthes last book and was written shortly after his mother’s death. The Book is about what makes a photograph memorable, but it also Barthes processing the grief for his mother through trying to understand which picture can truly represent her.

Barthes starts by discussing why photographic portraits never seem right to the subject. He sees this as being a result of the four different narratives that take place when someone takes a photograph of someone else:

• They are the person the subject thinks he is,
• the person the photographer thinks the subject is,
• the person the subject wants other people to think he is, and
• the person the photographer uses to make his art.

(Barthes, 1982, 13)

The combination of these four and the subject’s mismatched idea of how his own true character should be represented (as opposed to how others see him) leads to a disconnect that the subject (universally?) finds it difficult to bridge.

Barthes then moves onto what is the core the book what makes an image memorable. Barthes states what makes an appealing image, one we like, is based on the Studium – a combination of attractive composition and subject, alongside the meanings and history surrounding it that we take for granted. There are many images that have the Studium – we like them but they don’t stay in our memories afterwards. The hook for a future recall is the Punctum – that detail which separates the everyday image from the memorable one. He suggests that a Punctum is a personal reaction to an image; what makes a specific image resonate for one individual might have no meaning at all to another. The second may see something else as the Punctum, or indeed not register one at all. Not all images have a Punctum.

The book then goes on his search for a likeness of his mother that he recognises as showing who she really was, and how, eventually he finds it in an old photo of her as a five year old child. He defines the photo as displaying her true personality, rather than the stilted poses which most photo portraits are.

The book also goes into detail about why Barthes feels that a photo is a dead moment – gone forever – but always there as a record that is we know that the people in the image were gathered at that location on that day [in the past]. Although, this particular notion may not be a relivant these days with image manipulation technology we have at our fingertips.

Continuing, rather morbidly Barthes expresses that photos can represent Death – both those of the people in the photos, but also himself (and therefore us a reader). They are a doorway to the past, and at the same time, an indication of what will happen in the future, i.e. everybody dies. This is not something I really agree with or understand just because we freeze a moment it doesn’t really foretell death. Perhaps they was written as a way of processing grief it has coloured his thoughts?

Finally, he talks about the difference between Looking and Seeing, with the latter being unconcentrated and subliminal, whereas the former is active and meaningful a concept that John Berger covered in the Way of Seeing.

For me the essence I will take from this book is Studium and Puctum as these are elements that our photography must have in the correct portion and his opinions on why we don’t like our own photo’s finallt , help me understand why I don’t like images of myself – always thought it was because I thought I looked like my Grandma.

I choose to move on from the death aspect – it is not a concept that I can understand or envisage. Because for me a photograph represents life, my mum passed away 18 months ago and whilst she will never leave my memory and “photo on the mantlepiece” go along way to keep my memories fresh. It doesn’t remind me that she has gone nor did I think when too it she will die one day.

Example of how to read an image

The course notes point us to OCA tutors Sharon Boothroyds 500 word interpretation of Jeff Wall’s Insomnia.

This is an inciteful read, as gives a practical demonstration of what we should be looking for in our upcoming assignment. In a concise 500 words, she covers the formal Denotation and personal connotations of the image – even from her point of view being able to add her personal experience of insomnia. Also tying and explaining Shakespeare use of insomnia as a plot devise to explain other mental issues. The 500 words also adds a context to the artist work in the larger art universe.

This is just as effective as the Arbus essay in the previous post and also points that whole books can be written about similar images.

My take away from she is to structure of description in formal manner things back to recognised and referencable sources, just like did for IFC.

Beneath the Surface

References

Boothroyd, S. (2012). Beneath the surface. [online] #weareoca. Available at: https://weareoca.com/subject/photography/beneath-the-surface/ [Accessed 19 Oct. 2018].

Read and reflect upon the chapter on Diane Arbus in Singular Images: Essays on Remarkable Photographs by Sophie Howarth (2005, London: Tate Publishing).

This essay begins with the statement:

 ‘The fictions we make about photographs are as unreliable as they are unavoidable’.

This is a very telling statement and it applies to all art, not just photographs. They are in the hands of those who interpret it.

A Young Brooklyn Family Going for a Sunday Outing, N.Y.C., 1966. © Diane Arbus

Jobey writes an eleven-page essay about this image asking leading questions based upon her preconceptions about the family depicted in the show and from the brief description that the photographer gave to it.

We can never fully know what is happening with the subjects a photograph because we can not see inside the subject’s mind, even as a photographer we can always fully know because you can only go upon what the subject tells us.

What a person writes about or how the viewer interprets a photograph says as much about the writer/viewer as it does about the photograph itself. I could be cynical because that there is ow such thing as wrong in art and write anything, but I’m not that cynical. I was before I undertook the Introduction to Film Culture course there I learnt how to interpret and now I see metaphors in TV programs and film that I didn’t see before.

References

Howarth, S. (2005) Singular Images: Essays on Remarkable Photographs. London: Tate Publishing

Rip out an advertising image from a newspaper supplement and circle and write on as many parts of the image as you can. Comment on what it is, what it says about the product and why you think it’s there.

Breitling Watches circa mid-2010’s

When we view the see a composite image in portrait format designed to fit on a signal page of a magazine. This is an advert for Breitling watch which is designed with and co-branded with Bentley cars and it features prominently the watch, and a portrait of a man and a car. The image in 2 half the up half features the photographic elements and the lower half fades to black and features the text and the product shot.

The background of the advert shot of a black Bentley car, on what looks like an airfield, mountains and a dark stormy sky, the horizon of which runs along the upper horizontal third. The overall look for this is dark as if shot in the blue hour on an overcast day.

The portrait is of David Beckman ex England football captain and celebrity, who is dressed in a smart dark suit, and the advertised watch adopting a strong pose, how he holds hand and the in combination with the suit it is very reminiscent of James Bond. It is of larger proportions to the background image and is placed to the left in the upper two-thirds of the image.

The dark tarmac of the airfield the car is on fades fully to black in the lower section of the picture in the lower right third a product show of the advertised watch is placed, unusually it in it side you would expect to upright, but it is mirroring how it position on Beckman’s wrist, although the watch hands are in the classic 10 past 10 position.

To the right of the watch is a paragraph outlining the watch in a clear Arial style font, all the text on the image is in this font except for the Breitling name.

The image makes good use of the rule of thirds and triangles in its composition, the 3 main elements are in a triangle and the viewers constantly circles around that triangle; from portrait, to watch to car.

The overall feel of the image is dark moody and mysterious, as I have mentioned above very James Bond – esque. And is clearly aimed at a male audience. This image exhibits heteronormative stereotypes to signify power and strength; The strong male gentleman, however, the subtle inclusion of the visible tattoo and a little danger to the male figure. The stormy weather also signifies power.

The headline of the advert is “The Essence of Britain” and the image exhibits those British Stereotypes, the gentleman in a suit, the use of a football star car and the even the dark potentially rainy weather that signify Britishness.

There is an overwhelming feeling of manipulation about the image. Bentley (and to some extent Breitling) is a brand that doesn’t require advertisement they are not an impulse purchase as are high-end watches. However, in the modern world watches are increasingly becoming obsolete as a person sole method of having a personal time telling device – we all carry a smartphone for that.

Therefore what Breitling are doing with this advert is to make this watch an impulse purchase by associating it with class. When the advert is broken down the advert is not selling the watch is it is selling class. Something that is unable to be bought. They are selling the illusion that this one item brings you into a different realm.

For the British market Breitling and it adverting executives have put forward a perfect combination with the working class hero (David Beckham) being presented as the ultimate British Hero (James Bond), diving a car that many many footballers dive. And the connecting item to all these is Breitling watch – which is much more affordable to the viewer than the car. They are hoping the viewer will fall for the illusion that a GBP2000 watch is a gateway to class and sophistication.

There are three subjects in the image, the main human subject is placed squarely in the centre with the others flanking her on the vertical third lines, however, the main protagonist in this image is the Chihuahuas in a hat. The image makes clear use of the rule of thirds, the vertical we have mentioned plus the shallow depth of field isolates the subjects from both the foreground and background.

Erwitt has placed the three subject at the base of the picture, creating a horizon which he has built the image. The chihuahua is the only character of whom we can see a face and it is staring at the camera, this reinforces its status of the main protagonist over its human companion.

The other subjects remain anonymous to the viewer. It is as if we are looking at the scene as the chihuahua would see it. Everything and everyone is huge and intimidating, the chihuahua has a forlorn look. In his use of this low viewpoint, Erwitt produces a  punctum, that is it is not immediately obvious that the legs on the left belong to another (very large) dog, not a human. One of the key features of why this image is so striking.

One interpretation of the picture is that expresses power and dominance. The size difference of the subjects does not leave any doubt about the position of each in that game of power. The leash that holds the chihuahua contributes to the political message, as does the apparent lack of leash on the bigger dog, establishing a relation of dependence or slavery between the small dog and the powerful and anonymous legs. The chihuahua has been stripped of its dignity and forced to wear ridiculous clothes as if it did not have a will. Whereas to the little dog has no leash, it is out of sight, he appears free a collaborator. Together the connection to Nazism of the leather boots frames the power and dominance expressed by the images into a metaphor for the persecution of the Jewish people in World War II Europe.

A further interpretation is to personify the subjects in the picture as a family unit; although two of them are animals. The punctum created by the low angle crop makes difficult to perceive the difference between the human legs and the animal legs. We tend to assume that the booted legs belong to a woman, the confusion pushes the viewer to assign the role of the husband to the big dog. Leaving the small dog as the child. This can then be a metaphor for how pets and be stand-in for absences within a person’s life – husband, wife or child.

The objective of any picture is to be seen and photography, like cinema, is a visual language that has its own vocabulary and grammar.

The technical aspects involved in photography: focal length of lens, aperture, shutter speed, implies a series of limitations that have direct influence in the physical look of the picture: depth of field, bokeh, noise, etc. All this is the vocabulary of photography that the photographer has to use, with the same dexterity as an author uses a pen, when we wants to produce a picture.

The rules of composition, colour theories etc are the grammar rules of photography; the photographer has to compose their scene following (or breaking them) these basic principles in order to ensure that the content of their picture works as intended.

The photographer behind the camera takes the picture, capturing the moment, capturing reality. They then present it so as a faithful representation of what the photographer saw or thought about the scene. By processing the images either digitally or in the darkroom, the photographer is adding their subjective interpretation of the reality.

Viewing the picture the viewer will react to it depending on their own perspective and cultural background. No matter what the photographer’s original message or point of view was authorial control is lost by the photographer to the viewer. The view my see what the photographer sees, they may see something wildly different.

All photographic genres, be it photojournalism, fashion, abstract, nudes, this relationship always exists, between the reality, the photographer, and the viewer. Each genre of photography has its own rules and looks to convey their messages just as each genre of cinema has. In photojournalism, the intention of the photographer is to present the facts as they happened i.e. ‘warts and all” whereas in commercial photography (practically product photography) tries to hid the true nature of it subject by using a series of complex method to show things at it absolute best.

There it is practically impossible for any photograph not to used as a means of expression or communication – there are times when what the photographer is trying to convey is not obvious or even downright obscure but just because we cannot see it does mean it not there. I used the analogy of an author earlier. The vocabulary and grammar of photography give the photographer the tools to compose a photograph just actual words and grammar rules gave/give Shakespeare and Dan Brown the tools to write a book.

Both of these authors are considered brilliant – not normally by the same people…

For this exercise, we are asked to go to Nigel Shafran’s website and look at his series Washing-up as well as his other work.  Shafran’s Washing-up project can be seen here.  The course book talks about the captions that accompany the images in this series, Shafran’s website is royally useless as it does not contain the caption, which are really fundamental to understanding the work – or they are in my opinion. I have done some searching and I have found 3 images with a caption that I have created into a gallery here for casual viewers to understand, although I suspect the assessors and my tutor know this work like the back of their hands.

Did it surprise you that this was taken by a man? Why?

It’s a cultural perception that many of us have grown up with – that men don’t do housework, that cooking and dishes are women’s work. This was never the case in the household I grew up in, nor when I lived in a domestic partnership and as I am now living alone it would be downright impossible as I would just end up living in squalor if I didn’t do these things . Unfortunately there are many household the world over where this perception is still very much alive and well. So does this image surprise me that it authored by a man? No, but not because I have grown up doing the washing up but because it a very male thing to the do record what they do. When I read the captions I see that they possible taken buy man who suddenly found himself in the more domestic of the role in a household and decided to record it.

In your opinion does gender contribute to the creation of an image?

Of course. Men and women see things differently and even if they both photograph the same subject, the end result would look completely different as a result of their different points of view and perceptions. This does challenge feminism in some way but that not the intent. In general, men photographers are more reluctant to show their own image in their pictures – I know I am. Is this motivated by the influence of Western Culture, where the female figure is notoriously more represented in art than the male body? “active looking has been accorded to the male spectator ‘Woman’ becomes the object of his gaze.” (Wells, p.326). This no doubt must influence male photographer, who are influenced old stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity. In my last module Introduction to Film Culture I read a lot about gender and gender representation – what I too form that is that sex is binary, the gender traits we portray are and should be more fluid due to the influences on us from our environment and the modern world is happening more. Shafran’s work echoes to me of a modern man starting to go through this process – he is becoming more domestic but still wants to retain the tradition male matter of fact-ness.

What does this series achieve by not including people?

A mystery created in this series by not featuring people. Even without referring to the captions ( which I feel really are needed for to understand the piece) I am intrigued by the ever-changing scenario around the sink; the variation from natural light to fluorescent or tungsten leaves little clues as to the time of day and therefore meals the washing up is from.

The captions like “16th March 2000. 1.30pm Second photograph of the day. Breakfast crumpets and tea [mine with cottage cheese and honey, Ruth’s with Marmite with Jose and Claudio who I think washed-up]” add a different dimension.  Yes, we are given a description of the meal that we can wonder about, but the caption are so matter-of-fact you know they are from a male. Therefore, you start to wonder why on earth is he taking pictures of a sink. I wish this was my project, I really do.

 Do you regard them as interesting ‘still life’ compositions?

Why not? The images are full of detail they fit well together as a set there is a repetition about them, however, each image gives a little more information on the subject. Within some of the pictues, there are elements that raise questions the “N” & “R” behind the taps does that relate to the artist and his wife, the paintbrush. Also, the sink and location changes did they move house? I said above I wish these was my assignmemt

References

Nigelshafran.com. (n.d.). Washing-up 2000 [2000] : Nigel Shafran. [online] Available at: http://nigelshafran.com/category/washing-up-2000-2000/page/13/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].

weareoca. (n.d.). Still Life with Nigel Shafran – #weareoca. [online] Available at: https://weareoca.com/subject/photography/still-life-with-nigel-shafran/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].

Wells, L. (2015). Photography: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.