From: Christopher Lovenguth (chrisml@pacbell.net)
Date: 12/31/02-10:48:55 AM Z
While I totally agree with your assessment, I find it also interesting and
reassuring this complaint was even made. What we are looking at when viewing
these plates is TECHNICAL perfection of the medium. It is the same thing
that I find boring about digital work. When technique becomes flawless and
overpowers, you lose uniqueness and imagery. When I first saw reproductions
of Chuck Close plates, I couldn't believe they were really daguerreotypes.
Same thing with Jerry's work, although I find his subject matter a bit more
interesting. Chuck has taken that one step further to boredom. The process
has become the obsession and I think imagery is secondary to Chuck (though
you wouldn't believe this when reading about his work).
This is something I have always known but have decided to really work at
about my work. It is this notion of when technique and process overpowers or
takes over the work and imagery is lost or ignored. It's weird, I have
always been obsessed with trying techniques, but I feel that I have lost my
way with my imagery due to this. I look back at some really early schoolwork
when learning black and white and I find my investigation in imagery during
that period more compelling then what I do now. Granted my early work is
crude, but there is a true sense of exploration, desire and emotion in the
imagery. When I show anyone my work over the last couple years, no one talks
about the most important part: what I'm trying to say. I always seem to be
giving a verbal demo on how to do the "process" instead of invoking
responses of why I did the work. I have realized this is due to technique
suffocating my imagery. I think I have gotten in a cycle of when I fail with
my imagery, I move on to the next hard to learn photographic medium thinking
this will save my work. It's that same pitfall some photographers (me as
well at one point) fall in about equipment, if only they had that certain
camera or light pack, the work would really come across and be successful.
It couldn't be more wrong about both (funny thing is I have always known
this but have been in denial)! I think it's time maybe for me to do some
"straight" black and white work for a while until my images are what people
see and not the process.
Anyway getting back to Chuck and Jerry, I think this might be what has
happened to them. Does their work really need this medium? Or is it a
gimmick to make them standout among other work? Would their images if in a
better-known process like black and white or color print be just as
desirable? I think that is the new standard I'm going to use with my work.
Does my imagery intrigue and provoke viewers just as a "traditional" print?
If not, why would it as a daguerreotype or (insert process here)? I guess I'
m starting to understand that if viewers are gawking at process then one
might as well just throw any imagery up because no one cares what is trying
to be said. I also know from experience in viewing other people's work (and
my own) that when technique is all you've got, your image will not be
remembered tomorrow. I on the other hand (and probably most of you), really
want to be successful at imagery complemented by technique. Now how do I go
about that....
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: ARTHURWG@aol.com [mailto:ARTHURWG@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 1:09 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Chuck Close Daguerreotypes
Just saw the Chuck Close show at Pace Wildenstein here in NYC and can
honestly say it just goes to show what can happen when a wonderful idea/
medium like the Daguerreotype falls into the wrong hands. These pictures
have none of the charm, mystery, expressiveness or beauty of a classic
Dag -- or even most of the other contemporary Dags I've seen. Instead,
they are slick, machine-made parodies of the traditional form.
What's the problem? Perhaps it's the industrial finish of the plates,
which look more like mylar than silver. It probably also has something to
do with the 30,000 watt-seconds of Elinchrome stobes (6 power packs) that
has only worked to kill the portrait subjects. These pictures look more like
they came from a NASA lab then an artist's studio. But my guess is that it
has something to do with Chuck's sensibility, which can't distinguish
between the good, the bad, and the ugly.
There, now I feel better. Arthur
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST