Current webmaster: Shamim Pakzad (shamimp@ce.berkeley.edu).
CS 39J: The Art and Science of Photography is a freshman seminar taught
by Professor Brian A.
Barsky.
Site design by Steven Chan.
| CS 39J > Schedule & Notes > Session 12 Detailed Notes |
http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs39j/fa04/session12.html
19 November 2002
*You have to question what makes a photograph fine art. There are distinctions
between Fine Art photography and Commercial photography. For instance, in Fine
Art photography, you at least need to know what Pre-visualization is to really
be able to say you know anything about photography.
*A photographer’s work is a dialogue he/she has with other photographers
and his/her audience. Photographs are words and sentences that contribute to
a conversation on whatever you’re interested in. But after all the words
and sentences and conversing, in a lifetime, it boils down to one sentence.
A photographer gets to say one sentence through his/her work. Some great photographers
have two, but most just have one.
*Photography is a language and you need to become literate before you can understand the language. You have to learn the ABC’s of photography. Everything has a name, just like in any language. That’s what I teach in my Photo 1 class. I teach at a very unusual, small, well-funded school, so I can basically teach whatever I want. So in the second year, it’s all about: “I’ve got something to say.” Self-expression today is very different from 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. Photo 3 is about contextualizing what you have to say in your time and culture. For example, we are all in a time where we want reality. As Photoshop has become prevalent and we know a picture isn’t necessarily real, we are holding onto reality for dear life. Photo 3 should be relevant to your time, your culture, whereas Photo 2 is all about the artist figuring out what they want to say. The way I split up my curriculum is relevant to any photographer seeking to create Fine Art.
*Photographers all know of each other. Their work is a conversation they’re having. They’re bantering back and forth – holla back!READING A PHOTOGRAPHER’S
*When you look at a photograph, you don’t think “hmm, what does
this photograph say about what the photographer had for dinner or who they voted
for?” but maybe you should think that. You’ve heard that art is
timeless and art can reflect onto the time, but when you see a landscape photograph
and you want to find what the photographer is trying to say, it’s difficult.
The hardest work to see, to read, especially for young people is the genre of
landscape.
*When you look at two photographs, try to figure out if they’re done by two photographers. You have to be trained to read into photographs. You don’t start a little kid who’s learning to read with Faulkner. When you look at these landscapes, they don’t look like they’re necessarily different photographers, but by the end of today, you’ll see that they are drastically different.
*Today, we’re going to look at the landscape photography of three photographers: Edward Weston, Joel Meyerowitz (who became THE photographer of Ground Zero because of where he lived), and Richard Misrach.
*His landscapes are rugged and choppy, and the coloring looks like the photos in 50’s magazines. Weston did the cliffs along the ocean, and one of the canyon pictures.
*Weston was trying not to have subject matter; photography was all about composition and form for him. This was progressive at the time. His photographs try to be beyond the subject matter. For Weston, it’s about the beauty of the tones, the lines, and the composition. This is like the DaDa Movement that was against the rational mind and was intentionally trying to be random. But that movement was in reaction to war and people predictably reacted. Their work wasn’t irrational; it was rational, predictable. It’s like John Lennon’s “I am the Walrus” song. He tried not to have any subject matter, but his song wasn’t without meaning. You can’t get away from yourself, away from your culture. This is why Weston took photographs of things like peppers and seashells, because he was trying not to have subject matter or meaning. By sidelining subject matter, Weston was trying to get people to focus on the beauty of the form, lines, tones, and composition of the photograph.
*Weston also took a picture of a boot. He sees it as rugged. Weston is like the Marlboro man. His sentence has something to do with pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, like a good American. He is very individualistic, emphasizing the icon of the rugged American.
*Weston would have steak for dinner.
*Meyerowitz’s photographs are a commentary on the beauty and serenity
of nature and man’s interaction with her. He seems to be saying the Earth
is beautiful and all is well. There is a sense of harmony and tranquility in
his photographs which implies that nature is beautiful and there for us to enjoy.
*In a photograph of the beach with footprints along the water, Meyerowitz seems to be saying that’s all we leave on nature. In another picture of the columns on a porch with a view, he’s communicating that culture and nature are working together and it’s harmonious. Nature is there for us. All is well. There’s no controversy. In another picture from the porch with a storm outside, Meyerowitz is saying, “when there’s a storm, all you have to do is go inside. It’s all for us, all for our viewing pleasure.”
*In the picture of the black woman with the beauty mark, Meyerowitz is comparing her to a leopard. This is definitely not politically correct, but he is saying that she is exotic like an animal, and like nature, is there for our viewing pleasure, even when it’s threatening.
*Meyerowitz might have salmon for dinner, since they’re there for us
to eat.
*Misrach’s photos seem to emphasize the power of nature and sometimes our power with relation to nature, like in the Texaco photograph. Misrach also did a series on tourists. Misrach seems to have something to say about the impact of man on nature. Misrach also took a photograph of a Nevada Nuclear Testing Site. It’s as if he’s saying, “Look at what we are doing to the earth and she is bleeding.”
*Misrach does not follow conventional rules. In the Testing Site photograph, he puts the horizon very high up which did not follow The Rule of Thirds, which was pretty much unheard of at the time.
*It another photograph, RV’s are lined up in a desert. Misrach is saying that there’s something not quite right about this behavior. In a photograph of Egypt, there’s this juxtaposition of a beautiful past (the pyramids) versus the silliness of how we live today. There’s something unsettling about it. In the photograph of the dead cows, Misrach knows what he’s doing. He says yes to Weston, yes to Meyerowitz, but there’s something else that he wants to say. In another photograph, Misrach shows Playboy photos he found that were used as gun practice. The woman in the magazine cutout has her mouth shot out. Misrach is pointing out that the culture that does this to the animals, to the water, to our environment is the same culture that does this to women… and there’s something very wrong with what we do.
*Misrach, in essence, is looking at Meyerowitz’s work, looking at Weston’s work, and saying “Yes, but.” Misrach is not saying no to the beauty of nature or the ruggedness of Americanism, but he does not have the same beliefs as Meyerowitz or Weston. Misrach is saying we need to honor nature and that there is something about the way we treat our earth that is wrong.
*Misrach might be a vegetarian or drink away his burden with wine.
If you guys are confused, you haven’t been taught. I’m air dropping
you into literature. You need to be taught to read. You can’t just flip
though the pictures. You’ve got to read them.
|
|