Current webmaster: Steven Chan (mr_chan@uclink.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 8 Detailed Notes |
http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs39j/session08.html
14 March 2002
Gale Jesi, a photographer, discusses photography's broad spectrum in terms
of its art and history, and provides some ideas behind the art and styles of
some well-known photographers.
She graduated from UC Berkeley in fine arts in 1990 and did graduate work at
UC Davis. She is currently a teacher in fine art and photography, including
sculpture, at San Francisco University High School. She is very experienced
in studying photography; she says that the more she looks at it, the more depth
and philosophical meaning it has. One question is, "What does it
mean to you to look at a photograph?"
<Henri Cartier-Bresson, 1936 photograph> When you go into a gallery or
museum, what do you look for? One student responds "the year and
setting of a photograph" for historical and cultural relevance.
Part of what Jesi does in teaching is to eradicate myths in art. With
a little education, we can understand subtle aspects that make a photograph
an interesting work of art. There are certain concepts that makes a print
work.
Composition in a photograph is framing, and the arrangement of form.
Another idea is the arrangement of positive and negative space and shape:
the positive space focuses on the object, whereas the negative space is the
background (such as the sky). The extra space surrounding the positive
shape (our subject) is just as important as the subject itself.
We also look for repetition of form, texture, and shape. Cartier-Bresson
was a "purist": He would never crop, and he would always
uese the same photography tools. He used a Leica 35mm camera and most of his
photographs were taken with a 50 mm lens. His philosophy was that if a
photograph was not good then there was no reason to try modify or improve it.
He was known for taking a portrait of motifs. He would go into the room, what
motifs had, that was it. He would not alter the environment. What
Cartier-Bresson is known for is the "decisive moment".
"Decisive moment" is being right there, to see it , and taking the
photograph without having the time to change any settings. What's the
likelihood of taking a photo of this person <Jesi points to photograph>
right then and there?
<new picture: bicyclist riding through a curved road> In this picture,
there's a sense of motion, a "whirling around". Photographers generally
do not want redundancy in their photographs. This picture has a
general shape in the form of a spoke, with a sort of blackened vortex
on the bottom.
One student asks, "Is it really fair to name someone "an artist"
who was merely at the right time and right place?" Jesi replies, "You
need to put on your cultural shades and think about it from the perspective
of that time".
Salgado said at the talk, "If everybody in the room took a picture, it
would only be a couple of seconds' worth of reality." This relates to the
idea of the decisive moment pointing to what photography does.
<new picture: four people walking in front of a cathedral> We're getting
"decisive," but also something else. With the four people, they
are all walking in the same direction, walking with the same step. There's that
repetition of form. You have the verticals on the windows running into the converging
lines on the ground.
Interpreting the people: they look the same, they all act the same, and they
seem to have no sense of individuality. Another student says that this is a
social commentary, perhaps a rat race of sorts. It's like a parallel, transcendental
human life versus the permanent monuments in the background. It's fleeting life
and we're just passing by at the same time.
<new picture: a bus station> You need to know how the photographer works,
how he has limited himself, and many artists want to do this. Prior to
the time of this work, photographers were trying to be taken seriously as artists.
They did not want to be merely technicians taking photographs; they wanted to
raise to an artistic level.
<new picture: Margaret Bourke White's close-up of cables> Again, the
premise of this is that you need to know how these people worked. Bourke White
worked for Fortune magazine. She had lights, large cameras, and all these
resources; she had a different agenda. What would be revolutionary about this?
Here's a good example of positive/negative shape. These shapes are very pronounced
and look very flat as compared to the texture and dimension. Your eye is going
into different directions and they start to wrap around; the dark shapes gives
your eyes rest. The use of depth of field to give a sharp and soft focus.
<new picture: Bourke White's close-up of gears in a factory, with a small
man in the corner> This one is more standard: the Industrial Revolution.
We can interpret this photograph is different ways: One viewpoint:
The man is dwarfed by towering gears, perhaps giving the idea of getting crushed.
Another viewpoint: The little man is controlling such a huge contraption!
Look what man can do!
<new picture: Bourke White: white-clothed people huddling together> How
can this one picture become totally different? Some people get angry with this
picture; others think this is serene. Some think Bourke White was "slime",
while others think she was the master of art and form. Jesi says our group is
polite; she has encountered groups who get emotional and wrapped up in controversial
interpretive disputes. A controversial question: Is this a spontaneous photograph,
or was it posed to mimic religious composition? Did Bourke White bring in props?
If so, would that detract from the artistry of the photograph? This picture,
as well, looks like it was cropped.
Reality enters the picture now. In photography, what happens to that reality?
Even with Salgado's work, many things are selected for the photograph (tones,
paper, camera perspective).
<new picture: Bourke White's "Woman's Eye", Georgia, 1936> This
was taken during the Farm-Security Administration (1935-43). The government
asked photographers to take photographs to send to publications to make the
public aware of the "plight" of victims of the Great Depression.
<new picture: Dorothea Lange, "Migrant Mother", 1936> It was
interesting. Time did a follow-up study. Go, and find these people who
took photography.
<new picture: Paul Strand's old woman> This old woman was different.
What do you think? Paul Strand is seen as the "father" of modernist
photography. He had an entirely different agenda. What were the other photographers
doing? Strand is not trying to get you to sympathize with the old woman. His
"old woman" was meant to emphasize lines, textures, and the artistic.
The other photographers (Lange, Bourke White) took pictures of old women to
try to get people to feel bad, part with their money, for the poor people of
their country.
Photography is free from the document. We don't have to be social workers with
the camera. We're now artists. The photographs are the end in themselves, and
the subject matter can be regarded in terms of its form, not the meaning.
<new picture: wooden window> It's all about the lines, the shape, the
texture. It's not referring to anything. People say, "What is up with this?
It's a picture of a door! I want to see a picture of a guy rowing a boat, doing
something...!"
<new picture: hands on top of hat> The photographer wants to emphasize
the circularity against the rectangle frame; the light hands against the dark
background; the lines of the hands curving.
<new picture: skyscraper: Berenice Abbott: "Exchange", 1930's>
Dynamic dark lines, the rectangle playing against the rectangle, the positive
and negative shape. People didn't understand these kinds of angles and they
wondered "what were we supposed to see in this"? This is very abstracted;
at that time, abstraction in painting was happening. (There was a parallel between
painting and photography.) This building here is the subject matter.
The content is what makes up the subject; it gets into meaning. What's
the meaning of this? The form. The form is the content. You've heard
the expression, "Art for art's sake." It's the base language of art.
<new picture: Edward Weston, picture of what appears to be a bell pepper
or a nude> Edward Weston was one of the best-known modernists. Beauty is
really the god they pray to, praising tones, clarity, and so forth.
<new picture: very abstract>
<new picture: close-up of flower: Imogen Cunningham, Magnolia Blossom
1925>
<new picture: nude: Triangles> Using nudes was typically referred
to as "objectifying the female form."
<new picture>
<picture: Ansel Adams: sky> A large concept happening in photography
is "previsualization." The early photographers were only as
good as what they could visualize ahead of time. It's very deep, the idea
of "I see it beforehand" or "I see it ahead of time."
Ansel Adams developed the concept of zones for tones. He is the master
of previsualization. He would dedicate a lot of time (say, fifteen hours)
to getting a photograph right.
Popularity doesn't get people into Canon. The mass audience, for all we know,
can reduce a photographer to a mere technician.
<picture: mountains>
<picture: forest>
<picture: photo of people walking on the sidewalk: Garry Winogrand: >
Garry Winogrand was the "bad guy of photography". He took pictures
to "see what they look like", which was blasphemy to the previsualizers.
His approach was "can't art have some life into it?", shunning perfectionism,
which he found boring. He died with thousands of rolls of film. He might be
the father of "postmodern" photography.
If art is a conversation, it's a dialogue. That's what we're thinking now.
<picture: Penn State: Winogrand, 1968>
<picture: office building: Winogrand>
<picture: car driver: Winogrand>
What is it about now, if you are taking numerous photographs? (A student mentions
voyeurism. Jesi's view: all photographs are voyeuristic, because we like to
look at things.) If he takes thousands of photographs, and then selectively
chooses which photographs to keep, is it still art? Think in terms of plagirism,
and sampling music, and combining outfits from different times. The implications
of that are phenomenal if you think about it; if I don't think about it ahead
of time, I can select which things (which photographs) I want. It's a
very postmodern idea.
<picture: Robert Frank (4)> Another group of people influenced by each
other. Swiss photographer Robert Frank received a Gugenheim. He received money
to travel throughout the U.S.A. to take photographs depicting American.
But Americans felt like their faces were slapped! What kind of commentary is
this?! Now subject matter can even offend. He took chaotic photographs; to these
folk, it's a slice of life.
<picture: Walker Evans>
<picture: Cindy Sherman>
<picture: woman looking lost, with skyscrapers in the background> Here
are a series of photographs by Cindy Sherman. How can we call this art? If you
notice a controversial photograph, people scratch their heads and question,
"Why is this art?!" We have a photograph of a woman: she looks
young, but scared, perhaps overwhelmed (by male phallic symbols, perhaps, from
a feminist point-of-view).
<picture: housewife> She could be "sexy": she's looking backwards,
curiously, with tussled hair. She appears to be beaten up: she's in a corner,
with a dingy background. Do we know her story? Some of this is cultural. Do
you want to be her? She looks like she's thinking about leaving (she's near
the coatrack, near the door). Will she succeed in leaving? Probably not (the
door is closed, she's still wearing an apron, she hasn't taken a coat). Have
you heard of the "glass ceiling"? Her ceiling looks crumbling and
has scuff marks. She has high aspirations (with pumps). But she's not reaching
for the doorknob. I say she's poor. I say I know her entire life story.
<pictures of other Cindy Shermans>
<picture of Cindy Sherman, in a wealthy setting> We're hoping that the
"slapstick comedy" effect is not art. We're trying to stay focused
(no pun intended). In this picture, she doesn't look happy in her role; she
merely looks like a "trophy wife". There is no "look" unhappy;
there's a constructing happy. She appears stiff, like a statue. Statues are
exotic. She has a black outfit with surrounding white furniture. (Sherman is
a master of light and composition.) Why is she drinking? The ashtrays are empty
(no one is smoking), so they are just there for show. She has no leg to stand
on (she's sitting), so she isn't going anywhere.
<more pictures>
<picture: > Her vision of women gets darker and darker; it's not a pretty
picture. But then, who said "It had to be a pretty picture?" She doesn't
look like a happy housewife here. She doesn't just look unhappy; here, she looks
confined, with pots and pills nearby. There's an empty glass. The pot's
handle could be a threatening phallic symbol pointing right at her; her arm
is like a defense against this. There is an avocado that's simply sitting on
the shelf, and not growing at all. (Side note: Studies of people who are presented
with text and pictures show that in three years, they only recall the pictures,
not the text. Thus, words are abstractions for pictures.)
<more pictures> She has specific "constructs", allowing us to
know about her career, her intellectualism, herself as well. There are very
specific details that change the meaning of things.
|
|