I think I’m done shooting for the “Memory Project” (still a working title). Now I need to figure out how everything goes together and try to turn it into a cohesive project. Here’s the last of the shots from earlier this spring:
I've shared these with most of my photo classes whenever Avedon's portraits come up in a slide show:
I've worked out of a series of no's. No to exquisite light, no to apparent compositions, no to the seduction of poses or narrative. And all these no's force me to the "yes." I have a white background. I have the person I'm interested in and the thing that happens between us.
- Richard Avedon, 1994
And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible.
- Richard Avedon, 1970
I made some new images 2 weeks ago. (I'm trying to wrap up the shooting for this current project, and then move more heavily into the editing and sequencing stage.) I still need to pick up the negatives from DigiGraphics.
In the meantime, this Garfield comic from a week ago made me laugh:
If you didn’t know, I’m a college art and design professor. I teach at a few different colleges/universities in the area. I teach mostly photo/design/media classes. But at one of the schools, I also teach a Foundation Color Theory course.
Before we jump right in to color, we first reacquaint ourselves with value. One of our first projects was a 9-step achromatic value scale. One student had some troubles, and on his/her envelope, he/she labeled it like this:
It’s time to take a break from my regularly scheduled posts. Here’s something a little different.
I took my Holga to Mexico a month ago, and I made some pretty photos just for the sake of making pretty photos. Don’t judge me. Here are 4 of them:
This was sent to me by one of my mentors:
At first, it appears that nothing could be easier than seeing. We just point our eyes where we want to go, and gather in whatever there is to see. Nothing could be less in need of explanation. The world is flooded with light, and everything is available to be seen. We can see people, pictures, landscapes, and whatever else we need to see, and with the help of science we can see galaxies, viruses, and the insides of our own bodies. Seeing does not interfere with the world or take anything from it, and it does not hurt or damage anything. Seeing is detached and efficient and rational. Unlike the stomach or the heart, eyes are our own to command: they obey every desire and thought.
Each one of those ideas is completely wrong. The truth is more difficult: seeing is irrational, inconsistent, and undependable. It is immensely troubled, cousin to blindness and sexuality, and caught up in the threads of the unconscious. Our eyes are not ours to command; they roam where they will and then tell us they have only been where we have sent them. No matter how hard we look, we see very little of what we look at. If we imagine the eyes as navigational devices, we do so in order not to come to terms with what seeing really is. Seeing is like hunting and like dreaming, and even like falling in love. It is entangled in passions--jealousy, violence, possessiveness; and it is soaked in an affect--in pleasure and displeasure, and in pain. Ultimately, seeing alters the thing that is seen and transforms the seer. Seeing is metamorphosis not mechanism.
James Elkins, The Object Stares Back
It’s Valentines Day. I have some work for you. Consider it my Valentines to you.
I'll have some new work up shortly. In the meantime, have a good laugh:
Posts
All Comments
Posts
All Comments
© Blogger template 'Minimalist F' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
