Reading #8

Just being very honest, I did not enjoy this reading of what "photographers wish they had learned in school" at all.

This cliche list of "I wish I could have. . ." loses its point when it gets to number 7: "you don't have to be perfect". That's right. No one will ever be perfect. As this article mentions in the beginning, we learn a lesson "the hard way" and, in my opinion, that is the ONLY way to learn anything. Learning what's on this list while still being a student will surely help me, but it won't make me a more prepared photographer at the age of 22.
I just like to cherish and focus on what's given today. As long as I make best of what I can do today, I will have no such regret like "what I wish I learned in the past. . ."

Lastly, if the very last quote of this article, "I wish somebody had told me that I would spend 95% of my time doing office tasks and only 5% of my time actually taking and processing photographs", is true, I won't become a photographer.  

Reading #6

John Szarkowski teach us very important ways of understanding photographs and photography. I underlined a few interesting phrases from this reading.

“The subject and the picture were not the same thing, although they would afterwards seem so.”

- I feel like “photography = reality” is the most misunderstood concept of photography. Even so-called documentary photographs are just as interpretive as paintings or any other visual art. In fact, it surprisingly distorts reality so much. By freezing one moment on a piece of paper (or on a screen), it completely ignores the context of what happened in reality.

“The decline of narrative painting in the past century has been ascribed in large part of the rise of photography, which “relieved” the painter of the necessity of story telling.”

- It is always interesting to see how photography has changed the way we look at the world. Just anything “visual” has changed because of photography. Did photography really get rid of painters’ burden? Is photography a big influence on abstract paintings?      

“ . . . the decisive moment, but the phrase has been misunderstood; the thing that happens at the decisive moment is not a dramatic climax, but a visual one. The result is not a story but a picture.”

- This well-known term “the decisive moment” is still quite vague to me.  However, reading Szarkowski, I can understand that the result is really just the photograph, not a story. I remember the guest photographer we had a few weeks ago, David Farmerie was very focused on having a story in photographs. Does a photograph tell you a story, or is it just a photograph? 

Interviewing a great photographer/artist - Lindsay Thompson!

Tell me about your background briefly.

- I was born in reading, Pennsylvania, lived there my whole life, and never moved anywhere. I am the youngest out of four, so I feel a lot of my life has been based off what they did. I got into sports because they did; I got into the same music as they did. They were definitely a big influence. I played soccer for a while, also was mostly interested in swimming and water polo. I was definitely not an artsy kid but more of a student athlete.

What made you come to an art school, and why photography?

- I always wanted to be a fashion designer, since I was in third grade or so; I was always doodling little dresses, giving them to my friends and thinking I was cool for it. After a while, I never became something to focus on, but it was my junior year when I realized I needed to actually do something progressive, so I finally took art classes, which helped me building my portfolio. I became friends with those kids in art and really got into it. I applied to four different schools, and Tyler School of Art was the only art school. I wasn’t actually allowed to go to an art school in itself, for example, if Tyler was still located in Elkins Park, I probably wouldn’t have been able to come, because I had to go somewhere connected with an actual college in order to get a broader education. It was between Temple University and Penn State. Nobody wanted me to go to Temple, but encouraged me to go to Penn State, but I ignored them and decided to go to Temple anyway. I was thinking about majoring in fibers or graphic design. Then I was sucked into the vortex of the jewelry department for a little. In jewelry, the people were great, but I realized it wasn’t really for me. I realized I wanted to major in something that involved more life experiences, rather than playing a mad scientist in a secluded studio. I wanted life experiences along with making art. At that time, I was also taking photography classes, and one graduate student in photo department, Amy Harbilas, encouraged me to stick around photo. Next semester, I had Mark Winicov for photo 2. By sophomore year, people and professors gave me a great impression and made me realize how great this department is.

What inspired you? Who are some of your favorite artists?

- I'm not really sure what inspires me. I think that's more of an unexplainable internal thing. But, I can say that I am drawn to color, light, back lighting, and experimenting. Also, I can say that being here in this environment with all these people who I see work hard everyday really pushes me and my desire to be successful. It’s not anything competitive, but more so that we are all pushing each other to our limits and it’s great. My favorite artist may be Cy Twombly. I first heard about him in high school when I had to write a research paper. I only wrote a paper on modern art, because I just did not understand nor like it very much, but, after writing a paper, it changed my mind. I learned that, in order to get an appreciation of something, I needed to really research and study them. I can’t choose one favorite photographers; there are so many. I really love Gerhard Richter, Irving Penn, and Sally Mann.

Tell me about your work!

- I started to make works with intent, outside of assignments around last spring. In Advanced Photo Workshop, everything was very abstract, full of layers, levels of lights and medias. I added paint or photograms on top of the work to push how much I could abstract it. After all, I did love the final result, but at the time, I hated the project. Each layer was like pulling teeth and I felt like I was at that mad scientist in the studio by myself; I was getting away from what I really enjoyed about photography and spending too much time in the dark. It was too secluded for my taste, but the abstraction has led to things that I enjoy working on now, painting on people. I believe working with one other person can make a big difference on how I enjoy what I'm doing. Another project I did was using light to illuminate important areas in photographs. I went outside when it was dark, kept the shutter on 30 second exposure or so and used a hand held flash to select what I wanted to brighten. This project was more of an experience along with experimentation and I had a friend with me for protection and to press the shutter, so I wasn't alone again.

What do you believe in strongly? Any ideas, philosophy, thoughts and more?

-  One thing that I truly believe in is that I have been extremely lucky in how my life has played out. Many people don’t seem to realize how fortunate they are and things are too often taken for granted. I believe that I can't continue living so fortunately while others do not get the same opportunity from the start. I also think living in North Philly has made me grow up and see real struggle, which, to be honest, has made me cynical about a lot of things, but I do not want to just forget about my ultimate desire to help. I also strongly believe, as tacky as it sounds, that there is more to life than just what we experience on this earth. There would be no point to higher thoughts, to music, art even love. There has to be a point to the emotions, relationships and feelings we make and it has to relate to something other than this very short amount of time that we are given. Finally, I believe that one shouldn’t get angry at small things, also that there is no reason to suspect the worst in people. Why waste emotion and time by being angry with someone? When you know in a matter of hours, you will forgive them and move on and forget about that tiff completely.

Reading #5 - three artists

Ocean Beach _ Douglas Ljungkvist

Based on what I see, Ljungkvist took photographs in beach towns during winter time, when the town is basically "dead" and abandoned. Even though, the subject matter may be something depressing, he interprets it into fantasy. His clever use of composition and color transforms the emptiness into a mystery, and makes me wonder around the unique space. I really enjoy his exploration and ways of seeing this Ocean Beach.  

Washed Up_Caitlin Teal Price

 Price's observation is voyeuristic and creepy in one way, but her use of color and pattern makes her images visually fascinating. Color and placement of their garments, blankets, and objects work together, and, as a viewer, observing "who is owning what" is interesting.

 Art Fare _ Andy Freeberg

I really enjoyed Freeberg's humorous way of seeing the behind the scene at museums and galleries. Such places are considered to be rather sophisticated, classy, and perfect, but in order to put together a successful exhibition, the process is so humanistic. People are on their phones, they touch the paintings, and they sit around the sculptures. The irony that happens at the specific space is very funny.

His other series, Guardians, are also humorous in a way that the guardians become part of the works that surround them. I really enjoy Freeberg's sense of humor and ability to capture irony in certain situations.

Response #4 to Ways of Seeing

This video definitely had me think about how images affect the world, and beyond that, how photography changed the world entirely.

Like, John Berger explains in the videos, oil painting used to be in the place of color photography, but it functioned differently. Paintings depicted reality, but photographs create a virtual reality. Even if paintings did create a virtual reality, it'd most likely be abstract. Paintings are only owned by the rich and seen in museums. Photographs are owned by everyone and seen everywhere. We consume images everyday. This kind of accessibility to images changed our ways of living, not just seeing. Without visiting the Pyramids, you exactly know what they look like. Without being rich, you can imagine carrying a Louis Vuitton hand bag. The whole perspective of how we live is completely change with photography.

Today, it has taken even further with use of internet and social media. Images are produced and consumed more than ever, the new reality is becoming bigger and bigger. We are, in a way, more knowledgeable, because we are educated by endless amount of images, but at the same time, we are not at all knowledgeable, because we are ONLY learning through this virtual reality, not actual. I am not sure how we interact with the world will change in ten, twenty years, but it is true that photographs have changed the world pretty suddenly, and they are still changing it.

Reading #3 Response

The critique handbook was humorous in a way that it truthfully tells us how "critique" is like in art school, but, at the same time, that truthfulness made me feel a bit uncomfortable and awkward. Her description on "critiques" are very detailed. The atmosphere of the room, attitude of the students, ways of talking. . . It is nice to learn how to understand and appreciate art at a more educated level, but I feel like, that kind of specific directions really limits art to what it's "supposed to be." I have mentioned in our class multiple times that art shouldn't get analyzed, but rather, it should be enjoyed. I feel like art schools or books like this drive students into how to become smart and clever, but I am not sure if their "love" toward art is any sincere.

On the other hand, I wonder, if my thought on "No Smart Art" is too naive. Is it possible to appreciate art just by pure emotional reaction? Maybe, being "smart" is somewhat necessary. For example, I really love Nan Goldin's works, but, honestly, my first reaction to her works 3 years ago was like, "What the hell! These can't be good photographs!" If I didn't read more about her or didn't take an art history class, I may still not like her works. In this case, my theory of "let's just enjoy art" doesn't exactly work out.

Honestly, I am always kind of scared to make a big statement, because I'd hate to be paradoxical. I still do think that art is something to be enjoyed, not smartly analyzed, but education is certainly needed too. So, how do I become an educated artist, not a smart asshole?

Reading #2 response

I have mixed feelings about interpreting art. Interpreting is a great part of enjoying art, in fact, it is almost an immediate reaction you have when looking at art. You look at it, you interpret it. Interpreting doesn't necessarily mean trying to understand what the artist exactly meant to do. You can really take it anyway you want, and this is one of the best concepts of art; art is for "everyone."

However, sometimes, the idea of interpreting really takes the viewers away from enjoying art, and promotes artists to create "smart art." Past years in Tyler, I have noticed how many students were basically trained to be "conceptual." Of course, it is very important to be conceptual and thoughtful through the works you make, but many people get stuck in the idea of being "conceptual" and, as a result, art is about analyzing the concept, rather than enjoying the beauty of it. Interpretation should be followed by art, but it became the other way around - art supports the interpretation.

It is difficult for me to say that interpreting art is bad. I mean, it is necessary and important. I think we should find a balance in what is interpreting and what is "over-analyzing", so art doesn't become all about being smart. So, how we find a good balance between intelligence and emotion?

Response to Reading #1

This article mainly had me think about what "freedom" did to art and the artists. Since Dadaism declared that basically anything can be art, the meaning of art became a lot more ambiguous. As this article says, if one calls something an "art", it is art. Of course, there have been some positive side of this movement, where art wasn't so much about just aesthetic; it had to be conceptual. It is actually a quite pleasant experience to enjoy art in an unexpected ways.

Sadly, however, it seems like this "artistic freedom" made young artists lazy. They focus on the result, but not really on the process. Once they have a vision of something, how they approach it isn't very important. They spend more time sitting around thinking about their art, rather than physically practicing their skill and craftsmanship. Therefore, art became very self-centered and abstract where viewers have no room to enjoy art. 

As current art students, we do have to think about where art is going. Art is something that brings out viewers' emotion and have them look back on themselves. This connection or "linkage" between the artists and audiences must happen. And I believe a sophisticated art work comes from the artists' honest emotion, experienced skill, and thoughtful concept; it doesn't come for just being clever. When no experimental arts are shocking anymore, I think it's about time for us to go back to basic. We have to think about what the medium really does and we have to meditate through practicing the skill with patience. It's now our homework to find out how to make this "back to basic" idea contemporary.