Sunday, 31 May 2015
Monday, 13 April 2015
I
remember, as a kid, comparing my family's home and yard to
those of my schoolmates and neighbours – wondering about things
like how our house compared to our neighbours
or how we might be perceived to others. Our house was a nice example
of a villa, but the front yard was hidden behind a large brown fence
that had seen better days, covered in creeper with rocks lining the
bottom of it facing the footpath. An old weeping willow in the yard
sagged over the fence in one corner. Around the back of the house a
thicket of bamboo backed on to our neigbour's section. The whole
thing was effective at keeping people from looking in too closely,
but it was far from the suburban picket-fence ideal. Eventually
things changed – the bamboo came out first, and later the fence was
replaced with a much nicer (to my eyes) white version.
Our neigbours properties were slightly
different to the norm. The elderly lady who lived next to us had a
brick house where she'd probably lived for much of her life. The
windows were barred to prevent unlawful entry and it felt like a kind
of fear hung over the place. Now, in retrospect it seems entirely
reasonable that someone living alone at that age would want to feel
protected and be surrounded by familiar old things, but its effect
then was that of a strange unease. In complete contrast to it, the
section across the road from it was owned by one
of Auckland most wealthy residents – a huge piece of land with what
seemed me to be a mansion-like house further down a long driveway.
The place was shrouded in mystery as the house was barely visible
behind acres of well-manicured lawns and a stately entrance-way.
Such memories came to mind as I looked
at the work of photographer Gregory Conniff. His photographs from the
late '70s and early '80s could be associated with the work from the
New Topographics exhibition, but where much of the photography from
that show examined the increasingly faceless industrialization of
architectural design, or the particularly American vernacular of the
suburb, this work is more of a nod towards the simple domestic
backyard decisions we make to define the boundaries of our properties
– the set of familiar patterns and ornaments surrounding our homes
that we adhere to as an unwritten rule. The pictures he makes are
structured so that no one element asserts priority and the photos
have a shared commonality with the work of Lee Friedlander – and as
such, an acknowledgment that the social landscape is a slightly
chaotic place governed by societal rules and design choices that have
been so ingrained that we barely think of them at all.
The photos offer many familiar
recurring motifs. Fences of the chain-link, picket or pale variety
collide with each other or overlap large sections of the frame,
obscuring the view and breaking up the picture plane. Clothes lines,
a volleyball net and power lines criss-cross through the scene and
play little visual games with harsh shadows from barren tree
branches. Boundaries between properties are blurred by overhanging
trees and unkempt hedges. Occasionally nature dominates the frame
almost completely and we peer through tangles of branches and leaves
that cast deep shadows on to side walls and dark windows.
We construct our houses, gardens and
fences from these same natural elements, molded into a sense of order
that we accept as a common visual language. To add further emphasis:
these are black and white photographs; colour images would deflect
attention away from this point. Other artists have worked in similar
territory in colour successfully. In some of her '70s conceptual
triptychs, Jan Groover photographed well-maintained suburban houses with gardens. Joel Meyerowitz famously worked in the small town
of Provincetown, in Cape Cod. Edward Hopper painted houses similar to
those shown in Conniff's photos. For each of those artists – even
including Groover's more austere conceptualism, colour provides an
additional psychological dimension. There is loneliness and
melancholy in the cool rooms lit by warm shafts of light in Hopper's
paintings. Colour was essential to Meyerowitz's photographs, and
Groover was exploring the formal language of photography, something
that colour is an intrinsic part of, but rarely recognised in fine
art until the 1970s. Conniff's photos are about tonality as much as
their subject matter, and they allow each of their elements equal
say. Questions about house paint colours and seasonal variations in
foliage are cast aside. We are left to address the common
fundamentals of nature that bind us together as a community.
Conniff is represented by the Joseph
Bellows Gallery, who also represent Wayne Gudmundson, who offers an
interesting counterpoint to Conniff's work.
Gudmundson too, is interested in the
marks we make on the landscape, but his landscape is that of the
developed countryside. Houses are sparsely laid-out, and function
dictates form more often than in those of the urban environment. His
landscapes are flat, featureless, and where trees are planted, the
feeling is that they have been placed there for a specific functional
purpose – to provide shelter, or to outline to boundary of a
property. The land is vast and the horizons are deep. Agricultural
fields and grasslands dominate the scene, interrupted by tire tracks,
plowed fields, or roughly-cast roads with ragged edges.
There is a tradition of romanticising
the countryside and photographers joke about barn photos being
clichés, but the idyllic country landscape has a long history in
painting – such as that commonly seen in the works of John
Constable. This is the language of the picturesque, incorporating
elements of the rustic, and connecting the two elements most commonly
seen in this style of painting – that of harmonious beauty and that
of the sublime -- further mixed with the weathered grit of everyday man-made
life. In Constable's paintings, nature asserts dominance over man and
tall trees often tower over scenes of rural domesticity. There is still the sense of vastness commonly associated with the Romantic
painters, but he took it in a new direction, and concentrated more on
everyday life. He saw beauty in a rural fence or simple farmyard
scene. As with many new concepts widely recognised, this eventually
fell into the realm of the cliché, where it finally eventually ended
up as a basic signpost for a feeling, devoid of any original meaning
or intent. This translated into the world of photography – the
charm of the “Old Barn” and its modern-day, dystopian version
which typically manifests itself in the urban decay of the city or
the neglected corporate/industrial facade of a failed enterprise.
Gudmundson avoids these traps however,
which is no mean feat considering that the countryside isn't usually
a hot-topic for contemporary art. The simple building facades and
flat plains in these pictures speak more of a kind of minimalism than
a rustic charm. The landscape is pared back to its essentials while
still offering productivity. Buildings have empty facades or no
apparent windows; they're simple shells for their function. Industry
is present, but these aren't the Bechers' silos. The land is
carefully cultivated but verging on barren, and any signs of humanity
immediately become focal-points for the picture – a power-line,
fence-line or traffic sign. These are about traces of activity and
small disruptions to the land and offer up quiet reflection rather
than heavy-handed critique.
It's interesting going back three
decades to the work from the New Topographics exhibition. There were
other photographers working in this area that were less well known,
but offered work equally as good. A reminder too, that in part, due
to limitations of technology, photographs were often smaller then,
and as such were more intimate for the viewer to experience.
Revisiting some of these less well known photographers shows how
fresh that work still is, and how much it differs from the high-sheen
large-scale colour photos that have become de rigueur for many
photographers working in a similar field these days. Each offers its
advantages, but for me, small-scale monochrome photography still
shows a freshness and vitality to it whilst remaining contemporary.
It'd be nice to see more of it.
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
There is a scene that opens the
documentary Journal de France that many photographers might
relate to. Magnum photographer Raymond Depardon has set up his
unwieldy 8x10 inch camera to photograph a small building on a street
intersection in a French town. The film crew documenting him mimic
his camera angle so that the viewer's point of view appears to be
approximately that of Depardon's camera. Because he needs a fairly
long exposure (one second), and it's a busy street, he needs a little
gap in traffic. Every time he is just about to take the photo,
someone walks into the shot or a car drives past. He waits and waits,
and finally he is ready – just then, an elderly gentleman strolls
right across in front of him, ambling very slowly across the street
and right through the centre of the frame. Eventually, we hear a
click and a whir and Depardon gets his shot.
It's just one of the little oddities
about working alone in the field with a large format camera. I read a
recent story in Wired's
Raw File, where Victoria Sambunaris discussed being stopped
repeatedly by law enforcement with her 5x7 inch wooden field camera
(while working on a project documenting landscapes and
infrastructure). In some ways I can understand the inquisitiveness of
police officers and the general public. Setting up a camera, often by
yourself, and waiting sometimes hours for the right light or perfect
set of conditions could look a little suspicious to someone
unfamiliar with that sort of equipment. But as she points out, there
are less obvious ways to photograph something, so why would you go to
those lengths if you were doing something dodgy? I've also been
questioned a number of times over the years, yelled at, looked at
with suspicion, or just approached with curiosity.
Most of the time it's sorted out fairly quickly but sometimes by the
time you've stopped to chat the light has gone, or something has
changed, and the moment has been lost.
When I think of great road trips in
photography I think about Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, or Joel
Sternfeld. Each of them committed serious amounts of time to
travelling. Of course it was a different time – people were less
suspicious and more open to being photographed without fear of where
the photos would end up, or what the purpose was. But they were all
ahead of their time and each defied the conventional photographic
trends of the period in their own ways.
Raymond Depardon also spent much time
on a road trip – travelling alone on a massive project that lasted
six years. Journal de France is really a bit like two
documentaries in one. In the contemporary part he travels through
France photographing buildings in small towns with his 8x10 camera;
the sort of places that might seem unremarkable to a developer but
have a French quirkiness or sense of history that might be too easily
forgotten should they be demolished. The other side of it features
footage from his equally interesting documentaries from the '60s and
'70s, made on occasion with help from his partner Claudine Nougaret
who did the sound recording. I call them documentaries, but they
don't have the traditional interview segments that we are normally
used to. Instead he became interested in a style known as Direct
Cinema. It was also reportage, but radical for the time in that it
used techniques that we might associate more with modern
“fly-on-the-wall” documentary making. Direct Cinema also helped
pioneer the use of hand-held cameras, used tiny crews, and incorporated a loose
shooting style that we've come to be very familiar with in shows such
as NYPD Blue, The Office and so called single-camera
comedies. Reality TV also makes extensive use of these techniques.
With current digital video, we take for granted the technical side of
such things but it's easy to forget that back in the '60s sound
editing and shooting loosely wasn't as easy.
If his films shared some of Reality
Television's techniques, the subject matter was far more interesting.
Mercenaries, patients in a sanitarium, ambulance drivers. Dispensing
with the traditional interview he would just leave the camera on and
let people talk amongst themselves -- strange and rarely-heard
stories would come out as people became less aware of the camera.
Other subjects included workers in public institutions – criminals
in the justice system, and politicians talking behind closed doors.
Often, he would devote months to a project, sometimes in very trying
circumstances.
He made other films documenting people
simply walking in the street – films that have a kind of lyrical
quality, the camera sometimes following someone for a only few
seconds then moving on, reminding me of another film from a similar
period F for Fake, where
Orson Welles edits a long sequence where he secretly films
various mens' reactions as they watch his partner Oja Kodar simply
walk down the street (another film that helped pioneer modern editing
techniques only to be widely criticised on release but celebrated
much later).
In an interview in American Suburb X,
Depardon discusses the aspect of being a loner in film-making. He
sees it as offering much more freedom. There is the freedom to be
able to go where you want without restriction, the freedom to spent
more time on a project. Photography is generally considered more of a
solitary pursuit and film-making more of a collaborative one – but
that could change as news reporting moves out of print and further
onto the web. Embedding content from video platforms such as YouTube
has opened up new means of storytelling without the traditional time
restrictions of TV and radio. The recent (hugely popular) podcast
Serial is a good example of long-form journalism taking a different
approach (devoting a whole year to a researching a single story told
over twelve episodes). As reporters start moving on from the big new
agents, perhaps something similar will start to emerge with
video-reporting.
Tuesday, 23 December 2014
I've been revisiting some of Joel Sternfeld's work recently following the release of a new edition of a book covering his work documenting the High Line in New York.
Some years ago I came across a few images from his series Oxbow Archive, a project that documented slow changes and seasonal variations within a field in Massachusetts. I kept them in mind over the years. The project took place in the mid-2000s when climate change started being heavily covered in the media. It also coincided with a period when documentaries started to become more mainstream, largely thanks to Michael Moore. There was Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in 2006 and the same year also the saw the rise of YouTube. So it was an interesting time for photography and documentary making -- perhaps an optimistic time for thinking that photography had the power to bring about change.
Some years ago I came across a few images from his series Oxbow Archive, a project that documented slow changes and seasonal variations within a field in Massachusetts. I kept them in mind over the years. The project took place in the mid-2000s when climate change started being heavily covered in the media. It also coincided with a period when documentaries started to become more mainstream, largely thanks to Michael Moore. There was Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in 2006 and the same year also the saw the rise of YouTube. So it was an interesting time for photography and documentary making -- perhaps an optimistic time for thinking that photography had the power to bring about change.
Before
that project though, in 2000 he began to photograph the
abandoned railroad track known as the High Line that ran through a
section of Manhattan. The project contained many similarities to Oxbow Archive: a documentation span of about one year, subtle
changes in mood and colour, and
a concentration of interest in a small area of land. The photos described an area that had been largely reclaimed by
nature, untended in the twenty year period since the last train
delivered its goods. Wildflowers and grasses had grown up through
the tracks -- even fruit trees had begun to flourish there; it had essentially
become a meadow. Wild nature existed only 25 feet above busy city
streets.
In 1999, a non-profit
organisation, Friends of the High Line, was
set up to try to help preserve the area with the idea of developing
it into park land. The land was valuable; Mayor Giuliani saw it as unsightly, and it was in serious danger of being demolished. Sternfeld's photos were
widely seen and used at public meetings where they became a point of
reference for what could be done with the land, and more importantly,
what would be lost should it be torn down. It was touch and go for quite a few years. On one side, there was a push to
demolish and redevelop it. On the other, the newly elected Mayor Bloomberg was an advocate for
its preservation. In the end the public and the administration gave its support
– the general feeling was that it would be positive for the city.
The redesign was done beautifully and I suspect that Sternfeld's
photos were an inspiration on the landscape design -- some of the
tracks were preserved and grasses were planted to reflect its history
as a meadow.
Several other artists contributed to the
project. Sarah Sze's grid-like work references the constructed path
and the buildings surrounding it and incorporates smaller box-like
elements housing birds and insects, which in turn, incorporate themselves into the artwork by extension.
Ed Rusha's mural is pretty funny – it's painted hot pink and has a
rather droll message which I image would contrast effectively with
the lush green, peaceful nature of the surroundings.
A book was published in 2001 from the series, with an updated edition arriving in 2012 – the edition that I saw. The first thing I noticed
was that it was smaller than I thought it would be. There's a tradition
to making books from large format photography to be oversized (a
notable exception – Joel Meyerowitz's “At the Water's Edge”, a
tiny collection). Being published by Steidl, it's of a very high
quality, but it's not ostentatious at all. The volume is fairly slim, with the final section devoted to essays
and a time-line of the history of the line along with a few images
such as photos from the early days. As it's titled, the book
invites the
viewer to imagine walking the length of it, approximately 2.33 km --
sometimes the viewpoint changes only slightly, on occasion only by a few
meters. There are pictures with snow and fog, but the overall feeling
and colour palette is one of autumnal moodiness; hard sunlight seldom if ever
appears. The intense greenery is one of the first
things you notice, everything else seems to fade towards desaturated
monochrome. Upon
closer inspection small items appear in the grasses – a bottle,
detritus, a tiny lit-up Christmas tree. The meadow seems to develop its own
sense of order. Small dense patches of wildflowers seamlessly merge
into thicker areas of wild vegetation. In one image, snow carpets almost all forms of life,
with just a few twigs and branches poking out from underneath the
blanket. Above
all it is solitary. Seen by very few, it was shut-off from
any form of legal public access -- Sternfeld was granted special permission
to photograph it by the line's owners.
It's rare to find urban planning done much creative originality; this was an exception that brought the right people together at the right time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)