Random notes from Witkin and Fink lectures

[megan]

Hello all-
Last Saturday, I went to see 2 separate lectures - Joel Peter Witkin and Larry Fink. Two very different photographers, both highly respected and considered artists. I took notes, but I just looked at my notebook and the scawl is delplorable - I wrote with a Sharpie on cotton paper, book half closed so no one copied. (Kidding.) So I'm just going to paraphrase what resonated with me, and we can discuss the concepts if you feel like replying to anything. Or you can just read my scattered thoughts.

Witkin

He started off showing Burn's paintings [Pre-Raphaelite, correct me if I'm wrong], comparing his life/creative life to Burns's, then segued into his own work. I noted at some point that he said that as an artist, we are presenting our own view of life (through our work.) Creating is a life necessity - the need is to DO it. It's not an addiction. Then went on to say that when he takes a photograph, he is taking a moment out of life so we can explore its pathology.

As for process - for one photograph, he put water drops on the paper while enlarging, in effect, using the water as part of the lens system. I though that was neat - had I access to my own darkroom, I'd try it out. In the Q&A session, he answered a question about his "success ratio" by saying that he ends up throwing out about 80% of his prints. The print has to be PERFECT. Even before printing, 1 out of 6 images are good and will go on to be a final piece. Sometimes he only produces about 4 prints a year - it can take a month to prepare the sculpture/plan the shoot, then a month to get that perfect print.

One more tidbit that I thought long and hard about - he had one print that he said he kept small, because he doesn't want the viewer's eyes to move. I thought that was interesting - print SIZE is as much of a consideration as what you're actually printing. How do you want the view to experience your print?

Larry Fink

I didn't take as many notes - I've heard him speak before, and he's not as formal as Witkin. He came down off the podium and encouraged people to ask questions along the way. He was raised by pretty radical thinkers, and he has taken that upbringing with him through life. Both Fink and Witkin have a deep compassion towards humanity, but Fink's view is much more humorous, and disparaging of the cruelty and hypocracy amongst our fellow humans. I enjoyed his lecture more [he's funny as hell] but don't have as many chicken scratch notes. What I did write down is:

-- So much of photography is a surprise - it's what keeps you alive
-- Ambiguity drives deeper vision because it suggests so much.

For the second round of Fink slides, instead of showing us his work, he decided to show us his new "hobby" - digital phtography! For his assignments, he still uses black and white film, but he's been having fun with his new digital toy.

That's about it - Both photogs brought up some interesting concepts. It would be fun to discuss them!

Megan

[Irakly Shanidze]

This is a very interesting comparison, Megan.
Personally, I feel much more sympathetic to the Fink's approach. In my own work I feel that lack of surprise usually leads to results that are dull.

[megan]

This is a very interesting comparison, Megan.
Personally, I feel much more sympathetic to the Fink's approach. In my own work I feel that lack of surprise usually leads to results that are dull.

Yes, it was interesting to go to both lectures in one day and see such diverse approaches to success. It's neat to hear what makes successful artists tick - why they create the images they create, and, more fundamentally - "why create?"

It would be interesting to hear the answers to these same queries from some of the participants in this forum! (Gently prodding you all... you wanted direction... here's some direction! Longwinded posts with a paragraph or two are encouraged.)

Megan

[Irakly Shanidze]

you know what makes me tick? there are two aspects to it. first, the most basic one (not in terms of simplicity, but rather like in "basic instinct") is when i look in the viiewfinder and feel something remotely reminiscent of an orgasm. it i do not feel it, i do not press the button. second is more complicated. it is somewhat reminiscent of maniacal behviour: when i wake up with an idea for a shot, i become so obsessed with it that all my actions to certain degree are aimed on making this idea happen in a form of a photograph. it logically ends with that aforementioned orgasm-like feeling leading to my pressing the button

[megan]

I just wrote like 5 paragraphs in response to your post and tried to post it, and it said I wasn't logged in and I was and I lost it all. CRAP!!!! Now I have to type this all out again. CRAP!

Megan

[megan]

you know what makes me tick? there are two aspects to it. first, the most basic one (not in terms of simplicity, but rather like in "basic instinct") is when i look in the viiewfinder and feel something remotely reminiscent of an orgasm. it i do not feel it, i do not press the button. second is more complicated. it is somewhat reminiscent of maniacal behviour: when i wake up with an idea for a shot, i become so obsessed with it that all my actions to certain degree are aimed on making this idea happen in a form of a photograph. it logically ends with that aforementioned orgasm-like feeling leading to my pressing the button

I know what you mean. I've got two different ways of shooting, though, and for me, it happens at different times. I've got my "straight" or traditional work, and my more experiemental work, "Place" and "Thing" series, respectively. With "Place," it's more being in the moment, being at a certain little place on earth and being fascinated with it, and recording it. With my more experiemental work, I'm all excited and turned on by what I want to shoot - and work at getting what I want on to film - but because it's all in camera and double exposed and layered, it's when I get the contact sheet that I can have my visual cigarrette. Or not. That happens too.

I'm going to post this now so I don't lose it, and post another post with the second half of what I typed.

Megan

[megan]

Going to the lecture was really a great affirmation, really, of being an artist. Not that I needed Witkin to justify what I feel about my work, more that I identified with what he said about creating art being a necessity. In a matter-of-fact way. It's true, it's not an obsession, not in the sense of "I must have this lover constantly or I'll die..." although a part of me would die without it. It's more like - well - for most humans, Food, Water, Sleep, Breathing are the basics of what they need to exist. For me, it's all of the above, plus creating my work. I'm not being melodramatic, it just IS. That's what it is for me. And indeed, he affirmed that. I must create. I'm wondering if it's like that for others here.

On to a different subject - I'm just wondering how much people think about how they want their work to be shown. (I'm taking this from him discussing how he kept a certain print small on purpose to somewhat control how the viewer experiences his image.) I mean - we post our images here on the site, and when we get our images before posting them, they come in various forms - contact sheets, 4x6 prints, slides, cds... But how much thought to people put into the experience of your work?

I'm just curious because even before the lecture, I've been thinking on this concept. Recently, I had several of my pieces in several group shows, and when I finally saw my images on the wall of a gallery, I was... disappointed. The prints were gorgeous, it wasn't that, it was just.... they were so SMALL. And they were screaming to be mural size. They should be these overwhelming huge prints, larger than the span of my arms, and here they are, these precious little... thumbnails on the wall. So I've decided that in order for my work to be displayed correctly, I really can't compromise. I must enlarge it at least past 16x20. Some of the work I'm talking about is on my website, http://www.planet-megan.com click on "Thing." I'd be interested in what people think, if anyone other than Steve and Irakly are actually reading this!

Thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

Tally ho, on to the rest of the posts!

Megan

[mtb'n ski]

Any chance you could elaborate on that darkroom technique Megan, it sounds like it would have very interesting results

[megan]

Hm, not really - he just sort of mentioned it in passing as he showed his slides. To paraphrase most of what he said that I can remember, "For this print, I was working on it awhile, and then I sprinkled drops of water on the paper under the enlarger. The light goes through the enlarger, and then the water refracts it once again, acting as a lens system. It took about 6 tried before I got a print that was distorted in the right places that I was happy with." Does that help? He probably used a spray bottle to create small puddles on the paper, then stuck it under the enlarger. I hope that helps!

Megan

[Asylum Steve]

Megan,

Work size can be a very strange animal. I've found that not only do I think in cycles of large and small (or different sizes for different projects or venues), but I also sometimes have a "grass is greener" attitude, and go through periods where I thnk I'm showing things at all the wrong sizes.

Practicality has forced me to adopt some sort of standard, which at the moment is a 16x20 frame (mat) with about an 11x14 image area. The nice thing about this size is that I can keep it now that I print at home on my Epson 2200.

As much as I like impact, and I agree with you that large is the way to go for certain shows, there is also something to be said for intimacy. Manipulated Polaroids is a perfect example. This is probably why I flip flop on the size thing. I guess I'm torn between impact and intimacy.

I'll tell you one thing for sure. One of these days I'd LOVE to see one of my shots on a billboard. Now THAT'S impact...

[darkman]

Megan,

One of the things I see nowadays is oversimplification of images. Especially now that so many people are shooting digitally. I think the problem is people aren't extracting what they see on the screen to print size.

For instance, I recently shot some images at a dead corn field (made into a maze for halloween). Most of the images are just dizzy bordering abstract when viewed so you can see the whole image on the screen. It is hard to tell that you are looking at corn stalks. Conversely, at 11x17 the images come alive. You instantly know what you are looking at.

But if you don't have the intuition or vision to see the final print size, you'll end up deleting or filing away good images.

Mike

[Asylum Steve]

Mike,

We've discussed this a few times before, just the overall tendency to "edit" more harshly with digital.

I agree that while you're shooting is not the best time to make these choices, especially when they're based on viewing a tiny LCD screen.

I try very hard not to be that way. I always had a tendecy to keep all my film (and slides) from my pre-digital days, in fact only recently weeding out years of stuff that I know I'm never going to use.

With digital, I try not to do any editing until I'm at my home workstation and can view images on a larger screen. I often see things in shots that I didn't notice in the field.

But I do try to work with a laptop on my commercial shoots. This helps a lot (even though it's a hassle), both because I can see much better shots that are obviously discards, as well as having the HD space to keep most everything else I shoot. When you don't have to worry about storage space, the editing process becomes much less a priority.

[Asylum Steve]

Megan, I think we've all had this happen to us at one time or another...

What you should do is get in the habit of composing your important posts (yes, of course I realize ALL your posts are important, but I mean the lengthy ones, heh heh) in a seperate text editor and pasting them in the post text box when you're ready.

You can always "clean them up" with the editing feature.

[mtb'n ski]

Thanks alot for the darkroom details megan, i guess im going to have to try that out for my self.

[megan]

I found the solution. If I control C it before I hit post, it saves it in the post. It's weird, on Firefox on these computers I'm using at an internet cafe, my log-in seems to expire after typing a long post. But if I copy it, I've got in on the clip board, I can re-log-in, and there it is.

Bah! Technology.

Megan

[walterick]

Care to elaborate: "Also, I operate from a bit of whimsy -- or mischief --

When time is more of a friend?

Rick

[walterick]

Or Megan!

I had an interesting experience blowing up a 35mm neg to 20x30 once. It's the only time I've done something that large, and it blew my mind. To that point I had only seen the image as 4x6 and though I liked it, then image did not come alive until it was HUGE!! The image was one I've posted on Viewfinder several times of the stars circling the red rocks in Arches Park. It was meant to be BIG I understood then and also with that acknowledgement came long some guilt... I felt guilty as I had been selling out my artwork all along and not taking the chance to MAKE IT BIG!! It was like it wasn't worthy being big, but once I did it, I realized, how is anyone ever going to be able to acknowledge the worthiness of my artwork unless it's in it's proper state?

I learned a lesson from that. Now if I like something it's 8x10 at the least so I can feel that my images are getting what they're worthy of I know not all images can be big or want to be big but if there's someone out there wondering, what what this look like BIG? Take it a camera shop and for $20 have Kodak blow it up big for you.

Please.

Thanks for the topic!

Rick

[megan]

Very cool! It is exciting seeing your work enlarged. I agree about the impact of the different sizes. I did a series once of small images cut out of a contact sheet and kept together in a small gift box like jewelry - to keep it small and precious. It was a neat exercize.

Megan

[megan]

Thanks alot for the darkroom details megan, i guess im going to have to try that out for my self.

Post your results!
I live in a teensy weensie apartment in NYC and have no room for a darkroom - so I can't play.


Megan

[mtb'n ski]

One of the very few advantages to still being in high school is that i have access to a darkroom. Ill post my results when i get them... but i havnt had alot of time to use in the darkroom lately, so it could be awhile.

[megan]

I'll be here! BTW, a gallery I'm involved with is having a juried show for young photographers. http://www.steppingstonegallery.com

Megan

[mtb'n ski]

Looks cool, but I am definatley not up to that level yet!

I developed my negatives during an off period on friday so I should have some results some time this week.