TWEET.

BY OYL MILLER

- – – -

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by brevity, over-connectedness, emotionally starving for attention, dragging themselves through virtual communities at 3 am, surrounded by stale pizza and neglected dreams, looking for angry meaning, any meaning, same hat wearing hipsters burning for shared and skeptical approval from the holographic projected dynamo in the technology of the era, who weak connections and recession wounded and directionless, sat up, micro-conversing in the supernatural darkness of Wi-Fi-enabled cafes, floating across the tops of cities, contemplating techno, who bared their brains to the black void of new media and the thought leaders and so called experts who passed through community colleges with radiant, prank playing eyes, hallucinating Seattle- and Tarantino-like settings among pop scholars of war and change, who dropped out in favor of following a creative muse, publishing zines and obscene artworks on the windows of the internet, who cowered in unshaven rooms, in ironic superman underwear burning their money in wastebaskets from the 1980s and listening to Nirvana through paper thin walls, who got busted in their grungy beards riding the Metro through Shinjuku station, who ate digital in painted hotels or drank Elmer’s glue in secret alleyways, death or purgatoried their torsos with tattoos taking the place of dreams, that turned into nightmares, because there are no dreams in the New Immediacy, incomparably blind to reality, inventing the new reality, through hollow creations fed through illuminated screens. Screens of shuttering tag clouds and image thumbnails lightning in the mind surfing towards Boards of Canada and Guevara, illuminating all the frozen matrices of time between, megabyted solidities of borders and yesterday’s backyard wiffleball dawns, downloaded drunkenness over rooftops, digital storefronts of flickering flash, a sun and moon of programming joyrides sending vibrations to mobile devices set on manner mode during twittering wintering dusks of Peduca, ashtray rantings and coffee stains that hid the mind, who bound themselves to wireless devices for an endless ride of opiated information from CNN.com and Google on sugary highs until the noise of modems and fax machines brought them down shuddering, with limited and vulgar verbiage to comment threads, battered bleak of shared brain devoid of brilliance in the drear light of a monitor, who sank all night in interface’s light of Pabst floated out and sat through the stale sake afternoon in desolate pizza parlors, listening to the crack of doom on separate nuclear iPods, who texted continuously 140 characters at a time from park to pond to bar to MOMA to Brooklyn Bridge lost battalion of platonic laconic self proclaimed journalists committed to a revolution of information, jumping down the stoops off of R&B album covers out of the late 1980s, tweeting their screaming vomiting whispering facts and advices and anecdotes of lunchtime sandwiches and cat antics on couches with eyeballs following and shockwaves of analytics and of authority and finding your passion and other jargon, whole intellects underscored and wiped clean in the total recall 24/7 365 assault all under the gaze of once brilliant eyes.

“JF: Without reducing you to a specific “school” of photography, you seem to be in company with a generation of young photographers interested in the physical process of photography, yet your work also deals with larger issues/metaphors related to illusion, performance and perception. Do you see your work being in dialog with that of say Jessica Eaton, Sam Falls, or Lucas Blalock? How do you see it standing apart? Do you see a dialog between early photographers like Man Ray as well? What do you think spawned this rebirth of process driven work?

JL: Photography is evolving as a medium, and things that were once uniquely photographic are now being questioned. I believe that the prevalence of process-oriented photography is a response to the saturation and ease of digital technologies. I don’t think that photographers are necessarily reacting against the digital technologies; more that we are inspired by the creative potentials new technology is opening up. There is a feeling of freedom to appropriate techniques from other mediums, as well as looking to the past for more tactile approaches to photography. The popularity of photograms and collage are good examples of this. I also think elaborate and complicated photographic processes are a way for artists to slow things down. Everything moves with such speed in our lives, creating works that require the investment of hours of labor seem to be a way to counteract this.

Even though, I am newly acquainted with the photographers you mentioned, there are others artists engaged in this kind of work, who were more on my radar. I am thinking of people like Sara VanDerBeek, Shane Huffman, and Waled Beshty. The fact that there are so many people out there making work in this way shows that there is something in this cultural moment that makes this approach relevant and important.”

Some images:

This image of Plossu’s photo held in his hand may as well be anyone’s photo in anyone’s hand because the image doesn’t address the subject of the photo or the identity of the hand holding the photo, but rather the materiality of the photo itself and the way in which it represents an object out in the world.

This photo is a representation of the object and also the signifier (the original photo). For the purposes of this writing, ”reality” will mean a thing or event that is out in the world, something we perceive that is outside of our bodies. In order to understand exactly how much photography has an impact on our perceived notions of reality, we need to first understand the process in which reality is re-presented.

By process, I do not mean a study of the technical specifications of the camera. The understanding of how a camera or a lighting setup functions is assumed to be already known. What I mean by process is the relationship these functions have to the reality that they are in contact with; how a shallow depth of field may blur many aspects of an event being photographed, how a specific type of black-and-white film may place a landscape into a different time period, etc. All of these processes create perceived notions of reality that came to fruition in the mind’s eye of the photographer. The photographer “sees” how the image will be from their knowledge of the processes they employ. It is a seemingly standard way of photographic creation that, all to often, is taken for granted or ignored completely when one looks at a photograph. It is a two-step approach; one through seeing the object (reality) in with the eye and the other through envisioning the process applied. Much of the technical aspect of the process is usually invisible to the viewer; only a trained eye can decipher some of the techniques employed. This invisibility of process makes us want to believe that what we see in the photograph is a true representation of reality. But, the very transformation of the thing out in the world to a two-dimensional piece of paper already takes the “real” and contorts it into a thing that is represented by the very limitations that the photographic process entails. The existence of the thing photographed is not what is depicted, what is depicted is a play of processes around that thing; light, exposure, white balance, film type, etc. This creates the image and thus creates that particular representation of an object.

Barthes says that photography is unique from painting because it is proof or evidence of an object that existed at the time the photograph was made. An object in a painting can be something that has never existed, that the artist has created in their mind. This makes it difficult for the viewer to believe that any painting represents reality. However, while photography is a mechanical process that can be interpreted as objective, as Barthes clearly emphasizes, it is still a process of representation that is employed by an operator, it does not necessarily represent what is real.

Taken from the press release:

“For this new body of work entitled “New Horizons,” Dibbets returns to the optical structure that has become his hallmark. As Erik Verhagen says in his recent study of Dibbets’ oeuvre, “The horizon is not a subject like other subjects, for it exists only through and in relation to our sense of sight.” It is objective and subjective, circular and rectilinear, static and mobile. In these photographs, which conjoin different photographs of a landscape and seascape along the line of the horizon, Dibbets channels it as structuring principle, not only determining space and point of view, but also—in a very painterly way—the composition itself. By subordinating the mobility of the camera to the standardization of a straight line, these panoramas create a subtle tension between the seamlessness of the horizon line and the disjunction of land and sea, only further accentuated by the resulting asymmetrical compositions.”

Sea-Land C/B1, 2007 Two unique color photographs mounted on mat board with graphite; 26 1/4 x 61 1/8 inches (66.7 x 155.3 cm) framed

Land-Sea AB3, 2007 Two unique color photographs mounted on mat board with graphite; 40 7/8 x 56 inches (103.8 x 142.2 cm) framed

Here are some images of projects by Spencer Finch and some info about his practice from his website:

Dusk (Hudson River Valley 10/30/2005)

“Finch carefully records the invisible world, while simultaneously striving to understand what might lie beyond it. Whether he is relying on his own powers of observation or using a colorimeter, a device that reads the average color and temperature of light, the artist employs a scientific method to achieve poetic ends. . . . Contrary to what one might expect, Finch’s efforts toward accuracy- the precise measurements he takes under different conditions and at different times of day- resist, in the end, a definitive result or single empirical truth about his subject. Instead, his dogged method reinforces the fleeting, temporal nature of the observed world, illustrating his own version of a theory of relativity.”

The Shield of Achilles (Night Sky over Troy) 2009

“This installation is an illuminated star map of the night sky as it appeared during the siege of Troy. This star map, comprised of 384 cans hanging from the ceiling, each illuminated by a single light bulb and punctured with a small hole representing a single star, is based on the Almagest, Ptolemy\’s original catalog of the 48 constellations named by the ancient Greeks. The magnitude and wavelength of each star is accurately depicted by the size of the hole and the color of the light. The hanging height of each star is determined by its distance (in light years) from Earth.”

Thank You, Fog 2009

“60 Photographs, 4 3/4” x 4 3/4” (each), Digital Inkjet Prints. This photographic series was shot from a static camera at one minute intervals as a fog moved over the densely wooded landscape in Sonoma County.”

This semester has flown by and I haven’t had much time to do anything except work, work, work. Sadly, my blog fell by the wayside. So, tonight, as I looked toward my computer from the middle of a pile of books, pencil firmly gripped between teeth, I decided to take a small break in order to report on the mass hysteria that has transposed in my life.

This semester, above all, has taught me that there is indeed more to life than photography. How is that? I am in a photography program and steeped up to my knees in every kind of image imaginable, but I feel further away from the medium than I did coming into the program. I think this has to do with two very strong factors from my life; 1. I was an actual working photographer before I came into this program and 2. I was only working in images I made “through the lens”. Both of these factors have changed in my life. I am no longer a working photographer and I am not making images traditionally “through the lens”. I feel like the artist I was when I left my undergrad program. This may seem like a step backwards, however, I have never felt more in touch with my original goals as an artist. This excites me and scares me. I am excited to be finally fulfilling a desire I have had for many years to further my education in the arts and I am scared because I think this might make me less employable than ever. Employ-ability aside, I am glad to have stepped out of the proverbial box I was in while living in San Francisco.

Things to do:

Write paper on photography’s relationship to painting

Create a stereographic image for digital design class

Put together a presentation on the database

Attempt to wrap up my critique work for this semester (I will be posting some images during break)

Last weekend I took a ferry to Governor’s Island to see the progress being made to turning the former army post into a preservation/park. Being an urban island undergoing environmental change, I immediately began to compare it to Treasure Island in SF. Like Treasure Island, a large portion is man-made out of land fill. Also, both islands played host to military posts. However, the big difference I immediately discovered between the two islands is how each city plans to transform them.

San Francisco is in the middle of environmental clean up of Treasure Island including demolition of most of the military buildings (mainly due to hazardous waste and cheap construction). Currently, most buildings are out in the open and deteriorating, which made for easy documentation. After the clearing and clean up, the city will begin constructing an ideal eco-friendly community with marshes, a farm, buildings constructed out of sustainable materials and a ferry to give residents the choice to go car-less.

From what I have read about Governor’s Island, New York has turned most of it into park space with a free ferry ride. There are events hosted there during the summer and it is only open on the weekend during the warm months. Most of the buildings are being preserved as a spot for tourists to see the history of the island. The man-made section is currently fenced off. Part of some of the fenced off buildings are being reconstructed into a school and another cluster of buildings are being used by the fire fighters as a practice space. I am curious to see how this island will become fully redeveloped. There seems to be several groups interested and with it’s limited hours of “operation”, I am also curious to see how a school is going to function properly when it is completed.

I was disappointed to learn that Governor’s Island is only open a limited amount of the week and season. You can only visit it from 11:00am-7:00pm during the summer, which means that the opportunity for interesting photography is very slim. Also, most of the buildings are locked up and roped off. I bypassed a few ropes for the photos you see here. I may contact the parks service to see if I can get into the more restricted areas. I would like to document the interior of the fort before it’s turned into a glossy museum.

The planned redevelopment and restrictions for Governor’s Island has really given me an idea of the cultural ideology in New York. How the two islands are being handled shows the difference between the histories of the two cities and the ideologies that exist.

One of my good photo friends emailed me today with a question about whether or not “people without access to pro-level gear are more or less fucked” when it comes to making decent prints of their photographs. My answer to this is yes and no. Yes, if you don’t want to learn how to print. No, if you are open to learning certain techniques in Photoshop that will help you bypass the lack of fancy equipment.

The article which he was referring to can be found here. In this article, the author describes why LCD monitors make photos appear to be brighter and suggests some equipment to purchase in order to correct this problem. First, I would like to applaud this author for bringing up one, very important, truth about LCD monitors: Most (and I mean like 95% ) of them are absolute shit when it comes to color. Unless you are willing to spend $1k or more on a monitor that is specifically made for serious photographers, you are not going to be able to rely on your monitor for printing. Cheap monitors need tweaked. That’s where the calibration hardware and software come in (and to be honest, they only really work on monitors that have color controls).

So, the author is right about the monitors and calibration. However, it’s all about how educated and experienced you are when it comes to printing. The more experienced you are, the shittier equipment you can work with.

How you avoid spending 1k on a monitor and $100s on various software and calibration hardware is knowing how to color correct by numbers in Photoshop. Using the info palette and knowing a thing or two about color numbers will get you good color even on a laptop monitor. In terms of brightness/darkness? Use your histogram people! Create a curves layer and go from there. All this information is in the actual file itself. So, I guess, what I am saying is, you don’t need your eyes. When it comes to making good prints from a crappy monitor, it’s like using braille. It takes practice and is a bit of a pain in the beginning, but after some time, you won’t need fancy gadgets to get good prints. You will be able to print from anything!

Also, the actual out-put is important. You need paper profiles that are made for the type of paper and printer you are using. I have a very fail-proof technique for applying these profiles that I may flush out in another post if there is enough interest.

Don’t forget maintenance. Maintenance, Maintenance, Maintenance. Always run a nozzle check before you begin printing. Make sure that your POS printer is in good running order before the first print goes.

Test print! Make small prints.This is all about getting precise color, so you need to really get to know how your printer is printing in order to get a good grasp on the color in your prints.

I have an Epson 2200 that is about 4 years old. It has survived several moves and been banged around quite a lot (it was bought second hand). I still get prints out of it that blow people away. In a critique I had with Lind Connor, she told me my print quality was great. I printed that portfolio on my 2200 from an Apple Cinema Display I bought off of craigslist and, as we know, has no color controls built into the monitor.

Regardless of how much technology comes out to make printing easier for people, in the end, it’s an art. Printing is an art and every art takes practice.