Category: Photography

Erlebniskunst

Erlebniskunst or “experience art” in German, is a philosophical concept that emphasizes the importance of the viewer’s experience in the appreciation of art. It was first developed by the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer in the 20th century. Gadamer argued that art is not simply an object to be contemplated, but rather a dynamic process of interaction between the work and the viewer.

From the Philosophy Dictionary of Arguments

Certain words peak my interest. I recently encountered the word Erlebniskunst in an article about art. I related to the concept behind it and wondered if and how it applies to photography.

All the research information that I was able to find came from philosophy articles that stem from the original concept developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer who wrote:

“the power of the work of art suddenly tears the person experiencing it out of the context of his life, yet relates him back to the whole of his existence.”

I noted in a previous post titled “Creators and Observers” that I believed that we need more observers who are sensitive to aesthetic qualities in photographs and that there should be a visual/emotional relationship between the creator and the observer. A photograph that connects with a viewer should be able to create a spell on the observer. Sometimes an image will leave the observer speechless and stir emotions and aesthetic senses.

I feel the “art of experience” can apply to viewers of both photographs and the other arts. The observer must feel the emotional connection which has primacy over what is seen. Unfortunately, many viewers only see what is on the surface of the image. Some pictures will speak to you if you are receptive and allow them to do so.

“Art is only through feeling, so alive and sensitive that the picture is as the breath out of the mouth, but coming from the heart.”—Abraham Walkowitz

My photograph “Repose” was part of a gallery show. A viewer was having an emotional connection with the work and started telling me what she was feeling. I asked Rachel if she could write down the thoughts that she was experiencing.

“At first glance, “Repose” appears almost apocalyptic – the nude woman, staring blankly off into the distance, her partially curled body laying in a dormant cornfield, the sepia tones of the photograph adding to the eeriness. A quick assumption could be that the figure is dead, a simple conclusion placed together by the drained color palette and lifeless cornstalks. The composition of the picture plane with it’s single point perspective makes the viewer feel as though he/she is physically in the space. The viewer is no longer only an observer, but now also a participant. It’s this play with composition that signals the viewer to take pause, and examine the photograph longer. The figure, and older woman, lays in a pose reminiscent of a relaxed fetal position — a posture associated with new life. However, everything else in this photograph recalls aging, or nearing a state of hibernation, dormancy or death. The field the figure lays in has clearly been harvested, indicating an end to the growing season and an approach toward winter. Winter is often thought of as ‘the end’ of the cycle of seasons: plants fade, animals hibernate, and humans retreat in their own ways, waiting for spring to come when life will re-emerge and be re-born. Winter brings stillness. This stillness is expressed in “Repose.” It’s the stillness that allows the viewer to reflect. While, “Repose” is clearly a photographic commentary on aging, it’s not one of hopelessness. Like the seasons, the figure has lived through seasons of her own life; and in the stillness the viewer recognizes the beauty in her age and the life that she still has left. Moreover, “Repose” causes the viewer to think about his or her own mortality and life. It works as a memento mori of sorts — but a reminder that life continues, rather than a reminder of death.”

Repose (all images copyrighted)

The Age of Digital Interruption and the Impact on Photography

I keep coming back to the topic of digital technology and its relationship to photography. I believe technology has had more of a negative impact than a positive one on the quality of fine art photographs made today and going back to the beginning of this century. I refer to this period of time as the “age of digital interruption”. In the photography historical timeline, I believe  this period will be viewed as a step backward or at best a period of stagnation.

Part of the problem is technology itself and how it has affected concentration that is needed to create photographs that rise above the mundane. I also blame social media for dumbing down the quality of images. Visual acuity has been dampened by the impersonal “likes” and “thumbs up” given by viewers which then give a false sense of importance to the image maker and the quality of their photographs. The inability to focus attention and the lack of concentration may also be major contributors to the uninspired output of photographs. Today’s digital mind doesn’t want to spend time looking, thinking and interpreting images. It wants a steady stream of information and the ability to make a cursory comment. Volume is more important than quality and personal introspection.

I still make what I think are very creative photographs using digital photography but I sometimes feel that my film and darkroom work was better. The question is why. What is the impact of digital versus film photography? Here are a few thoughts.

With digital you can expose hundreds of frames in a very short time whereas with film photography you were limited by the number of frames on a roll. I believe film required more thought and care because of the cost of each roll and the cost of processing. Visual care was important when working with film. A photographer did not want to waste film. With a digital camera the only limit is the capacity of the memory card. Expose many frames and hope there is one good image.

In film days, I think it was more important to get the exposure correct.  There was limited latitude in making corrections in the darkroom to a print. In digital, a photographer can be a little lazy knowing substantial changes can be made during the processing stage.

When using film there was no choice but to pay attention to what was in front of the camera. You could keep your eye on the subject. Concentration was not interrupted. I find that digital photographers like to take a peek at the screen to see what they got. They will even show the subject. This detracts from the actual picture making. That quick peep shifts the photographers’ vision from the subject to the screen and then the attention has to shift back to the subject. I have seen photographers doing this frequently. Continuity is lost.

A digital camera is overly complicated and the processing software is even worse. My current digital camera manual is 500 pages thick. My film camera manual is much simpler.

One of the things that I like about many of my older black and white film images is the play of light areas against dark areas. Sometimes the shadows are devoid of detail and the highlights can be a little washed out. This kind of chiaroscuro is missing from my digital work. It is also missing from most of the digital work of others that I have seen.

Digital is easy to blame but blame can also be placed on photographers and how they use the technology. One of the things that digital has done is to make image exposures almost perfect (even in very dim light) and if not perfect at the time of capture then this can easily be refined during the development phase. There is a sameness and a visual monotony to the photos. The latest digital sensors open up the shadows and tame the highlights. The other aspect of digital where the photographer can be blamed is the use of software that alters the way an image looks. Digital images can be made to look like film or textures can be added to add a painterly touch. Unfortunately, if an image is bland to start with, adding a special effect won’t make it better.

It is up to photographers to keep technology under control. Just because a programmer can write code to make a razzle-dazzle photo feature does not mean a photographer has to use it. Use only the essential digital tools needed to make a finished print. One that shows your personal expression.

Balthus and Me

Balthus, the artist, was a fascinating character. Nicholas Fox Weber, the writer, wrote an excellent biography on the amazing life of Balthus. The book “Balthus-A Biography” was published in 1999 when Balthus was still alive and Weber was able to interview him over a number of years.

I find that the paintings by Balthus are evocative, provocative, erotic and dreamlike. I felt an immediate connection with his work. Even though his paintings and my photographs are very different, they both elicit similar responses from viewers especially concerning the nudes. 

Balthus and I react to probing questions about our work with similar responses. When questioned about the meaning or message of a particular painting, a Balthus response was: “It’s absolutely not symbolic. The meaning of the painting is the painting.”

When Weber asked him about the painting “The Room” Balthus replied that “The Room” is simply a painting of a nude in a room with a girl at the window.

Another Balthus response when questioned about eroticism in his paintings was: “The problem is that everyone sees eroticism. My pictures aren’t erotic. The problem is psychoanalysis.”

Quotes from my writings reflect similar reactions to criticisms of my photographs. In 1997, I wrote a “Personal Statement” as an introduction to a book featuring my early nude work where I wrote: “A common reaction to my work is that the images are disturbing. The images are not disturbing to me. They are simply expressions.”

Another quote which is from my “Artist Statement” is: “I make my work without a social or political agenda. There is no message or hidden purpose. The photograph is the photograph. What the viewer sees and interprets is out of my control.”

While reading the book on Balthus, I found the similarities between our responses and thinking processes to be uncanny. Also, the relentless questioning of Balthus’s artistic intent by Weber reminded me of my graduate school professor, John Weiss, and his agitation with my responses regarding my work. His normal reaction was that I should take more responsibility for my photographs instead of denying intent. Neither Weber or Weiss could accept either of our simplistic responses to our work. They both pushed for more information in an accusatory manner as if we were taking the easy way out instead of searching for meanings in our work. For me the information that was wanted was neither available nor important to me.

An observation made by Claus von Bülow, a friend of Balthus, was that he felt Balthus more as a perpetual voyeur of women that as an active lover. When I photograph a model, I view it as a business relationship and not a chance for a romantic relationship. But I would say that I am a voyeur of women. The difference between Balthus and myself is that he preferred young girls where my preference is to photograph older mature women.

Another difference is that I believe my unconscious plays a role in my image making whereas Balthus vehemently denied any influence from the unconscious. 

For me, the work of Balthus stimulated areas of my brain that connected with his paintings even though I cannot verbally say what this connection is. As Balthus said “the painting is the painting.” The visual elements of the painted canvas are all that mattered to him.

Here is an older photograph from my Collector Series. For me, it is simply a woman standing in back of a window behind a broken shard of glass. The viewer can make more out of it if they wish.

Image is Copyrighted.

Psychology and Photography

I’ve been trying to write an essay about the relationship between psychology and photography for a long time. I would do some research, jot down a few notes and then put it aside to work on later. Sometimes years later. I think the issue for me was that I could never get a handle on the subject. I have written two essays addressing the unconscious and photography which is one aspect of psychology but I wanted to explore the overall subject in more detail. This paper may serve more as an outline because of the limited information available.

I was only able to find two papers by psychoanalysts that directly addressed the subject of psychology and photography. They are:

“Unconscious Motivations of the Amateur Photographer” by Carl Fulton Sulzberger,  M.D., 1955.

“Photography as an Extension of the Ego” by Donald B. Colson, 1979.

Both were focused on voyeurism and exhibitionism. They were also fixated on the aggressive implications of photography such as hunting and shooting. They referred to terms like shooting, capturing the image, hunting with a camera, photo shoot, and a single image as a shot.

In my case, I try not to use any of the above terms. I use “image” instead of shot and a photoshoot is a “photo session”. Instead of capturing a shot I will use “recording the image”. I am not a hunter and I do not hunt with my camera but may search to find new avenues for my photography.

When it comes to voyeurism, today it seems like everyone is a voyeur. The public is either making images for social media with their phones or they are looking at those images.  Voyeurism and exhibitionism seem to be the norm exhibited by many. Narcissism seems to be everywhere.

I am not particularly concerned with exhibiting my work. I’m a lazy exhibitionist. I create my work and store my photos in a box. Over the years, I have had a few shows, occasionally I will get a photo in a juried exhibition, or I will post some images to my blog. For my blog, the written word is more important than the photos. Also, creating new work is more important to me than showing work which can be time consuming.

Psychologically and photographically, it is as if my brain needs visual challenges. Can I find a new way of seeing something? When I make a photograph that extends my vision, I feel excitement, pleasure and personal satisfaction. This does not happen frequently but enough to keep me searching.

I think it is harder today to get a comprehensive understanding of the psychological aspects of photography. An analyst would be overwhelmed by the volume of data and the variety of people making images. I use the term “image maker” as opposed to “photographer” because I believe there is a significant difference between the two groups. Also, within each of these groups there is a range of ability and output. A photographer possesses a wide-ranging knowledge of photography and is a student of photo history. A photographer understands what makes a good photograph and is a harsh editor of their own work. A camera is a tool not a toy. The photographer uses photography as an expressive medium.

When it comes to psychology and photography, it seems that the subject contains many pieces that do not always fit together in one package. Photography plays many roles in the study of psychology and is used as a research tool in many studies. There is the psychology of aesthetics, the psychology of perception, and the psychology of color. Other than the few items outlined in this essay, there has been very little discussion about the broader subject of the psychology of photographers. Psychological terms such as the id, the ego, and the unconscious are used but practical connections to photographers are limited.

 Photography is very different today than it was when the two articles were written. Today, most people (the image-makers) photograph with their smartphone cameras. The volume of images has grown immensely. Photographers used to do their “magic” in darkrooms along with the mystery of using chemicals to develop film and make prints. Actual prints were shared between people instead of posting them on social media or showing them on a smartphone. Despite the articles being dated, there is still some valid information regarding psychology and photography.

Here are several additional thoughts mentioned in the essays:

“the camera becomes a bridge between conscious and unconscious, between the inner representational world and external reality.”—Donald B. Colson

“photographs serve to record multiple fleeting impressions which for most of us would be otherwise transient and soon lost to consciousness. For many photographers it may be the symbolic process in which that which is not conscious is made conscious, which comprises part of the appeal of photography.”—Donald B. Colson

“The created visual image, the visual forms which we make with our hands and eyes together, link the outer vision that explores the external world with the inner vision that shapes our felt experiences into symbols.”—Edward Steichen 1960

Pinhole Camera Photography

It has been two years since I last used my pinhole camera. I made the camera over twenty years ago. It is made out of plywood, a little bit of foam rubber insulation, and a lot of black duct tape to help make it light tight. I use old film holders that I load with 8-inch by 10-inch black and white sheet film. I used brass shim stock and a #9 sewing needle to make the actual pinhole. A friend gave me an old Packard-Ideal shutter that uses a pneumatic bulb attached to a tube to open and close the shutter. I installed small levels on two sides to help keep the camera level. I use a hand- held light meter to get an initial reading but also use a reciprocity chart to help compute a more accurate exposure time. Exposure times are usually in the 7-20 second range which means the subject must try not to move while the film is being exposed. Film has become very costly. A box of 25 sheets is now over $200 US which means that each exposure is $8 per sheet of film.

There are many challenges when using this camera and numerous ways to ruin a sheet of film. Exposures have to be accurate and subjects have to stay very still. There is the threat that a light leak may ruin an image. I have also gotten careless and forgot to return the slide back into the film holder and the film is totally ruined. I have had the shutter not fully open or close which results in another failure. Also, using the pinhole camera requires extra time to set up and post-processing the film can take hours. There is no guarantee that a good image will result from my efforts. I have no idea what I have until the film is developed.

With the potential for failure, the high costs, and the challenges to making a good photograph, the question is: Why do I use a pinhole camera?

First, I like the way the images look. There is a dream-like softness and ethereal quality to the images. Part of this may be due to the fact there is never a super sharp focus like you get using a camera with a lens. Another quality is there is an infinite depth-of-field from the closest to the farthest object. The angle of view for my camera is very wide. I like the resulting distortion which can make items close to the camera appear stretched. Sometimes accidental movement by the model can add to an image and even an accidental light leak can occasionally benefit an image. I like working with large format film and I like the uncertainty of the results. I set everything up and hope for the best.

Despite all the negative aspects of using the pinhole camera, when everything goes right the resulting photograph is special and one of a kind. It can even be magical.

Pinhole Photograph with Nude

Olympia by Manet

Here I am standing inside the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the gallery of the Manet/Degas show observing the painting “Olympia” by the artist Édouard Manet. It is a large painting measuring 51.1 inches by 74.8 inches. Completed in 1863, it is a picture of a naked red-headed lady with lilly-white skin lying on a rumpled bed with a black maid standing behind her holding a bouquet of flowers and a surprised looking black cat standing on the end of the bed.

A great deal of information has been written about how scandalous the painting was when it was exhibited at the 1865 Paris Salon and how it was instrumental in ushering in the age of modern art. In today’s world the idea of it being scandalous is at best quaint. But that is not what I want to write about.

I was standing in front of the painting when two ladies passed briskly in front of me giving a cursory glance at the painting with one saying to the other “that’s pretty” as they quickly moved on. Art appreciation at it best. For me, I could not stop looking at the painting. The scale of the painting along with the subject matter demanded attention. While closely observing every square inch of the canvas, I began to feel I was part of the scene as if I was traveling through time. I felt as if I was standing in the room depicted in the painting but I was a photographer working with the two models. I had asked Victorine to lay on the bed. She is naked except for a flower in her hair, a bracelet on her right wrist, a black ribbon around her neck, earrings and slip-on shoes. She came to the modeling session wearing these items and I could see no reason she should remove them. I usually go with serendipity. The other model, Laure, is wearing a pink dress with a white collar, a pink hair covering and holding a large bouquet of flowers wrapped with white paper. The thing that visually stands out on her are the red dangly earrings but since her head is turned only one is visibly hanging from her left ear. It definitely held my attention. I thought about having her remove it since it was distracting but again that is how she came to the modeling session and sometimes my meddling can detract from the composition.

When Victorine positioned herself on the bed, she just naturally posed in a comfortable position with legs crossed at the ankles and her hands finding positions that look natural and relaxed. It was just a coincidence that her left hand covered her pudendum. Her torso is propped up on the bed with pillows. The white sheets are messy and rumpled but again I don’t like to tamper with such details-I take it as it is. I asked both models to look at me which I thought would be best. Victorine looked at me but Laure made a questioning glance toward Victorine as if to ask a question. I liked the way she glanced and asked her to continue with that pose. Before freezing the image for posterity, a black cat unexpectedly appeared and jumped onto the bed looking directly at me. At first, I wanted to get the cat out of the picture but decided that it filled in that empty corner and proceeded to take the final picture. As I began fading away, I thought that Édouard would be happy with my photograph.

I slowly began to hear voices and saw people around me and realized I had returned to the museum looking at “Olympia”. Even though “Olympia” is a painting, I related to it as a photograph. First, it is a nude and a large portion of my photographic work is centered on the nude. Second, it is very naturalistic in appearance and has a relaxed demeanor. Third, there is a randomness to the composition including the models’ poses, the objects, the background, and the inclusion of the unexpected (the cat). These elements show up in some of my best work. 

Of course, the above account is pure speculation on my part but there is some basis that these events could be rooted in photography. I believe photography’s role may have had some significance. The painting has a modern feel to it and although no photographs have been connected to “Olympia” it seems to have a genetic relationship to photography.

It is known that Manet did use photographs for some of his paintings and etchings including “The Execution of the Emperor Maximilian” and several portraits. Some of his paintings included photographic nuances associated with light and dark areas of compositions. Historically, film initially had difficulty recording middle tones which resulted in high contrast photos. Paintings using such photographs as guides emphasized such characteristics.

Manet was not a stranger to photography (I saw him referred to as an amateur photographer) and like other painters he used photographs to help in his artistic vision.

But does it matter. It really is about the painting. What you see and feel when viewing it. The painting pulled me right into it and I felt I was there in 1863 recording the scene on film. Perhaps I did and Édouard Manet used my image to help create “Olympia.”

References: The Artist and the Camera-Degas to Picasso

     Art and Photography

“Olympia” by Édouard Manet

Polaroid Emulsion Transfers

I recently was looking through one of my archival boxes of photographs and came across six Polaroid emulsion transfers that I created around 1998 or 1999. The process was complicated and getting a successful transfer was difficult. It involved using peel-apart film, soaking it in water until the image separates and floats, and then carefully moving it and placing it on a piece of paper without damaging the emulsion. I used Arches paper. I tried the process but did not enjoy it and the results were not always the best. Here is one of my transfers which I scanned from the original.

Off-Kilter Thoughts

What connections, if any, exists between my photography work and personal life?

What will be thought of my 50+ years of photographs?

Will my work be enriched by biographical knowledge or is it aesthetically sufficient to the viewer without personal background information?

Is my work “strong” enough without words of explanation?

What would a review of my work reveal?

Would it be better not to know anything about the artist?

Could the work be stronger without personal information or is that essential to the viewer?

Is it more satisfying to be emotionally connected to a work without knowing the artists emotions and intentions?

A work should stimulate a response in the viewer.

The work is more important than the artist.

The viewer is more important that the artist.

Work has more power than either the artist or the viewer.

What does my work say? What does my work not say?

Work does not have to say anything but may stir an unconscious spark in some viewers.

The artist may not know or care what the work says and prefer it that way.

The artist may not care what others think and others may not care what the artist thinks.

Culture Stagnation

“We are now almost a quarter of the way through what looks likely to go down in history as the least innovative, least transformative, least pioneering century for culture since the invention of the printing press.”

Jason Farago,
“Out of Time”, New York Times Magazine, October 15, 2023

I strongly feel that photography has also been in this deep cultural rut with little innovation and progress, and images that are not that good. This writing is a continuation of a previous post “The Photographic Dilemma” in which I am very critical of the state of photography and what I see as its downward progression into mediocrity over the past twenty years. According to Mr. Farago “…the present state of culture feels directionless…” which is how I feel about photography today.

I recently viewed two local art exhibitions. One was a members show (non-juried) which usually contains work of varied quality. The photographic pieces in the show just sort of blended into the wall. The other show was the Pennsylvania Annual Art of the State juried exhibition where the quality is much better but the work (especially photography) struggled for attention. The best photograph was a black and white image looking down on a street from several stories up which was composed of people walking amid geometric patterns. It showed a distinctive and unique eye of the photographer. I know this photographer and I know he has a track record of consistently creating exceptional work over a long period of time. We need more photographers of his caliber in today’s world.

It is as if many of today’s photographers have no interest in the history of photography and the images created by the photographers throughout that history. Perhaps, they have decided to throw out the past and assumed they were going to create something new. Unfortunately, this has not worked.

Ten years ago, Aperture magazine made a major change to their publication with the Spring 2013 issue where the main section of the magazine was divided into two parts–Words and Pictures. Beginning with that issue the number of pages compared to the previous issue (Winter 2012) nearly doubled (152 pages to 88 pages). This was not good for photography. The lackluster photographs have been diluted by words. As I wrote before in a post, it used to be said that a photograph was worth a thousand words. Now it is necessary to have a thousand words to explain a photograph. Aperture has done their part in contributing to culture stagnation as it relates to photography.

Today, an individual can scroll through thousands of photographic images but there is nothing to see. Culture is at a standstill.

The Photographic Dilemma

I keep asking myself “What is wrong with fine art photography today?” I am seeing lackluster photographs with little originality that lack a “voice” and originality. They are mostly mundane and show little creativity on the part of the photographer. The only photos that spark my visual excitement were made many years ago. What is causing this image drought? Is it the inundation of the large quantity of mostly bland pictures that we face today? Is it poor photography education or simply a lack of dedication and direction? How much can be blamed on the curators and gallerists who control what is seen? Is there a fog of visual laziness hovering over the field of fine art photography? How long will it last?

It is likely, that in this age of digital interruption, photographers cannot concentrate for the long periods of time needed in the process of artistic pursuit which prevents deep brain thinking from occurring. I also believe social media has dampened visual acuity with the impersonal likes and thumbs up giving a false sense of importance. The New York Times has been highlighting portfolios of photos from photographers that an editor has been following on-line. At best they come across as beginning photographers with some potential and at worst they are individuals with a camera or camera phone who take snapshots.

I have to think much of the blame for the uninspired photo production lies with photographers. It does not appear that they are “putting in the work” and devoting enough time to photography. Inability to focus attention and a lack of concentration may be major contributors.

I am hoping this is only a temporary cycle and that there will be a photographic resurgence in the near future—a renaissance period. It will be up to a future generation of photographers, teachers, curators, critics and patrons to change what I see as a continued downward spiral into mediocrity for photography.