I added this link to my list a while ago and intended to write something up – a while ago, but selfishly I have been browsing through purely for my own enjoyment, lots and lots to explore and to me a great example of what can be found by exploring the collections of other’s hard work and effort. This is a great example of an emerging sense of curator in a web connected world…
(Full disclosure alert!!) Now I have another reason to get you to visit – But does if float? – I am really very excited (and flattered) to have some of my own photography work highlighted on the site as well!
Seriously though – visit But does if float? – you will find a mix of new and established work that just may get your own creative energies rejuvenated.
Combination of cinematography, sculpture and a quite nice example of creating a sense of mood with lighting and motion to reveal the subject. Highly recommend visiting this link to a sample vid for a sense of the work – albeit a “web” experience – which not having seen it in person myself I wonder if it has more presence. Wonderful application of the “inherent” qualities of many computer generated realities – that of being a “bit too clean” and eerily sterile which fits perfectly with the subject matter in my opinion and to great effect.
This is the opposite in a sense of the escapism embodied in many popular animations (thinking of that place called Pandora that has the vital element unobtanium – so needed on this ruined earth) unfortunately this is a reality modeled in a 3-D world we don’t have to go far experience in real life. Yet another example of the artist and the “mental model”…
There is a tight consistency and pattern of study or inquiry that appeals to my aesthetic sense and architectural interest which draws me to these wonderfully rich photographic images of Bergbauer’s. The exploration of natural forms and resulting patterns or “structure” resonates for me in the direction of a “quell the clutter” approach… Jurgen Bergbauer is an artist that I am to watch for upcoming work for sure….
I’m wondering if anyone might have some experience with this on-demand publishing service called MagCloud by HP…? Quality?
Seems to be yet another avenue for self expression / self branding… full of potential with the right content and very little economic means.
And now with a little boost from the NYT – perhaps a wider audience, though I’m wondering about the “vanity publishing” aspect with this comment… “it’s a nifty idea for a vanity press that reminds me of the underground zines we had in the ’60s and ’70s.” ?
Surely, content trumps quality and it is likely so in this case… but perhaps there is a certain fitness to purpose, to satisfy the desire to hold print in our hands in addition to the flickering glimmer of our screens…
“…He often talked about edges: about the areas between walls, between a floor and
a ceiling — about gaps and voids, which he made into art. In the show are
photographs that he took of the spaces under chairs, between the floors of
buildings, on the ceiling of a loft, where the sprinkler pipes were: places
people don’t usually bother to notice. “Opening up view to the unvisible” (he
loved wordplay), was something he jotted on a note to himself. It might be his
manifesto.” – Art Review- Cross Sections of Yesterday
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
Published: February 23, 2007
Gordon Matta-Clark, “Splitting,” 1974, black & white photo collage, 40 x 30 inches Collection Jane Crawford Courtesy Rhona Hoffman Gallery, Chicago
I find Matta-Clark’s vision of space more to my sense of being in the world… After all we humans stand up on two legs… and look out at the world through two eyes (I’m generalizing here)… We don’t fly over things like birds… so I find things like this…. by Andreas Gefeller – which I think is a bit more odd and difficult to enter into… excepting that I am a practicing architect (intern) – so I’ve got some practice looking at “plans”. But that’s a whole other subject – like the Oblique…
To me the plan (more like a way-finding map – removed – abstracted – about iconography) means something entirely different than the section photo montage by Gordon Matta-Clark above. I like the collage of photographs each room with it’s own vanishing point. Vanishing point – that assumes that there is a subject perspective…. a point of view. Therefor I can imagine being in this space… I like the offering of being able to “see it all at once” yet I’m, not really able to a have true understanding of the space. That’s what’s challenging in this work. What we think we see in photos recomposing a certain kind of reality… In this case Gordon’s. I like it.
Colberg writes: I am confused
Alright, I do realize that this post might tick off quite a few people, but here’s my question anyway: Am I the only one who thinks thatHDR photos mostly look likeold colour postcards?(sorry for the probably non-ideal link to old postcards – if you know a better site, let me know) You basically get the same effect: The colours look gaudy and artificial, and the scenes look somewhat unreal, the only difference being that HDR photos look crisper.
I have to agree with the examples (from Flickr) of HDR offered up in the link from Jörg Colberg over on Conscientious – however, I am not so quick to discount some value to HDR… it depends upon how you approach the “output”…in my opinion…. (above example my own attempt).
Above is an HDR image. I think it works because for me I can’t sense that it is HDR. But, if you photograph under these lighting conditions (in digital mode) you’d have to do a film type of multiple exposure in order to get the light from inside wall surfaces to work with the amount of light outside coming through the window, otherwise in a conventional exposure – one area or the other would get over / under exposed.
So, I don’t discount HDR as a technique – I think may have its place but it is just that “a technique” a tool…along the way… not an end in my opinion….. I’ve got other examples tagged here.
The measure of “effect” on the final product – the photograph…. whether by digital filter or analogue filter – should not get in the way of the illusion contained with-in the surface…
It’s a like being jarred from the temporary suspension of disbelief of when you’re immersed in a movie.. you know by the Skittles the jerk behind you dropped that are now rolling under your feet…!
…examining the threshold at which ordinary visibility ends and perception begins ….
I’ve not been out making any new pictures lately, but instead looking at a lot of the old ones that have been collecting digital dust on my hard drive. Looking for connections in subjects… etc. So I came across these digital pinholes from a earlier this spring in April. For some reason this one has caught my eye.
The digital pinhole is a direct lensless image – a direct capture on the old CMOS censor – and I know the whole digital thing makes the hard core photogs laugh – i.e… you don’t really know what or how to take a “real” picture… and I say “so what” to that. After all, what is a “real picture” anyway? Yes, there’s a different sort of technical skill and ability that is required to make film pictures… and the quality of film (detail, color, grain) is all about what can be simulated and the choices you might make along the way in developing a negative – film or digital – so to me the argument is overrated.
I say so what to how you actually make a picture – it’s that end result that must be out there. It’s the image in your mind’s eye – if you can get there – through film or digital that matters to me. But still I wonder, is the way you make a picture (the method) what is of value? Or is it the picture?
I talked to a local startup gallerist the other day about photography – what he looks for in reviewing work… and he pretty much summed it up… “…is it big and does it look cool? That’s what sells….” Pretty much tells me that there is a lot of image noise out there and photogs need to be “big and bold” in order to catch attention and hold anything more than a glance – well maybe – I know you can’t base a lot on these sorts of conversations, but there is a “gut check” reality to it.
It’s the “of whom (or what) by whom” relationship in other words I suppose that makes a difference.
…examining the threshold at which ordinary visibility ends and perception begins ….