A1—Discussion with tutor

I had a good discussion with my tutor following submission of Assignment 1. Although he will send me a written summary of his feedback, I am doing this write-up based on the notes I took during our chat. Robert’s comments about the assignment were positive and I found them both encouraging and an opportunity for further reflection.

I mentioned that I had changed my original vision for the assignment, which was to have two images of each scene, one with frozen people and the other where the length of exposure meant that traces of people disappeared entirely. I did try this, but I decided that I wanted to leave a trace of movement similar to the way that Alexey Titarenko had done with his series. The reason I did this was not to follow Titarenko, but to avoid confusing viewers who would see every second image with a background and no people at all. I was concerned that this would be “too conceptual” and Robert replied that being conceptual is not a problem in a course like this! To my mind, “too conceptual” means that I would have to explain to viewers what they were looking at, because it would not be at all obvious from the images. I suppose that some of my reaction is because I do not want to produce images that are so conceptually “heavy” they require lengthy written explanations. This is the case for two reasons: 1) if I wanted a description of a concept, I would use words rather than images; and 2) I think I would be embarrassed to produce work that was so precious or clever that it could not be understood without an arty accompanying text. I don’t see me moving from that position in the near future, but I am now better aware of my own discomfort.

All the same, Robert’s view was that my series was conceptually coherent and that I had successfully achieved the concept visually and elegantly.

A couple of minor points on the images themselves, the first pointed out by me and the second by Robert:

the white balance was difficult to correct between the diptychs, but I managed to get close enough in every pair except the ones showing the Millennium Bridge and St. Paul’s (I may have another crack at this before assessment).
the two images showing the casino in Leicester Square are slightly out of register (this will be easier to resolve and I will definitely fix it before assessment).

A more important point, however, was the fact that my series shows a side of the city that most Londoners do not frequent: tourist London. This was not my intent: I had merely wanted to be in places where I was guaranteed a steady pedestrian flow without a tripod slowing commuters down on their way to or from work. The unintended consequence, however, was that the places I chose were all tourist haunts—so the cumulative effect is a series that could very well be ‘read’ as a comment on tourists or tourism, rather than more neutrally on the camera’s exposure of our perception of time and the artificiality of the photographic record. In other words, I wound up ‘saying’ visually more than I meant to. I saw Robert’s point immediately and will make a point of paying more attention to this aspect of my work in future.

The final point we discussed was my use of the term ‘reality.’ I had used it to describe the way that people commonly act as though a photograph gives them some direct experience of the world around them (a “phenomenological” approach; Smith, 2018). I realize that I left my understanding of the term unspoken and will go back to my A1 text to rework it slightly before I submit it for assessment.

All in all, a very positive tutorial and some new points for me to reflect on as I continue developing my approach to building visual narratives.

Reference

Smith, D.W. (2018) ‘Phenomenology’ In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. At: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/phenomenology/ (Accessed on 23 July 2019)

A1—Reflection

Demonstration of technical and visual skills

I am, for the most part, happy with the results I achieved for A1. I think that there is still room for improvement in the composition of some of the images, however. My main concern was that there would be enough pedestrian traffic in the frame to provide the desired blurring effect during the time the shutter was open. Next time, I will also pay more attention to the background of the images.
Even with a 10-stop filter, I found that exposure times could be shorter than what I was after, depending upon how bright the sun was. A uniform set of overcast days would have been ideal. I could have had much longer exposure times at night, obviously, but I did not want the assignment to become a ‘night photography’ exercise where ambient lights and colours might distract from the desired effect on the pedestrians.
The 10-stop filter also created some challenges around the white balance of the RAW images. Although the filter was not cheap and was fairly neutral in terms of colour cast, it was not perfect. I matched the colour balances of the individual long- and short-exposures as best I could, but it is not perfect. If I use this technique again, there are probably a few things I could do: post-produce the final images in black and white (perhaps this is why Titarenko opted for monochrome); take more time with colour balancing in my editing software; and/or do additional test shots of each scene with a grey card to help ensure accurate colour rendition.

Quality of outcome

I had a good idea of the effect that I wanted to achieve before I began shooting and, for the most part, achieved it.
I am happy with my conceptual approach and believe that I have expressed it effectively, both visually and in my documentation on the blog.
If I print these images for display, I think I might do so as a more obvious set of diptychs: not just side-by-side as a series of images with similar backgrounds, but as a set of diptychs with two pictures printed on a single sheet of photographic paper.

Demonstration of creativity

It is always tricky to speak of one’s own demonstration of creativity, but I think that I brought a slightly new twist to the brief of ‘two sides of the story.’ From my scan of other OCA student blogs, it appears that many achieve their ‘two sides’ by changing the camera’s viewpoint or by altering the subject matter from frame to frame. I decided to play with the dimension of time without altering the viewpoint or subject matter and I think it has been effective.
If it is any indication of my satisfaction with the results—not complete satisfaction, but pleased enough—I think that I would like to return to this approach again where appropriate for later work, whether for the OCA or for myself. I wouldn’t simply repeat what I have done here, but try to improve my technique (see above) and push the concepts further. There is still more for me to do with the effects of time and our perceptions of it.

Context

As I discussed with my tutor when I began CAN, I already had a rough idea of the approach I wanted to take with A1. My research, particularly of Titarenko’s work helped to focus the visual approach to my work: I could see that limiting the exposures to a few seconds created more interesting images than my original idea of having people disappear entirely through extremely long exposures. I did try this for some of my earlier attempts and thought that the results were a bit boring and could possibly confuse viewers (“Were people really there, or are you playing games with us?”).
The discussions by Rutherford and Campany were also helpful to me in terms of better communicating the original concept I had in mind and setting it within an ongoing discourse about the ‘reliability’ of still photographic images and their impact upon our perception of time and truth.

A1—Two Sides of the Story

Most people who give the issue more than a moment’s thought realize that a two-dimensional image does not give us direct access to three-dimensional “reality.” But since a camera contains a light-sensitive surface that is exposed for a specified period, the artifice of an image extends to include a fourth dimension: an often unquestioned perception of time. A camera is a time machine, after all.

A photographer may just have two fundamental controls: “where I stand and when I press the button” (Hurn and Jay, 1997: 25). But although David Hurn is probably being facetious about how simple image-making is, he might have usefully added that another part of the subjectivity the photographer brings to the image is how long to press the button.

We have become very used to photographs freezing time faster than sight allows, but the camera is just as capable of creating exposures that are much longer than what the eye can register. Japanese photographer Hirhoshi Sugimoto has explored this with his series of long-exposures in movie theatres to the point of information overload: his photographic record shows screens that are grossly over-exposed and therefore blank. And Alexey Titarenko’s City of Shadows series on St. Petersburg uses long exposures to capture the blurred movement of people in a dreary black-and-white cityscape (Titarenko and Tchmyreva, 2001). While Titarenko’s shutter is open, crowds leave vapour trails and begin to fade.

David Campany suggests that still images not only prompt our memories but shape how we understand the phenomenon of memory itself: “In popular consciousness (as opposed to popular unconsciousness) the still image continues to be thought of as being more memorable than those that move” (Campany, 2003).

None of the images I have prepared for this assignment is any less “true” than the photographs of frozen motion that we have become used to. In fact, both pictures in each set are artificial and neither reproduces what our eyes see. Both are ‘still’ images, but one is less still and hints at how quickly perception and memory fade.

We have simply become used to the photographic convention of stillness. But it is just one side of the story.

References

Campany, D. “Safety in Numbness: Some remarks on the problems of ‘Late Photography’’’ (2003) At: https://davidcampany.com/safety-in-numbness/ (Accessed on 14 July 2019)

Hurn, D. and Jay, B. (1997) On being a photographer: a practical guide. Portland, Oregon: Lenswork Publishing.

Theaters — Hiroshi Sugimoto (s.d.) At: https://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/new-page-7 (Accessed on 14 July 2019)

Titarenko, A. and Tchmyreva, I. (2001) City of shadows. St. Petersburg, Russia: APT Tema.

A1—Alexey Titarenko

Alexey Titarenko (1962- , Leningrad)

Graduated with honours from the Department of Cinematic and Photographic Art at Leningrad’s Institute of Culture
Influenced by Russian avant-garde works of Kazimir Malevich, Alexander Rodchenko and Dada art
Published series of collages, photomontages and superimposed negatives, Nomenklatura of Signs in 1988 as commentary on the Communist regime
During and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991–1992, produced several series using long exposure and intentional camera movement in street photography
City of Shadows urban landscapes reference Odessa Steps (also known as the Primorsky or Potemkin Stairs) scene from film The Battleship Potemkin.
Venice series between 2001 and 2008 references “Venice of the North,” Saint Petersburg.
Shoots film and does own darkroom work—bleaching and toning, solarisation, Sabattier effect.
2011 exhibition of 15 gelatin silver prints from Havana, Cuba series (2003-2006).
U.S. citizen since 2011 and lives in NYC.

I became aware of Alexey Titarenko’s work through an introduction to contemporary street photography (Howarth and McLaren, 2010) as well as through a series of videos I had seen online (Artist Series: Alexey Titarenko, 2016). I was captivated by the way he showed movement of people through the streets of Leningrad by means of the ghostly traces created by long exposure (Titarenko and Tchmyreva, 2001). It seemed to me that the indistinct layers of the figures suggested something about the transience of life, particularly when set against the unforgiving, hard lines of a city going through difficult times. The long exposure is a technique that Titarenko has continued to use effectively on other projects—most notably his series entitled “Time Standing Still” and “Venice” (Titarenko, s.d.)—along with other analogue, post-production methods (like solarisation and the Sabbatier effect) for heightening the surreal appearance of his photographs (Meyers, 2008).

The discussion in Rutherford (2014) of the photographic techniques used by Titarenko and others is helpful for demonstrating how their work demonstrates another, valid view of the ‘photographicness’ of works that show an altered reality or perspective. It is just as much—or perhaps more—a property of photography that it creates a reality more than it provides a true depiction of it. Because of this, Rutherford believes that it is always more correct to say that a picture is actively ‘made’ rather than passively ‘taken.’ In a brief reference to Titarenko’s images from City of Shadows, Rutherford (2014: 208) says that “the modus operandi of the medium has transformed the Things in Front of the Lens to produce results which are uniquely ‘photographic’.”

Most important for my thinking in preparation for Assignment 1, goes on to assert (2014: 210) that:

“… as a result of the ways in which the medium interprets, juxtaposes and renders the Things in Front of the Lens at that moment and from that perspective, photographs are capable of depicting scenes, events and moments that did not exist and could not have existed until brought into being by the act of photographing them.”

This is exactly where I wanted to go with the assignment—to look at how the very properties of the camera itself allow us to see two or more versions of the same scene (what Rutherford repeatedly calls the Things in Front of the Lens ), where every version has the same claim as any other to be a ‘faithful’ representation. And if they are all faithful and all different, perhaps none of them can be said to be truly faithful.

This combination of Titarenko’s photographic technique and Rutherford’s theoretical discussion will be useful for me as I develop and position my work for the assignment.

References

Alexey Titarenko (2019) In: Wikipedia. At: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexey_Titarenko&oldid=904212618 (Accessed on 13 July 2019)

Alexey Titarenko (s.d.) At: http://www.alexeytitarenko.com (Accessed on 13 July 2019)

Alexey Titarenko – 27 Artworks, Bio & Shows on Artsy (s.d.) At: https://www.artsy.net/artist/alexey-titarenko (Accessed on 13 July 2019)

Artist Series: Alexey Titarenko. (2016) Directed by The Art of Photography At: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whoZ8SRgi2s (Accessed on 13 July 2019)

Galerie municipale du château d’eau and Dieuzaide, M. (2000) Alexei Titarenko: Toulouse, 21 juin-4 septembre 2000.

Howarth, S. and McLaren, S. (2010) Street photography now. London ; New York: Thames & Hudson.

Meyers, W. “Alexey Titarenko’s Venetian Style” (2008) In: The New York Sun (New York, NY) 24 April 2008 p.17. [online] At: https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A178223382/STND?u=ucca&sid=STND&xid=07ae77f9 (Accessed on 13 July 2019)

Rutherford (2014) ‘Photography as an act of collaboration’ In: Journal of Media Practice 15 (3) pp.206–227. [online] At: https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2014.1000043 (Accessed on 13 July 2019)

Titarenko, A. and Tchmyreva, I. (2001) City of shadows. St. Petersburg, Russia: APT Tema.

Other works by Alexey Titarenko

Nomenklatura of Signs (1985-1991) (s.d.) At: http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/nomenclatureofsigns (Accessed on 13 July 2019)

Titarenko, A. et al. (2003) Alexey Titarenko, photographs. New York? N. Alexander.

Titarenko, A. (2015) The city is a novel. Bologna: Damiani.

A1—Two sides of the story: initial idea

When I started thinking about a set of images aiming to “explore the convincing nature of documentary, even though what the viewer thinks they see may not in fact be true,” I remembered David Hurn’s statement that the photographer has “two fundamental controls: where I stand and when I press the button” (Hurn and Jay, 2001: 26).

It seemed to me that most people automatically think of these two controls when considering the ‘truthfulness’ of photography: what is the viewer not seeing because of the photographer’s selection of viewpoint and what was missed because the photographer selected to freeze one instant rather than another? If we think of it, any photographic tool works by exposing a light-sensitive sensor to a certain quantity of light for a certain quantity of time. In other words, there are other dimensions of photography that have an impact on the documentary nature of the image produced, and one of these is time.

We have become used to photographs freezing imagery and I think that we take this characteristic as one of photography’s chief gifts: letting us see things that happen too quickly for the eye to register properly and preserving them for us to examine at our leisure. But how often do we remember that a photograph can also let us see things that take place over such a long period that the eye cannot register them?

Aren’t long exposures just as true—or false—a representation of reality as short exposures? What I’d like to do then, is to create a series of images of the same scenes shot at different shutter speeds, with each version having an equal claim to being ‘true.’

I am aware that Alexey Titarenko has produced a number of series of street photography images using long exposures, so I will make a point of researching his work.

Reference

Alexey Titarenko. At: http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/

Hurn, D. and Jay, B. (2001) On being a photographer: a practical guide. LensWork Pub.