PLATON + ME

Famous British photographer Platon recently got a lot of press for his
Time magazine Man-Of-The-Year portrait of Russian President. V. Putin.

According to the interview with Platon posted on the World Press Photo
award-web-site-thingy (click here, then click 2008 interviews, then click
on the shot of Putin) it took 5 days of waiting around, a limo ride to the
sticks outside of Moscow and a further 5 hours of waiting for his 5 minutes
with Putin. (Boy, that’s a lot of 5’s.)

I’m struck by the similarities between Platon’s shot of Putin (2007) and
the shot I took of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2005).

I’m not suggesting that Platon’s copying me, after all….he doesn’t even know I exist.
I just think it’s funny how this stuff happens from time to time.

Anyway……

The look of the images isn’t the only similarity at work here. While I didn’t have
to wait in a hotel room for 5 days to get the go-ahead for my shoot, Harper’s
people did only give me 45 minutes to set up and 5 minutes to take the pictures.

I kept him for 6 minutes. In that time I did 3 set ups. One of them sucked and the
other two worked. Here’s another frame from my 6 minutes with the P.M.

And, speaking of World Leaders (or maybe I should make that: World Leader), I
recently photographed the American Ambassador to Canada for Winkreative.

I’m not at liberty to show you those portraits yet but I can show you the napkin the
Ambassador’s butler (or whatever he is) put under the glass of water I asked for…..

EVIDENCE

The big Ottawa Art Gallery 20th Anniversary show EVIDENCE opened this past Thursday.

Seeing as there were 17 artists showing and that it was an anniversary celebration there
were about a million people at the opening. I took my trusty point and shoot but was
so distracted, what with seeing so many people I know, catching up and so on, that I
didn’t really take a lot of pictures.

MORE CRACK

WARNING:
Depending on where you work, one
of the following images may be
NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

Last year I took portraits of crack addicts after dark. I blocked them into tableaux,
added light and pressed the button.

The time I spent photographing them was intense, fulfilling and very, very exciting,
so I really wanted to continue this project. But I didn’t want to just carry on shooting
like I did last year.

You may not know it from looking at my pictures, but I don’t like repeating myself. I
had the idea that this year I might try shooting the addicts in the exact opposite way
from what I’d previously done. I thought I’d shoot tight head shots, all framed the same.
The drama would come from allowing the viewers to just look into the subjects’ eyes,
study their faces.

If you’ve been following along here on drool you’ll have seen some of my preliminary
efforts, efforts that didn’t work for me. They felt a bit too much like mass production,
too easy in the sense that I was using a simple formula. I had designed a box and was
putting the subjects into it. (Of course every photographer has boxes of their own design.
They have strategies, proclivities, sensitivities, interests, ways of organizing the world.
The photographers’ job is to turn chaos into order and without some boxes that’s an
impossible task.)

Anyway…..

A couple of days ago, after pondering what was right and what was wrong (subjectively
speaking, of course) with the approach I’d been trying, I went back to the corner and shot
each subject based on their own merits. Different framing for each person based on how
I responded to them then and there. That made the shooting much more difficult, more
decisions had to be made. But it felt right.

Here are 3 of the most recent shots. At last I feel like I’m making some progress, that
these photos look like me. I realize that there’s some fine tuning to be done, many
photos to be taken and a hard edit to be applied. Of course.

The struggle to find a way is solved. The next struggle begins…..stasis = death.

Bubbles

Dakota

Joanne

detail

detail

detail

DAVID BARBOUR’S HAVANA

David Barbour has been going to Cuba, to shoot, forever.

He’s showing some older stuff and some newer stuff from Havana at the Red Wall Gallery.
You’ll see some classic Henri Cartier Bresson style street shooting and the newer pano-
ramic shots of empty streets at night. These new night shots are very beautiful…..they
drip with atmosphere. Go see for yourself.

David Barbour and some of his photographs

OPENING

The Ottawa Art Gallery is opening their big 20th anniversary show this coming Thursday.
Curated by Emily Falvey, the show (titled: EVIDENCE: The Ottawa City Project) presents
work by 17 artists. The included pieces are concerned with “charting the fragmentary
proof of an alternative Ottawa”. I had a quick look at the art before it was hung and it
looks like this is gonna be a pretty interesting show…..artists’ take on their city. (Full
disclosure: I’m included in the show, but that’s not why I think it’s interesting. I think
it’s interesting because of the theme and all work included. Good job Emily.)

I count 10 photographers amongst the presenting artists so, if you like photography
and/or are interested in how some people view this city, get on down to the OAG.
Opens this Thursday, September 4th at 5:30 p.m.

Cornucopia, 2006. photograph by Justin Wannacott

PINKUS ZUKERMAN

I photographed Pinkus Zukerman a little while back. For Ottawa Magazine.

In case you don’t know (and why would you unless you live in Ottawa and/or follow
the classical music scene) he’a a world renowned violinist as well as The National
Arts Centre Orchestra main-man. A bit of a celebrity…..known far but not wide.

One of the things I like about shooting celebs and other “known” types is that they
come with public baggage. They’ve probably spent a bit more time and energy than
usual getting you to think of them in some certain way. Even if they haven’t (and that’s
a big if), the very fact that you “know who they are” changes the way you view photos
of them.

Plus, they are usually very savvy when it comes to the photo-portait process. Many
celebs are (of course) natural actors who are adept at portraying some idealized
version of themselves. I figure it’s my job, when shooting these public figures, to
cut through as much of that noise as possible and try to find an aspect of their
image that is new. (Tho’ I suppose you could look at it the other way and say the
photographer’s job is to reinforce the celeb’s public image. Problem is, my brain
just doesn’t work that way.)

I met with the art director and editor at Ottawa mag. They told me that we could
use Zukerman’s home, or the stage at The National Arts Centre. Zukerman’s people
were behind this magazine profile and photo shoot so location (within reason) wasn’t
going to be an issue. Me, I just wanted to shoot him using a plain wall. No fiddle, no
stage, no job description. Everyone in Ottawa already knows (up to a point) what the
guy does. Why should we just fall back on the easy clichés?

I was most pleased when Ottawa mag art director Jane Corbett saw these and
commented: “Very different from other shots I’ve seen of him. Thanks.”

All I can say to that is: “My pleasure. Thanks for the freedom.”

XTINA VISITS

My long-lost ex-assistant Christina Riley came back to Ottawa for a short visit from
her current location in California. Her sched in Ottawa is packed but she found
the time to drop by. Cin and me and Christina had lunch in the back yard and
chewed the fat.

Big fun. Big glasses.

MORE ME

Bumped into this on the web a couple of days ago on Lois Siegel’s web site/blog thingy.

Don’t ask…..

USER, take 3

Last year I spent a bunch of evenings and nites down on the corner of Cumberland and
Murray Streets. Photographing crack addicts.

I went back a few weeks ago to continue the project, to try a new approach. (Scroll down
to August 10th to see my first, new, unsuccessful efforts, along with an explanation.)

Long story short, I was dissatisfied with the results, with how I was going about fleshing
out the project. There was just something that didn’t feel right about my new approach.
So I went back to the drawing board, back to the corner. I did head shots again, but
different from last time.

To me these newer images are way more successful than those I took on my first attempt
this year. But they perplex me. And that can only mean one of two things:

1/ They don’t suit me and/or the project, i.e.: they suck.

2/ I’m following a path that I don’t understand that will eventually lead me somewhere new.

Here’s a little slide show of 3 of the brand new shots. The jury’s still out on what’s what
with these. All in all, though, this process of trying to find a new approach, one that fits
with what I’ve done on the corner before but is different, is really turning my crank. (In
a good way.) (Believe me.)

click arrow

FESTIVAL X

I’m planning on blogging extensively about Festival X this year.

For those of you who don’t know…..Festival X is the Ottawa Photography Festival.
Now in it’s second year. Is it too late to change it’s name to something that doesn’t
require you to, whenever you say: “FESTIVAL X”, follow up by saying: “That’s the
Ottawa photography festival”?

Anyway, I dragged my sorry ass down to the MEDIA LAUNCH this past Tuesday.
Looks like they’ve got a ton of stuff happening between the GALA OPENING, Sept.
18th at St. Brigid’s Centre for the Arts, and Sept. 28th when the fest wraps. I count
17 openings on Friday Sept. 19th between 5:30 and late. Whew! More details will
follow as the time draws near. (Go to their web site for all the info.)

My blogging about the festival will, I think, be a combo of gossip, snap shots, reviews
and color commentary. Lets get things rolling with some snaps from the media launch.

Banner. Photograph by Danny Hussey

Food

Francesco Corsaro, Fest X veep. Khalia Scott, Fest X pres.

SPAO main-man Michael Tardioli. Frame guru Patrick Gordon.

Art critic Paul Gessell studies the sched. Danny H. kisses Angelina McCormick

Michael Schrier. Justin Wonnacott. Photographers.

Links to a fascinating read and a moving audio-visual show today. Read on and
link away…….

DIANE ARBUS (and ANDERSON COOPER and OTHERS)

Back in 2005 David Segal, a writer at The Washington Post, tracked down some of
the people who had been photographed by Diane Arbus.

Hear what the Identical Twins have to say about their meeting with Arbus, what they
think about the photo, what their dad thinks.

The writer also found Colin Wood, the kid with the grenade.

Child with a toy hand grenade in Central Park, N.Y.C.

You’ll read about his thoughts and about that grenade he was holding.

You’ll also find out that Arbus shot (of all people) Anderson Cooper. That photo
isn’t included in the online Washington Post article so I’ll show you here……

Enough! Go read it HERE. It’s fascinating. But be sure to come back because I have
more link juice for you this week……..

ROBERT F. KENNEDY FUNERAL TRAIN

Paul Fusco (no relation) rode the train carrying Robert Kennedy’s body from
N.Y.C. to Washington. That would be back in 1968. Along the way he photo-
graphed the people who were lining the track to get a glimpse of, as Fusco
says in his commentary, “hope pass by”.

Paul Fusco, from RFK Funeral Train

The New York Times recently ran a piece on the photos. They also published
to the web an audio-visual piece showing some of the photos along with Fusco’s
commentary. This, also, is a must-see. Go HERE.

SO……

How do I follow these two items that illustrate the power and beauty of photo-
graphy and the photographic process?

Just to tell you that I’ve been busy this week shooting to make the money that
will allow me to carry on my personal projects. I’ve also been fine-tuning the
prints of the images that I will be exhibiting in September. The studio wall is
becoming full of options. It’s time to come to a decision, print these suckers
and move on.

My studio wall

I shot a bunch of accountants this week.

Now I know that, as a group, accountants have the reputation of being,
well…..boring. This group, though, certainly rose to the creative occasion.
They were fun, human, interested and, yes, even interesting.

All through the shoot I was rating them (right out loud) on the shininess of
their shoes. Here’s a shot of the winner of that category admiring his shine.

The shots below aren’t really out takes. That’s because they don’t come from
any specific shoot or project so there’s really no context to take them out from.
This happens from time to time.

When it comes to personal projects I like to work within geographical constraints
and tight(ish) themes. Along the way, though, I seem to shoot a certain amount
of one-off mini-projects. These don’t fit in to any of the focused projects I work
on but, in the end, they’re all grist for the mill.

My mind’s a mill.

And, speaking of projects…..I am once again working on the corner of Murray
and Cumberland Streets, photographing crack addicts.

I don’t want to go back to the corner and repeat again this year what I did last
year. I want to show the people there in a different way. Last year’s shots were
all about gesture, clothing, community. This year I just want to show the faces.

This subject matter (crack addicts) isn’t really one where you can test different
approaches using an assistant or any other stand-in. The people, their faces,
vibe and bearing are just too specific to shoot tests using anyone other than
the people who will actually comprise the project.

So with this in mind I dragged the 4×5 down to the corner, set up in an alley
and shot some tests. Initially I had a specific idea about how I would light
these. Then I second-guessed myself and shot all the tests using a completely
different kind of light than I had initially envisaged.

I knew all along that a certain amount of testing of light and approach would
be required. Trial and error is the name of this game. I also knew that the
final decision would be based on how the final prints looked, not on how the
images “read” on the web. Shooting tight head shots using a 4×5 camera
then making big enlargements from the shots yields prints with a look and
feel that can’t be replicated on a computer screen.

Anyway…..

With all this in mind I’m attaching here a short slide show of some of the
portraits I shot this past Wednesday. I reserve the right to change my
mind, in fact I’m already thinking about what’s right and what’s wrong
with these images.

And, by the way…..I met a whole lot of folks down on the corner who I
had photographed last year. There’s also a documentary film crew along
for the ride. The dynamic is very good, the subjects are supportive and
their stories are being poured out onto still film and video tape.

Stay tuned.

click on arrow

Casting, as it relates to photography, means a few of things. At least
it does to me…..

I guess the first and most obvious meaning of casting is choosing the
right person for a role. And in photography the role is as subject.
There are thousands (millions, billions) to choose from but only
certain people grab you.

Casting also means throwing your fishing line into the water and
hoping you catch something. Which can also be a description of
photography…..I’ve often thought that what I do is a lot like fishing.
It’s like trying to find and catch something hidden underneath. When
you find and catch that thing (or person, or feeling, or whatever) the
photo is like a trophy you can hang on your wall, show to folks.

Casting, too, can mean giving form to something, usually by pouring a
liquid material into a mold. And, in a way that’s a kind of description of
photography as well. The world is a fluid place and the job of the photo-
grapher is to give that fluidity shape.

To put these 3 definitions together as they relate to photography:

I was poking around Mississippi, ran into a town called Stateline. Pulled
in to a gas station where a bunch of folks were hanging around. Got out
of the car and studied the people and dynamic there. No one or thing
grabbed my attention, make me want to take the risk of approaching them
with the aim to take their picture. I was just about to leave when this bright
green car pulls up, dude leaves it running, gets out and starts pumping gas
while smoking a cigarette.

Now this is a guy I want to shoot. He had the look and the gestures and
the energy that compelled me to make the effort, take the risk, find the
form.

His name is LaReese Walker. Here’s the shot.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because lately I’ve been casting about,
shooting test shots of different folks for a little side project I’ve been
wanting to do for a while. Namely, shooting people getting their freak on.

After a few wrong turns, wrong faces and wrong dynamics I found Eric and
April. They were just what I was looking for and are ready, willing and able,
so I cast them.

Now comes the difficult, scary, exciting part……trying to figure out how to
shoot this. I’ve never done this type of thing before, which is why I want to
try. (Have I mentioned that I like getting out of my comfort zone from time
to time. I have a theory that most middle class, first world people, like me,
are chronically comfortable.)

How I (we) end up giving form to this situation remains to be seen. In the
meantime let me inroduce you to Eric and April. Hopefully you’ll be seeing
more of them in the coming months.

GETTING READY

I’m in 2 group shows and a two person show which all open in September.
I’m in full production mode, getting ready…..

The studio wall is starting to fill up with tests and sequences and so on
and so forth. Big fun mixed with the drudgery of production.

AN OPENING

Friday nite, August 1st, the place to be in Ottawa was Gallery La Petite Mort for the
RIDE ME opening. The place was packed inside, the overflow making the scene
on the sidewalk outside.

PIETER HUGO

won the big prize at Arles this year. Everyone seems to be talking about
his series: THE HYENA & OTHER MEN

Pieter Hugo: Mallam Galacima Ahmadu with Jamis, Nigeria, 2005

There has been some discussion in the blogosphere about whether his
approach reflects Africa or not.

If you ask me that’s totally bogus, I believe that people are smart enough
to figure out this type imagery. Photographers should and must be free to
shoot whatever interests them. Leave it to the intellectuals, custodians,
bureaucrats and theorists to have their wank. Photographers take photographs.
Period.

Having said that, I’d like to point you Jeorg Colberg’s way for more on this.
He featured African photography all last week over at Conscientious.
The thing about Joerg, he has his opinions and predilections but, in this
case: kudos for fleshing out the issue. (You may need to scroll down a
bit to get to the African posts.)

A couple of weeks ago I was sick of the hype aspect of this and other blogs.
I’ve come back to my senses. After all, what is a blog but hype?

So I guess I’ll be posting about what I know best, and that’s what I’m up to.
I am, though, going to try to feature other photographers work here as well.
People who I bump into during my interweb travels who’s images strike me.

That way, if you get bored of me there’ll be something else.

But first: the hype…….

COMMERCIAL WORK

A while back I did a bunch of shooting for The Public Health Agency of Canada.

Here’s a couple of frames from all that shooting…..one’s an out take, the other
one was published.

Jane Billings, ADM and Dr. Robert C. Clarke

PERSONAL WORK

The Ottawa Art Gallery is mounting a big show to celebrate their 20th anniversary.
Show’s titled: EVIDENCE. Opens September 5th and runs until November 16th.

I’m pleased to be able to report that they bought some prints from my series USER
and that these will be included in the show. Plus, they used a detail from one of my
shots on the cover of their newsletter.

Junior, Ottawa 2007

Junior’s a meth addict. He’d been up for 3 days when we shot this.

NEW NEW JERSEY

There was a technical problem with one of the shots I wanted to use in my
BESIDE THE PASSAIC project. I only took one frame of that particular set up
(the perils of shooting 4×5) so I had to go looking for a replacement shot.

One of the things I love about photography is the idea of sequencing images.
Thing is, once you replace (or move) one image there’s a domino effect. You’ve
got to shuffle a whole bunch of images around. That kinda happened when I pulled
the “defective” shot. The good thing is that I got to include a couple of shots that I
really liked. The bad thing is that the shot that got pulled was just about my favorite
shot from the whole project. Sigh!

Anyway, I said I wasn’t going to post any more of the Jersey pix but, what with the
additions and deletions to the final edit plus the fact that the initial slide show I posted
was done from fast preliminary scans…..well, I have no choice. All in all I swapped
out 3 photos.

So here it is: BESIDE THE PASSAIC, new and improved.
.

click on arrow bottom left

THE SECRET TO PHOTOGRAPHY

Here it is…..I’m sure you’ve all been waiting:

Take a lot of pictures, only show people the ones that work.

the fine print:
- talent, passion, perseverance and half a brain are prerequisites.
- context rules…..what works in one situation might just suck in another.
- you’ve gotta have an ego, just don’t fall in love with it.

SIMON NORFOLK

Norfolk drags his large format camera all over the place, specifically to
war zones and other scenes of conflict (which even include the American
presidential campaign).

He recently gave a talk at the New York Photo Festival. When asked about
his approach to photographing conflict and other terrible things he replied,
in part: “Beauty is a tactic”. Man, I wish I’d said that.

Anyhow, this guy’s work is amazing. Check it out…….

Below are two of his photos from Afghanistan.

FOUR BY FIVE SKIES

The project I shot in Jersey was pretty much the first time I’ve used 4×5 film.

Now, I don’t want to get into a digital vs film debate here, I don’t care what
you use. To me cameras are just tools. I’m not (too much) of a geek about
them…..mine are dirty, chipped, used. (I’ve noticed that people who really
like to take pictures usually have pretty used looking gear, those who are
into the geek/fetish bits of photography keep their shit clean. But that’s
another post.) I love and use digital for it’s ease and speed and a bunch
of other reasons.

But…..

I’ve been working on the Jersey pix (285 meg files from scanned 4×5 color negs.)
and I’ve been working on digital files I’ve shot for editorial and commercial gigs.
Let me tell you…..there’s a BIG difference.

The amount of information in the 4×5’s is kinda mind-blowing. You can work
those scans, bring up details and tones, forever. In comparison, the files from
my digital camera (35 megs) look positively thin. Not that you can’t make swell
final files from them, it’s just that there’s not a ton of information there to work
with.

Now I know that there are some out there who just go craaaazy when this subject
is brought up. They’ll say that you can use HDR (high dynamic range) imaging
with your digital. But, if you ask me that HDR stuff almost always looks fake.
I like my photographs to look like photographs and not like some electronically
produced Frankensteins.

By way of example here’s 2 images from the same scan….. The Pulaski Skyway
(a 3.5 mile long bridge over the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers). The top image
is pretty much straight out of the scanner (with some color, contrast and density
corrections). In the bottom one I brought down the sky. Typically, if this was shot
using a digital camera and I’d darkened the sky in post production, it (the sky)
would become darker and gain a bit of detail. Yes. But the whites would have
been blown, which means you’d get tone but no detail. As well, a digital file just
wouldn’t have the subtlety and buttery feel that film yields.

In the end you can use/do/shoot whatever you want. I’ll continue to shoot
digital for projects where it’s called for. But I’m sold on the working methods,
the look and the feel of film for my personal work. I also continue to use it
for some commercial/editorial gigs. (I just wish more art directors would ask
for film.)

By the way…..in the bottom image I didn’t do any local dodging, burning or any other
fiddly stuff in Photoshop. All I did was lasso the sky and darken it. Those tones and
all that detail were right there in the film/scan.

SOME EUROPEAN BUILDINGS

Now, typically I like photos of people. Specifically portraits. But I must admit
to becoming more and more interested in views of the landscape with buildings
these days. Not “scenics” per se, but formal yet tough views of where and how
we (humans, developers, architects) plunk down structures in nature.

There seems to be a lot of this kind of documentation going on in Europe. I
recently bumped into the work of European photographers Peter Wildanger
and Benoit Vollmer (via: Conscientious).

Peter Wildanger

Benoit Vollmer

Both of these photographers shoot buildings in landscape, but that’s not
all that they do. If you visit their sites you’ll see that they are interested
in details, quirks and slightly offbeat takes on structures and the landscape
as well. If you ask me there’s some intelligence (not to mention diligence
and work ethic) involved with these guys work. All too often, in my opinion,
photographers just key in on one specific approach to their subject matter or
theme and shoot it to death. Both Vollmer and Wildanger shoot around their
points of view enough to allow them to sequence their work into strings of bits
and pieces that, in the end, add up to more than just a bunch of photos.

I started this week’s post by uploading and talking a bit about some of
the commercial work I’d recently done. Work that is now published and
available for posting here on drool. But then I decided that that approach
was just too hype.

This is what this week’s post was gonna look like:

THE OTTAWA HOSPITAL ANNUAL REPORT:

Cover and some spreads……

A few out takes…..

Then this week’s post was going to segue from a shot of ex-assistant Ben
in the operating room to a shot of my new assistant Lindsey that I pieced
together from two test shots because I didn’t like the look on her face in
the wide shot:

BEN

LINDSEY

And I was going to close with this fortune I got in a cookie:

But then I got to thinking about how that was all just shameless self
promotion. (Who could possibly be interested? Even if I fleshed it out
with stories about shooting in the hospitals.)

Now, those of you who know me will know that I am, in fact, pretty
much a shameless self promoter. But I do have my moods, and today,
as I sit and write this, I’m not too sure about all the HYPE aspects of
the good-old photoblog. Not just drool, any photoblog.

I reckon the seed of my discontent was planted by this post over at
A Photo Editor that made me get to thinking about what drool is and
what I’d like it to be. (Although, on re-reading that APE post I see that
drool is satisfying 3 1/2 of his 4 reasons for a photographer to blog.)

Of course, it’s just a blog. It can be any fucken thing I want it to be. And
maybe what I’ve been doing here with drool is “working” fine. After all,
the last time I looked it was getting about 400 visitors a day. (There, you
see? More hype.)

Anyway, today I’m going to have my cake and eat it too. I managed to
squeeze in most of the images I wanted you to see to by using the
transparent “here’s-what-I-would-have-done-but-it’s-too-lame” approach.

Now what? Where do I go from here?

Let me tell you, based on what I know about myself:

drool will continue to be what’s on my mind and what’s on my desktop
from week to week. Plus, I’m going to try to talk about more, different
aspects of photography. (Modern European photography is really turning
my crank these days, so look for some references and discussion of that
in the coming weeks and months.)

In the meantime, here’s a thing shot by SPAO graduate Greg Zenha that
blows my mind…….

It’s titled: Greg Zenha by Julia Dickens.

I know Greg but I don’t know much about this piece…..but what I do know
is what makes it so interesting to me. You see, that’s Greg kneeling on the
bed. I assume (but am not totally sure) that the photo on the right is the
picture he’s taking in the picture on the left. (See, it’s getting interesting
and convoluted already.) I think, but am not sure, that the woman on the
right is Julia Dickens. I also think that, whoever she is, she’s dressed in
Greg’s clothes, in fact is outfitted to look vaguely like Greg.

The way this thing turns in on itself is genius. The concepts, the secrets,
the look of the final product seem pretty original to me. Of course, I’ve
always liked art that is about the creative process, that’s self referential.

Kinda like this post.

I’ve been busy shooting annual reports, some advertising and a whole
bunch of editorial but can’t post any of those shots because they haven’t
been released yet into the wild. My clients would kill me.

And, even though I’m still working on post production from the Jersey
trip I figure you must be sick to death of those shots and stories.

So I was wondering what the subject matter would be for drool this
week. Then it struck me……subject matter. Funny how things can
be right under your nose sometimes.

Now, I’m not too sure what I really have to say about this matter,
subject matter. Except that, as usual, I’m pretty much going to
make it up as I go along.

And perhaps that’s the point. Many photographers make it up as
they go along. But there are certain bits of life that always seem
to attract idividuals:

friends and family
architecture
the way light strikes things
street life
details
overviews/landscapes
and so on.

And, in amongst these bits that interest them, there are all kinds of
subsets that they gravitate towards; certain ways they frame the
time and space that they are interested in.

For instance…..a photographer may be interested in portraiture, but
only of people that they don’t know. And these people must be in a
specific kind of location and light. Once those parameters are met
the photographer likes to kind of arrange the subjects on the spot
to create a certain (but not pinned down) kind of feeling. (Hey,
I’ve just described me, or at least a bit of me.)

Another photographer may like to wander the streets, shooting humanity.
He really likes it when his photographs are moments of peak action, the
decisive moment. (Henri Cartier-Bresson)

Or…..well, you get the point.

I find it interesting that (in most cases, I assume) a photographers’
subject matter is just a natural attraction to certain aspects of life.
But I believe that it’s the thought, perseverance, aesthetic, talent
and just plain understanding and awareness that the photographer
brings to his/her subject matter (no matter what that matter is)
that informs the resulting photographs.

Of course, some photographers put a lot of time and energy into
analysis of what and how they are shooting. Their subject matter
might be what interests them but the whole process becomes rarefied
and honed to the point of, almost, narcissism. And there are other
photographers who make a life from studying what’s in and kool
right now. Then copy it.

And so on. And so forth.

There are also, amongst what I’ll call (for lack of a better word) serious
photographers, photographers who spend their life shooting one thing.
Think Bernd and Hilla Becher or Lynne Cohen.

Then there are the types who flit from thing to thing, subject to subject,
who’s interests change and evolve as they change and evolve. Think Araki
(NSFW) or, maybe, Robert Frank (known for The Americans but I love his
later Polaroids. He made movies, too).

The best of these photographers, the ones that move from one subject
to another, always bring a lot of themselves to what they do. You can
see Araki in his flowers, just as you can see him in his bound women.

Anyway. All this to say that the camera is unique in that it allows you
to just push a button and you get a record of what interests you.

And that’s subject matter.

Pay attention.

For what it’s worth, and in order to get some images up here on drool:

My subject matter (discounting my commercial work) loosely falls
into 2 categories:

Pre 1990 I worked at home and on the street with miniature (35 mm)
cameras recording just about everything. The subject matter being my
life.

By way of example:

There are hundreds more where these came from:

Then I took a break from personal projects until 1995 when I became
interested in portraiture, uniform and the individuals’ place in the
environment.

Of course there have been lots of side trips, wrong paths and so
on throughout. Just to keep things interesting.

________________________________________________________________________

This post was thrown together just after a Saturday afternoon nap.
My head’s damn foggy….just the way I like it sometimes. I hardly
even re-read the thing. (What did I say?) Anyway…..since this was
pretty off-the-cuff I’m sure that there are lots of oversights and just
plain wrong assumptions here. Get back at me in the comment section
with your thoughts. Lets see if we can work this out. (Or not.)