_valerian

One reason I am not so bright with writing about photography is that I am not a terribly careful reader about photography. Today I went to The Dark Room International, a rental darkroom in Yokohama (next to the stadium at Kannai station) to use their dry mount press to flatten my fiber prints. While I was flattening, I was able to go through their photo book library. In amongst the books were the past 8 most recent copies of the photography magazine “Aperature”. This was a Good Thing because in those magazine I was able to read many aritcles that dealt with explaining or reviewing photographic collections. Robert Adams wrote a 3 paragraph introducing his portfolio of documents of clear cut forest photography. Concise, witty, and clear. That is the way to go.

Got me to thinking–

In the continuation of wrtiting out my essy, I have been getting other people’s thoughts and this has forced me to think about what I am trying to say, since naturally they all see things in what I wrote that I miss. I got a reply from my photography professor who is quite skilled at helping people get their thoughts together. In her email today she told me this:

——
From Shelley:

>
> “The Difference Between”
>
> photographs by John Sypal
>
>
> I photograph to understand the transformation that
> occurs between
> reality and the (nature of I DON’T THINK NATURE IS THE RIGHT ASPECT.
IT IS A TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN REALITY AND THE PHOTOGRAPH OR BETWEEN
REALITY AND PHTOGRAPHY. THE NATURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY DOES NOT GET
TRANSFORMED. REALITY GETS TRANSFORMED IN THE PROCESS? OR IN THE END PRODECT)
photography: an
> investigation of visual
> problems which (lead SHOULD THIS BE SINGULAR LEADS? INVESTIGATION IS
SINGULAR INVESTIGATION LEADS TO DOCUMENTS)to photographic documents.
The
> resulting pictures
> tell me about where (WHERE I AM MEANING JAPAN? IT SOUNDS A LITTLE
HIPPIE DIPPIE- LIKE YOU REALLY MEAN WHO I AM OR WHERE I AM AS A STATE OF
MIND- MAYBE ADD THE PLACE WHERE I AM OR SOMETHING) I am. This process is
fed by those
> differences
> experienced as a foreigner in Japan.
>
>
> Every photograph is a document of ( sorts A SORT?). These
> photographs(, then, NOT NEEDED)
> are documents of living here. But there is more to it
> than that.
> In attempting to take straight photographs, where I am
> seemingly
> absent from the picture, I learned that I can never
> completely
> excise myself. I keep on ending up in my photos,
> sometimes by
> accident but often on purpose. I appear in mirrors or
> as a
> shadow, and even the default perspective set by the
> height of my
> natural line of vision influences these pictures. This
> makes them
> personal documents as well as pictures about this
> country. So I
> have learned to accept this balance between “self” and
> “pure photography.” (THIS IS CONFUSING AS YOUR DEFINITION OF STRAIGHT
PHOTOGRAPHY AND PURE PHOTOGRAPHY IS TOO NARROWLY MEANT TO BE EXTREMELY
TRANSPARENT “WINDOWS” TYPE IMAGES)
> But this realization (IS) in no way a final answer (TO MY PROBLEM OR
ANSWER FOR MY PHOTOGRAPHS)for my
> photography,
> it has instead become a new beginning. (FOR From) now all I
> can can do
> is to keep on living with the wonder and frustration
> of the
> photographic process.

You could further define straight photo or pure photography, or find
other words. Documents are Straight photography but not all straight
photographs are documentary? Minor White made straight photos. Do you
mean Pure as in Purism vs pictorialism? Is it more pure if there is no
photographer present, like pictures from the ATM or made by a
sattelite?
You seem to be making a case for documents to be both anonymous or
impartial (pure?) and personal at the same time. That’s Minor White?
That’s Szarkowski. Explain this contradiction. I think you have to
account for the photographic performance better and more. Also you
confuse the reader with trying to keep yourself out of the picture but
deliberately putting yourself in the picture. Explain this better as
it
is exactly that contradiction that interests you. No matter how
transparent we try to make the picture the intelligent decision making
behind the camera is there. The viewer can be so absorbed in the image
that he forgets the photographer and thinks it’s a window. But your
blatant reflection or shadow negates this. It is the nature of
photography as an intervention and interaction that makes it personal-
your presence in reality, not your recording of your presence in the
picture. The picture is ‘proof’, evidence. You switch back and forth
between photography as a noun and photography as an activity- a verb. I
think you are interested in the way it is both at the same time.
Your photos aren’t about Japan. They are about you in Japan, Japan
through your eyes and Japan as transformed by the very nature of
photography, and/or transformed by the photograph.
,
You write,” The
> resulting pictures
> tell me about where I am.” I disagree. I think they tell you about
what where you are looks like in a photograph.
Shelley

I was (currently am) struggling with writing an introduction for my portfolio that I will sumbit to the Guardian Garden galley for their upcoming “Document Nippon” contest. After going out every night last week meeting with other photographers (Mika Kitamura, the man who runs Place M, Nagamachi san, who works at the Nikon Salon in Shinjuku, Aya Fujioka winner of a major photo award whose name I can’t recall at this moment, and Mitsugu Onishi) I got some good opinions and suggestions on the photos which I am grouping together. The tile will be “The Difference Between”, and consists of 43 photographs made in Japan. Quite a few of the photos posted on this site will be included, but I don’t have the time today to link them all to this entry.

Anyways, before bed last night I went ahead and sent a request for some thoughts on my work from four Photographers- Brad Peters, Mark Larios, Shelley Fuller, and James Luckett. Brad and Mark both had some very interesting things to say, and hopefully will continue their discussion here. In order to do so, I have cut and pasted some of their comments to me (which I shared with them via the email) and put them here for you to read and if you want, reply to.

First, I sent out an entirely crappy little thing of words, and after getting their replies I re-worked my intro and got rid of the glaring contridiction that they both mentioned- but I will post it later. For now there is this:
———————————-

“The Difference Between”

photographs by John Sypal

I photograph to try and understand the transformation that occurs between reality and the nature of photography, in turn this investigation allows me to learn more about where I am. These photographs are then new photographic facts, and documents of the country that I am living in now.
In the most basic sense, every photograph is a document of some sort. Since I took these photographs here in Japan, then they can be considered as documents of Japan. But there is more to that.
How can I solve the issue of transforming what moves me to take a photograph, into a photograph? When photographing, there are layers of information to formalize through the mechanics of my camera and lens. With the final image, you can see that the frame determines the content, which is clarified through the focus of the lens. Each photograph is a flattened parcel of time as well. It is my hope that these images will be read, as they invite interpretation from the viewer.

What is the difference between reality and a photograph?
What is the difference between Your Japan and My Japan?

==========

I suhdder to even re-read over this but I had to put it here so that you can have some basis as to what follows next- first, from Brad:

——————————————–
From Brad Peters:

I am going to try and give you some good feedback but I want you to understand that the last thing I want you to do is think that I am “right”.  I hope you can take what I say and apply it to the parameters of your beliefs.  I feel like I understand things better when I am on the defense so I am going to being playing devil’s advocate for you.  I am going to take the position of someone who might not like your work and isn’t your friend.  So please do not take anything I say personal.  So here we go.

I guess the first thing I would have to comment on is that in your statement you refer to “new photographic facts” but then rest of the statement seems to be focused on the subjective/perceptions/personal truths.  I believe that there are no facts in perceptions, etc…..  It seems a little contradicting to state something as fact but then ask for multiple interpretations.  I also disagree with that statement that the frame determines the content.  It is a little restricting to state that one thing determines content. It seems that content is more complex than that and saying that “this is the thing that determines content” is going to simplify your work.  I feel like you keep asking the viewer to see the work in one way then turn around and invite them to interpret it in their own way.  You cannot control the meaning of your work once it is out, just like you cannot control how an apple tastes to someone.  They have their own sensory perception that influences “how things mean” to them.  Plus you have the same issue that I have had to deal with.  How do we make our work our own and not some clone of some 60’s/70’s photographer.  How do you make it personal?  Lastly, why should someone care about your work? On a small positive note I really like the idea of differences.  I think that it is the differences that lead us to discovery.  It is the differences that show us the limitations of “self” and for that matter everything.  But discovery in no way “solves” anything.  It is good to have a problem that you are working out but understand that there is no answer to it.  All you get is a better understanding of it and then the problem becomes more fluid, it will always keep changing.  You are going to drive yourself crazy is you are looking for an “absolute answer”.  Besides if you ever did find one, you would have to quit photography (it says so in the manual).  Anyway, I hope this is helpful.  Feel free to send a rebuttal.

——————————————–

Then, Mark sent me this:

From Mark Larios:

I guess the first hurdle to get over is just accepting that an
introductory essay is necessary. Why can’t the photographs just
“show” for themselves? We (as humans) hold on to words as a
placeholder for understanding. You can see the same behavior in
museums: people will often spend considerable time studying the
introductory placards or the descriptions (particularly the title)
and then spend only a few seconds actually looking at the artwork.

First, two general observations from taking a look through a number
of your photos all at once:

* Your compositions often swing around the one person in the frame
who is looking at you.

* Overlap is your primary depth cue.

“The Difference Between” is a great title. In writing an
introduction, one thing to consider is not just what went through
your mind when you took the picture, but what made you select that
one image out of the negative sleeve? What’s the difference between
the images you’re submitting and the ones you never even enlarged?

I disagree with your friend’s opinion that “there are no facts in
perceptions.” All perceptions are factual, if only because we now
know that they are possible (one might wonder what an *impossible*
perception is). But I agree with them that you can’t simultaneously
argue for one interpretation while openly inviting the viewer’s own.
———————————-

Then Brad said:

“In response to your friends disagreement. My point is that all perceptions are relative, they are all linked to our sensory organs, which are very poor at gathering information. The information that is gathered is then molded and conformed by your brain. This is called “Top Down Processing”. As a result it is impossible to ever really “know” anything. When you used the word “facts” if felt that you were implying that they were truthful and it is my belief that there isn’t such a thing a Truth with a captial T but only personal truths. It is like the apple analogy that I used earlier. You and I will never taste an apple in the same way. The apple doesn’t have a taste. It is the limitation of our sensory organs that make the apple taste the way it does. Everyone’s is different.”

—————————————
AND then James said:

From James Luckett
50 photographs? that sounds like a LOT. i don’t know anybody who will look through 50. all they will remember is that you had a LOT of photographs. better to make a super solid 20 or so. what do they ask for?

have you ever heard the phrase “show, don’t tell”  ?

your title is cool. it evokes a lot of things. the trick now is to write around that title, rather than straight through it. for example:

i would avoid the whole gaijin, japan angle. everyone knows from your name that you are a gaijin, and everyone knows these a pictures of japan. so you don’t need to tell any of that. that difference is obvious. and if your title is “the difference between” — then people will think up all by themselves a bunch of differences. plus it will save you the trouble of having to articulate anything about what you feel about japan or whatever. let the audience do all of that.

maybe what is more interesting is your process. talk more about that.

how do you go about photography? maybe start by describing, step by step, a day of shooting.

i bet there will be a lot of good stuff in that, which you then could expand on.

____________

James has a good point and it something that I have been thinking about this entire time– “Show, don’t tell”. From the start, I have been not too excited about laying it all out, the meaning or explainations of my work. You might think that if I was good at wrtiting I would not need to photograph. Maybe in the most black and white ways of thinking that would be enough. Despite that my work is in black and white, I am hoping to lean towards the grey areas in which to hide and let the viewer respond to the images on their own.

The other night I went to a teacher’s house for a hinamatsuri dinner. After dinner Tanaka sensei showed us (myself and two kindergarten teachers) some of her old photo albums. The photographs were, as I had expected and hoped, excellent. They were taken in the late 1950s and through the 1960s in Black and White, with a few in faded color. All the typical Family Photo type subjects- summer vacations, first days of school, 記念 photographs of when relatives came to visit. I took these photos of the photos with a flash and a small digital camera that is not so good for close up work.