Photography and Materiality: John Opera in dialogue with Karen Irvine
Summary
TLDR这段对话是关于艺术家John Opera与芝加哥当代摄影博物馆的策展人Karen Irvine之间的一次深入访谈。他们讨论了Opera的新系列作品,这是他与画廊合作的第四次个展。这个系列的作品是Opera在工作室中花费近两年时间准备的成果,涉及大量的对话和技术挑战。Opera使用了一种古老的摄影工艺——蓝图法(cyanotype),这种方法由约翰·赫歇尔爵士在1842年开发,以其独特的蓝色和直接的接触印相方式而闻名。Opera探讨了这种工艺的历史意义,并分享了他如何将这种传统技术转化为具有当代意义的作品。他还提到了摄影与绘画之间的联系,以及他如何通过重复图像来探索不同的观看方式和主题。此外,Opera也谈到了他对于摄影媒介的持续兴趣,以及他如何将摄影作为一种观察和想象之间的平衡工具。整个讨论涉及了艺术创作的过程、技术挑战、以及艺术家如何将个人经历和科学知识融入到作品中。
Takeaways
- 🎨 艺术家通过使用蓝晒印相法(cyanotype)这一古老摄影工艺,探索了摄影与绘画之间的界限,以及摄影的物质性和表现力。
- 🔍 蓝晒印相法由约翰·赫歇尔爵士在1842年发明,以其独特的蓝色和直接接触印相的方式而闻名,艺术家对此深感兴趣。
- 🖼️ 艺术家在创作过程中,与芝加哥当代摄影博物馆的策展人Karren Irvine进行了深入的对话,探讨了艺术创作的过程和理念。
- 🌐 艺术家John Opera在哥伦比亚学院的数字实验室中,与学生和技术人员合作,克服了技术挑战,完成了作品的数字化负片部分。
- 📚 艺术家对Jeff Wall的论文《摄影与液态智慧》(Photography and Liquid Intelligence)进行了深入思考,该论文讨论了摄影中水的重要性和摄影的三个阶段:制作、对象和感知。
- 🔵 艺术家被蓝晒印相法的蓝色所吸引,认为这种蓝色具有一种独特的、非传统的美感,与摄影现实有所区别。
- 🔬 艺术家的父亲是地质学家,这种背景影响了他对自然形态和科学元素在作品中的运用,例如使用化石作为艺术创作的元素。
- 🎓 艺术家在艺术教育中强调观察和表现,将艺术学校的绘画练习转化为自己的艺术实践,如使用瓶子和手部作为绘画练习的直接参考。
- 🔲 艺术家探讨了重复在艺术中的作用,如何通过展示同一主题的多个图像来增强观众的体验和对主题的理解。
- 🌿 艺术家的早期作品受到了查尔斯·比尔德菲尔德(Charles Birchfield)的影响,这反映在他的风景摄影作品中,这些作品既是美的体现,也探讨了摄影的技术限制。
- 📈 艺术家认为,尽管这些作品在视觉上具有冲击力和吸引力,但它们也提出了关于摄影、绘画和艺术对象之间关系的问题。
Q & A
这段对话是在介绍什么新系列的活动?
-这段对话是在介绍一个新的对话系列,与画廊的个展,特别是由画廊艺术家举办的个展相结合。
John Alpra在画廊举办的个展是他第几次个展?
-John Alpra在画廊举办的个展是他的第四次个展。
John Opera在准备这次展览的过程中花费了多长时间?
-John Opera在准备这次展览的过程中花费了将近两年的时间。
John Opera在制作展览作品时遇到了哪些技术挑战?
-John Opera在制作展览作品时遇到了数字负片组件的技术挑战,所有展出的作品,包括大型作品,都是通过接触式打印完成的,这意味着底片和基材之间存在一一对应的关系。
John Opera为什么选择使用蓝图照相法(cyanotype)?
-John Opera选择使用蓝图照相法是因为它的美丽蓝色、与摄影现实的差异性、以及它在摄影历史中的重要性。此外,蓝图照相法的简洁性和基于水的显影过程也吸引了他。
Karen Irvine在对话中提到了哪位艺术家的观点?
-Karen Irvine在对话中提到了Jeff Wall的观点,特别是他关于摄影具有流动性智慧的观点。
John Opera的作品是否涉及对传统摄影技术的重新诠释?
-是的,John Opera的作品涉及对传统摄影技术的重新诠释,他试图通过使用古老的摄影过程,如蓝图照相法,来创造具有当代意义和创新性的作品。
John Opera如何将科学元素融入他的艺术作品中?
-John Opera通过使用化石和地质形态等元素,将科学元素融入他的艺术作品中。他的父亲是一位地质学家,这对他的艺术风格和对科学的兴趣产生了影响。
John Opera在对话中提到了哪些艺术作品的创作过程?
-John Opera提到了他使用蓝图照相法创作的过程,包括如何使用水作为显影剂,以及如何通过接触式打印技术将图像直接印在表面上。
John Opera如何看待数字技术对摄影的影响?
-John Opera认为数字技术既不是好事也不是坏事,它只是正在发生的事情。他认为数字技术可能使得摄影过程变得更自动化,减少了制作者的参与和工具的协作。
John Opera在创作过程中是否考虑了观众的感知体验?
-是的,John Opera在创作过程中考虑了观众的感知体验。他认为摄影不仅仅是制作过程或对象本身,还包括观众的感知行为,这是他希望观众更多考虑的方面。
John Opera是否认为他的作品能够触及观众的深层情感?
-John Opera认为他的作品能够触及观众的深层情感。他提到了艺术作品能够引发观众的惊奇感,这是一种强烈的、难以言喻的感觉,他认为这是艺术强大力量的体现。
Outlines
🎨 新系列对话与展览介绍
本段介绍了一个新的对话系列,与画廊艺术家的个展相结合,特别是以John Opera的展览作为开端。提到了John作为代表艺术家在画廊的第四次个展,以及他为展览准备的两年时间和与画廊的深入对话。
🖼️ 接触印相法与摄影历史
讨论了John Opera使用接触印相法制作作品的过程,以及这一方法在摄影历史中的地位。提到了蓝图法(cyanotype)的历史和特点,以及John选择这一过程的原因,包括其美丽、劳动密集型以及与摄影现实的联系。
🌐 数字化与摄影的传统
深入探讨了John Opera对摄影的看法,包括数字化对摄影实践的影响,以及他如何通过使用古老过程来探索传统和现代之间的联系。讨论了Jeff Wall的论文对John工作的影响,以及他如何将科学元素和自然形态融入作品中。
🏞️ 景观、地质学与艺术影响
John Opera讨论了他如何受到父亲作为地质学家的影响,以及这如何影响了他的摄影风格。他提到了在景观作品中的观察方法,以及如何通过艺术作品探索科学和艺术之间的关系。
🎭 绘画与摄影的对话
本段讨论了John Opera作品中绘画元素的重要性,以及他如何将绘画和摄影的语言结合在一起。他提到了作品的物理性质,以及这些作品如何挑战观众对摄影的传统看法。
🔍 观察、实现与表现
John Opera和Karen Irvine讨论了艺术作品中观察、实现和表现的概念,以及这些概念如何在他的作品中体现。他们还探讨了重复使用同一图像的主题,以及这如何影响观众对作品的感知。
🔄 创作过程的复杂性
John Opera分享了他在创作过程中遇到的挑战,以及他如何意识到这个过程比他预期的要复杂得多。他还讨论了艺术创作中的动机和灵感,以及如何将这些元素融入到他的作品中。
📚 摄影的蓝图与未来工作
讨论了John Opera如何看待他的作品作为未来创作的蓝图,以及他是否打算继续探索当前的创作过程。他提到了对这个过程的所有权,以及如何通过这个过程表达他的内心世界。
🔗 摄影概念与艺术实践
最后,John Opera反思了他如何将摄影作为一种概念工具来探索艺术创作,以及摄影如何在他的作品中扮演着重要角色。他讨论了摄影与现实、梦境和幻觉之间的关系,以及这些元素如何在他的艺术实践中交织在一起。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡展览
💡约翰·奥普拉
💡接触印相法
💡蓝图
💡科学影响
💡绘画与摄影
💡重复
💡抽象
💡替代摄影工艺
💡主观性
💡图像饱和
Highlights
新系列对话的介绍,与画廊艺术家的个展相结合,尤其是约翰·阿尔普拉的展览,这是新项目的开端。
约翰·阿尔普拉在画廊的第四次个展,代表了他在工作室中为展览准备的两年时间。
与芝加哥艺术家和教育家约翰·奥普拉以及当代摄影博物馆的策展人凯伦·欧文的深入对话。
约翰·奥普拉对蓝图法(cyanotype)的兴趣,这是一种由约翰·赫歇尔爵士在1842年开发的古老摄影工艺。
蓝图法的直接接触印刷方法,以及它是如何与摄影现实和超现实主义联系起来的。
约翰·奥普拉通过使用蓝图法,探索了摄影与绘画之间的界限。
蓝图法的制作过程,包括如何使用水来开发图像,以及这一过程的简单性和优雅性。
约翰·奥普拉对于颜色理论的探讨,特别是对蓝色的喜爱,以及它在艺术史上的传统。
使用蓝图法创作抽象图像的决定,以及这一选择如何与摄影的本体论和现象学相联系。
约翰·奥普拉对于摄影的“液态智慧”的看法,以及这一概念如何影响他的艺术创作。
对数字化摄影的批判性思考,以及它如何影响摄影的手工艺术和感知。
约翰·奥普拉对于使用传统摄影工艺来创造当代和相关作品的挑战。
展览中重复图像的使用,以及它如何影响观众对于作品的感知和理解。
约翰·奥普拉对于他父亲地质学家身份的影响,以及它是如何影响他的艺术和对科学的兴趣。
使用化石作为艺术作品的一部分,以及它们如何作为时间的索引和摄影的隐喻。
约翰·奥普拉对于他在艺术学校的教学经历,以及它是如何影响他对艺术和摄影的理解。
展览中的作品如何体现约翰·奥普拉对于观察、实现和表现的基本想法。
约翰·奥普拉对于他作品未来发展的看法,以及他如何计划继续探索蓝图法的可能性。
Transcripts
first of all sort of introduce this as a
new series
of dialogues that we'll do in
conjunction with
our exhibitions uh solo exhibitions
by gallery artists especially so this
inaugurates
this new program john's show
which i think is a great place to begin
this because
it's a show filled with a lot of really
interesting ideas among other things
so uh to introduce john alpra um
represented artist for quite a number of
years fourth solo exhibition at the
gallery
this new body of work represents a
fairly significant amount of time in the
studio
preparing for this show um two years
two years almost and and a healthy
amount of dialogue between us
as well culminating with the body of
work
so john opera artist and educator in
chicago and then we have
karen irvine of the museum of
contemporary photography
curator there as well as curator at
large
i might say right i mean you've curated
curated other
other projects yeah
written quite a bit so i guess without
further ado
okay john opera and karen nervous thank
you you want to say something well yeah
i mean i guess this is going to go on
youtube
um but i i do want to take the
opportunity to thank some people
uh you know that that really helped make
this happen especially
on the technical side uh sasha andrews
who's an undergraduate student at
columbia college uh put way too much
time into this project this past summer
she was
supposed to be an unpaid intern and uh
it just
yeah it went in another direction and uh
april wilkins and jen
keats who work in the digital lab at
columbia
really helped me figure out uh the
digital negative
component of this which was you know in
itself
uh kind of a technical challenge because
uh everything you see here including the
big pieces were contact printed
so the negative meaning there's a
one-to-one
relationship to the negative and uh the
substrate
so you know this took a 40 by 50 inch
negative
um you know that they helped me figure
out so i just want to publicly thank
them
on the internet so
and i want to thank karen for joining us
oh sure well
thank you for andrew for inviting me and
for this opportunity it's great to
i thank her you know the art audience in
chicago to really get to know
this work in a more intimate way and
john and i will speak for about 30 to 40
minutes and then we'll open it up to
questions so that you all have a chance
to
weigh in and kind of have be part of the
dialogue
but where i'd like to begin is what
you've already touched on is the process
um you talked about the one one to one
contact
printing method but the cyanotype has a
very
important history um in the history of
photography it's one of the oldest
photographic processes it was
developed in 1842 by sir john herschel
and it's extremely distinctive
which is why i want to begin there in
addition to being
labor intensive so i thought it might be
worthwhile um
to kind of walk us through a little bit
the process
and what it takes to pull this off
um and then maybe use that as a
launching pad to
talk to us about why this processed why
it was appealing to you and you know
perhaps how it communicates some of your
ideas
process yes okay uh well i i guess
coming to this process was uh you know
connected to earlier bodies of work
earlier concerns
uh you know there are a lot of logical
and i guess illogical
reasons why i found myself doing this
but one of one of the
earlier thoughts i had was
first of all how beautiful the blue is
uh but also in terms of a photographic
world or the photographic reality we
you know we constantly write is
constantly trying to get
photography closer and closer to seeing
and
you know closer and closer to a kind of
hyper reality
you know i guess i was really interested
in how awkward
the blue was that it was it was
something that was inherently
you know a photograph but it had to be
blue
um that was kind of intriguing i mean
there were other things that were kind
of swirling around
my mind at the time uh i mean i i really
came to this process through
the antitype work that i did in 2010 and
2011
which we have one right here
that's good this is one of the later
ones
but herschel also uh discovered that
um process he actually borrowed it from
a french scientist who
uh did did experiments with
that kind of emulsion in 1816.
so way before photography even began
that was interesting to me that uh you
know
considering photography not as an
institution but it's like
uh kind of an ontological or
phenomenological
thing that you know even before
photography became itself
it was it was something you know and
that's why i think these images
are abstract i couldn't justify or think
of a reason why to use representational
imagery with the anthotype simply
because you know
for me the metagram metaphor is that
it was it was invented before
photography really was invented so
you know there was there was the
herschel thing um
and i just there's a lot of things i
mean the reason why is that the question
i'm getting tangential right but uh i i
think it
you know it was the herschel connection
and it was
also i think just the pure elegance
of and simplicity of the process uh
you know a lot of my work on the last
three or four years has actually been
pretty informed and inspired by a jeff
wall essay
that we'll talk about in a little bit
but photography and liquid intelligence
which is a an artist statement a very
curious essay it's very short
i'd recommend everyone find it and read
it if you can't find it email me i'll
send you a copy
uh but it's uh
i just like the the pure elegance of the
fact that
you develop this with just water it's a
it couldn't be simpler
actually it's based on very you know
elegant uh you know organic chemical
reactions that was appealing and i you
know i also i teach color theory
from time to time and um honestly the
color
scheme the color palette the chromatic
neutral in a blue
i've always liked that i mean i've
always been attracted to picasso's blue
period
although there's now there's a lot of
jokes people saying is this you know
your
period john and
which it might be um but and also turner
um turner use the palette so uh
it's it's a traditional palette it's a
and it's
you know it's traditional and i i guess
the other challenge was to take
something old
and try to make something contemporary
and relevant and
something innovative so let's go back to
the wall essay because
that's been something we've been talking
about um
and kind of to recap what i think is the
gist of the essay and it's from 1989
um while basically is um
talking about the fact that he thinks
photography has a sort of liquid
intelligence that
water is so fundamental to the process
that
if we separate the dry elements out of
photography which he
classifies as the optics the shutter
speed the mechanics
that perhaps i think he's suggesting
that perhaps something is lost
there and interesting that that's from
89
at sort of the beginning of this whole
digital takeover
and certainly the past few decades
there's been a lot of discussion about
the impact of digital technologies and
that's getting away a little bit from
what wall was interested in
but i'm going to circle back in a second
um
so if we think about um you know
most people are concerned in terms of
manipulation which of course isn't
really a concern because photography has
been manipulated since day one through
collage cutting and pasting
but what is perhaps more interesting in
that question
is to think about is something lost
because the process isn't something
that's learned through touch
it doesn't have what people seem to call
it a craft
intelligence to it is there
you know something missing from it um
another way to frame this
could be if we think of the photograph
in three stages
the you know first being the process of
making
it the second being the object and the
third being the act of perception
you know how don't we kind of privilege
too much perhaps those first
two and when we think about the third
shouldn't we take
more into consideration this process so
that said
i guess when i see somebody who's in
today's day and age going back and using
such an old process it
it automatically asks the question
are you you know trying to
bring back something that perhaps
is missing or lacking through this
digital this kind of thinking that
digital output
is more direct is there
a sort of resistance or connection
different you know theories of frame
this differently
that that is missing if it's if the
process isn't so
intense or intimate
and you could actually go back a little
bit more to the wall sorry i have like
five thousand things
i know i know this is what's so great
and actually there's
five thousand things you could talk
about with this work
um but to go back to that idea of
bringing back the water just simply
enough right in this process
um how is that different as part of your
intention
to evoke something that perhaps is
less a part of photography today or i
yeah i i don't know i i think
for me the reasons are more subjective
and less
uh you know institutional in their
motivations
uh in terms of am i reclaiming what was
lost
you know and i i wall has this opinion i
i pretty much
share it is that you know digital is not
a good thing or a bad thing it's just
it's what's happening and i mean the
fact is you know most of the show was
shot on a mark
ii um so i
i i don't know i mean i think that
is a larger conversation maybe about
uh you know our place in cultural or
human
evolution where you know things are
becoming more and more automated
uh and you know less and less
uh you know a matter of of
of the maker you know there's less uh
collaboration with tools you know and i
i i think for me i i got tired of
straight photographs you know when i did
the work that you
wrote about in 09
that was very much a very clean
you know available on that i could pass
this around
yeah but uh i think the direction that i
i headed in was really
an extension from that work and uh
things that i couldn't accomplish with
that work and for me
first of all i mean i i don't want to
reference an essay that that
you know probably no one has read in
here maybe a few of you have read but
you know the the lesson in that essay
for me
is that a wall kind of uh separates
photography into the logical
and the illogical that the dry part of
photography is
the mechanical shutter it's very finite
and there's not much deviation from that
as a concept
and then there's this other side the
liquid side that he really frames i
think in a very mystical way
almost uh irrational kind of crazy way i
i give it the student they're like what
the what is this
um you know and uh
i don't know i mean i it is i think it
is a an
attempt to access tradition and and to
interface with that
and be a maker you know to actually make
something right and when paul talks
about the milk
like the milk explosion image as beings
that's sort of the mystical
element right uncontrollable he calls it
complex natural forms
which i could i mean clearly you've been
interested in complex natural forms yeah
throughout your work and and actually i
wanted to ask you later but we could go
there now
about the influence of science on your
work because
i know your father is a geologist and
not that i want to you know
i don't necessarily you know like to
always
position it but i do think that that
actually has influenced you
and so could you talk about the chance
elements
and those kind of natural forms and that
trajectory through your work
maybe through the briefly through the
three projects to lead us kind of up to
the left and perhaps what we see here
well
which took me ten years to actually put
geology in my work really i mean
that's not true well well the flame
flame okay
a fossil i always wanted to do that well
i guess you had a mushroom right a
fungus yeah
that's yeah that's yeah that's kind of
something but um but maybe end right
here because this is fascinating
yeah oh i mean i think the very
you know way excuse me the very way that
i even approach photography has
has a lot to do with him because i
learned photography by watching him
and it wasn't crazy camera angles or
you know it was like tripod camera
60 center and to document whatever
it was he was you know photographing so
i think a lot of my style
comes from that kind of a clinical cold
um detached you know i don't
i don't use shallow depth of field a lot
i don't
do the uh who is it rhodachenko
the bird's eye worms eye whatever
um yeah that i think that all my vantage
points are always
based on observation and that's
yeah and you know being in the woods and
there are a lot of things i mean my the
the landscape work was informed
by uh the fact that i worked at the
birchfield penny arts center
uh that collected charles birchfield's
paintings and being aware of that
uh not just in an art sense but that he
was a local hero or i was
where i grew up you know in buffalo uh
but yeah i mean there are a lot of
things intersecting and
you know chris vassell who's a famous uh
i guess he's painter he said something i
always liked
i always remember that he said you know
i got famous when i started
making better versions of what i was
doing in high school
and and that's really i think you know
what those landscapes were doing
and it's kind of like a place i had to
return to as an adult and kind of
tighten up and resolve and that's why i
mean the book was so great because i
think that was a perfect
conclusion to that approach and then i
didn't really do anything for
almost a year and uh i i
i actually the reason i got in the
anthotype was because i was
uh with my father in the woods when i
went home
once and he pointed out pokeberries
and i i remembered that from reading
about the anthotypes
and i you know i i still sat on that for
probably over a year before i
actually did anything about it because i
was like well i haven't made anything in
a year i better
andrew's going to drop me if i don't
yeah
so i i that i think was a seed you know
i
and what was the question
about science about science but that i
mean because this i don't know i feel
like that's
just a very strong thread throughout all
of your work even when
you know and i mean this idea of that
science
you wanted me to talk about those things
okay okay why don't you well these are i
mean
uh fossils that i i harvested with my
dad
uh last year and
yeah they're devonian fossils they're
300 million years old
um and they represent the time when
you know where we're sitting right now
is under uh an ancient
ocean so they're their water their their
aquatic
fossils um and it's it's kind of amazing
i mean coral
hasn't changed never coral in fact megan
has a piece of coral in her house last
night i was looking at i was like oh my
god this is exactly like the fossilized
specimen that's 300 million years old so
um and you've talked about them being
indexical like
photographs yeah yeah i mean i uh
you know there's a relationship with i
mean it's like body casting and i think
krauts rather than crossbow it's about
that uh cat body casting and photography
and the indexicality
but you know when i think of
indexicality i think of the fingerprint
and actually the index finger pointing
to something
in the world and uh you know the fossil
is kind of like a photograph in that
sense
uh in fact i mean i it's kind of a
cliche in geology to say it's like you
know
it's like a snapshot from that epoch or
from that era
so well and i think the cyanotype
process certainly kind of
reinforces that notion because
it's often used for photographs but also
it's the what blueprints were made from
for many many years that direct you know
positive negative
translation so it does for me when i see
cyanotex i do have that
association of you know really like this
very direct
imprint onto between the object and the
its substrate so i think that's
consistent and to follow up on
subject matter here if you these are
fossils that are found
under water correct well not underwater
but they were they were performed
yeah they're above land now now but
formed underwater and then
so this idea of water i mean it was
fascinating the other day when you
talked about the bottle images that
glasses
water and then yet and today we looked
at
the italian painter randy
um and so all of these i mean there are
a lot of
both i think kind of scientific
references and then also clearly art
historical
the hands you've talked about in terms
of being like drawing exercises
yeah yeah and yeah do you want to
counter those relationships yeah i mean
i think there's there's a split between
very high notions of art and maybe
lowered oceans or
or the master and the student you know
the bottles and the hands
are direct references to drawing
exercises that i see walking
up and down the hallways of the art
schools where i teach
and uh you know for me they're very much
about this
basic idea about observation and
realization
and representation all the all these
shuns
um yeah well
yeah and i mean we're talking about now
so many different
mediums really right painting this
reference to drawing
with the i used for me the rope and the
chain and for you
they were also inspired by this gestural
motion and
i wanted to bring it a kind of a big
question um to the surface now in terms
of
uh kind of the structure
of the structure of
photographic thinking so bear with me
for a second but
i mean arguably um photographs if we
think about
the definition of a photograph not in
terms of what it's made of but in terms
of the expectations that it brings
so for example if we looked at something
that
wasn't a photograph that was a drawing
that looked exactly like a photograph
and i am a big fan of arthur danto's
writing about
andy warhol's brillo boxes that weren't
completely brillo boxes
or we could think of i was thinking this
morning about vicki and ease's graphite
drawings with pictures
if they weren't re-photographed and we
saw those we might read them as a
photograph
and arguably even in those instances if
something isn't
literally a photograph it still retains
sort of the power
that a real photograph has
and so when i was thinking about that
um concept this morning and thought
about what a viewer experiences if they
walk into this room
i think for a lot of people here who may
be photographers we recognize the
cyanotype process but if you're not
initiated you might
see this as bringing both kind of the
structure or the language of photography
to the table but also perhaps painting
because clearly the bottles for me are
very painterly and you've left the sides
exposed where we can see the chemistry
kind of
absorb like the liquidity of the
chemistry um
how do you think that those two
you know languages or ways of thinking
and you've mentioned this dialogue with
painting
how do they wishful dialect yeah all
right but i think it's real
it's in the form here um yeah how does
that affect
perhaps this this reading of
these as being photographic do you think
the painting kind of
yeah yeah i think there's a lot of
i'm sorry as well yeah i think there's a
lot of
layers to that issue um
i i like that the images uh unlike a
photograph
you know you can physically see them
soaked into the surface so i
in fact in a couple instances especially
with the
woman and windowed um
i think there's when you get closer to
it it becomes more problematic
in a way because the the weave of the
fabric
starts playing tricks with me at least
in terms of
back and forth between attention to the
surface and
and uh you know the illusionistic space
um you know i mean i i kid around i mean
alexander herzog knows most of my
friends
and they're all painters and
you know when i got out of art school
the first thing i did was make friends
with painters
um and you know most of my dialogue with
other artists
has been around issues that aren't
strictly about
photography you know and i
for me painting space elicits just
more possibility in terms of not
having to abide by you know the rules of
perspective or whatever it is that the
camera
testifies or a regular photograph
testify so
you know there were a lot of reasons why
i did it i mean i i think
the the consequences i i'm still
figuring out
you know still discovering um
i i like that there is a reference
to painting but uh i a lot of times i
quickly forget it
you know i i think the the more
important thing is that they're objects
too and that they emphasize
uh that you know that paradox
and photography between object and
surface or surface and uh
depth or object an illusion
and that's and you know i think it's
okay to say i just like the way it looks
oh yeah i mean you know i and that was a
big
problem because i i thought of these as
finished objects and then when i
realized when i
started making them investigating the
process i realized
it was far more complex than i had
imagined
it would be i thought it was going to be
like a fun summer project
like yeah cyanotype like develop with
water it's going to be easy i did that
when i was like a kid yeah
so i uh yeah i mean i i don't know i
mean
the reason why i kind of dreamt these
into being or
imagine them into being i think it's
pretty irrational and
probably has to do with a lot of
motivations that you know i'm not
completely
aware of and i think that's good and i
think that's
completely legitimate to say and i think
often with art like we don't have
we always don't feel the kind of freedom
to express those sorts of um
like real motivations and i just wrote
an essay where i was
talking about stephen greenblatt's
distinction between resonance and wonder
and resonance being like when you
approach an art object and you
you can tie it to culture so you figure
out what it's supposed to mean or refer
to
and you know and then wonder being just
this queer experience of walking in
up to the art object and just being
moved really like just stopping in your
tracks and
it's a very ineffable feeling and i
think that it's really important to to
recognize and to admit that that is when
art is powerful and
i always admire the way you speak about
your work that you can
you know it has all these layers of
reference and history and
concept but yet you also are very
upfront with that yes this can just
be you know visually impactful and
a pleasure yeah i i listen to the voices
whatever you know whatever they are
um yeah i i think that's
that's okay um yeah i mean
that's uh it's about language and
you know i i you make things because
they don't
align with words and you know there's
i wanted to just point out that the
picture
with megan has um is actually not really
truly totally photographic like the
blinds
i think they're so funny that you told
me that the blinds were made like an
airbrush technique
yeah i saw like a thrift store and a
pamphlet like about airbrushing i was
like
store that so you literally just sprayed
the chemistry so the negative doesn't
include
the blood but what seems to be the
nation's appliance right so right i mean
that actually
is something that you know doesn't
conform to the strict indexing
relationship or this purely
photographic um translation of an object
where you're taking a more interpretive
painterly yeah approach
or something you're pursuing or you know
painting i don't know yeah what else do
we have
um what else what time is it let's see
let's check our time
is gonna run out um well i just i did
want to ask you
because i was curious about repetition
because yeah
photography that's sort of
and also with let's even think about
warhol again with printmaking but
you know here to those choices to have
three of one
type of image or two um what what does
that mean for you does that is that
related for you
to duration or the history of
photography or is there a
particular um a certain duration i i
mean not like a filmic
uh one frame at a time thing but
uh you know i think it points back to
these fundamental properties of the
medium
uh i mean and and even though these are
unique you know that they kind of
contradict that i guess but
uh i i forgot who said it uh
and i bet alex you may know but
uh someone speaking about warhol's work
uh
writing about warhol's work in the 60s
the electric chair
images and all you know when warhol
turned towards all these traumatic
images that uh in a way it was
kind of reconciling the subject that one
simply wasn't enough that you needed to
you know be confronted with multiples of
the same
scenario in order to really absorb it or
digest it
and i i don't know who said that i was
gonna say hell foster i swear to god
yeah i think it was flawed
so i that was um
yeah and repetition has i played with it
a lot
you know um and i i'm very
even before you know the work that most
people know me for
when i was in my early 20s i i fooled
around with that kind of idea
um and yeah somehow it always starts it
always comes back
i don't know i mean i i those are one of
the things i don't know
you know but when i read that i thought
you know maybe maybe that's why and i
yeah it struck a chord with me and i
think somehow that's that's the case
it certainly encourages a different sort
of looking right
and possibly keeps the viewer
thinking about things you're interested
in slightly longer and
yeah it's it's interesting i mean the
other argument would be that it
starts to cancel the other out you know
a little bit but if we see something
i mean another way to look at warhol is
to see the banality
yeah exactly exactly i think there is
yeah
that's always been in the work uh i mean
even with the landscape work we were
talking about the other day i
you know i said that one one thing i
feel like maybe people never
gave me enough credit for was the fact
that i was aware that i was
treading through cliche and uh in the in
the ordinary and the every everyday and
that
you know still finding a reason to go
there
um and i yeah that was
i mean we at the museum when we
published this book we did it as a
series of tria a trio
a set of three books and the other two
were curtis mann and stacia viacomnis
and at the time we were looking for
people who we thought were
who weren't working with photography in
the expected way for lack of a better
term weren't working in
let's say a series based in a literal
representation of the world
and john for me was such an interesting
choice then
because it was this hyper awareness
of yeah you're still using film right a
lot of the time
and going right into the landscape and
taking it for it's partly for its beauty
um and then allowing sometimes like the
the technical faults
of photography to show themselves
and combining that with abstraction that
that was a very seemingly if you took it
picture by picture
almost traditional approach to
photography which even in 2009
felt started to feel a little bit
radical again
yeah it did well that was like i started
well it started with ice disk
and it was also when i just got out of
graduate school and i kind of just
had it with you know
graduate school art so i stumbled across
ice discs and uh
i i think i probably continued making
work because i kept going back
and hoping you know to find something as
amazing as that um but i that was ended
up
becoming a space you know i think just a
mechanism for
solitude and uh just like a kind of
meditation you know but
um somehow i always knew like maybe
someone will be annoyed that i'm making
pretty pictures in the woods um but it
was also returning
to i think uh my you know
my source too so
yeah is it i mean when you return like
if you're aware of cliches here i mean
is it i don't read it as being a kind of
a cynical awareness
or i mean it might be slightly ironic
but
yeah it would be so easy to overdo that
or yeah well i i think it's kind of like
my sense of humor i mean i
i'm like very deadpan in my delivery but
i like
jokes you know um and i
i think there's something a little funny
and problematic
you know about the landscape work that i
kept me
going you know it was like a very very
dry
dry show but um i i don't
i don't think anything in here is ironic
i i think
you know in a way i hate to use the term
post ironic but
um i i think if anything these do
operate within that
idea um but yeah cine says maybe a
little cynicism or or
i i have this idea that i try to convey
to students you know
and a lot of times i'll show them in
photo classes some of the first people i
show are roe etheridge
eli blasery wolfgang tillman's
um you know people who are somehow i
think
identifying uh
what what what subjectivity looks like
today and that includes
i i think the language of economics or
the language of
living in an overly saturated uh world
you know that's it's overly saturated
with images
um and you know luke batten just walked
in the room he's no stranger to that
idea
hello sir uh but i i think
that uh is at play you know that there
is an awareness i
what you know when my mom first saw
these she was like it looks like a
shower curtain i saw a
target i was like should i be offended
or like actually no okay i like that
because
um it's you know that's all right
it's still profound to me
but then you know yeah uh i i think the
bottles are like that
you know they're they're almost done
but they're also i think some of the
more beautiful
pieces in the show and you know it's
it's uh
well my point about lacery and uh
ethridge you know i i think their work
is uh indicative of a kind of new
new subjectivity um you know i have
students who
they make uh you know they they copy
ryan mcginley
and they don't even know ryan mcginley's
work they because
they they saw it in an urban outfitters
catalog you know right
so that that's part of where we are and
i
and i think that's also something i'm
becoming
more and more aware of and trying to
place you know in the work and i i think
that's what
the blinds you know it's about i know
i know if you said that was your least
favorite piece but the most
but i think you also acknowledged that
it was one of the most yeah
no but well that well that you said that
it served a very important purpose in
the show
right like for me that just changes this
entire selection
um in a very in a major way and
so and i'm wondering and did you say
that that was the most recent piece you
made or
no i well that was the last one i made
but that was actually one of the first
ones i conceived of
okay i mean i shot that photograph
about a year and a half ago yeah
interesting
interesting so because i guess you know
i think we're probably
at your time but i wanted to just ask
you
in terms of this idea of the blueprint
being a plan
for a plan of action um or proposal like
is this work how do you see
your work continuing from here is this
what is this the blueprint for
yeah i don't know maybe a new my own
catalog or
you know i i think i'm not i know i'm
not done with it
i'm making the work right now so i
i think i don't know if i'm going to
hang in the blue for a while like
you ask like well you're going to now do
collodion and like is it going to become
a survey
photography 19th century process no it
will not be that
um but you know i i feel a certain
amount of ownership
to this process because there's
you know i feel like i i figured
something out that you know i
couldn't look up in a book i kind of
feel like in a way this is
i i certainly don't claim you know any
innovation here in terms of
you know the chemical or chemistry but
the way in which
i arrived at this was so insane
and stressful and like it was like
giving birth to a child
you know all i have no idea what that's
like
that was yeah we'll edit that out um
but it was uh there was a trauma you
know bringing these things into the
world so
i i feel very attached to the format and
i i think there's a lot of possibility i
think in a way i could
really expand on this and
bring all these disparate ideas together
that
you know have a lot to do with my own
inner workings and somehow they make
sense because they're
they exist within this kind of
image object thing you know that's
pretty specific
yeah definitely
yeah so i've kind of noticed your work
from looking through the book
uh before starting to talk and things
and i'm curious you know you
you have these different bodies of work
that share pretty
different aesthetics and different even
almost different mediums and i'm
wondering
do you struggle do you hit a point where
you get
sick of one way of doing it and change
it or is it
you know because i feel like as an
artist almost an expectation is to build
this body of work at all
someone looks the same and has this
dialogue and i feel like you have much
more of a rigid
investigations of things yeah and i'm
curious how you become about
convincing yourself that one section is
done or is it something that comes
naturally do you feel like it's a choice
or is it something that kind of just
happens
it plays itself out i think the
landscape work
you know i say my dad you know my
parents are always like why don't you
take more pictures like that
and you know like and i i said what i
wanted to say
to say you know with that um and i think
it does
play out i think the anthems i got tired
of like
being disappointed every time it rained
and felt
you know i got sick of like running to
the studio when i saw like a cloud in
the sky
pulling it off the roof and uh but i
also
i didn't want that to become a gimmick
you know um
yeah i don't know maybe i have like
undiagnosed add or something i i
but i i go through a sequence and i'm
done
on you know something i have other ideas
that i'm like i can't
john you can't do that for like two
years um
but i i think that's just part of
yeah i don't know i but uh does that
make sense yeah
because that is i think that you know
yeah that is
for a lot of people the strategy or
or the way things happen is that they're
known for doing that or you know they
they have a couple tricks up their
sleeve and that's what they own
and that's what they've become known for
and um
yeah i i i've always had trouble
start with the concept and then figure
out what the media means yeah whatever
that is
yeah or i'll think of an object i mean
i'll think of the finished product and
then i'll
like with the anthotypes and these
especially i had to reverse
engineer it um
it was yeah especially with this one it
was very
interesting i actually have a question
yes i don't know this but so when you um
were walking with your dad who pointed
out
is that when you had the idea to start
doing the attitudes no but i i remember
you know oh pokeberries i remember
reading about that
in this textbook about anthotypes and
because i
i teach this at columbia i teach x tech
experimental technique so
but um yeah i mean i always
when i was again when i was in college
and when i was in my early 20s i did a
lot of alternative
process so i've always had a fondness
for this
for this moment in photo history but
yeah there was
just one of those yeah there's
pokeberries growing in logan square now
i know what pokeberries look like
i see them everywhere yeah what is this
one made out of
uh that is i think that's pokeberry and
beet
i don't know let me see yeah probably
pokeberry is mixed with beet
any other question okay i guess sort of
going back to the previous question
about just your process
and um it seems like you sort of hinted
at the fact that a lot of the
the content of this work it was was not
just sort of like
you were you
kind of thing do those do those elements
of
particular bodies of work ever sort of
mutate and jump into
other bodies like did did these contents
have sort of have gestational periods
and previous qualities work
and maybe you see yeah other things oh
yes
yeah but yeah but much earlier yeah i
mean
that's i think that's you know the
longer anyone makes art
you know i have like you read a journal
from like 15 years ago and you're like
oh my god
that's what i'm thinking about right now
um
yeah i mean there are you know the hands
especially
i think that this work uh relates to
some
concepts i was i was concerned with when
i was 21 22.
um yeah
yeah i mean the answer the answer is yes
uh well the fossils like you know i
all those years i dreamt about like
encountering
like a wall of fossils in the wood to
make a nice juicy four by five of you
know and i never found that
you know i always wanted to use fossil
like an actual fossil and an image
and i never found that
so you know here they are but uh yeah
yeah i mean i think that's happens
everybody i also i don't write things
down or i'm sporadic
like sometimes i'm like all right i'm
going to keep the journal this year like
it's going my idea book i'm going to
have next to my bed and of course i've
got like 15 of them
scattered all over my apartment in my
studio and i'll just randomly open a
book i'm like wow that's a
really good idea we're like wow that's a
horrible idea
um but yeah they they yeah
it's like return of the repressed you
know john i'm curious about
um you're kind of continuing
to frame your practice in terms of
photography uh because these may feel
the least photographic of
your bodies of work i think the
indexicality
works differently it's not pointing to a
site um
the surface tension the subtractive
process of the
actual print yeah um so i'm just curious
is that kind of like a conceptual tool
for you
you mean uh photography yeah
uh yeah i i think it is because i think
at the crux of everything i do
at least i like to think it's it's about
this balance between observation
and uh you know sight and imagining or
i i use the word hallucination a lot um
and i think that
yeah i i still want to use photography i
don't know
you know i think about that a lot i'm
like she's going to school for painting
you know like
it's too late to start trying to figure
out how to be a painter now
um and but somehow there's something i
think that
the lens satisfies you know with me
that i can't get away from you know
i think it's
yeah i mean it's it's about it's a
metaphor i think for the that threshold
of of the surface of any
representational space
is um you know
i don't know we want to see
i don't know i don't know i'm at a loss
i'd have to get back to you but
that i well for me there's always been
this relationship with
dreams reality you know observation and
hallucination and maybe where those
where those intersect you know where it
can intersect so
and i i think if i was a process painter
or even a
you know representational painter but i
don't think i'd
i'd go there in the way i need to you
know i think these kids
comfortably exist in a more discursive
space i think they're kind of
self-contained and interesting as
objects in their own right
and i ask because like as a as a viewer
with the frame of photography i'm kind
of asked to look at them in a certain
way which is really productive for me as
like someone who works with photography
like i i like that conversation but yeah
yeah some of your work and i think is
you know leaning
towards that as well i mean
some of your recent work
and scene cut cut
you
関連する他のビデオを見る
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)