Photography and Materiality: John Opera in dialogue with Karen Irvine

Summary

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

00:00

🎨 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。

05:01

🖼️ 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。

10:02

🌐 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。

15:04

🏞️ 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。

20:05

🎭 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。

25:06

🔍 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。

30:06

🔄 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。

35:10

📚 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。

40:11

🔗 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。

Keywords

💡展览

展览是艺术家作品的公开展示活动，通常是在画廊、博物馆或艺术中心进行。在视频中，提到了与画廊艺术家的个展相结合，启动了一个新的对话系列，这表明展览是艺术家和观众交流的重要平台，并且是视频讨论的核心内容之一。

💡约翰·奥普拉

约翰·奥普拉是视频中提到的艺术家，他在芝加哥是一位艺术家和教育工作者。视频中提到了他的第四次个展，这表明他在艺术界有一定的地位和影响力，且他的新作品是与展览和对话系列相关的核心内容。

💡接触印相法

接触印相法是一种摄影技术，其中图像与感光材料直接接触以进行曝光。视频中提到了这种技术，强调了它在制作过程中的重要性，以及它是如何与约翰·奥普拉的艺术作品相关联的。

💡蓝图

蓝图是一种印刷技术，常用于建筑和工程领域，以复制图纸。视频中提到了蓝图，将其与约翰·奥普拉的艺术作品相联系，特别是提到了蓝图的直接印记特性，这与他的艺术创作过程和结果有关。

💡科学影响

视频中提到了艺术家的父亲是地质学家，这影响了艺术家对科学的兴趣和艺术创作。科学影响体现在艺术家作品中的自然形态和地质形态，如化石的使用，这些都是视频中讨论的主题之一。

💡绘画与摄影

视频中讨论了绘画和摄影之间的关系，特别是在约翰·奥普拉的作品中，他将两者结合起来，创造出具有绘画质感的摄影作品。这种结合提供了对传统摄影概念的扩展和重新解释。

💡重复

重复是视频中提到的一个艺术手法，通过展示同一主题的多个版本来强调主题或概念。约翰·奥普拉在他的作品中使用了这一手法，以不同的方式探索和表达他的想法。

💡抽象

抽象是指艺术作品中不直接代表现实世界具体对象的风格或技术。视频中提到了抽象，特别是在讨论约翰·奥普拉的作品时，他的一些作品更倾向于抽象，而不是具象的表现。

💡替代摄影工艺

替代摄影工艺是指除了主流的银盐摄影工艺之外的其他摄影技术，如视频中提到的cyanotype。这些工艺通常有独特的美学特点，约翰·奥普拉利用这些技术创作了他的艺术作品。

💡主观性

主观性在艺术中指的是艺术家个人的观点、情感或解释。视频中讨论了主观性如何影响艺术作品，特别是在当代艺术中，艺术家的个人视角和表达方式变得越来越重要。

💡图像饱和

图像饱和指的是在当代社会中图像的过度泛滥，人们被大量的视觉信息所包围。视频中提到了这一现象，艺术家在他的作品中探讨了在这样一个图像饱和的世界中如何创造出有意义和影响力的艺术。

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