On 10/12 2017 Bryn, Anne and myself attended a study hangout.
We talked in detail about our respective critical reviews. Anne was quite pleased with her feedback for hers as it was quite positive with some changes necessary, thankfully not as many as she’d feared.
I admitted I was partly stuck with my essay but was awaiting a response from my tutor regarding some questions I’d come to realise were bugging me about my writing and investigation into aesthetics in photography.
I have since received an email from my tutor regarding my questions about my critical review which I found very helpful and have commenced writing the critical review, while taking into account suggestions based upon my questions my tutor had made.
Bryn communicated that he had read up quite a bit some of the primary resources from the course which was helping to inform his critical review and was starting to look at secondary sources to further back up these readings. Also he discussed how he might include in his essay something about how it was desirable to have a larger project to work on and have continuation with instead of having to constantly reinvent the wheel for each project. Hiroshi Sugimoto has this large project continuation in his Seascapes project which he works on in combination with shorter projects which Bryn admired.
Bryn asked Anne whether she might go back to the Gloucester Docks again for Assignment 5 so that her projects had a continued theme and she said may consider it. Also Anne described her interactive exhibition for the Somerset exhibition of OCA students which sounded very interesting. Here she asked exhibition-goers to reorder a set of photographs into the ‘right’ order that she had in mind and take a photograph of their perceived ‘right’ order and put that photograph in a guest book to document their participation.
Bryn asked Anne if she might consider doing something interactive in the Gloucester Docks similar to this and she said it was a possibility.
Lastly I talked about my ideas for Assignment 5 with Bryn which concern tourism in the city I live in of London. Here I would basically be taking a spoof tourist role, documenting my experience in the city from the perspective of a tourist in London, with myself falling for the usual tourist traps and hotspots/landmarks that a usual tourist would but with twists in the photos used to document this act. The twists would be present in order for the viewer to be able to discern it was a spoof tourist role I was taking.
Today I attended a study hangout with Anne, Bryn and Michael. We talked about very in depth subjects surrounding the ethics of photography including authentication of photographs as documents, subjectivity in photography related to the myth of objectivity, the death of the author and manipulation of the message. We related these in depth subjects with photography artists; the most prominent of these artists being Sebastião Salgado, closely followed by Don McCullin and then Martin Parr. Michael introduced us to the work of Simon Norfolk briefly who I aim to look at more closely as his work at first glance looked very interesting. I was not sure why our conversation was so theoretical but it may have been something to do with 75% of us having commenced work on the critical review or having just submitted it!
My opinions on the listed subjects were that it is very difficult to authenticate documents like photographs 100% as the viewer can usually interpret the evidence of photography being an indexical medium differently. This is even if supporting documents like text or (to a lesser degree) geotagging are included. I felt objectivity is a myth yet it is still possible to shoot in an objective style. Ultimately all photography is subjective (as even objective photography has its own aesthetic) but I would suggest some photography is more subjective than others. Relating to the death of the author, my stance was that this is true nowadays much more with the proliferation of images and ways of sharing them. Now it is not about who took the photograph but what the photograph depicts. The message of any photograph can be manipulated by means of supporting documents and other context like the photographer’s oeuvre.
We talked about the contrast in transparency of message between Salgado and McCullin where McCullin was very decisive in why he took photographs of war while Salgado’s reasoning seems more layered and less clear. We touched upon how my own critical review was going and I divulged that maybe the topic I’d chosen was proving to be too broad and therefore lacking direction. Finding relevant quotes and supporting work or photographs to back up my particular argument seemed like a way of tackling this.
Today I attended a study hangout with Miriam and Leonie.
It was good to hear their progress and we were at similar stages in the course although Leonie had almost finished Assignment 5. Miriam and I were starting the critical review for Assignment 4. I discussed my ideas for Assignment 4 with the group – the idea of beauty in documentary and whether a really aesthetically-pleasing photograph takes away from the meaning a photograph may be trying to convey. The responses from Leonie and Miriam were very interesting for me, with Leonie comparing the work of Tim Hetherington and Don McCullin’s American soldiers photographs saying that one was rendered completely differently from the other in regards to beauty. Looking at the two photographs side by side I could definitely relate to this observation.
I used the work of Sebastiaou Salgado as an example of aesthetic beauty with the potential for displacing meaning because his photographs have been typically so beautiful. Miriam countered this point by saying one of Sebastiaou Salgado’s photographs – that of a gold mine (The hell of Serra Pelada mines, 1980s, was the photograph I think she was referring to) means she no longer buys gold but only fair-trade; the photo by Sebastiaou Salgado had made such an impression on her. This could make the case that beauty captures the viewer’s attention with the possibility for meaning to be discovered afterwards in the same image, which should be something to consider when writing my critical review.
Lastly we discussed juggling things like work with the course and how it affects the flow of our studying. Also what our plans were after competing the documentary module and how often it would be helpful to liaise with our tutors in order to improve assignments.
Overall I found the study hangout to be very helpful as always but in particular it did give me some more points of consideration for my critical review.
Today I attended a study hangout with some of my fellow students to discuss our respective progression on the course and ideas about documentary. It has been around the 6th time I’ve attended a study hangout and I have found each one useful and rewarding. The first few I got to know my fellow students on the course and learn how to use the features of the Google Hangouts environment. Once we got through the technicalities of the hangouts the discussions quickly became a lot more in depth with questions like ethics of documentary genre and authenticity of the documentary genre being raised.
Topics discussed in this hangout were typically quite in depth and included Bryn discussing how the presentation of images in spaces other than the conventional (and for documentary at least ethically questionable) ‘white cube’ might be implemented. Bryn suggested a kind of real-time presentation where the work was interactively changed. I envisaged the body of images being on a smartphone for example where there was an update of the image by the author to the work which in turn changed on the smartphones of those people viewing the body of work.
Also concerning authorship of images, Michael another of the regular attendees at the hangouts, was planning on exploring issues of authorship of images when the photographer may not have much, if any intention of using their work in the context it was eventually displayed in.
Finally we discussed the use of advertising in modern society and how prevalent it is and how potentially invasive it can be. Pulling it back into the documentary practice we speculated how billboards for example could include typical subconscious directives and how the notion of this concept could be flipped on its head so that something totally unexpected was shown on the billboard instead.
For myself we conversed about how my Assignment 3 was going. Since the hangout and because of some interactions with my tutor as well I would say I’m a bit clearer on where it is heading. My plan initially was to show the story of gentrification in my local area. The theme would be examples of gentrification in Deptford, the complications would be that there is still poverty evident as well as high-rise buildings being built rapidly which don’t necessarily conform to the middle-class image. The resolution or non-resolution could be a sense of the new being mixed with the old.
I still have intentions of doing this but not necessarily in the way I had envisaged before these interactions with fellow students and tutor. For example instead of attempting to formulate a clear set plan of photographs of gentrification in Deptford, I would start photographing the area anyway and see if any potential other themes arise from the shooting experience. Then I could start to describe the process of gentrification there while implementing any new ideas I might have gathered from the practise of photographing in the area. Lastly, I liked the idea of challenging the accepted advertising billboards’ manipulative techniques and replacing them with something more constructive.