Exercise: Nigel Shafran – ‘Washing Up’ (2000)

We are asked to look at Nigel Shafran’s series of images entitled Washing Up (2000) and then to respond to some questions.Washing Up is a series of images taken by Shafran in 2000 of completed washing up, usually in his own kitchen but sometimes elsewhere.  The photographs are accompanied by text detailing what he ate and sometimes other interesting snippets of information, for example who else was present at the meal.The first thing that struck me about Washing Up is how organised and structured Shafran’s images are.  The kitchen items are stacked neatly into sculptural forms with no untidy clutter lying about, which gives us an insight into the dish-washer’s personality (we are not told whether it is Shafran or his partner Ruth who has done the washing up).  This neatness and use of form reminds me of Thomas Demand’s image Sink (Spüle) (1997); although different in composition and construction (Demand’s ‘sink’ was a paper model) I immediately felt a similarity with Shafran’s images.

I wondered why Shafran chose washing up as a subject and I found the answer in an interview he gave to Paul Elliman in 2000:

‘I wanted to start the New Year with something  optimistic.  And personal.  Something with lots of shapes, where shapes would change, keep changing.  Also something in which the light was important, the kitchen window or the overhead kitchen light, I mean.  I really wanted to have one that was lit by lightning, haven’t got that yet. There are signs of ageing in it, like signs of time, of course’.

(Elliman, 2000)

What I like about this series is its simple style and how Shafran makes ordinary, everyday items into an interesting composition which gives rise to many questions.   For once I agree with Charlotte Cotton who writes:

‘With an understated photographic style, use of ambient light and relatively long exposures, he transforms these scenes into poetic observations about the ways we conduct our lives through our unconscious acts of ordering, stacking and displaying objects. There is something highly intuitive in Shafran’s way of working.  He resists the urge to construct a scene to be photographed ; rather, his is a process of staying attuned to the possibilities of everyday subjects as a means of exploring our characters and ways of life’

(Cotton, 2014, p.121)

Question: did it surprise you that this was taken by a man?  Why?

No, not at all.  In fact the question did not even cross my mind.  I think this is due to my recent research into photographers such as Thomas Demand and Jeff Wall where I’ve learned that such stereotypes do not seem to exist now in contemporary photography.

Question: in your opinion does gender contribute to the creation of an image?

In general I think the creation of an image is more due to the interests and personality of the photographer than their gender.  However I do believe that men and women have different ways of looking at things and this can come across in their interpretation of a subject or theme.

Question: what does this series achieve by not including people?

It makes me very happy!  Seriously, I think that the lack of people gives far more depth to the image than if they were present.  We know that a person was there (the washing up is done) so Shafran’s images convey a presence of absence, adding a sense of the passing of time. The viewer is encouraged to explore and to trace the human activity from the evidence left behind – who was there?  What did they look like?  I also think that the inclusion of people would also change the tone of the series completely from still life (fine art even?) towards social documentary.

Question: do you regard them as interesting ‘still life’ compositions?

On an aesthetic level I find the shapes, lighting and splashes of colour give interest to what could be seen initially as quite banal images.  Shafran has made the ordinary into something artistic and I really like his use of natural light.  Looking deeper, I like the way the images provide a visual punctuation mark, a comma, in the daily routine – cooking, eating, washing up, the putting away of dry dishes so we are invited to think about what has happened before and what will happen after.  We are told a little – the composition of the meal that had just been eaten and sometimes who was present – which whets our appetite to know more.

My main take-away from Shafran’s work in relation to my own practice is that everyday subjects, ones that might be considered banal even, have their worth photographically on a number of levels.  I find it is very easy to overlook, maybe dismiss even, what is immediately around me in search of the ‘great and the good’ so Shafran’s images are a timely reminder of what I have been missing and of a need to really look, rather than just see.

References:

Cotton, C. (2014) The Photograph as Contemporary Art.  3^rd ed.  London: Thames & Hudson

Demand, T. (1997) Spüle. [photograph] [online image]. Bundesverband deutscher Kunstversteigerer e.V.   Available from http://service.kunstversteigerer.de/de/i/5201304/p/1/ [accessed 16 January 2015]

Elliman P. (2000)   Interview with Paul Elliman, Fig-1. [online].  Nigel Shafran.  Available from http://www.nigelshafran.com/pages/texts_pages/002texts.html  [accessed 16 January 2015]

Shafran, N. (2000) Washing Up [online images].  Nigel Shafran.  Available from http://www.nigelshafran.com/pages/washing_up_pages/001washing_up_pages.html [accessed 16 January 2015]

Photographer: Thomas Demand

In her feedback on my first assignment, my tutor suggested that I look at the work of Thomas Demand and how he interrogated the notion of photography’s ‘truth’.

Born in 1964 in Germany, Thomas Demand studied in Munich, Dusseldorf and London. He originally trained as a sculptor but then developed a photographic practice where he constructs life-size models, mostly of architectural interiors, out of paper and cardboard, many of which are based on ‘found’ photographs taken from the media (Guggenheim Museum, 2014).  Demand then lights the model, re-photographs it and then dismantles and destroys it (Davies, 2011).

At first glance, his images look realistic, photographs of everyday buildings. However closer inspection reveals that all the details are missing.  Light switches, door handles, people – all traces of human presence are discarded during the model-making process to form purposely bland images and leaving the viewer to try to work out what exactly it is they are looking at.  His images also deliberately deceive. In some of his work, such as Poll (2001), the deception is obvious – Poll depicts the Florida ‘re-count’ centre during the US presidential election in 2000 but with no traces of activity – blank ballot papers and Post-it notes, unplugged and numberless telephones – whereas other images such as Diving Board (Sprungturm) (1994) and Sink (Spüle) (1997) initially appear plausible.  Demand however leaves clues along the way so that if the viewer looks closely enough the images reveal themselves as constructions, as being part of a paper world.  In this regard Kimmelman writes that ‘the reconstructions were meant to be close to, but never perfectly, realistic so that the gap between truth and fiction would always subtly show’ (Kimmelman, 2005).

A further twist in Demand’s work is that he has often selected his original sites for their cultural or political connotations, for example Corridor (1995) depicts the hallway leading to the apartment of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer (Guggenheim Museum, 2014), whilst Office (1995) corresponds to the East Berlin headquarters of the Stasi secret police (ibid.).  At first glance Archive (Archiv) (1995) is unexceptional, being a reconstruction of the archive of Helene (‘Leni’) Riefenstahl, a German film director and photographer.  Yet once the historical context is understood, the image becomes distinctly sinister (the lighting also gives a clue here) – Riefenstahl was known for her propaganda films supporting the Nazi Party (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014) and the stacks of dark grey boxes, cleansed by Demand of all detail, give me uncomfortable feelings of lost identities and misplaced evidence, thoughts of the horrors which took place under the Nazi regime.

Demand challenges our perceptions of reality and our belief in the truth of photographic images – his works look real but are in fact three-times removed from the scenes they purport to depict, each image being a photograph of a sculpture of a photograph of the original scene.  The viewer is invited to take ownership of the image, to examine their own beliefs of what a photograph should represent in terms of truth and fiction and then to construct their own narrative in accordance with their contextual knowledge.

I found the following Interview online where Demand discusses his work and method:

Thomas Demand | Louisiana Channel.

Thomas Demand: Constructing the authentic   (Louisiana Channel, 2013)

From an aesthetical viewpoint I like the stripped-back cleanliness of Demand’s images, the removal of ‘clutter’ emphasises the geometrics and lines and I am reminded of the work of Josef Schulz, another photographer whose minimalist architectural work I find inspiring.  From a critical perspective I find Demand’s images intriguing and also mentally challenging. Demand is an artist who, similar to Paul Seawright and I am sure others, wishes to make work that ‘gives its meaning up slowly’ (Seawright, 2013).  The viewer can see that the images are drawn from the world around us and are aware from Demand’s practice that it is likely that something of cultural or political importance will have happened in the space depicted. However if they want further specifics they have to make the effort themselves to locate the details – by deliberately not providing any contextual information Demand effectively and willingly passes over authorial control, asking the audience to bring their own emotion to his work.

With regard to his own influences, Demand comments that he admires both Ed Ruscha and Gerhard Richter – ‘they both followed their own little paths, and in doing so changed the way we view art for ever’ (Barnett, 2011).

I was first attracted to Demand’s images by their clean lines, abstract look and almost painterly feel which is something that I seek to emulate in some of my own architectural work.  However digging deeper I was intrigued by the way Demand plays subtly with reality, asking the viewer if they believe what they see or whether they see what they believe.  It is this questioning, this interaction with the viewer and the slow giving-up of meaning that I would like to bring to my work.

References:

Barnett, L. (2011) Portrait of the artist: Thomas Demand [online]. Guardian News and Media Ltd. Available from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/25/thomas-demand-artist-photographer [accessed 13 November 2014]

Davies, L. (2011) Thomas Demand: One I Made Earlier [online]. The Telegraph newspaper. Available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/8383931/Thomas-Demand-One-I-Made-Earlier.html [accessed 12 November 2014]

Demand, T. (1995) Archiv (Archive). [photograph] [online image]. The Saatchi Gallery. Available from http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/thomas_demand_2.htm [accessed 17 November 2014]

Demand, T. (1996) Büro (Office).  [photograph] [online image]. The Saatchi Gallery. Available from http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/thomas_demand_1.htm [accessed 17 November 2014]

Demand, T. (1994) Diving Board (Sprungturm). [photograph] [online image]. Artnet Worldwide Corporation. Available from http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/ntm5/ntm3-1-3.asp [accessed 17 November 2014]

Demand, T. Flur (Corridor). [photograph] [online image]. The Saatchi Gallery   http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/thomas_demand_3.htm [accessed 17 November 2014]

Demand, T. (2011) Poll. [photograph] [online image]. Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago. Available from http://www2.mcachicago.org/work/poll-thomas-demand/   [accessed 17 November 2014]

Demand, T. (1997) Spüle. [photograph] [online image]. Bundesverband deutscher Kunstversteigerer e.V.   Available from http://service.kunstversteigerer.de/de/i/5201304/p/1/ [accessed 17 November 2014]

Guggenheim Museum (2014) Collection Online: Thomas Demand b. 1964, Munich. [online] The Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation (SRGF). Available from http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artists/bios/1485 [accessed 10 November 2014]

Kimmelman, M. (2005) Painterly Photographs of a Slyly Handmade Reality [online]. New York Times.   Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/arts/design/04KIMM.html?scp=1&sq=thomas%20demand&st=cse&_r=0 [accessed 14 November 2014]

Louisiana Channel (2013) Thomas Demand: Contstructing the authentic [online video].  Louisiana Museum of Modern Art.  Available from  http://channel.louisiana.dk/video/thomas-demand-constructing-authentic  [accessed 14 November 2014]

Marcoci, R. (2005) Thomas Demand.  New York: The Museum of Modern Art

Seawright, P. (2013). Catalyst: Paul Seawright [online video].  Imperial War Museums.   Available from http://vimeo.com/76940827   [first accessed 29 July 2014]

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (updated 2014) Leni Riefenstahl [online]. Available from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007410  [accessed 18 November 2014]

Assignment One: Tutor feedback and response

Starting a new course with a new tutor is always slightly daunting, however my tutor Jayne sent her report back promptly, providing thorough and useful feedback.

My assignment submission can be seen here and the full tutor report viewed here.

I found this assignment to be the most challenging one that I’ve done in my OCA studies so far and I feel that my tutor has reflected this fairly in her report.  In general her report was positive and encouraging, with feedback and guidance on where I had been less successful and suggestions with regards to areas for improvement so I will now comment on the salient points.

Overall comments

My tutor was positive about the images that I had submitted:

‘The images submitted show good technical ability, good observational skills and a nice light interpersonal touch, and your summary acknowledges areas where improvement is needed.

However she agreed with my view that I should have done more planning and research, explaining that this would have allowed me to express my personal vision of the event.  Whilst I am usually a planning fiend, it just didn’t happen for this assignment and to be honest after the struggles that I had with it I was just happy to have the shots in the bag on this occasion.  So I fully agree with her comments here and will endeavour to plan the remaining assignments thoroughly as I can see how this, together with more research, will improve my work.

This is an encouraging start to the course.  I would urge you to (a) plan more and (b) explore and take risks with your approach and technique as you progress through the course.  The briefs are there as a jumping-off point for your creativity.  If you feel a brief is uninspiring, turn it on its head and play with it – just be sure to document the journey so it is clear how you reached your end point’.

It was nice to read that I am heading in the right direction and have taken note of her two pointers for improvement.  As I wrote earlier, planning is not usually an issue for me (in fact I enjoy it) but my tutor’s second point about exploring and taking risks is an area that I find very difficult as I am not a particularly creative person or a risk-taker by nature.  I agree fully with her comment but I do wonder whether my lack of ability in this regard will either hinder or stop my progress towards completing the degree.  In the short-term I will work hard to improve these elements (my wish to find/improve my creativity was one of the reasons I started studying with OCA) and hope that I will find it easier through practice and research.  I do feel that I have developed a little in both areas since I began my OCA studies but I will need to see how this continues and I will have a re-evaluation of my future study plans when I have finished the three Level One courses.

Feedback on assignment

My tutor was very positive about my images but asked whether

‘Conceptually perhaps you could have played with the ‘two sides’ a little bit more? … The food-or-music theme doesn’t quite challenge the “truth” element of photography (i.e. photography’s “authority”) when in fact it really was both in real life.  What if one series had been shot in black and white, would that have made it more supposedly ‘factual’?’.

Again, a fair comment and in hindsight I realise that I could have taken my ideas a little further (see my comments above on exploration/risk-taking).  As the festival was a one-off event, I cannot revisit it to reshoot certain aspects, but I will try converting one set of images to black and white as my tutor hints.  I am not a fan of mixing black and white images with colour, even in separate sets if they form part of the same body of work, but I have taken my tutor’s suggestion on board and I will see what I think of the result.

Learning Logs or Blogs/Critical essays

It was pleasing to read that my learning log is progressing well and my tutor provided me with useful tips for further developing my reading and research skills. She also commented that

‘You’ve made an excellent start by discussing the work of other photographers. Try to discuss them more in relation to your own photographs/ideas where possible.’

Due to the amount of directed research in the course so far I haven’t followed my own interests as much as I would like (the old issue of available time rears its head again) and whilst I have found the photographers that I’ve looked at to be interesting, I don’t feel that, apart from a couple,  their styles really relate to my own work at this stage of my studies.  However, I take my tutor’s point on board and will try to be more reflective and self-aware in my write-ups.  I also need to find the time somehow to follow my own interests and find my own inspirations and influences.

Pointers for the next assignment

Along with some useful tips, my tutor commented that

‘Your written summary should say more about your creative decisions and influences/ideas where possible.’

As my assignment images were shot with zero planning and preparation (in fact they only became assignment material after the event) this is a valid comment and one that I was expecting to be honest. Nevertheless it has served to remind me of the purpose of the summary statement and how it should be written.

My conclusion

Overall I am pleased with this report. Given the struggle I had with this assignment I think that my tutor’s comments are valid and fair, giving both encouragement on what worked well as well as pointers to improve the things that were not so successful and providing guidance on the areas where I need to continue to develop.  It is reassuring to know that my technical and visual skills are considered to be good at this stage in my studies so, whilst I mustn’t get complacent, this means that I can focus more on trying to develop my creativity.  The underlying message I read from this report is that I need to experiment and explore more, to take risks with my photography and this is what I will carry forward and try to develop.

Follow-up to tutor report:

In her report my tutor wondered whether if one series had been shot in black and white it would have made it more supposedly ‘factual’.    I looked further into this idea, converting each series one at a time into black and white alongside its colour counterpart.  My decision was to leave both sets of images in colour.  My justification for this decision is that both the food and music parts of the festival were equal in status and by amending one set of images to black and white this balance was altered in my opinion.  I felt that the black and white images detracted from the fun of the festival, giving a negative feel whilst the colour set demanded and held the viewer’s attention.  Interestingly I had the same feelings regardless of which set was in mono, even though the food set was the more colourful of the two.

My tutor also provided me with some further suggested reading/viewing in her report and I have taken this on board:

• I revisited ‘Behind the Image’ (Fox and Caruana, 2012) – see my review here. I found this re-read very useful when planning my second assignment
• I researched the work of Thomas Demand (see here) and was intrigued by the way he plays subtly with reality, asking the viewer if they believe what they see or whether they see what they believe. It is this questioning, this interaction with the viewer and the slow giving-up of meaning that I would like to bring to my work
• I looked at the work of Jeff Wall (see here). I struggled at first with a lot of Wall’s work and his motivations but got some useful leads and suggestions from both tutors and students on the OCA Flickr forum and things eventually became clearer
• I looked at Joel Meyerowitz’s Ground Zero body of work and found him to be an influence for my second assignment with regard to the power of ‘late’ photography. I also found some of Donovan Wylie’s work to be influential in this regard
• I read ‘Ways of Seeing’  (Berger, 1972) – see my review here.  Whilst not an easy read at first and a book which definitely is now showing its age, Berger has made me look in more detail at the factors which determine our comprehension of an image and how individuals filter that information.  My opinion of this book is that the more times I read it the more I will get out of it.

References:

 Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books

Fox, A and Caruana, N. (2012) Behind the Image: Research in Photography.  Lausanne: AVA Publishing SA