Photographer: Jimmy Marble

Photographer for Oral Presentation

For the presentation on a photographer, I have chosen:

Jimmy Marble, an American visual artist, film director, and photographer.

Lighting

Lighting.

Part A.

"Hard"
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 800 SS:1/250

"Soft"
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 3200 SS: 1/80

Part B. 

Front
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 1600 SS: 1/400

Side
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 1600 SS: 1/160

Behind:
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 1600 SS: 1/160

Above
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 1600 SS: 1/125

Below
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 1600 SS: 1/160

Composition

Composition. 

Line
Aperture: f/5.6 ISO: 3200 SS: 1/320

Shape
Aperture: f/5.6 ISO: 1600 SS: 1/400

Repetition
Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 400 SS:1/5000

Contrast
Aperture: f/4.5 ISO: 3200 SS:1/6000

Texture
Aperture: f/4.5 ISO: 400 SS: 1/640

Rule of Thirds
Aperture: 4.0 ISO: 800 SS: 1/400

Complementary Color
Aperture: f/4.0 ISO: 6400 SS: 1/340

Analogous Color
Aperture: f/5.6 ISO: 6400 SS: 1/320

Exhibition Review

Exhibition Review

Photography Exhibition Review: Ryan McGinley’s “Mirror, Mirror”. 

Team Gallery at 83 Grand Street, New York, NY. 

            In review of the recent photography exhibition at Team Gallery, photographer Ryan McGinley presents his work, “Mirror, Mirror”, in an attempt to showcase a project involving mirrors, and the self. His subjects include people, ranging in ages 19 to 87, each who portrayed a wide range of skin tones and shapes. According to the press release, the subjects were given a set of mirrors, rolls of 35 mm film, a point and shoot camera, and a set of instructions to take the self-portraits. Ryan McGinley himself did not shoot the photos, but he chose which images to include as a representation of a greater underlying meaning for a more instructional project. 

The gallery venue was located in downtown East Village, in a small studio space called Team Gallery. He presented around 20 different photographs, self-portraits to be exact, and each taken with a 35mm film camera. These were presented on canvas, of 27 x 40 inches. In an a very minimalist fashion, the focus of the exhibit was strictly the images. The photographs were presented in rows and columns on three of the four surrounding walls in the studio. No descriptions, no titles– just the images. There did not seem to be any distinguishable reason for the placement/grouping of each photograph (per wall), though the featured photos were located on the back wall of the room. 

As a group, the subject matter of the photographs consisted of individuals, one or more mirrors, and the film camera, though the background of each photo was different. The content what was shown in the mirror was determined by the individual themselves. Much like the subject matter, the form of each photograph depended entirely on the individual. Some used only one mirror, others used multiples. Other photos had more than one person in them. The interiors of the project also stood out to me and distinguished one from another. The photos were very intimate, personal, and almost invasive (in the best way possible). It was like looking into that person’s life– their apartment, their meaningful possessions, etc. 

Though taken by different people, the overall style of the photographs was much the same. This could be a direct result of Ryan McGinley choosing the photos himself. Due to the restriction in composition of the photograph, the individuality of each person shined through, but kept most of the “content” the same– the person in their bedroom with a mirror, naked. The internal context of each photo was very intimate. In order to fully understand the meaning of this project, I had to look at the press release, as well as the website for the exhibit. The overall goal of this project was to promote body positivity, as mirrors sometimes do not. It also implied how image culture influences how we see ourselves and the world. The instructional aspect of the prompts also allowed creative playfulness and interpretation. 

A particular image from the show did, in fact, stand out to me. The image was entitled “Carlotta, 2018”. It was of model Carlotta Kohl, who, like the rest was sat in her apartment. However, her choice in the use of the mirror was unlike the rest of them. Instead of showing her reflection, she positioned the mirror away from her, using another mirror to capture her body on the bed. The reflection did not show her, but the remainder of her bedroom, like an open vessel. It covered her stomach, and her body was “halved”, or separated. It was different, not seeing a reflection of a person in the mirror. I did not necessarily feel a personal connection with the image, just noticed that it was quite different than the rest.

In response to the exhibition, my overall feelings towards the photographer, Ryan McGinley, is positive. I had been following his work for the past two years, though I had never been to one of his shows nor have I read external information on him or his work before. This assignment allowed me to critically analyze the work of a photographer in a real gallery setting. I like the aspect of using mirrors in photographs, because for me, it allows the viewer to almost see a greater depth than what is actually present.  

References

http://famedriver.com, Fame Driver. “Mirror, Mirror.” Ryan McGinley : Mirror, Mirror, Team 
(Gallery Inc.), 2018, www.teamgal.com/exhibitions/391/mirror_mirror.

Barrett: Interpreting Photographs

Barrett: Interpreting Photographs. 

10/1/18. Chapter 3 of Terry Barrett's Criticizing Photographs.

1. The author’s thesis is that a critical interpretation comes from understanding the intent of the artwork. This comes from how the work affects the point of view of the critic, emotionally and intellectually. Interpretations can change. 

2. He uses examples from Jeff Wall and Susan Sontag’s review to introduce the concept of interpretation. He also quotes Goodman, Witkin, and Gombrich on his point that “there is no innocent eye”. 

3. Barrett defines interpretation as something we can make sense of, or something that we can convey about something else. It can sometimes be a mixture of descriptions and evaluations. Interpretation should be based on all of the components that support the “conclusion” or meaning. Correspondence and coherence should be considered when interpreting, but feelings and intellectual endeavor should not only be included, as personal significance and the actual meaning of the photograph are different. Interpretations can correspond to the photograph, but it is the ideas that cohere.

4. Interpretation is important in criticism of photographs because it allows us to “ask and answer” questions, to “act as a critic”, and consider the meaning behind a photograph. He reiterates that it might not truly mean what it seems to be at just the surface level. Barrett’s view is that all aspects of a photograph should be considered when interpreting, which includes objects of interpretation. This he suggests could include a single photo or a set of photos, as well as the historical context behind them. Photographs are meant to be communicative, and there is no such thing as an “innocent” eye; regarding the viewer and the camera. 

5. Various interpretations could include comparative, archetypal, feminist, psychoanalytic, formalist, semiotic, Marxist, stylistic influences and context, biographical, intentionalist, and technique. One that stood out to me was the Marxist technique solely for the reason that it introduces the concept that photographs are societal constructs. 

6. In the section, “’Right’ Interpretations”, the author is trying to make the point that interpretation is different for everyone and does not have to align with others, but there is a degree of “correctness” that can occur due to a critic having a better understanding of the photograph. Interpretations are opinions, though the validity of the claims can be more plausible. 

7. In the section, “Interpretations and the Artist’s Intent”, the point the author makes is that intentional fallacy occurs too often and addresses the problems that ensue. Barrett sees intention as a valid approach to interpretation, but also points out that the artist themselves might not be truly aware of their own intentions. He also emphasizes that the authors intent should not rule out, or exclude other intentions, and sees the critic’s view as more important than the photographer. 

8. Two other key points that I learned were that photographs can be “placed in the context of social reality– to interpret them as manifestations of larger societal developments and social history, as well as photography and art history”. This is a very different concept for me to consider, because photography (in my perspective) has always been considered as an art form, and not so much as a technical, societal construct. Upon further evaluation, it makes a lot of sense to consider photographs as so, due to the rising media-influenced society that we currently live in. Another point he made is that discussing art shouldn’t be just: “it’s all subjective anyway”, because it does not allow for reasonability. 

9. The author’s conclusion is that criticism should not be over-intellectualized, and interpretation is a major component in criticism. This stems from multiple different perspectives, and not there is not only one way to interpret artwork. Interpretations can change based on the amount of research is put into analysis, and we should be open to all interpretations. 

Depth of Field

Depth of Field.

10/1/18. Upper East Side, NY. 

Focal length: 85mm Aperture: f/1.4 ISO: 400 SS: 1/2500
Mango
Shallow D.O.F.

Focal length: 85mm Aperture: f/22 ISO: 3200 SS: 1/80
Mango
Greater D.O.F.