Just Give Me Money

I have several thoughts, but might be way off the mark, so disregard any, but I feel like they would be likely inerpretations. First of all, it is interesting. My question is whether it is about, as you say, the aesthetics of the photograph, or is it rather the aesthetics of the print. My reasoning here is that if it is the photograph, sticking to a rigid, back of the head and shoulders portrait would not allow the amount of formal modeling that would really stress that the series considered aestetics a great deal above everything else. Though you may be changing the composition/lighting/etc between shots which may negate this point. (also my vision of it with that is very humorous). The point of calling it a portrait is quite interesting. It makes me think about melinda's work. In fact, she would make an interesting person to show the set to since she would not have a lack of ideas or arguments. My guess is that it would spark some thought of that a back of the head still gives us a great deal to relate to. My thought also is that it would raise quesions of anonymity, which I would not avoid, but attempt to embrace in the point. Perhaps relate with the loss of an images power in the visually saturated world (ala alfredo jaar) or modern identity crisis along with photography's similar classification discrepencies.

Good luck Greg. I am excited for you to show us some more.

 

Could you clarify a point for me, Jay? You said that if it were the aesthetics of the photograph, this wouldn't work, but if it the print, it would? Maybe I am reading it wrong.

I mentioned this project idea to Melinda some time ago. She liked it as far as I could tell, and saw the aesthetic importance imediately. But, she hadn't seen a print yet, just a verbal description of a vague idea at the time. As far as relating to the back of someone, are you relating with the person, or the photograph?

I have always felt that when I have eye contact with a person in a photograph, the artist has intended for me to see beyond the plane of the print and relate to the person. It is this interaction that I am trying to eliminate.

 

I like the idea of trying to eliminate the possible relationship one might have with a person in a portrait. I have a hard time looking at portraits for that very reason; I always start narrating the story of their life rather than looking at it for aestetic purposes.

Good deal!

 

Sorry Greg, me can't talk so good. What I meant with my aesthetics mumbo jumbo is that if the set is bunch of the same back of heads than it won't really be considering much for aesthetics, they can be well executed, but they are more formulaic than knock-out interesting aesthetic. Therefore, it is not the photograph (image) itself that will be beautiful, but perhaps the print (beauty as an object, not the idea or what's pictured).???

Anyway, that probably doesn't clarify, so I apologize. I have loved that challenge of removing the interaction between subject and viewer ever since we were discussing it for you in Issues. Best of luck, it's so tough, but you are best suited for it out of any of us.

 

Thanks, Jay, for clarification. It is my theory that photographs can be viewed in and of themselves without being translators for the artist. That was my entire point of my thesis. But a theory that only works for one subject, in my case landscape, doesn't go very far. So, I am trying to see if this theory can be applied to other things. If, after my entire life I am unsuccessful, then the theory is bunk. Until then...

 

Excellent. You are a dangerous man... gambling with your life! Yes!

 

Well, if you're not doing anything with yours for a while, you could lend it to me. Second-hand lives are a small market, but I think I could work with it.

 

I have no doubt that if anyone could market my life it would be you. Probably through some chinese, foreign trade broker.

 

China is so lsat year. North Korea is new China.

 

greg,
i just want to tell you that i think i love this idea for you. the aesthic without an interpretation. leaving only one reason for interacting. the image alone is absolutely beautiful to look at. it captures me. makes me look at wonder. but the back of the head becomes the face for me in some strange way. i still see the person. i feel as if i can see them without looking at them. i am not as well spoken or full of photo jargen as others but i just feel as if they work.
i interact with the beauty of the image.
jade