I took/made these photocollages last night on my way home from the studios. As my technique develops, I’m starting to play around more with the collages, roughly assembling them in my mind as I snap and then properly doing so in Photoshop. When you use the camera in this way it becomes a really interesting drawing tool, and thats exactly what I’m doing: drawing, and therefore flattening, space with my camera. These are not photographs they are drawings.
Enjoy.
Advertisement
Hey Teal -
These look good. But why do you think of them as drawings?
I’m not sure that they do flatten space in the same way that, say, a cubist paintings/collage does. Rather than presenting multiple perspectives on a flat plane, they seem to emphasise perspective – usually centering on a distant point, often the direction in which the partial body of the photographer seems to be facing.
Do you agree? And what is it about the process that makes it analogous with drawing?
Best,
Wit
Firstly do I address you as Wit or Chris???
I like Wit so I will stick with that. When I talk about these images as drawings I am primarily referring to the process of making them – using the camera as a drawing tool. You mention cubism in your comment and the ideas of flattening space and multiple perspectives yet these are two very different interpretations of Cubism. There are theories that the cubists were reaching the pinacle of pictorial representation on a flat surface, the culmination of a 500 year old flattening process and then there are theories that Cubism sparked off as a reaction to the popularization of the camera and its claim to capture ‘reality’ or how we see much more truthfully than painting, say, ever could. I we take the latter theory and apply it to these ‘drawings’ you might understand them better. To elaborate: compare the collages or drawings or whatever you wish to perceive them as and compare them to a conventional photograph. Which strikes you as being more truthful to a human way of seeing? These images are undoubtedly more ‘truthful’ in that regard yet they are still flat objects (or flat images on a flat screen) and this is why I refer to them as drawings. Why does your reading of an emphasis on perspective take away from them being drawings?? one-point perspective was a device created to provide the illusion on 3 dimensional space in a flat painting on drawing where there was none.. At the moment these are intended to recreate in a small way MY seeing, hence the shadows/ feet/ pointed finger. The process is harder to explain – its about the frame of mind I take when I shoot these photos constructing them in my head as I do so and then later formalizing the structure in Photoshop. The lines in the images become very important as you construct them – drawing is a very linear process.
I hope I’ve answered your questions there! I’m sure I rammbled a tad and trailed off abit towards the end but must admit I’m knackered.
Teal
Hi Teal,
Thanks for your message! Wit is my ‘pen’ name, so we’ll go with that
You ask: “why does your reading of an emphasis on perspective take away from them being drawings??”
I was quoting from you original description:
“When you use the camera in this way it becomes a really interesting drawing tool, and thats exactly what I’m doing: drawing, and therefore flattening, space with my camera. These are not photographs they are drawings.”
I like your two descriptions of cubism, but I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. The interesting thing about Cubism is that it simultaneously represents its objects a three dimensional, and deconstructs this, foregrounding the flat surface of the page. In a sense, then, you might say that it deconstructs the illusion of perspective that the ‘realism’ of photography relies upon.
The interesting thing about your own work seems to be that it likewise presents a fragmented image, but the effect is to re-emphasise perspective, rather than to flatten it (a la cubism). But, this perspective is not viewed as ‘natural’ (a la photography) but as constructed along the lines of the viewer who is simultaneously photographer and collage artist. It’s a third possibility.
I’m not sure how to bring the notion of drawing into this, still – except perhaps as an indicator of that mediation between cubism and photography, flatness and perspective that your work seems to attempt.
Not sure what you think, but would be interested to hear.
All best,
(C) Wit
p.s. – a few additions, having scanned above:
You seemed to align the flattening process wih drawing; I was wondering to what extent this is appropriate to the actual effect of your pieces, since they don’t seem to emphasise surface flatness.
——-
Adding to my paragraph on cubism:
In a sense, then, you might say that it deconstructs the illusion of perspective that the ‘realism’ of photography relies upon, whilst at the same time superseding photography – presenting what it cannot. These two understandings co-exist in tension with each other.
——–
A small and barely significant point: I think you need to formulate your theories about your work in a way that doesn’t rely on the idea of a ‘true’ or ‘more truthful’ way of seeing. Not to say that there is no ‘truth’, but we’re talking about seeing and representation, not religion.
——-
Also, why is drawing a linear process? Where does a drawing begin, and where does it end? Why not spatial? Or even sculptural? My feeling is that this work was more scuptural, and that this is a further element of its investigation of perspective.
Finally, have a good Christmas!
Cheers,
Wit
Okay Wit. Disagree with just about everything you say there. Cannot really expand at the mo so I will get back to it in a day or two. But quickly to reiterate what I said last time re: ‘drawing’, I am referring to the process of using the camera in a specific way, and I feel this process is similar in a very simple way to the process of drawing. There’s nothing deeper than that – I just consider them drawings and we could talk about what constitutes a drawing all day but I regard this as a meaningless pursuit. It doesnt interest me. These little ideas of a drawing being anything are pointless they just lead to an empty room. These photocollages/drawings are just my reaction to reading alot about Hockney’s photocollages from the 80s (my dissertation partly covers this subject) and they do not represent my main ideas and focused inquiries.
Also I think that you misinterpret alot of what I write, when I talk about more truthful way of seeing I’m merely referring to the false claims of the camera. To be fair to you I haven’t put up any of my real theories because they are too raw at present maybe I will get round to that in the future.