4/20/2008 8:34:35 PM

Hi Laura,
I’ve been thinking about how to respond to questions about this group of images. The problem is that they are not about things, you might as well ask Jackson Pollock what is that a picture of. I have worked hard to create images about light and color rather than about thingness. I have taken powerful images of buildings, and the question is “What is the purpose of this building?” Is the image different if the building is a train station or a synagogue? In these images I think that the process of creation is more important than what thing I used to reflect the light.

Most of the photographs I take are really exercises in craft. It is my job to find a way to express the beauty of a house or the characteristics of concrete dye. I think that I am an excellent craftsperson. I am not going to say that these images are art, while they involve a process of creation; they also need to express the reality of the subject. However in the images you have commented on, the subject, what the camera is pointed at, is unimportant. What is important is the way I have chosen to capture color and contrast. Given the infinite variety of the very small subjects I used for this series of images, the choice is the critical skill of the artist.

In this case the camera is pointed at a glitter cosmetic product.
Thanks, John Siskin

4/21/2008 6:01:16 PM

You know what you mean here John. I understand you totally and I hope that I have not just been a frustration to you.

My vivid imagination wants to know "what it is" so it will all make sense to me as A WHOLE. But technique is more important in your heart and I surely respect this. You are on a different level of expertise than I am. Obviously. Another plain. Part of me wishes I were there with you. Knowing all the tech terms and being able to have conversations with you on a higher level than I can now.

I posted a photo in the Micro Club that has this same feel in essence and to just SAY what it is, just seem to be where the conversation might end. I was forfulied by HOW I took the shot and not what it IS or LOOKS LIKE.

I am an Amiable Sanguine. Such a pain in the as* to the true serious person but I know you have a touch of FUNNY BONE there like does Steve Harrington.

Please forgive any questions that seem out of line for you. I mean no harm. Ever.

I admire your craft and talent and knowledge and I wont ask you again what your "stuff" is...but try and appreciate it from your POV and realise that you are not just showing an OBJECT but a technique.

Now I see why I was the first to comment on some of your things. People know you and they look but don't discuss until ready. Knowing that guessing what it is is not what you appreciate most. It's not about that for you.

You are talented and intellectual man and your goal is to teach the craft, not to have guessing games.

Please except my apologies. -Laura

4/21/2008 6:24:08 PM

Hi Laura,
I am not frustrated, but I want these images to be appreciated as images, not as records of things. It makes sense only in terms of itself, not in terms of what was in front of the lens. Technique is important but emotional reaction is more important. How you feel about this image or a Van Gogh or an Ansel Adams image is more important than any other aspect of the image. You are supposed to react to art.

While I am here to teach craft, and I take craft seriously, I would hope that images, yours, mine and other members can be appreciated for content. In addition technique and subject are important, but in the end an image is really valuable because of what is in the image.

I don’t know why these images have not been graced with comments, but I do know that many of the people here at BP have a very straight-forward idea of what is a photo. These images do hot have a defined subject and they are not about something. This does make it more difficult to discuss them.

While you need not apologize, I do want you to know that I am not upset. I want to communicate certain visual ideas, and if they are not easily communicated with images, I will resort to words. Thanks so much for your interest in my work.
Thanks, John

4/22/2008 9:48:23 AM

:) Thanks for yours to me. -Laura

4/22/2008 12:08:19 PM

Thanks, Laura!

4/22/2008 12:42:02 PM