EMERGING PHOTOGRAPHER GRANT RECIPIENT
The recipient of the Emerging Photographer Grant 2009 is
Alejandro Chaskielberg
The High Tide
More details will follow soon.
The Judges:
Maggie Steber – Photographer
James Nachtwey – Photographer VII
Carol Naggar & Fred Ritchen – Historians-Authors-Analysts
Eugene Richards – Photographer
John Gossage – Curator
Scott Thode – Director of Photography Fortune Magazine
Gilles Peress – Photographer Magnum
David Griffin – Director of Photography National Geographic Magazine
Martin Parr – Photographer Magnum
Erica–
Eugene Richards is one of my heroes and a continual source of inspiration for me.
Thank you so much for writing the above. It really moved me.
Now, I’m looking forward to your Peress assessment.
Maybe you can explain what all this “cat and mouse” business is about?
And is the man enlightened?? haha. I’d be more inclined to give that honor to Richards.
Yes, thanks for keeping Burn’s head above the dirt.
If not for you, DAH, and one or two others, I would have been long gone.
Love you, sis.
xoxo
thanks guys..
ok, cup o tea and then will start the next.
apologies for typos and tense issues..am trying to crank these out for ya’ll
LISA..me too..and I had good grace for him to spend some time giving me feedback on my never ending project..a gift to hear his thoughts
I meant KATIA!!
hey, and i am still looking forward to your thoughts :)
Here’s a short one..good light, I had to go shoot :)
scribbling in the dark – on Steinmetz
Frequent National Geographic / GEO contributor George Steinmetz presented African Air at LOOK this year. 51 year old George said that he was born and raised in Beverly Hills, and by the time he was a teenager he felt he needed to move beyond his cloistered upbringing and out of the “Gucci Ghetto”. When he was 21, for over 2 years, George hitchhiked through Africa with little money in his pocket. Because he had a budget of about $5 a day, he learned about the culture through immersion, often sleeping in huts at night. But he began feeling like an ant crawling across a giant shag carpet, and wanted a way to get above the ground so he could get some perspective on the country that he had fallen in love with.
When he returned to the States he finished his degree and began assisting other photographers until he started shooting assignments on his own for various clients and eventually for NatGeo. It was for an assignment on the Sahara for NatGeo 12 years ago that George first learned to fly, but it wasn’t until the local pilot backed out of the project that he devised another method for getting the aerial shots. For a month, George took paragliding lessons, and then put together a kit that could be broken down into many small bags that could be assembled to make a motorized paraglider. Though he sometimes uses planes and helicopters still, George says their limitations are great in some situations, and his craft allows him to hover low when he needs to without overly disturbing the scene below.
George showed a little video of the assembly process in fast motion, quite confounding and humorous to watch, all these little pieces that puzzle together to make something that looks like a backpack with a giant fan beneath the sail. For reasons that weren’t made entirely clear, the kit gets smuggled into Africa in different stages, and then 2 – 4 cars are used to carry the gear for the trip. While George flies (no more than 50 miles at a time) usually in the range of 50 feet to 200 or so, the caravan travels nearby with an arranged pick up point. At times his friend who is a sport paraglider, comes along on the trips. I think he said that it was on the last trip that it took the government 3 weeks to track him down, so he left the next day.
In order to shoot, George needs to take both hands off the controls momentarily. Mishaps happen, and he said he needs to be very careful of certain situations..like flying too low over sea lions on the shore. If his motor were to quit and the craft went down, the sea lions would get tangled in the sail and he’d be pulled out to sea with the fleeing sea lions. Some of his images are interesting because of the dynamic with the world below him; lionesses stare without fear, children empty out of schoolhouses – but for me the most powerful of the photos were the ones that he said were of places never before photographed, and of the vistas that I know my eyes would never have seen if George had not followed his dream.
For a glimpse into his reality, see http://www.georgesteinmetz.com/multimedia.php
scribbling in the dark – on Parr
Martin Parr the photographer, filmmaker, collector, curator and publisher said “All people who get anywhere are obsessive” during his Masters Talk at LOOK this year. A longstanding obsession for Martin is his use of his creativity to examine idiosyncratic cultural character and to throw a spotlight on how we live around the globe.
Though it may not be readily apparent to someone who looks briefly or out of a larger context at Parr’s glossy, often garish hyperbolic images, he considers himself to be a concerned photographer in the traditional sense. Parr’s M.O. is to use “irony to disguise” his seriousness. By focusing on the -isms of our society – like tourism and consumerism – he hopes to represent the world that we actually live in. Parr works against the overwhelming power of the over published image, saying that there are abundant essays on mental hospitals, circuses, and that there is an element of propaganda even in our family albums. His message is to encourage us as photographers to be independent thinkers, and to look for vulnerability and ambiguity in our ideas and in our photos. To improve and deepen his own work, Martin studies stand-up comedians.
Parr showed a wide body of work, pulling from his books Martin Parr, The Last Resort, Bad Weather and Common Sense, among others. Bad Weather came about in part because as an Englishman he is obsessed with the weather, but also because he realized that photographers for the most part shoot in good weather. Instead, he thought he would shoot in only bad weather. Parr said he had a constant “affair” with his flash; when using it in bad weather conditions especially there were a lot of accidents. Parr studied these accidents, and then learned how to incorporate them into his conscious choices when shooting. In a thought process similar to his motivations for making Bad Weather, Parr turned the fact that most photographers look for intrigue on its side and decided to look for the mundane to see “what he could do with it.”
Parr is not only a prolific producer of books of his own photography, but is frequently an editor of books of collections (like Boring Postcards and Saddam Hussein Watches), a maker of art books (like Love Cube, the game) as well as the editor of The Photobook: A History.
Parr expressed that he believes most photographers have blind spots and tend to work at the extremes of subject matter. He thinks it is important that we photograph our dislikes and our prejudices, that we air them them out. He said that photography is an excellent tool to help us examine our ambiguity about the things that we love and hate. He encourages us to question trends, to go beyond good photography and to think about how things will look in years to come, and to constantly challenge not only your own assumptions, but those of the photo community.
Parr said that he studies the decline of photographers, and that their biggest pitfall is laziness, citing the classic example of a photographer’s first book being their best. He reminds us to stay fresh and push ourselves forward, to see our strengths and to know our weaknesses.
When Parr’s grandfather gave him his first camera, with it was a note, hoping that the boy would learn to “cultivate an eye for beauty of all line, form and colour.” Martin expressed his own goals as trying to order and make sense of the world by using photography. He said that for him, photography is another form of collecting; perhaps he is gathering visual records as evidence that there is some kind of structure to our strange ways and habits. Though it is a widely circulated story, Parr seemed glad to recount it once more: When Parr joined Magnum, he received a fax from Henri Cartier-Bresson saying “I think you are from another planet.” Martin thought that was the greatest compliment of all.
Thanks Erica, it is really amazing how you do that …
BTW, I heard Martin Parr telling in an interview that his response to “I think you are from another planet” was:
“So why kill the messenger?”
Yes, he said that too!
I did not know about his “studies” of stand-up-comedians, but humor and irony is about finding vulnerability, and as you mentioned him saying: vulnreability is what he is looking for. In ourselves and through this in society. So stand-up-comendians, the guys that find the weak spot in us, probably are the best sources one can get. :-)
Geez … I never appreciated stand up comedians … guess I am one of these dry-bones-with-no-humour-Germans …
Martin Parr is a National Treasure. He’s the Beetles of photography, he just works on ‘all levels’ What’s not to like about him?
That being said, i heard that people who interrupt Martin’s shooting (and there have been many sightings) can make him a little bit grumpy :-)
I have the two volumes of “The Photobook: A History” he brought out as an editor with Gerry Badger (Phaidon). Absolutely interesting! Especially because most of them are not to be found anymore. It is a different look at the history of photography … and it’s influences.
I can only recommend it.
Lassal..about the book, he said that now that he looks back at it he feels really remiss for all the great books he left out, simply because at the time he didn’t know about them, that he is continually scouring bookshops and asking other photographers for input because he can’t keep up. He also said that he had already checked the C’ville bookstores for the rare and interesting, so any other collector shouldn’t bother :)
Joe..I understand..I’m the same way when i am seeing my negs for the first time..no time for chit chat in the lab with some random person!
“Martin Parr is a National Treasure. He’s the Beetles of photography, he just works on ‘all levels’ What’s not to like about him?”
I did this postcard show in a gallery once. That was before I got into photography and I (admitt) I had no clue about who Martin Parr was. Well … at least up to that point – because practically EVERYBODY got me these “boring postcard” series from Parr afterwards! I think I got 14 only for my birthday … not counting all the others inbetween …. I could have opened an own “Martin Parr Postcard” shop with it.
So I definitively knew who Martin Parr was after that :-)
If he finds a good answer for what the meaning of life is, then I might consider putting him above Monty Python … hmmm …
ERICA – you are amazing. how do you write all of that and take it all in too! yes, Martin Parr was FABULOUS. i had NO idea he was so damn funny! i nearly cried during his portrait series.
btw – i am still recovering… it’s going to be another week until i feel normal again.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY ANTON!!!!
Erica …
yes, sure … there is always something missing. Most of the books are not to be found anymore, sold out, out of print … But even if he just got a small percentage of them … it still tells an amazing story. And I would not have known about it otherwise. Sure, AFTER these books on photobooks, you probably will not even find them anymore as a cellar-bargain on eBay … but, nevertheless …
I would not mind him bringing out a third or forth volume. I would buy them. Especially because I know I could not buy all the photobooks …
We always miss something. I am sure there are a lot of great photographers “missing” in the official history too … not just photobooks.
GINA –
thanks..I think it was way too much Reading Comprehension prep for the SAT! Remember those essays we had to read in a short, timed period and then answer questions about what was read, sometimes in essay form :) Not sure if you saw, but I did a few other photographers earlier in the thread. Guess who i am saving for last,
CAUSE I DON’T KNOW IF ANYONE KNOWS WHAT WAS SAID!!!
By the way, are these talks transcribed anywhere? Or available as audio or audio/vis pieces?
Still recovering too, but you’re gonna need some extra tlc or something!
Oh …
Happy Birthday, Anton??
Happy Birthday, Anton!!!!!!!!!!!
Such a wonderful job you are doing here …
It is a terrific multimedia show you did with DAH …
Took my breath away.
I wish you a lot of energy, inspiration, serendipity and luck for your project in Tokyo.
Hopefully you will have us let a glimpse at it again soon?
My very, very best wishes for you!
And hopefully until soon.
This is more art photography with special effects, the judges can only vote what’s in front of them however I would say many of the judges had a second glance at david alan harvey with what he picked and put before them, so my question is what is david agenda with this selection, come on everyone, I always felt burn dealt with serious documentary not art? In addition, could the people who are trying to appear smart critics with lick ass comments please stop and just focus on their own work and earn points on merit.
this has all the hallmarks of Magnum multinational.
What evidence do you have that Burn deals with documentary photography? It has been stated my many people that there isn’t a particular genre specific theme here, and the essays shown so far dispute that premise. Burn deals with a wide variety of photography, documentary falls in there but doesn’t dominate. But the more essential question is why you think only documentary photography can be “serious” and art photography cannot.
@ erica
thnk u very much for the scribbling in the dark essays ………..
…
…i think u r frm som oder planet …….lol ……
,,,
Hey, Rafal, I think we need to let David answer the more agressive and doubting writers, if he wishes too. The way Donal wrote his post, to respond is to take the chance of yet another shouting match, with others butting in….
Erica, thanks. Now, Gilles Peress? Really curious about his lecture, from what has been told so far.
Parr’s answer to HCB was brilliant. The stuff about all these great books which we either can’t see, buy or afford is food for thought. Are books important to the art of photography, therefore should be ever present at some level to the audience (re-edited?), not just missed and talked of? Or is the photobook an art in itself, collector’s art mostly, undemocratic?, and its limited dissemination beyond first editions, of not great consequences to the enjoyment and understanding of photography and its history?
I meant the limited dissemination, not just the book, but of all the photos inside, and the manner in which that is edited and shown, la “mise en page”.
HERVE
working on it..thank god it a rainy day with time to sort it out, because this one isn’t easy!
Look3 crowd.
I heard Steinmetz is very good looking. Anyone want to confirm or deny?
It’s long, a bit sloppy, but I did my best..to make any sense I had to weave in an interview with Peress from 12 years ago..
scribbling in the dark – on Peress
The night after the Gilles Peress talk at LOOK, my roommate Dolores and I stayed awake too late for our own good, using what the other gleaned to try to approach some kind of collective understanding of what had been said by Peress. His was the kind of presentation that alternately made me laugh and feel uneasy for the interviewer, to think that I was a privileged witness to brilliance and to feel that a willful game of evasion was being played before my eyes.
Despite the fact that Mary Ann Golon managed the photo department at Time magazine for over 20 years, that she has numerous poignant interviews under her belt and that she and Gilles walked through his exhibit together and also reviewed what they were going to discuss publicly, the actual interview was imbued with a sense of spontaneity, unpreparedness and it allowed for a dominant uncomfortable reality. It turns out, these are some of the qualities that Gilles cultivates in his work. And for many in the room, they had the same effect on the talk that they do in his photographs: one of genius.
I’ll tell you the end first. If Gilles were reading a reflection on what he had said, maybe he’d enjoy it this way. In a letter sent to Mary Ann some time before the interview, Gilles wrote “Remind me to tell you about the dead photojournalist.” The talk ends like this, with Gilles telling a joke:
A photojournalist dies, and he goes before St. Peter. St. Peter says “We haven’t seen you in awhile. We’ve decided to do something special for you. We are going to give you the choice of where you want to spend eternity. But first, you will visit both Hell and Paradise, and then decide. Where do you want to go first?”
The dead photojournalist thinks a bit and says “Hell.” Poof, off he goes to Hell. And all his buddies are there playing golf and telling stories about their days as great photographers, laughing and drinking and having a great time.
The next day the dead photojournalist goes before St. Peter who asks how it was. “Interesting” the dead photojournalist replies. And then it is time for him to visit Paradise. Poof. The dead photojournalist finds himself on a cloud, sitting next to an angel who plays the harp all day long.
The next day, he goes before St. Peter again, and St. Peter asks “So, what will it be?” The dead photojournalist says “No offense, but I choose Hell.” Poof, and off he goes to Hell.
This time, when he arrives in Hell, the skies are dark, there are piles of rubbish everywhere, everyone is fighting because there is no food, and no one is laughing or telling stories anymore. The dead photojournalist is in a panic, and asks the devil “What happened? It was fantastic here just 2 days ago, even Mary Ann Golon was here!”
And the devil says: “2 days ago you were freelance. Now you’re staff.”
Gilles calls the work that was shown on the screen behind him “Still Lives”, or, in French, “Natures Mortes.” The conversation between Mary Ann and Gilles begins like this: With Still Lives looping, Mary Ann asks him something along the lines of how he thinks this body of work fits into his career, a question so straight forward that I don’t write it down. Gilles’ reply is that the images are not a body of work, rather a fragment of a habit, dust to dust. That he doesn’t think that much, that absolute emptiness is his natural state. That he rarely goes out, it makes him uncomfortable, and that he is not sure he has a career.
To anyone who has met me, here is an analogy that will be of use to describe the next hour, which was supposed to be two. It was given by my friend Neal, speaking in a whisper while sitting next to me during the talk: “Trying to get discourse from Gilles is like trying to take a photo of Erica.” Or better yet, just imagine the man sitting beside Mary Ann with a small smile on his face as he says, possibly to himself “L’enfer, c’est les autres.” (”Hell is other people.”)
So this is how it goes..Mary Ann issues relevant questions and Gilles answers them honestly, but in a language that doesn’t help to facilitate much understanding. Only now, after days of taking in what he said and after reading an interview he gave 12 years ago that is referenced here below, I think I might get it – Gilles’ words and his way of delivering them are an apt reflection of how he feels about language and why he turned to photography as a vehicle of understanding.
Gilles’ childhood was saturated by Rousseauist ideas, which hold that “man is good, man is fundamentally good, and if anything goes wrong it’s just the system that has to be adjusted.” His parents shielded him from knowing about the reality of the human condition. Gilles feels that he grew up as a child with an absence of images whose presence could have helped to tell him the truth about reality. In college, Gilles studied political science and philosophy, which influenced him “incredibly” by making him very untrusting of language, even his own. Yo Gilles, photography felt less coded, more fresh and “kept him stable and in relationship with the world.”
In his interview with Harry Kreisler 12 years ago, Gilles said:
“I’m like a perfect child of fury. I was force-fed so much of this stuff (philosophical politics / political philosophy). At the same time I was dealing with reality. I was extremely involved in the French social reality at the time, and I started to see a huge gap between language and reality. All the intellectual theories of the late ’60s in France were extremely political. It was simply a question of survival: I needed a tool and a vehicle to understand and formalize what was out there in the world, my relationship to reality. If I didn’t have that tool, I most surely would be in some mental asylum somewhere. I needed something to be able to mediate the relationship to the world, other than language. It’s an essential thing, like eating. It’s about surviving, it’s about making sense of what’s out there and what’s in there.”
It seems clear that he still feels the same today, but perhaps the disillusionment with language has increased since he talked with Harry. His words now were fewer and harder to elicit, and were given sparingly, like a homeopathic medicine. Or to use the colloquial expression, like pulling teeth. With some nudging, he told Mary Ann:
“Photography is something I do to stay sane and to process my relationship to the world. It is a little bit like grieving.”
Photography is not something the Gilles does to express himself, rather it is a tool to help him understand the world. Gilles seemed comforted that “There are pure ideas between the moment of perception and when you put an idea on it” and that these pure ideas are accessible through the visual medium. “I’m proposing to you that photography is a language on its own, which is that when you look at images you do derive ideas; and I’m also proposing to you that you can derive ideas without going through words. So I’m forcing you to really look. And this process of looking, it’s like a new set of ideas that are being proposed to you.”
Gilles said that work should be able to stand on its own, and that for him captions beneath a photo are redundant. He is interested in the space between categories, like between photography and literature, and he questions the rituals that hold photography, like the act of hanging work on the walls of galleries. He concerns himself with what is necessary, and what is just, in the service of an idea.
Gilles joined Magnum Photos in 1970, and his quote on his photographer page there is “I don’t care so much anymore about ‘good photography’; I am gathering evidence for history”. Mary Ann asked him about the role of Magnum in his work, and he said that in the 70s the other photographers shared easily and were incredibly generous, and even now at Magnum you don’t have to please anyone.
Gilles believes that reality speaks very powerfully through photography, but that 1/2 of the ‘text’ of a photograph is in its reader. He told Mary Ann that history is more and more about representation, so it has become more visual. This is problematic, Gilles said, because truth is ambiguous. The authorship of the truth comes from many sources – the photographer, the camera (because he thinks that each camera allows photography to speaks in a different way), the force of reality, and the viewer who has his own interpretation of what is happening in the photo. Stating that univocal photos that try to make a point are propaganda, Gilles pointed out that great writings and photos use ambiguity so that the viewer, or reader, processes the information in his own way. And Gilles’ part is to document the reality that is going on around him from a receptive place:
“There is a lot of the trivial of life and there is a lot of notions of simultaneity of life, of life that goes on while catastrophe unfolds, and so on. And this is why I work the way I do; I work extremely open to what’s around me. I document from the most minute detail to the most spectacular scene. I do work in a very open way and I document everything that’s around me. It’s a very existential approach. I shoot pictures of the glass of water I drink if I feel that it means something at that time. ”
Gilles, who has taken on the roles of Professor of Human Rights and Photography at Bard College, NY, and Senior Research Fellow at the Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley resists labels in photography. He said that he isn’t a war photographer, and that he isn’t interested in categories in photography. Gilles has said that he tries to avoid predictable forms and the goals of the market. Instead, he tries to find a zone of freedom where even he can’t predict the outcome. Fundamentally he is concerned that war and war crimes are so easily swept under the rug by the Western world while war is simultaneously glorified and shrouded in mystique. He told Harry:
“I’ve now been doing this for a long time, and I’m not a war photographer. I don’t have this identity, it’s one that I would also reject. But I did find myself quite a few times in fairly conflictual situations. And I see young soldiers and I see young marines that learned somewhere, and I really feel sorry for those kids because they don’t know. They think it’s like a nice movie. Sure, there are casualties and so on, but they’re not prepared for what is the reality of war. And I think that civilians here do not have any notion of what it is.”
Whether or not Peress works on assignment, and he usually doesn’t, he works from the inside out. Asked what makes a great photo, Gilles remarks that it is a very individual matter, and is a combination of things in the “I like” relationship; a photo’s construction, what the photo is about, what it says about the world, and an extra something (”it pricks”) which makes you decide that you like it. The beginning of forming his attention on any subject / place is for him to ask himself questions. In creating work, Peress consciously avoids being overly prepared so that his images are more an accurate reflection of reality than an illustration of an idea of reality. His desire is to create images that are “extremely transparent.” Though he will do some advance research, he tries to go without an agenda, without any preconceptions about what is happening or what an end product might look like. He focuses instead on his own “understanding and then doubting my own understanding.” This new understanding allows him to be able to provide the next generation with visual information that may help them to not repeat the same mistakes as the generations before them.
Seeing the atrocities of war is very difficult for Gilles, and the passivity of the civilized world is as “painful to witness as the horror itself…It’s a painful process. I mean, during the process of doing the Rwanda book I was in a serious depression for the whole period. I had this feeling that I was going to vomit all the time. You know, you live with it.” Before Rwanda Gilles had been in Bosnia. The collective impact of what he had seen as well as the lack of action in the international community left him with the sense that maybe God is half good and half evil, even though Gilles had been raised outside of religion.
Gilles shared that he is only able to focus on the now, and that he, at least, finds peace when the chaos on the outside is greater than the chaos on the inside. And although he does want to communicate “a high level of moral outrage” he feels that “Pricking the moral conscience of the international community and, I think, the individual also is not the primary goal, but a by-product. My primary goal is to understand what is happening out there. My primary goal is to make up my own mind as an individual. ”
HK: Is human enlightenment the goal?
GP: Yes.
HK: Your personal enlightenment…
GP: Yes, seeking the truth.
HK: In terms of human enlightenment and the betterment of man, an ideal would be that I’d do something about it, right?
GP: Yes.
Toward the end of the presentation, a woman who had spoken with Gilles 25 years ago recounted their conversation. She said that when they had spoken his emphasis had been on matching the inner and outer realities. He replied that he doesn’t feel that way so much anymore, that for him now, the aim is to work from the inside out. Gilles said that “the fertile ground of photography is at the intersection of the inner and the outer worlds.” If you dwell too much in the outer, the work becomes predictable, and if you work too much from the inner, it becomes idiosyncratic. You have to strive for balance.
Personally, I was glad he said that.
excerpts from: UC Berkeley, with Harry Kreisler, April 10th, 1997 Conversation with History.
You can watch the UC Berkeley, with Harry Kreisler, April 10th, 1997 Conversation with History interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdJZGd21rZY
Erica,
Thanks for doing all of these, especially the extra effort to recap the interview from Berkeley. What I find most fascinating is that here is a man who studied with Foucault and then grew to distrust language, unlike the majority of academics who embrace Foucault’s writings. That could more of my reaction to art history in grad school though. Thanks agin.
ERICA,
Thanks so much for your written report and for that link to the Berkeley interview. I just watched the whole thing. The most striking thing to me was that although English is not his first language, Gilles Peress came across as far more articulate (not to mention far deeper and more intelligent) than the ‘native speaker’ interviewer. Peress is impressive. He explained in what I found to be very easy to understand terms a number of themes that have been thrashed around here on BURN quite a bit. I can also imagine why he might in some contexts and forums come across as ‘playing cat and mouse.’ There’s much to think about for a long time in what he says.
Erica;
Thanks for all the work you have put in bringing us these words from LOOK3. Even though i live in the southern hemisphere it has certainly made me feel a lot closer the “photo world”.
Thank you
Thanks, Erica. I think what Gilles is doing and saying is that you have to find his own truth, and it is nobody else’s. This is all so important.
There are too many people who go the wrong way and think thruth is one, and we kinda have to meet, ideally, where that oneness is, goes further than our individual experiences, ie. that we are essentially one. Yes, we are, but not on this earth…
Other parts, I felt in conflict with what was said, though it does not matter that much, of course.
“photography is a little bit like grieving”… Here’s an interesting discussion, since this is a concept few have embraced here, choosing instead to praise the “celebratory” nature in taking a picture. Both aspects are probably reconciliable…
Grrrr: ..is that you have to find YOUR own truth….
On grieving and celebrating, a poem by Jacques Prevert
Song of the snails on their way to a funeral
Two snails were going
to the funeral of a dead leaf.
Their shells were shrouded in black,
and they had wrapped crepe around their horns.
They set out in the evening,
one glorious autumn evening.
Alas, when they arrived
it was already spring.
The leaves who once were dead
had all sprung to life again.
The two snails
were very disappointed.
But then the sun,
the sun said to them,
“Take the time
to sit awhile.
Take a glass of beer
if your heart tells you to.
Take, if you like,
the bus to Paris.
It leaves this evening.
You’ll see the sights.
But don’t use up your time with mourning.
I tell you,
it darkens the white of your eye
and makes you ugly.
Stories of coffins
aren’t very pretty.
Take back your colours,
the colours of life.”
Then all the animals,
the trees and the plants
began to sing
at the tops of their lungs.
It was the true and living song,
the song of summer.
And they all began to drink
and to clink their glasses.
It was a glorious evening,
a glorious summer evening,
and the two snails
went back home.
They were moved,
and very happy.
They had had a lot to drink
and they staggered a little bit,
but the moon in the sky
watched over them.
Yes, Erica, I remember finding the transcript for that Peress interview back when I was in college. Then last year I found that youtube clip. Thanks for posting again. Peress studied philosophy and is using photography in a very different way than other photojournalists obviously. He and Koudelka always seem to be on a totally other level within the the reportage tradition.
SIDNEY..
“He explained in what I found to be very easy to understand terms a number of themes..”
The last 12 years seem to have had a profound effect on Gilles..watching this old interview and listening to him last week had the effect of meeting 2 different men, on the surface anyway.
I had to laugh at myself when I read Casey from slideluck’s summary, I could have saved myself a lot of time if I had just written something like this!:
Gilles Peress. What is there to say? He didn’t answer a single question, told one joke, and then asked to be excused halfway through. I sort of get it. I don’t always have the words and sometimes I don’t feel it worthwhile to use the words, and there was something refreshing about his obstinance.
Casey has some great photos and recaps of LOOK on his blog, check it out when you can: http://network.slideluckpotshow.com/profiles/blogs/a-peek-at-the-look3-photo
ERICA…
you have done an AMAZING job of reporting the Look3 fest…..you really caught the essence of the talks of the “legends” and like many others here i ask “how do you do that?”….in any case, thank you….
i hope the short time we spent together looking at your book was helpful….and as soon as you get the work to us in completed form and as you want it , i will publish….
cheers, david
Excellent, Erica! Thank you for your stunning effort and remarkable clarity. I hadn’t known about Gilles views of photography as rhetoric — great stuff!
DAH
I really didn’t know where to post these on burn..if you think they would be better of elsewhere, please feel free..glad you like them! I think it may be time for me to invest in something bigger than a 4 inch notebook though.
I’ve grouped all of these plus 2 that I wrote for about your post workshop gatherings at the loft for roadtrips (Paul Fusco / A. Sanguinetti and Gene Richards / Bruce Gilden) and put all of them on my website http://ericamcdonaldphoto.com so they are all in one place and this might motivate me to do more..
Can anyone remember if I wrote a third one for roadtrips? I feel like I did but maybe not. Wish I had taken notes for the Bruce Davidson talk at Aperture..but I just couldn’t tear my eyes away.
The book (aka the never ending project) : thank you so much for your time, I know how everyone wants a piece of it, especially at these gatherings. My plan is to shoot the 35mm for a full year to get a sense of all the seasons, which means through October…then a re edit and if possible a multimedia piece..(someone speak up if you are NYC based and want to offer your talent pro bono for credit)..the little teaser I made was okay but not how I wanted to see the piece in the end. Which means publishing would be around the end of the year, I hope.. WHAT A CAN OF WORMS YOU OPENED DAH..all started in a roadtrips thread where you said something like “I have a good idea..what if I were to give assignments to readers here, for example, I might assign Erica to cover politics…” and I though heck no, not politics, what I’d really want to do is..and the rest is history. So thank you for the push to make my internal vision of a long term piece a reality..and for the first time I am actually able to believe that this could be a book. Maybe by the time it is ready you will have a hold on some ideas for getting it in to the world in book form too..
okay, I think I gave myself the writing bug by doing the LOOK pieces, need to rail it in now or I’m gonna fall back into the roadtrips days of putting it all out there.. :)
I have no time to read …Hmmm…BUT…
I Trust the BURNIANS and I will say that :
ERICA you are DA Woman !!!
Erica,
You write very well. Amazing job.
Thanks especially for sharing it with those who could not be there.
you all are very welcome!
What a pity I was not @ look3 :-(
Erica thank you so much for the sharing!
I wish one day I can come too ;-)
Is it every year?
Albertina, the next LOOK3 will be in 2011