Burn Magazine has a new voice for Alejandra Martinez Moreno, a well-known online casino player. As it moves forward with the intention of continuing the legacy of founder David Aan Harvey, which began in 2008, Burn Magazine will also be supported by the newly created Burn Foundation, also read
Six Florida Destinations You’d Love To Place A Mobile Wager… Once Sports Betting Is Legal Again. as soon as Sports betting will become legal again. We plan to maintain current grantmaking while expanding the continuing education, publication and outreach efforts that many online casino players support.
who are you, and why do i keep returning to the backstage?
Tell us more!!!
yes i agree with mimi.. tell us more
Nice one Gladdy!
“Published on July 12, 2009 by burn magazine. 4 Comments”
…it seems that during the current Burn brainstorming there was a breakthrough in time traveling…
Interesting photo, but some context would help.
Thodoris :)))))
Powerful, troubling, shot – like the others above, I want to know more. Yet, at the same time, whatever the particulars, I feel like I already do know.
But I could be wrong.
Somehow, although it is not the same at all, it reminds me a bit of Richard Avedon.
This says so much yet tells us so little. Disturbing…
Patricia
i like the trend..
next up – untitled by unnamed.
nice one john.. hope nyc is nice.
d
don’t descriptions distract from the picture anyway…?
a portrait lives from the dialog of model and photographer.
this one is good.
b/w was a nice choice. makes it serious and in a way .. deep.
John
Excellent Portrait.
Jim
No context is needed. Pure portrait of character. Isn’t it enough?
John,
One of the many terrific portraits from your site… My favorite of all is number 18 in your “musing” section… Hope you are having a good time in NY with the Burn crew…. we want some portraits as well from the event…
Cheers,
Eruc
marcin, it’s really not enough. What if the guy is really a very thin marathon runner, collapsed with fatigue at the end of the Boston Marathon? And folks decide from the photo that he’s a burned out crack addict?
I understand that Gladdy has made no assertion that he is either, which poses ethical questions in itself. I think it’s important that, if photos of people are ambiguous, context be provided for them. IMHO, of course.
who needs context when the evocation of life and love and hurt is felt in between the space of flesh and bone from the rib to the chin, from the eyes to the ring upon the shoulder’s cup, from the faded smile of light in the eyes to the grisp hollow under his arms………
good fucking grief….
and evocative and simple and heart-filled photograph….that is all i need from photography….
Lay your sleeping head, my love,
Human on my faithless arm;
Time and fevers burn away
Individual beauty from
Thoughtful children, and the grave
Proves the child ephemeral:
But in my arms till break of day
Let the living creature lie,
Mortal, guilty, but to me
The entirely beautiful.
Soul and body have no bounds:
To lovers as they lie upon
Her tolerant enchanted slope
In their ordinary swoon,
Grave the vision Venus sends
Of supernatural sympathy,
Universal love and hope;
While an abstract insight wakes
Among the glaciers and the rocks
The hermit’s carnal ecstasy.
Certainty, fidelity
On the stroke of midnight pass
Like vibrations of a bell,
And fashionable madmen raise
Their pedantic boring cry:
Every farthing of the cost,
All the dreaded cards foretell,
Shall be paid, but from this night
Not a whisper, not a thought,
Not a kiss nor look be lost.
Beauty, midnight, vision dies:
Let the winds of dawn that blow
Softly round your dreaming head
Such a day of welcome show
Eye and knocking heart may bless,
Find the mortal world enough;
Noons of dryness find you fed
By the involuntary powers,
Nights of insult let you pass
Watched by every human love.
–W.H. Auden
Jim – It pleases me to see that your opinion is a humble one.
And in this case, I believe there is validity to it.
Yet, the image stands strong alone.
So I am not sure.
But I do want to know who this guy is.
Every day that I move among people, I see many whom I would like to know about.
Most, I never will.
Well, Frostfrog, as another famous photographer here said very recently, it’s a photograph. Beyond that, though, we know nothing about it.
good portrait!!!
no caption , no bio , no…. just a photograph!
Isn’t it enough?
i think yes.
un saludo
I mean bob blacks’s response to the photo is “who needs context when the evocation of life and love and hurt is felt in between the space of flesh and bone from the rib to the chin, from the eyes to the ring upon the shoulder’s cup, from the faded smile of light in the eyes to the grisp hollow under his arms………”
How dumb is he going to feel if the guy is just an exhausted marathon runner? Context matters.
This portrait makes me afraid.
I see a man with a very thin face. My dictionary translates it as “hollow-cheeked”. Not sure, but I guess the expression fits. The wrinkles or furrow between the eyes show a concerned face, a timid face, an uncertain face.
The body looks thin and skinny – worn out. No haircut for a while, no shave for a day or two, so the man looks a bit neglected. The earrings show something anarchistic, the cool side.
On the naked chest I see a strong symbol, the cross, which for me stands for religion, belief and faith.
The man stands with his back against a brick wall.
So I feel there is plenty of information already in this picture which give me many hints and clues.
The look of the guy sparked my associations with people on hunger strike or people who have aids. Perhaps he is healthy and just a skinny guy – I don’t know?
Remembering John’s first image of a man in a wheelchair, then this portrait fits very well into his line of work.
What I like about this portrait is that it gives us many hints and clues and at the same time it leaves space for our own imagination, our own thoughts.
As I said, I feel a bit intimidated by this portrait since it provokes my fears, leaves me unsettled and as Patricia said, disturbed.
John, thank you for sharing this portrait with us. A context about this person will answer many questions, but I am not sure if it is always necessary. I think it depends on what kind of message you want to bring across.
Have a good time in NYC! Hope there is a chance to meet one day in London.
Best
Reimar
in a Portrait, Context IS the portrait……
in a Portrait, the way a photographer chooses to pitch a moment against the face IS the context…..
and this famous portrait:
http://lisawallerrogers.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/the-d-and-d-of-w-1957.jpg
is it necessary to know that just prior to releasing the shutter, Avedon asked the Duke and Duchess to speak of one of their beloved dogs who’d died….do we NEED that context, to understand the pain and grief in this image…
in this photograph which may in fact serve as a window into the entire difficult weight that love burdened upon these two and the decisions they’d made in their life…to we need to know avendon’s story to be moved by this photograph?…do we even need to know who these 2 are to expunge more weight from the image…or can we as viewers, not feel enough what power lay in that moment and choice that Avedon made….
surely a story from John about this man will give details which rounds out a life, and yes, i love details (im a reader and a writer as well as a photographer) BUT, this photograph evokes a lot from me, and again, the context is not needed to empower this photograph….
maybe context elongates a viewers understanding (often) but does it empower a photo?…no…it simply adds to the viewer’s needs….and that has nothing to do with a picture…
in journalism, context often matters….
in portraiture, the context is the image to which we must reconcile ourself to….
we’re talking photography here…not a story….
since john, as i, have spent much of his life around music….
Bob, you seem to be saying that portraits are empty containers into which we can dump the detritus of our own lives.
John
Nice photograph. I guess we could supply any context we like here, my own guess is that this guy is just a friend of yours who is fun to photograph because he is..you gotta admit..pretty odd looking.
My first reaction here was “what a bizarre looking man”. He could represent and AIDS victim, crack addict, homeless person etc etc, or he could just be a guy taking a rest on a hot day, or posing for a buddy who likes to shoot pictures of people standing against walls.
Doesn’t really matter I guess, except for the sake of curiosity.
I do love simple direct portraits like this. And, just for the fun of it, odd looking people make more interesting photographs than ordinary looking people (which always begs the question is it a remarkable photo or an ordinary photo of a remarkable looking person). The nit-picky side of me is bothered by the dark hair melting into the background and the shadow from the flash on the subjects left. However I’ve noted on your site that you like to use shadows on walls.
Hope your havin’ fun in the big Yapple.
Bob, Avedon did not ask the Windsors to speak of one of their dogs who’d died. He deliberately lied, saying that, on his way to meet them, his taxi accidentally killed a dog in the street. Avedon “manipulated” the situation to obtain the look he had decided that best represented the couple. That’s absolutely fair from my point of view, since every portrait is basically a self portrait of the author.
What the portrait tells me….
This is not an exhausted marathon runner. Corduroy pants with belt loops and suspender buttons is not typical marathon attire. This is not a trim ectomorph-like body of a runner. Emaciated, tired… possibly ill. Unhealthy eyes and gaunt face. The picture tells a story.
abele: :)
thanks for the clarification….:)) the story, about which i first read when i got his “Portraits” 7 years ago, speaks about the story…though, i remembered it entirely wrong i guess…i know that he’d felt frustrated with the ‘veneer’ he’d seen, as he watched them loose at gambling games in Monaco as well as during sits…u know the story of his portraits of Dinesen?…or Chaplin?…all of us manipulate and we manipulate when we speak upon that which we saw, read, remember, for we continually interpret all things through our faulty prism of sight and recall…
the fact that i remembered the Windsor story erroneously is an example…ditto: how we remember people, their faces, or why we photograph…
it has always seemed to me that, to some extent, all work is a mirror and often, even under the guise of showing ‘someone else’ we’re really attempting to express something through the visage and carriage of another….and this is no different in life for most of us…we still channel what we are told through our own faulty and often solipsisic perspectives…
and that’s ok, for me, if we simply acknowledge that basic understanding…
it’s the folks who refuse to except that (that one’s photography is someone larger or more universal or more ‘objective’ that one’s faulty selft) that makes me twitter :))…
avendon did manipulate, not only moments but was also knew what he wanted…sometimes he waited, sometimes, it appears, it carved it out…
and yet, how universally do those pictures speak to us…
that’s the think, for me…
i dont ask of photography to be more than one it is…
then again, i always have pretty emotional reactions to work….always have…
thanks for the correction Abele :)
cheers
running to meet my wife
b
I rarely read artists’ statements.
If the photos touch me then I go and read about them.
I enjoy when the photographer lets his photo talk.
I look at this man and I make my own story…
I find it much more powerful as it opens all possibilities.
This man could be anything, everything.
And that’s just fine!
Great portrait!
that’s more like it!
I have to see I like the lack of context- it’s wonderfull to be able to make my own assertions and what the viewer chooses to see i think is very telling. that’s the genius of this sort of work- when it’s not spelt out for you you are forced to engage with your own predjudice and bias.
so one man’s crack addict becomes anothers marathon runner- very, very interesting.
my portrait of John Gladdy coming to you in a few minutes…..
Nice one John…
great shot, strong…
but as it’s a portrait i would like to know who it is or some context?
immediately made me think of Iggy…
I dunno. I would rather know who the man actually is than who I think he is. I’m more interested in the man himself than some diffuse “everyman.”
Abele, Bob,
I saw a documentary on Avedon in which he recounts the story of the Taxi.
Manipulation is a bit of a loaded word, although in Avedons case perhaps appropriate. It is really a matter of taking charge of the situation and doing whatever is neccesary to arrive at the desired result. Avedon used a little white lie to lead the Duke and Duchess to a moment where their picture smiles dropped their expressions revealed the pain and sadness in their souls.
One of the things that makes Johns photo interesting, is the mans gaze. His right eye almost visits the camera, his left slightly off, and expression that suggests inward gazing. Wether John achieved that expression deliberatly by asking a question or making a comment, or if he just snapped it doesn’t really matter.
Ultimately, context is important. The photo does not just exist in a vacuum, there is some sort of intent involved, presumably the desire to communicate something. The photograph will operate differently depending on context. The snapshots we are familiar with of Ann Frank for example,would operate very differently if they were just anonamous snaps of a young girl.
jim,
although I get that you would enjoy the photo more with context, would it make you like it more?. I do think when an image is this strong it can avoid the need for bells and whistles. You say you would like to know who the man ” actually is” but how would a caption allow you to? After all, this man may be a crack addict who is also a surgeon? or a marathon runner who in his previous life was a drag queen? Who knows what secrets he is keeping. Without sitting and talking to the man would the viewer ever really know him. We all inject our own narrative onto images, and what i like about this image is that it makes me think about dangers of taking people at face value. Maybe john saw what he wanted in this man and chose not to learn anything that might change his mind – doesn’t make it less of a strong image?
so….
I was skipping down the street….
one summer afternoon….
and it was hot….
really hot….
I needed some lemonade,
so I went into this cafe…..
and
leaning against the brick wall,
was this man….
wearing a cross necklace….
staring at me…..
shirtless…
I smiled…
and
blushed…..
wanting to reach out to him….
with
a
ray
of
hope…..
I got my lemonade….
went back outside….
into the hot sunshine….
and
started
skipping….
***
mnm, there is nothing wrong with the photograph as a photograph. It’s a good photograph. But there are plenty good photographs. I just crave photos (and text if necessary) that tell me about the subject in the photo, that are not a reflection of the photographer or of myself. I think we are beyond good photography for it’s own sake. To me these days, I look for photography that communicates a story directly to me. Otherwise it just seems like eye candy.
This is a good photo. Just want a little more.
Jim you don’t place the images on your link in any context but you expect others to do so
I thought it was a self portrait. Guess that shows how much I know.
But about today’s Jim thing, I’d agree that journalism needs, nay requires, context.
Art? whatevah…
I’ve explained the images context here already. Did you miss it?
Bunch of kids. 30,000 gallons of water. Put the sun behind the the water. Sit in a growing puddle of water watching until the compositions you want happen. Press shutter. That’s it.
When I ran one of the photos as a feature shot in the newspaper, the cutline had the context, location, time of day, etc. That’s what we do with newspaper photos.
Maybe you need to put some text on your site so others get what you are on about no good writing about it here, in the newspaper etc it’s out of context………over and out
John, it’s like the guy down the road spends a lot of time hanging by a fibro wall
Very cool set of pictures Jim.
Jim – one thing is for certain: somehow, no matter what the essay or the photo, you always manage to cause a high degree of attention to shift away from the photographs directly onto thee. Now here I am, adding to it.
I like the pictures on your site, btw.
Even though I am a person who almost always puts words to photos, I was glad there were none on your site to give context to the photos beyond what I saw in them.
Frostfrog, I just post my opinions. Where others take the thread, I have no control.
Glad you like the photos. Some cool fun on a hot day.
The best part about Jim’s opinions is that even he doesn’t acknowledge them.
JIM..
these are the most provocative visuals i have seen from you (as best as i can recall)…in the context of simply looking at them here i do not need a caption to see (a) what it is (b) why it is interesting..of course at the newspaper you do need a caption and context presented to your readers…i personally see no “ethical” issue regarding photographs simply presented as the work of a photographer, as was John’s portrait presented here…just imagine of all the portraits you have even seen (museums, books etc) where there is no information supplied by the artist…surely this cannot be considered unethical..there cannot be anything more fascinating on this planet than the human face…miraculously, impossibly, no two are alike…people watching, face watching, is one of of the things we all do most…the facial expression is communication number one….we take all of our cues from the faces of others…you my friend are a different person to me post-Skype than before…your face tells me way more than your words…..in other words, the caption for Jim Powers is irrelevant compared to just looking at your face…your portrait….ethics are always specific to context..and i do not see anything unethical about the Gladdy portrait as presented on Burn…
cheers, david
David, I didn’t say it was unethical per say. Gladdy didn’t misrepresent a distance runner as a crack addict or vice-versa. He simply said nothing. But I think it raises ethical questions for photographers. Eddie Adams didn’t misrepresent what was happening in the photo of General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing the prisoner. But it was widely misinterpreted by everyone viewing with even Adams trying to point out that the interpretation was unfair to the General.
Our photos, whether we like it or not, can have consequences far beyond our intent. I think to just throwing a loaded photo like Gladdy’s out there without explanation, should not be done casually. It really is an ethical question.
Ethics?????? My goodness. The places we go here on Burn…
This is a portrait taken of an individual leaning up against a brick wall. It is not showing him in some compromising position. There is nothing here that would embarrass or disrespect him. The subject is obviously aware that his picture is being taken. Like so many photographic portraits taken during the history of this medium, John Gladdy’s portrait of this unknown (to us) man says all it needs to say. No explanation is necessary.
Now if this were published in a newspaper, I guess the editor would require the subject’s name, age and city of residence. S/He might even insist on a bit of context for the caption.
But Burn is not a newspaper. It is an online magazine that publishes photography of all genres. Photographers whose work is published have the option of submitting a verbal statement to accompany their selected photos/essays or not. John Gladdy chose not. That is his right.
We each come to Burn with our own preconceived ideas of what photography should be. Often these ideas are based on our life experiences. I’m sure Jim Powers’ years as a newspaper editor inform his opinions, just as John Gladdy’s years as a freelance photographer shape his. Both are valid. The trick is to stay open to other ways of seeing, other ways of presenting our work, other ways of determining what is “ethical” and what is not.
As for John Gladdy’s portrait “Untitled,” I do not want to know who or where or what was going on. I want to allow the photo to leave me wondering. I prefer the mystery.
And, in response to Jim Powers’ photos of the kids playing in the water, I say BRAVO! Well seen and photographed, Jim. Do I need to know their names or the context? No.
Patricia
Context does matter… and I know that John G disagrees on that.
For example, take the few Capa’s pictures for Normandy that survived the melting. There are numerous better composed, with better tonalities (or vivid colors), without motion blur pictures out there, but those remain some of the most iconic war pictures of all times. Had it not been for the when and where (and by whom!) do you suppose they would have gained the status they have?
On the other hand, it’s one thing to have a personal preference/need for more information/context when viewing a picture (or movie or whatever), and another to demand it from the creator of the work… After all, this is “just” a portrait. As Patricia said, there is nothing compromising in this picture for the person depicted that *requires* any explaining on the part of the photographer.
John’s website does seem to provide some context, because there is another photograph of the same man (must be!) in the ‘MEAT’ project. The man is looking into the camera there as well, but looks a bit younger with his hair more clean. Actually if both photographs was taken the same day and at the same street then it is interesting that he looks so much younger there, that such small details can change so much. But still, I can’t be 100% sure, they can be twins and have the exact same charachteristic nose and the exact same necklace, but I very much doubt it.
Anyways, doesn’t matter much. The portrait is beautiful, mostly because of the eye contact for me, and the way he lifts his chin upwards makes him look slightly tired, although his eyes doesn’t look tired. His eyes is actually very fascinating, in the way that I can’t tell what he’s thinking and what kind of mood he is in.
Thanks for sharing this and giving us a mystery to dig into.
That was simply Eddie Adams opinion that he was being treated unfairly. I’m aware he was there and I was not, but that General got the “treatment” he deserved in my opinion. And damn Eddie Adams for telling the viewer what to think. It’s one thing to explain the context and another to force your views down the audiences throat.
and evocative and simple and heart-filled photograph….that is all i need from photography….
————————————————–
Bob, my friend, here you go again… You are talking for yourself (i above), but doing so, implies that everyone should just appreciate photography the way you do or…. “good fucking grief”.
it is extremely reasonable (ie. “why not?”) to wish to know who that guy is, or have a little more info. This in now way would mean the questionners can’t breathe as rarefied an air as you do! ;-)
oh, but this is very nice. a portrait. lovin the b/w. and oh, the shadow. cripes but I hate shadow with a vengeance. but not here :) there is character in this thar portrait begobs – thar surely is i tells ya.
I conclude that this is not just a portrait, this is life, captured in a fraction of a second. worthy of archive. Thanks for sharing.
“You are talking for yourself (i above), but doing so, implies that everyone should just appreciate photography the way you do or…. “good fucking grief”.”
—————————
this implies that everyone should respond the way you do
How we interpret each others posts is nearly as interesting as how we interpret photos as individuals … but perhaps that is too definitive a statement for some. How about, intersecting bubbles of individual reality sometimes need more lube.
This is not a person. IT is a picture, and pictures don’t capture reality. An untitled portrait such as this is not a marathon runner, a crack addict, a father, or anything. Or maybe it’s all these at once.
If it’s part of a documentary series, then I agree most wholeheartedly that we need to know more about the person and the context. If it’s intended as art, then I think it stands on it’s own. He becomes what you see reflected in your mind’s eye. In that case, a caption would put ideas in my head and spoil it.
As for ethics, I don’t know. Photography inherently isn’t that ethical, is it?
Ethical behavior is a choice. Photographers are people. Some are ethical, some are not.
Am I correct that this has been a discussion regarding the ethics of a caption, not the contents of a caption mind you, but it’s mere existence or lack thereof and by inference Mr. Powers has called the photographers ethics into question for merely not placing a caption on a simple photograph? Really? I have got to stop reading this … but it is akin to a Nascar addiction where you sit waiting for the car wreck but nobody actually says it. I’m starting to feel like I’m mooning the crowd out of the back seat on the backstretch.
John Gladdy, it’s a wonderful photo. It would fine to know the context too, but it stands damn well fine on its own. Cheers.
JOHN..
something about this photo really reminds me, or makes me think of the late 70’s and early 80’s, of that whole punk scene with that self destructive nature that went with it…?
Just had a look through your website.. Like the images of rock bands.. I’m a bit jealous in that how you’ve melded so nicely what must be your love of music with your love of photography.. Gonna go back and check out some of the other themes you had on the site..
some context…
http://www.urbansand.com/interview-with-john-gladdy/
Seems to me that an image is a success if it makes you want to know more.
“I just post my opinions. Where others take the thread, I have no control.”
Jim, your above statement is very true. I still believe, however, that when a new post comes up, your practice is to look at it and then try to decide what statement you can make that will set off as many readers as possible.
You are very successful at it.
I must admit, it does add fun to the forum (outrage, too, perhaps, but then isn’t outrage sometimes fun?)
Going back to the excellent photos that you now have up on display on your website with no statement of context, one could look at the images and think, “OMG! These must be demonstrators, rioters, getting blasted by water canons!”
And there they are, just innocent people having fun.
JOHN..
just checked out some of the portraits in your web site. I think some of theme are absolutely wonderful. I really love the photo look (like I can see how they’d looked printed on photographic fibre paper) of number 4 and 6 along the top line. There something to my eye very Irish about his face. It seems apparent to me an attraction to the gypsy in you.
DAH
your portrait under burn band is unethical – clearly, we NEED more context.. not just the names..
what is the weird beard in the background doing with his hands?
has john smelt something unpleasant?
why is anton ignoring chris – has chris been naughty?
we also need a list of the preferred potions and past-times of the subjects
just not good enough.
d
Come on, Frostfrog. It’s clear from the group of photos in my slideshow that these are kids playing in the water. It would be hard to interpret them as protesters :)
As for my opinions, they aren’t designed to be provocative. I say what I think. Many comments here seem to me to be passive-agressive. They basically say the same thing I do, but surround their criticism with all kinds of nice talk. “You are a wonderful, loving and valuable human being, and if your photos weren’t crap, they would be terrific. Keep doing what you are doing and your basic goodness combined with time, will ultimately produce some kind of alchemy, transforming your images from crap to award winning.” That kind of thing.
maybe john g just thought it would make agood picture?
Jim, I think you are a wonderful, loving and valuable human being :)
Honestly, though, I do not think I have seen a single set of photographs on this board that are crap.
No. Not one set.
Frostfrog, whilst I’d hesitate to call anyone’s efforts crap, don’t you, if only in your head, make judgements on whether they’re successful, whether they’re challenging or beautiful, or think how you would have taken the same picture?
And sometimes surely you must think WTF?
I like Jim’s forthright approach, I may not agree with his comments but it opens up dialogue which can only be good.
johns photo seems casual yet there is a lot going on, quite apart from the character of the subject…
the square made by shoulders and arms mirrored in bricks.. white pole mirroring arms.. nipples n belt loops.. and that´s before the expression, which is striking.
in collage we did an exercise whereby a photo / painting would be projected onto the white board and the students would draw the dominant shapes in a photo / painting.. then we´d switch off the projector and look at the pictures construction only.
our brains see in shapes and recognized shapes comfort us.. there is no caption needed when a striking subject and seemingly casual snap works as well as this.
there are so many levels on which a photo can be judged as successful or not, and this has to be in the context of the other work produced by the snapper rather than on a photo to photo basis..
one persons crap is another persons passion, so harsh judgments are difficult to deal with – and are normally more about the eyes of the beholder than the work of the photographer.
Just to be clear since we have hijacked the thread under Gladdy’s photo, as I said earlier in the thread, his photo is good. Not trying to say his stuff is crap. There is no question to me he is a good photographer. Talking more in general about reactions to photography here.
Don’t get it myself…… Skinny man with a rather confused expression….. seems from your site you have hung around with this guy a bit. Sorry John. I often wonder why I don’t get it, is it because there is nothing to get? Am I just hard wired a different way? Is there a trend/feeling that has passed me by?(probably) Please someone explain to me the strength of this image. I understand 1) direct eye contact 2) generating trust of sitter (this is quite clearly what he is, this is not a candid).3) Captivating looking person. There are billions of pics like this on the web and in the media and amoungst our family albums. Why is this great?
As DB said “one persons crap is another persons passion”
This I am afraid DAH brings me back to a point I made a while ago, nepotism, I really don’t like to critisize Burn as I think it is valuable, trend leading, innovative and extreemly generous of you DAH and your colleagues to devout so much time and effort, to bringing a broad range of fabulous and an ecclectic mix of work to public attention and discussion. But every now and again it there seems to be a spike in the number of photographers being published here who have a relatively close association with DAH, either having attended a course, are being mentored by him or just know him. I understand this is tricky to get round as inevitably those who have been on a course will be encouraged to submit so this might be where most submissions are coming from, or indeed the work that DAh has seen of photogs he knows will be encouraged to submit or also how can people submit if they don’t know burn. Is it coincidence that John G lands in NY and stays at the kibbutz and his picture is posted here? It might well be.
Just look at the last few Single image submissions is it any wonder I question these things.
As I said earlier I hate to critisize Burn, hopefully I do it on this occasion for some good. For burn to be independent and not just a mates club it has to be above reproach. On the other hand it is Dah’s child and he can do what he wants.
Looking forward to the flack.
Cheers
All
Hi aitken,
I got impression from very early on when I came across BURN that it wasn’t just about showing off interesting and ecclectic photographic work from all sorts of people from all around the world , but also about mentoring and show casing work of those photographers that David and the rest of the people here are invloved with in different ways; now with skype as has been offered to me to join in and many others. So I think to critisize David and Anton and the others for putting out the work of friends is a little ungrateful. And why wouldn’t BURN time the exposure of someone involved here, to its greatest effect for them personally.
Burn is reflects the vision of a single person, David Harvey. It is, as such, a subjective vision. But that subjective vision is the only thing that sets it apart from a million other photography blogs. So we see what Harvey wants, when he wants it. In that context it’s hard to question who he publishes. Having said that, I still think the magazine tries too hard to be eclectic and needs more focus.
Jim that’s what happens with rat bags like me around
Peter,
Sure I understand this, I too like to think I have built up some kind of relationship here with DAH and the rest at Burn. Indeed I have had many personal emails from individuals involved with his site. I’m not sure I agree with “ungrateful”, I am always appreciative of what is thrown up here and also appreciative that comments are allowed and encouraged (how ever diverse).
I explained in my above post I understand there is a difficulty in that DAH mentors a huge amount of people, through workshops, online,skype etc and it inevitably these people who’s work will be seen by DAH and therefore the likelyhood is that it is this work that will be shown here. I think I am right in that Burn was set up to bring to light emerging and sometimes emerged photographers, not only the participants of workshops and mentoring programs and also as an educational site.
As we all know there is a huge range of photography out there, if Burn existed just to show the results of work from workshops or mentoring it would be much less informative, too cliquey, and would have less draw for me.
Point taken about timing, this is a personal venture of DAh’s he can choose when to post pics. But it also leads to a slight feeling of “jobs for the boys”
Cheers
Ian
“Just look at the last few Single image submissions is it any wonder I question these things.”
——————————————
Ian as I am one of those singles of late are mine …….. all that David knows about me is via couple of skypes, he knew nothing when he posted my essay. I mentioned that I was looking for a limited edition publisher in the States as I live at the other end of the world within a very small market for photographic books. No mentoring with David as the book was finished ready to go. That’s about the the story…….sorry that it wasn’t very mates clubish for you
aitken. I have met david twice now.I have never skyped with him, or emailed him, never attended a workshop of any kind let alone one of davids, he has never mentored me.
I totally see how that idea could come up, but it really isnt the case.
FOR EVERYONE WHO NEEDED CONTEXT FOR THE PICTURE.
His name is trevor, and i believe it was quite warm that day.
PEACE
John
G’dai Trev
Hi Immants, great to hear that, helps keep my paranoia at bay… and good luck with the book. I realise I am being a conspiracy theorist/paranoid.
In my imagination David receives thousands of submissions/recommendations, both singles and series,from all over the world from all sorts of photographers, known, unknown, good,bad,reportage,landscape,fine art,every genre imaginable,members of Burn, non-members of Burn and yet a high % of images here seem to be the product of DAH workshops/mentoring/close association. Thats great because he is proud of the work produced and nothing wrong with that. If that was stated in the “about Burn” info page great. Maybe the reality is different, maybe the highest % of submissions just come from associates so therefore that is what will be shown.
But as Jim say’s “it is a subjective vision”
Cheers
Ian
John,
Hey this is going along way to dispersing my sense of paranoia. Thanks for recognising how the idea could come up and it is really great to hear that it isn’t the case.
I think my concern arises if it is perceived by new visitors to be the case, but again so what? Why does it matter?
Have a good one in NY
JIM…
you are correct..Burn reflects my vision or perception of what i see young photographers doing today….both in journalism and in art…this is a focus….and i cannot remember any magazine or newspaper in history that had any kind of influence or credibility that was not the vision of one person..committees kill…nobody has to accept that vision of course…i consider myself very liberal in terms of representation…i am not “trying” to do anything…my bookshelves are very eclectic, my tastes eclectic, so Burn will be eclectic in the sense of representing many styles and approaches in the way photographers see…yours most included….
cheers, david
ANNOUNCER: what is the weird beard in the background doing with his hands?
has john smelt something unpleasant?
why is anton ignoring chris – has chris been naughty?
The answers to these and other BURNing questions on tomorrow’s episode of As the Burn Turns. As the Burn Turns is brought to you by Byrnes & Harvey Soap Company. Buy B & H for the best soaps anywhere. Come to B & H’s two stores in Manhattan and Brooklyn this Sunday and get a free sample of our new RED #29 super laundry detergent. RED #29 makes your whites whiter and your darks darker. Your laundry will never be cleaner than it can get with RED #29. Look for it in the dark red box. Coming next on most of these stations, Fibber McGee and Molly.
“FOR EVERYONE WHO NEEDED CONTEXT FOR THE PICTURE.
His name is trevor, and i believe it was quite warm that day.”
that made me laff.. nice one john.
John Gladdy, it’s a wonderful photo. It would be fine to know the context too, but it stands damn well fine on its own. Cheers.
—————————-
Likewise. Good work, John.
maybe john g just thought it would make a good picture?
——————————-
God forbid! Good pictures are so…. Passé! :-))))
PS: all tongue in cheek, Vicky. you nailed it in very few words.
vicky slater
Yes, indeed, I do sometimes do a “wtf?” – quite often over the content of some of Jim’s comments.
But I would also feel bad if anything I said in response were to discourage Jim from making such comments (he seems strong willed and so I am confident that my words will not daunt him). He does keep the board lively. If a person ever wants to make it is a photographer, that person must learn to take criticism, deserved and undeserved, and Jim does provide a valuable service in both instances. And, although I do not totally agree with him on this one, I think there is real validity to his contention that, in our desire to encourage and not discourage a new photographer, some of us may be overly gentle when we see flaws in the that individual’s work, even as we see talent and possibilities, and do not see “crap.”
I just have not seen “crap” on this board. I simply haven’t.
Have you ever had a group of friends or people that you gathered with regularly and among them was an individual who always threw a negative into every conversation? I see Jim as that person in this group. Sometimes, he does come up with a good and thought provoking comment but also just as often, probably more often, comes up with a wtf statement that simply strikes me as being negative to be negative.
But he has convinced me that he is a good, if opinionated, photographer, so, wtf.
have we completely hijacked John’s box? one last comment from me.
Frostfrog, and Jim, if you don’t min d me saying. I think as long as there is consistency there, then that person has as much right as anybody else to comment. Of course we can change our view but that falls in to a consistency in my view as well. About the criticism I think some can be a little naily in their delivery but having dozens of comments the photographer should get a pretty good general opinion on how the wider community see their work.
peter grant
I agree with everything that you say here.
and Gladdy – I already said it, but just to come back to your photograph, once again – a strong, powerful and disturbing image. And, to restate what I earlier said in perhaps a simple way – I am ambivalent on the context issue. I look at the photo and I want to know more, but it speaks to me, anyway, and I think there is a certain power in leaving the context out, leaving the viewer to wonder.
My only “technical” beef with it is the pipe. Be it, but I find it is superfluous.
Another thought: different background, yet hard not to think of the American West project by Avedon.
I’ve always got frustrated not getting context for pictures, John made me change my mind with this one. No need for context if the picture have other strenghts/purpose, e.g. it provides other ways to relate to its subject.
Also, I’m quite happy that Burn isn’t ran by a democratic committee!! We’re not talking about the EPG (or EPF?), no sponsor is going to argue about the fairness of where the money is going to.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/L_h4DWw9O3GerkGCG0va5w?feat=directlink
Or is the soap sourced from some Cincinatti based fast-moving-consumer-goods company, mostly famous for its Burn staff-photographer?
“Byrnes & Harvey Soap Company. Buy B & H for the best soaps”
frostfrog
“Have you ever had a group of friends or people that you gathered with regularly and among them was an individual who always threw a negative into every conversation? ”
yes, i usually just laugh or enjoy the argument when it’s so off the mark though :)
also i haven’t been here long so i won’t have had the same experiences as most of you, i should really watch and learn more before commenting.
John doesn’t try to be documentary, it doesn’t look like a systematic approach, the pictures have background, faces are full of expression, etc, but it’s true it reminds a lot of Avedon’s “in the american West” ( I didn’t know of it before Herve’s comment, for the very slightly intellectual approach see http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/08/theory-trials-and-documentary.html )
JOHN,
do you like Avedon’s work?
Jerome C. Yes of course I like Avedon. But I like francis bacon too. And rembrandts last self portrait. And lets not forget latrec.
There is a vast difference, in my book, between portrait and ‘likeness’. although they can be interchangeable, there is a difference, and its about being able to perceive the difference and to know how(and more importantly, when) to effect the effect. The picture of DAH on my site is a good example. It is a portrait, as such, but it is purely a likeness. The very first picture in the last gallery, of the artist Rupert Bathurst, is a portrait. They are both close up head shots, they are both ‘likenesses’,they were both shot totally spontaneously in minutes, but there the similarity ends. I guess its fair to say that its fairly easy to make a likeness of anyone, much less so (in my experience) to capture an enduring ‘portrait’. It often requires a crossing of boundaries, and the breaking of trust.
John
IAN…
i do not understand the expression “jobs for the boys”…translation please..if it means jobs for friends, which it probably does, i would simply ask you to check the archives…how many workshop students or commentators here have had their work published on Burn?? very very few…only every once in awhile…i am sure that 90% of the work published here is from photogs i have never even heard of….go check back please..(just did…i knew 3 people out of the last 20 essays…one of them a magnum member, one of them a student, one of them a book i have been mentoring for three years) .besides, this magazine is for this community….how could i escape looking at the work of what comes in here, some of it from commentators or some of it from students? seems like it would be a little weird if i didn’t publish the work of students or commentators from time to time…however, i do not recall you ever submitting any work… Gladdy of course hit the mark with a picture we have been holding a long time to run…Gladdy is a friend now, but he sure wasn’t when i chose his picture long before i even knew he was coming to new york……sure i ran it now because he was sitting in my living room and i thought surely somebody would see the humor in the facial expression on my picture of him looked like the facial expression on the picture of the no shirt guy…..ok, nobody got it, but i do like the Gladdy picture anyway
actually , what i would really like to see, and it has not happened is more use of more Burn regularly published photographers…like any magazine….maybe if we get commissions this will happen…anyway, i am sure you can see that no matter which way i go, there will be complaints….anyone who decides to edit anything will receive more complaints than kudos..goes with the territory….in the meantime, please let me have a look at what you are doing…we have never met…we have never bonded…i do know you from your writing..and i promise i will not choose a picture of yours just because you have written this comment…simply curious to see your best….thanks
cheers, david
John G.
“to capture an enduring ‘portrait’. It often requires a crossing of boundaries, and the breaking of trust.”
you’ve given me lots to think about here.
AKAKY…
nobody here knows who Fibber McGee and Molly are…except me of course
Well, I have to admit that I remember Fibber McGeee and Molly…too many youngsters, here! :)
Me too! What I remember most was Fibber McGee and Molly’s closet and the sounds of crashing objects whenever they opened the door. Of course this was back in the days when every living room had a big old radio around which the family would gather to hear their favorite shows. Oh my gawd, am I dating myself or what??!!
Patricia
I know of Fibber McGee and Molly but only by historic reference … hmmm, not what you want to hear.
Patricia; “Of course this was back in the days when every living room had a big old radio around which the family would gather to hear their favorite shows”
I had the same experience on the day Obama won the general election. I was staying in an old convent in Jerusalem (NZ, not Israel!!) for a story. No internet, no tv. So was sitting in the kitchen listening to the winning and losing speeches on the radio. At the time it made me think that it was probably the same as my mum and dad did during WW2… Except for them it would have been the BBC on the “wireless”!
David Hi
thanks for your comprehensive response.
I think the problem is when viewing this site I sometimes flip into “looking at photo competetion sites mode” or something like that and being the cynical thing I am I end up questioning the relationships. When actually this is a magazine curated by you, published by you and it is for you to decide what goes up when and where so what is the problem if you choose to only publish work from your workshops (I know you would not do this). This at the end of the day is your vision and it is that that makes it strong and brings a vast range of photographic styles and photographers to the fore. Better this way than a sterile corporate vision.
I hope I haven’t come across as having sour grapes it certainly wasn’t meant that way and it certainly wasn’t meant to try a leverage my way into Burn.
It is interesting though saying you haven’t seen any submissions from me as I have posted a few singles for perusal, obviously not up to the grade, which of course is fair enough.
Hopefully we will catch up sometime though, and I was extremly sorry to miss you when you were over in London. I was opening an exhibition 100 miles away.
Cheers again
Ian
aitken,
a lot of great photographs on your site. I am curious: under “black and white”, third image from the left. This is the typical “filmstrip” effect I’ve seen so many times, and I love it, but I still don’t know how people do it. Is that something that’s done in Photoshop? Or is it just scanned that way? In other words, if I have some images that I want to show as a filmstrip, how do I go about it?
Sorry for asking a technical question here, but I’m hoping someone can help this neophyte.
IAN…
likewise from me Ian…i only wanted to answer your questions….and not such unusual questions at that…my whole career i have been aware of blatant nepotism that exists almost everywhere…so while i do occasionally publish the work of people i know or even friends, i really try to make a straight call…and the other very subjective thing here, and i think you said this in your first comment, is that because of my travels, seminars, Burn rendezvous etc., i end up “knowing” a whole bunch of folks out there..or at least i have met them…the publishing of John G of course coincided with his arrival all the way from London to come to the Burn meeting…his picture was logged into drafts a couple of months ago, but this simply seemed like a fun time to run it…i do like to “play” of course from time to time, so Jim Powers could have the cover tomorrow!! by the way, do you realize we have exchanged over 40 private emails?? damned dude, if i run one of your pictures somebody is going to think you have the inside track!!
cheers, david
John Gladdy…
“They are both close up head shots, they are both ‘likenesses’,they were both shot totally spontaneously in minutes, but there the similarity ends. I guess its fair to say that its fairly easy to make a likeness of anyone, much less so (in my experience) to capture an enduring ‘portrait’. It often requires a crossing of boundaries, and the breaking of trust. ”
Would you be willing to go into a bit more depth about what makes the image of Rupert more of a portrait than the one of DAH? I think I feel something in the former that’s not in the latter, but I’m not sure if it’s not just the feel of color vs. B&W….
best regards and good light,
a.
CT,
That is an actual strip of film, the pictures are in sequence on the strip. Shot on 35mm.
I cut that section of film from the film strip put it in a glass 5×4 carrier for the enlarger, exposed the images onto the paper then deved in lith developer to get the pinkish tones and black blacks and increase the grain. (you have to develop by eye to get the tones just right, which can be pretty tricky under the red light in the darkroom, snatch the print from the dev and dump it in the stop bath to halt development.) Once fully processed and dried I photographed the print using studio lights and a digi Nikon.
That is the long winded way combining old with new to get the effect you want. No doubt you can buy a plugin for ps now if you want. Infact this guys has some photoshop psd’S you can download. http://andrearusky.deviantart.com/
Glad you like the pics.
cheers
ian
DAH, damn everything leaves a trail…… You can find trace my 40 emails through your heavily overloaded in box… there is no hiding ;-)
All the best
Ian
CT, I forgot to mention all the black and white images on my site are Darkroom prints from film, all copied unto a digi in the studio using a camera.
Cheers
ian
Andrew b. Intent, I guess. With the bathurst shot I chose the location, manipulated the light( or his placement in the light) and already had a fairly fixed idea of how I wanted to treat him(knowing him and his work for many years). I also did a fair amount of post work to finish it off. The DAH shot is straight velvia in lovely light. I think its a nice shot or i wouldnt have posted it, but the next time i get the chance to shoot DAH I will have more an idea of How I see Him. The black and white one of DAH is closer in my mind.
john
Aitken. Like your lith work. Glad there are a few of us here still getting our hands wet with this stuff.
Its printers like Moersch and Rudman that really inspire me. Not so much for their subject matter, but for their dedication to technique and obvious mastery of process.
Thanks John, the lith stuff is from a few years ago, but I am itching to set up a darkroom in the studio, might be able to get some kit off ebay. I used to use the darkrooms at photofusion in brixton when I was in London and sometimes a friends set up under a pub in the kings road. Then I moved to Norfolk out in the sticks with a septic tank, so couldn’t install a darkroom because of chemicals leaching into the soil. I have now moved again and am on mains drainage so might be able to install a Darkroom. I have been using the darkrooms at the Norwich arts centre, they are pretty basic and you get all sorts sharing the room with you and dumping their prints in with your dev/stop/wash so consequently prints don’t wash cleanly of dev evenly, the dev exhausts at different rates etc etc.
I have been thinking of scanning all the B/W negs but there really is something in the wet process that is really tricky to duplicate.
Cheers
Ian
I have been thinking of scanning all the B/W negs but there really is something in the wet process that is really tricky to duplicate.
That line struck me because I’ve been thinking a lot about scanning after an exchange in the other thread and came to a similar conclusion/realization. In brief, there was a question of whether one should make adjustments with the scanning software. I thought yes, but haven’t done a lot of scanning for many years, and the consensus among the currently working professionals seemed to be no, to scan simply to get all the information then use a non-destructive editing workflow in Photoshop. I see the sense of that in a production environment, but am not so sure it’s the best idea for an individual producing his/her own work or for a professional scanner doing that kind of work for high end clients.
When I came of age in digital production, there were no adjustment layers or history palettes in Photoshop. We were limited to one undo, and color management was significantly worse than worthless (and I had to trudge many miles on foot to school, uphill in a snowstorm both ways, with no gortex lining in my boots). The skilled operators barely looked at the picture on screen. They saw the final product by looking at the histogram and the info palette. It’s a different way of seeing, but can be learned.
My memory is not the greatest, it’s pretty bad actually, but I’m sure the accepted wisdom back then was to get the best image possible out of the scan and I know we always made adjustments in the scanning software. The theory being that you lose a little quality with each duplication so it’s better to get the best results possible at each step. The current thinking, I’m told, is to scan in such a way as to give oneself the most options in Photoshop. That makes sense, but I still find it hard to believe that things have changed that much. That scanning is no longer a skilled profession. That technology has rendered it a mere production job that you could train anyone off the street to do in five minutes.
This gives away how much spare time I have to devote to idle thought and speculation. I downloaded documentation for some current scanning software to see what it had to say. It didn’t go into great detail, but did recommend making pre-scan adjustments, particularly in the curves. I don’t know if that’s just holdover functionality, a remnant from the pre-gortex days, or if some high end professionals still use it?
I’m pretty sure I would still use it, which brings me back to aitken’s point about producing something really tricky to duplicate. Granted, we have the RAW file or the negative, but that scan or tiff or print is the result of individual vision and skill at realizing it. I fear it takes something away when we rely to much on non-destructive editing techniques such as adjustment layers. At some point, controlling every little area of the image can result in the excremental, like HDR. And I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that that kind of thing undermines the value of prints.
Personally, I like the aesthetics of destructive editing. I think there’s something undefinable, yet palpable to work produced by an artist making choices he or she has to live with. Painters may obsessively paint over their unfinished work, but there’s no way they can go back to previous versions.
But maybe I’m crazy? I’m certainly no role model. I ride a motorcycle without a helmet and regularly dive into the shallow end of the pool. Probably best to take advice from saner people.
Anyway, sorry for running on. If nothing else, maybe a digital guy whining about lost arts will provide some amusement for all you film obsessed chemical reeking print guys.
Michael,
agreed on the idea of once committed you are producing a one off piece of art, you have to live with your mistakes/judgement at that time.
but now the tech has moved so far forward I get so confused with all the options I get so exasperated I sometimes hand digi files over to a post processing guru and explain what I want and then bounce back and forth ideas untill a final result is achieved, just like the good old days when you built up a relationship with a lab and they knew how you wanted your prints to look.
The lith printing process I was talking of is pretty difficult to replicate on a digi workstation, even when you just copy the prints getting the exact tones/colours correct is pretty tricky.
As far as scanning goes I think you are right, that in the past it was easier to get the scan as you want it, but now the wider the latitude in the scan the better (pull as much detail as possible from the film, then bin it if you don’t want it) I am just going through some drum scans (bodger operator) I had done a while back, they are bad compared to some of the imacons (expert operator) I have had done recently, This is due to operator issues not equipment issues.
cheers
ian
Michael,
Ooops forgot to say I think people now expect to be able to push and pull images around a huge amount in photoshop and not have to worry too much destroying the image.
I too went through a phase of being really delicate with digi images as I was of the belief that I was some how committing to something I couldnt go back on and it is therefore changed forever, eg the old mindset of committing to a print in the darkroom and incurring the cost and time implication. This can now be done instantly if you have a calibrated monitor.
cheers
Ian
aitken,
Thank you so much for taking the time to give me a detailed response, much appreciated!
And I love the fact that you still do so much actual darkroom work, there’s just a special quality about those images. Explains why I spent so much time on your site :)
cheers
Doing a little more research, I think I found the answer to my scanning question. Back when I was involved in film scanning at a professional level, the scanners must have been 8 bit. There wasn’t much information to lose in Photoshop and it was very important to make adjustments in the scanning software. Apparently with the advent of 16 bit scanners, there’s plenty of information and one can make tonal adjustments in PS without leaving large gaps in the histogram, so it’s best to just capture it all in the scan and sort it out in PS.
I pretty much trusted the advice I was getting here, but wanted to understand why. Sorry if I’ve been boorish on the subject.
IAN AITKEN
i searched Burn submissions and found nothing from you…a letter yes, pictures no..?????