C’est Tout by Jan Smith
There is a certain glory in what is constructed being defeated by the forces of time. Void of human habitation, a patina of self-identity emerges from the structures and substitutes the original man-made baptism of name and function. These spaces anthropomorphize when they are empty.
When we enter them, they die. With our presence they become shells for the purpose and habitation of our consciousness, and their essence retreats and surrenders its intangible namelessness. Such structures exist for themselves only when they are abandoned. Without stewards, they achieve this transformation in exchange for mortality and disappearance from our memory.
They live in a realm that shows itself and at the same time withdraws from us. Their acquired consciousness is like a horizon that defines itself by what we see, but also more largely by what remains veiled. The threshold of our arrival in these spaces leaves them balancing between the resurrection of our memory of them, and the renouncing of their own identity. In between these moments what remains is a subtle taste of time because it withdraws just in approaching us.
Gunkanjima, Japan
Its name translates as “Battleship Island” and is the nickname for Hashima Island in Nagasaki Prefecture. It functioned as a Mitsubishi owned under-sea coal mine from 1880 to 1974, and was key in shaping Japan’s industrialization. It holds Japan’s first large concrete housing project. At its peak it was home to over 5,000 workers and their families. At 1,391 persons per hectare it holds the record for highest population density ever recorded. Travel to Gunkanjima is prohibited.
website: www.smithjan.com
I enjoyed your website very much.
C’ est tout? Why the long editorializing of your picture, then? C’ est beaucoup! :-)
No problem with the picture at all (maybe the composition is a bit squaring/confining for an inhabited if ghostly space, but this might work for others). Not sure about the double-entendre/voir that comes from the nude blur and the space around her. Everything is possible, of course…
Reading Marcin. Is it preferrable look at a website, if available, before speaking about a picture?
Art photography. Even the travel stuff is arty. Doesn’t do much for me.
Thank you for the feedback.
The long editorializing is due to this picture being one in a collection. I appreciate the irony and hadn’t thought of that before.
Gunkanjima is actually not inhabited (getting there was an adventure unto itself). I tried to capture the essence of a confined, cramped quarters, very much like it must have been back then when it had the most inhabitants per square kilometer.
Art photography, even the travel stuff. Doesn’t knock me out, though.
what a different outlook on an Asian country ! brava !
Very cool, or rather, warm and cold and full of ghosts. Love it! :))
Nice picture. It’s part of a series that’s developed on your website… all very similar. I agree that this image is one of the best realizations of the idea. I actually think it’s more effective as a single, I’m afraid I found the series a bit repetitive and not all the photos up to the same standard.
I’ve known about this island for many years, seen it from a distance, been past it on a boat, and saw it featured in a news show on Japanese TV after the last inhabitants were finally evicted in the 1980s. You certainly deserve credit for getting there with your model.
The photograph itself is o.k. – I like the only-from photography blur of the model. The last paragraph explains more about the location than either photograph or other text. For me, the explanation of structure and their self-identity exists only in the mind of the photographer / artist.
The intention of the photographer to give life to a location may have been better realized with a short caption. Perhaps the last paragraph?
Good composition.
Mike.
Wonderful image – my favourite single here in a while. It has a very nostalgic feel for me, or rather, it makes me feel nostalgia for something not easily expressed. I love the lighting and the the way the blur leads into a small sliver of clarity – it really ‘makes’ the image for me.
By the way, the link to the photographer’s website above is broken.
Oh wow what a cool photograph!
I find it interesting that two or three of the comments alluded to the caption/explanation. I’ve struggled with this both as an internal exploration and an imposed requirement from publications and galleries.
The issue of whether or not to include an explanation and then how much is a tough subject to deal with. One is often confronted with the question “what type of pictures do you take?”, “what is it about?”. This seems to become a greater area of debate the more an image moves from documenting to expressing.
Ironically, the more expressive an image is of what the photographer/artist feels, the more the viewer seems to desire an explanation. I perceive this is less asked of with other mediums such as painting and sculpture, but the association photographs hold as documentary objects seems to predispose many of us toward expecting further explanations than the image by itself presents. I suppose I’ve catered to this to great extent, given that “artist statements” or captions are almost always asked for, and I’ve therefore developed a rather verbose one. It would be much easier not to have to explore one’s feelings in order to explain what it means to me…..but there you have it.
Given that this had an artistic intent, the mere fact that evokes the viewer (all of you who have commented) enough to leave a response is the most valid form of feedback. Liking or disliking has a secondary role. The first intention is to tease a response. Hopefully this is achieved through proper use of composition, technique, location, artistic element, etc. Feedback can then be used to improve, edit, or fine-tune.
Deciding wether the image presents enough of a statement by itself or requires a verbal contextualization is perhaps in and of itself the strongest indicator of strength or shortcomings. The difference I suppose lies in whether the image evokes WANTING to know more, or if it requires NEEDING to know more to compensate for its faults.
Jim, “Art photography, even the travel stuff ….” – art photography and travel? I don’t see the connection.
I would say that Art photography, usually known as Fine Art, can use any avenue, but why travel stuff?
Mike.
Good reply Jan: give a caption and some will say “why the caption?”; give no caption and some will say “where’s the caption?”. My problem with the text is that it uses a lot of words to get to the last paragraph. Hey! But what do i know? Congratulations on being published at Burn Magazine.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Apologies, Jan. I really meant UNinhabited, as you told us, of course. My typing got lazy!
Katharina, interesting comment. I actually find this subject approach in the work of many asian photographers. (individual/physical presence “contours”, performed, acted up, evaded also maybe, and what not). Also spaces revealing of inner discomfort, inadequacies, social alienation). Jan may differ in intention (I assume he is not directly asian), but the camera work and the use of space as revealing an anthropomorphism (since the appearance of individuality is all given to theater/performance, spaces do take over in being also voices), I find quite asian.
I hope it makes sense.
Herve,
(no worries on typing)
Your last comment reminds me of a description I read contrasting Asian and Western architecture. Paraphrasing: Western architecture is museum based because it displays the artifacts of the home: cubby holes, niches, etc. are used to show objects. Asian architecture is theatre based. Instead of showing items, it hides them discreetly and then opens its (screens, shelves, etc.) to display the item when it is required, much like the curtains and wings of a stage.
I hadn’t thought of this series in this light but I can identify with the comparison.
hey this is wonderful. i love this shot. the texture in the building… the placement… its weighed very well. very nice work. although the web link will not work on my machine… could be things on my end… anyone else have the same issue?
darn interesting, Jan. How true that much of what “asian thought” (which will be reflected in architecture, spatial arrangement too, is about, generally speaking, the restraint of/on individualism, yet it does espouse the individual, but functionally, so doesn’t show him/her off.
BTW, I often think that Asia is as spiritual a space within ourselves, (if dormant), as it is a geographical location…. In that sense, as I said: Yep, Everything is indeed possible! ;-)
Why is there a naked person in a building which might be interesting to photograph?
i like this picture very much. first glance: abandoned… haunted… haunting. then ghostly.
then i read the caption… my head just bobbed and my brows were knit and the wordings left me dazed and confused. i read the caption a few more times and it didn’t make a difference in how i felt.
i do get what you say because with me i think you achieved it; how i feel about the picture now is what you aimed for in the caption. would there be a ‘clearer’ caption? wordings that are straight to the point and not too much of twists and turns of verbal play. i do know this is all about the photo and as above, i like it very much. but the wordings were too difficult for me to understand… verbose. hmmmm….
Marcie, I agree the caption is dense. If it helps any it is meant for the entire series and not just this image. Sorry for the headache.
John
The person is there because I felt it facilitated conveying a feeling. Without this element the image would simply be documentary and would not serve the purpose I intended. The place is very interesting and Saiga Yuji has some beautiful documentary work.
Wow!!!!!!
Finally…
I got a more stable “family photo gig”…
I might, not sure but I might have a home soon..
Don’t wanna jinx it… But..I hope..
Maybe by the pacific…! Maybe Venice ..
with little Freida…!!!
Ok.. BIG HUG from northern california ..
I’m in Hollister now.. Another eerie little town,
another spooky lake… on the top of a Faultline..
Tectonic plates shift..
The second more earthquake generating spot in California ..
Loves it!
:)))))
… or maybe up in Glendale ..
Next to Haik…
Haik, if u listening…
I’m looking for a big mansion
or a studio in Hollywood .. Even
A downtown loft would do..
Long Beach also considered..
some great great person told me to check your website… i had an amazing experience…
(your link at BURN does not work but cut and paste does…)
can i email you offsite so you can be my friend?
Mike
The web link wouldn’t work for me either, just type in the website directly, worked for me.
Jim
I’m starting to worry about you buddy.
I’m not sure if you are just yanking our chain (a good thing) or if you are really as cynical and negative as you come off being. I’m thinking maybe you don’t even really exist and David Alan has invented you to stir things up a bit.
Don’t stop, I mean, you say things that most of us would be too polite to say. And know you are here because you care.
Gordon L.
gorgeous image.
Gracie et al,
feel free to contact via contact@smithjan.com
Sorry, don’t get it. What kind of feeling does a blurred naked woman convey in a building like this? Irritation? If thats’s it then you’re spot on.
John
Irritation is a new variant, but at least it strikes a nerve. Provoking an answer or reaction, even if unintended trumps matters of subjective interpretation.
Gordon, the structure itself in kind of interesting in a Natgeo kind of way (and that’s a compliment). But putting a blurred nude into the photo takes away from the structure. It’s just pretentious art photography nonsense. Had the photographer actually just shown up and found a nude there, that would have been interesting. But it’s hard to imagine why a blurred nude would have been there unless someone trying to create “art” put them there. Certainly has no connection to the structure that I can see.
Even the extended caption is pretentious.
I need more than nerve striking…
Striking nerves for striking nerves’ sake doesn’t make good photographs.
Just beautiful. Femininity alive, playful, graceful, in a manmade structure dead, vacant, and deteriorating. Interesting juxtaposition…hopeful. I like that.
GORDON…
i too thought for awhile that JIM was someone playing a game with us…but, he is real..the news editor of his Texas newspaper….i am even going to meet him this summer in Texas….Jim is just a quite literal newspaperman…he is the most important person at his paper…..it is not so unusual he would think like this…actually , after visiting on line his newspaper in Texas i have come to the conclusion that great ART could be made by making a collage of the front pages of his paper…no joke…i mean, it could be a classic homage to small town newspapers which i just gotta love….you see there are those who try so hard to be “artists”….and then there are those who just “are”…..the only problem is that when Jim finds out that i am going to make “art” out of his newspaper, then he is going to kill me…and then the question arises: if i become famous for my art collages of small town newspapers (Jim’s in particular) who gets credit, Jim or me???
cheers, david
John
Documentary and press is not sole kind of photography.
And I completely dissagree with your guestion, “Why is there a naked person in a building which might be interesting to photograph?”
You try to say that if something is not interesting for you it is not interesting at all. This is Jim’s problem very often.
If someone will say “what interesting is in Cambodia’s daily press photos?” I will say; even if this kind of photography is important for one person only, it is interesting photography. Isn’t it?
It’s not mean that you can’t say, “this photo means nothing for me.” this will be ok and fair.
Of course I don’t try say you what you should say. I just explaine why I dissagree with you.
There is some Jan’s photos I like very much. There is blue one, it’s looks like painting because strong colour.
But after I looked at second time I have to say there is too many the same pictures.
Jan
I think you say what you want to say through this pictures. You should go to some other directions. If you will stay with this kind of expession your works will be boring soon.
And you should be more determined with colour. Sometimes colour is important in your work sometimes not. You have to decide you use or not colour as a strong part of you work. It make mess now.
This is my modest opinion.
Naked woman on the backdrop of something: rocky cliff, minimalist interior… it’s a very thick sub-genre of its own. I’d like to change the composition, the big heavy dark patches on the right and down below overwhelm the woman. It’s not harmonious and perhaps this is why it feels contrived. If you’re interested in counterbalancing the architectural decay then I would use something full of life, like a grapefruit.
I tried to read the caption, but I found it too long and not to the point… sorry. Captions are good when they add something that you otherwise wouldn’t know i.e. “Nicolas Sarkozy sitting in his study next to the taxidermed lion that he killed with his bare hands.”
Marcin,
Don’t worry, I know there is not only documentary or press photography around…
What I meant to say with my question is exactly what I meant: “Why is there a naked person in a building which might be interesting to photograph?”
The answer from Jan to the question was: “It facilitates conveying a feeling”… I have of course no problem with that, although I still don’t know what feeling Jan was expecting to convey.
What was conveyed with me was irritation. The irritation had not much to do with the fact that the picture was not a documentary one anymore, but more that it was an attempt to use a “disturbing element”, an “unexpected juxtaposition” (although, as Michael E. is writing, it is not that unexpected) to create a surrealist situation and that I found it was a weak attempt.
John,
Now I agree with you.
I am happy I didn’t loose a Polish fan ;-))
If I see this kind of images I always see Bacon.
Sometimes it is good, but not for long time.
And Bacon telled “the human story” in his paintings, here I see only aestethics reasons. Of course it is ok, this is just other way, but looking for human weaknes or desires like Bacon or D’Agata did, means more for me.
John,
Loose, why loose? We just talked about. I like your pictures because I see the same humans weakness and desires like Bacon or D’Agata and ME looking for.
Ps, Be careful with your wordpress, I just loose my news site after hacker’s attack. I hope you are strong protected.
Marcin, there was a smiley after my post…
Until now I was only kicked out of the Google search because of the hackers.
John,
There is always smiley in every my post :)
even if I forget to put in…
;)
All very just points.
THE CAPTION: I myself disagree with having captions at all, or for that matter, titles at all. It is refreshing to hear and a good counterpoint to the galleries and shows that do ask for statements. Enough said.
Jim: When I first started this series it was without people and my reaction was one of feeling that this was either “Natgeo” as you said, or borderline travel stock photography. I wanted a human element in them, yet these are abandoned places. The options are limited for populating these places. I opted for nudes because buildings were of course made for humans. I see no contradiction in placing the two together.
Why a nude? On a practical level because it neutrally bridges the epochs between the present and when the structures were built and then abandoned.
You find this “pretentious”. Why? I ask sincerely, and not flippantly. Liberally interpreting your comments, and reviewing your pictures, I speculate that you would label “pretentious” anything that does not translate to you literally, or that the extent of “art” consists of presenting alternate color and black and white versions of the same picture.
This brings to what Marcin and John are getting at.
John: Now I “get” you, or perhaps I still don’t… I gather you are asking “what was the feeling you are trying to convey?” The honest answer is sadness or nostalgia. Apparently I failed with you, but looking over other comments I succeeded with others. I nonetheless do not see why a nude in these settings should be considered either “disturbing” or “unexpected juxtaposition”. That was certainly not the intent. Buildings and people (as mentioned before) go hand in hand; I would consider dressing to the period contrived, and dressing more contemporarily out of place. So why would a nude be considered shocking? (more so if it were a self-portrait which most other pictures in the series are) I would rather hope that a nude would be complimentary, and so as to make it less “juxtaposing” soften it with movement. I would consider a grapefruit as Michael E suggests, completely out of place and already overly explored unto itself.
Casting aside the photojournalistic googles, and accepting that one might wish to create an image rather than just document through a photograph, what would you consider the appropriate presentation of the human form in this setting to be? If you were presented with this building and scenario, how would you accomplish, or try to accomplish this? What basics of esthetics, composition or mood would you seek and create? I ask so as to gain insight, but unless you offer criticism that is grounded on more tangible fundamentals, then your opinion falls within the same vague realm you launched your opinion from in the first place, and we are both left repeating “I don’t get it” to each other. It reminds me of people who don’t understand each other so they simply speak louder.
cheers
Wikipedia: Surrealism is a cultural movement that began in the early 1920s, and is best known for the visual artworks and writings of the group members. Surrealist works feature the element of surprise, unexpected juxtapositions and non sequitur….
“unexpected juxtaposition” was meant in the sense that surredalism was using that “technique”, and maybe you were trying to use that same technique.
You want to convey sadness or nostalgia? Take away the blurred girl and it would have worked work perfectly. (look at the pictures of derelict buildings by Lise Sarfati)
Buildings and humans go hand in hand? Sure. But industrial buildings and naked women don’t… Abandoned industrial buildings and naked women even less…
What I would do with an empty building? Leave it empty. Keep things simple.
I think you are making things extremely complicated…
I’m not going to say a single stupid word about the photo. Everyone else already pointed out why I don’t like it, no sense in repeating it. But I will address this of yours, Jan:
“Ironically, the more expressive an image is of what the photographer/artist feels, the more the viewer seems to desire an explanation. I perceive this is less asked of with other mediums such as painting and sculpture, but the association photographs hold as documentary objects seems to predispose many of us toward expecting further explanations than the image by itself presents. I suppose I’ve catered to this to great extent, given that “artist statements” or captions are almost always asked for, and I’ve therefore developed a rather verbose one. It would be much easier not to have to explore one’s feelings in order to explain what it means to me…..but there you have it.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Photographs should ask questions, not answer them. We the viewers bring the answers that’s our job, not yours. If you bring us the questions (photos) and force feed us your answers (text) what’s left for us to do? Watch TV?