self portrait – noah mclaurine

self-bw-2-1000


Self Portrait in Bathroom #1   by Noah McLaurine


www.noahmclaurine.com

Published on March 1, 2009 by david alan harvey. 92 Comments

92 Responses to “self portrait – noah mclaurine”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • John Gladdy
    March 1, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Is it my monitor or have the tones in this disintegrated?
    or is that intentional?
    I mean why not? if thats your thing.
    Self portraits are VERY hard, very few [none of mine yet] get past the mind filters.
    I want to see the things you do not want me to see, or yourself, for that matter, and therin lies the problem.

  • Valery Rizzo
    March 1, 2009 at 9:48 am

    wow very cool portrait.

  • Mike R
    March 1, 2009 at 10:15 am

    Nice one Noah; I was watching Man Ray on the T.V. last night and your photograph brought him to mind. It has a solarized quality about it. Nice the way the light catches the eyes: not a straight photograph, something subtle happening here.

    Mike.

  • Q
    March 1, 2009 at 10:15 am

    You managed to capture yourself in a moment of vulnerability and transparency, the result is a portrait that makes the viewer curious and also feel a bit awkward because we, as strangers, are seeing something so deeply personal to you. Agree with Valery, very cool portrait. Can’t wait to see more of your work!

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Appears over processed. I guess deliberately. Some would find it “art” I guess.

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 11:15 am

    sorry–hate it. Very “digital” looking. I agree with John that the tones are a mess and further, i am not at all engaged.

    If you are seriously interested in self-portraits as worthy subject matter i would urge you to locate Lee Friedlander’s book “Self Portrait”. And while you’re at it, make sure to read the essay by John Szarkowski. In it, he discusses the self-portrait as a potential conflict of interest and a tool for self-advancement (not so good) and the rare quality of disinterest (very good). Key word “disinterest”. Friedlander’s self-portraits are humorous, highly intelligent, mysterious, shadowy intrusions into his landscapes, never “flattering” although always compelling, ironic social comments, a bit frightening and full of intriguing context and self-deprecating wit. Your self-portrait is a picture of yourself with some angular shadows playing across your face and physique. Why should i care? Because you are aesthetically handsome? mmm…no, that doesn’t hold my interest. I get no further than your eyes. Friedlander’s self-portraits are never “just” a picture of himself. There’s always more. Much more. I looked at your other work and i think potential is there for you to get out of your own head and shoot yourself without the ego, or rather, the disinterest Szarkowski mentions. I hope so anyway.

    kat~

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 11:33 am

    edit: without the ego and with the disinterest..

  • Valery Rizzo
    March 1, 2009 at 11:49 am

    I really like it. I like all the things going on. The shadow of his face to the left, the reflection of him again in the tile behind him, the way the light makes a shape on his face and his chest, and the eyes are very sharp and engaged. yeah so what its digital thats part of the style that makes it different from someone elses style.

  • John Gladdy
    March 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    I would be very interested to hear from the author of this whether the ‘solarized’ look of this image was

    a: intentional[maybe even a scan of an actual solarized print]
    b: by product of post proccessing [creative curve doodle]
    c: The file glitched during upload.[my hope]
    d: my monitor sucks [unlikely :) ]
    e: the authors monitor sucks [always a possibility]

    Jim: a lot of people are heavily proccessing digital files [rightly so in my opinion], trying to find new boundaries and limits on what can be done.Its nothing new even to the analogue world which was the object of radical experimentation from day one.
    With film i/you/we have a hundred odd film stocks, hundreds of soups, reams of papers and all the rest of the arsenal that make up our ‘creative’ choices to get the ‘look’ we want.This gives us a vast array of choice. With digital you have ‘ONE’ sensor…almost identical in every body of each particular camera. They are clones. Post proccessing is ‘ALL’ there is to get where you want to go creatively. Purists always want their digital files to look like their favourite film from the ‘good old days’. Thats cool. some people on the other hand want to see where it can go, what are its possibilities? What are its limits? Where is that very ragged edge? It is new territory and it raises the hackles on quite a few photographers, old and new, who will often refuse to see past their own prejudices and ideology to appreciate how incredible some of the work being done is. I happen to be lucky in that I share a studio/office with an ‘old school’ photographer who embraced this new media in a really radical way.He is a master at it and has such a cult following that its almost embarrassing. doesnt give a shit for anything except the image. Thats how it should be in my book, whether you shot it on an m6/kodachrome a digital rebel or a hollowed out potato with a magnifying glass taped over the end, the end result is ‘AN IMAGE!” And its the Image that counts right?
    PEACE
    JOHN

  • Valery Rizzo
    March 1, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Right! John

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    John, that’s all very sophisticated. And if you are shooting primarily for yourself and your “art world” buddies, it’s very valid. But most folks who will see our stuff, if it is hopefully distributed widely enough, are going to say either “I like it,” or “This photos sucks.” There prejudices are very real and for the most part never analyzed.

    DAH’s photos are sophisticated, yet they are accessible to just about anyone who looks at the photos. That universal appeal at many levels is why his work is successful. There is a limit to how far you can push the boundaries and remain accessible. You makes your choice and you pays your price.

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    That’s correct, John, it’s the image that counts. This is not a discussion about digital per se. it’s a discussion of extreme means used to enhance content. And content should be able to stand on its own without crutches, i.e. fancy post-processing tricks or extreme lenses or funky cameras. You wanna post-process? use a Holga? fish-eye lens? Fine. Great. But the content had better work double-time and to me, this curve-induced “solarization” has produced soupy gray tones and glistening highlights which distract from content that has no depth anyway, IMO. (Valery, i love your work, btw..)

  • Valery Rizzo
    March 1, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    oh thanks so much Kathleen!

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    Of course, Noah is an “Art Photographer.” His work on his web site is arty in the same pretentious way as a lot of art photography. But to give him his due, at least from what I see on his website, he makes no pretense at being anything else.

  • Mike R
    March 1, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Right John, right Jim. Yes, there is a place for this style of photography, namely in the realms of Fine Art (from viewing Noah’s website, this is where he sees himself) and editorial portraiture.

    In the wider sphere of journalism Jim is correct, primarily because when reality is shown it must be believable to the viewer.

    Having said that, the bar is certainly set much higher in the digital age. We must remember that our audience are visually literate these days. I’m a big fan of Pep Bonet of the Noor photo agency. With his mastery of composition, shadow and mood setting, he manages to have a very definitive style whilst still being able to document serious subjects with honesty and empathy for his subjects. I see the same empathy in the work of Srinivas Kuruganti who blogs here at Burn Magazine (not the same style but the empathy is there). Have you applied for the Emerging Photographer Grant here at Burn Srinivas? Hope so.
    What do you think of these two photographer’s work Jim?

    Good light,

    Mike.

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Mike, in this case I don’t think it’s simply a matter of visual literacy. I like a lot of art photography. What I don’t like is the growing tendency of photographers to try and elevate the status of the banal by calling it art.

  • Carrie Roseman
    March 1, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    I like it, although I do agree that it looks overprocessed…I also agree, however, that it is our right and duty as photographers to experiment with the tools that are available to us to achieve the look we are seeking. But there is a point where digital manipulation is distracting and detracting from the image…it is up to the artist to determine what extreme to go to, then it is our right as viewers to offer our views and opinions on the techniques employed…this is what BURN is all about…that said, let me offer some more of my view…

    If solarization is what Noah was seeking to achieve, I would say that he did not…it looks almost solarized, but I don’t think that it looks like anything reminiscent of Man Ray…no Mackie lines here. On this note, I also feel that digital solarization falls sadly short of what is capable of being achieved in a darkroom.

    Things I did like about this image include, firstly, that it is black and white, and secondly, the shadows, the shadows, the shadows. It bothers me that the shadow on the right side of his face is dappled with light spots…I feel like I want that whole side of his face to be rendered in darkness. I know that this is caused by the angle of the light source to the subject, but weird nose shadows always kind of bug me…but, at the same time, this is also what intrigues me about this shot simply because this is what draws me to the right eye, the only eye that is in focus. Then I look at the left eye, which is softly focused. Now I am looking at the shadows on both eyes, and the way that the light hits them, and they look like two opposites attracting, or balanced like a ying and yang…the right eye is surrounded by shadow and is in focus, but the iris remains bright and highlighted while the left eye area is brightened by the light source, but is softly focused and the iris is in shadow. This, I love. It also makes me feel like I am engaging with the subject in the image…Hi, Noah, how are ya?

    The shape of the shadows brings my eyes frantically around the image trying to make sense of them. I would like to know what is causing the shape of the shadows…I wonder if it is a beam that obstructs the light to his frame and what angle he must be at in order for it’s shadow to fall upon him like that. My eyes searching the picture are happy to find his profile shadow on the left side of the image…it’s very subtle, but it makes it’s presence known. I also like the vignetting…it seems like the appropriate finishing touch.

    This was kind of my stream-of-consciousness thought process when viewing this image…my eyes bounced around it a few times, then I began to write. So far, this image has sprung a bit of a controversy in the views about it. Whether good or bad, criticism or praise, it is our job as viewers to explain our thoughts. Some imagery I like, and some I hate, but I find that it is my duty to figure out why in either and all instances. This is what makes me have a more discerning eye and be more educated about the way that I like to shoot. Always ask “Why?” It’s what keeps us engaged and learning, challenging our minds to decipher how we see, what we see, why we see while keeping our wits sharp and expanding our intelligence. That said, I love reading about the way you all think…BURN brings me back to academia…

  • John Gladdy
    March 1, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Okay. Just checked Noahs site and the original of this is a bromide. That clears that bit up.
    Looks exactly the same on the web site, so I assume this is exactly how it is supposed to look.Now i feel kind of bad as i really hoped it was a glitch. Now i have to agree fully with kathleens appraisal of this.
    SORRY
    .
    NOTE 1
    The online version is, i can only hope, a pale imitation of the ‘actual’ print and that that print, viewed in the flesh, has all the power that what i am seeing here lacks. [this is often the case]
    NOTE 2
    Kind of puts the film/digital argument in another light though.
    NOTE 3
    Artists statements. I try very hard not to read them as I have yet to read one that i did not regret reading immediately afterwords. they are a bit like late night kebabs in that respect.

    john

  • panos skoulidas
    March 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    John,
    You are a class act…

    I loved this portrait..
    He is like.. like, coming out of the water ( into the light )..
    Emerging from the darkness..
    Excellent..
    ( the only thing.. This guy is cute.. Damn it..
    He will steal all the ladies..:)))
    Again, as Jim mentioned.. Yep,
    “some” in here will see the artistic value in it ..
    But there’s more.. This portrait has SOUL in it..
    This day started “right”
    Viva Burn!!!!

  • Carrie Roseman
    March 1, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    DAH-

    Sorry to put a note to you here, but I was wondering if you got my emails regarding your workshops? I sent them to the harveyworkshops@gmail.com address. I know you must be swamped, but I would love to sign up for the NY workshops. Please let me know…

    -C

  • Haik
    March 1, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Noah – your face, the face – makes all the difference. Surrealistic.
    The “processing” emphasizes the face. Lack of it would have made “no photo”.
    That’s my honest opinion.
    I don’t know about ladies. Ladies?

    Cheers from Los Angeles – we are BURNing in 80F heat.

  • marcin luczkowski
    March 1, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    Noah

    I prefer your color self-portrait from your website. It’s a little bit like Goldin’s. Very nice.
    This one is of course very nice portrait but it looks better in print on the wall I suppose. Here is one of the many. But very good one.

    peace

  • mike berube
    March 1, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    i like this photograph. the face. the look. the feel. its good. for me this images is all about the content. weather digital… or shot in film… neither of that matters to me. never really does. this is your signature here and i like this. cant wait to see more. very nice website by the way!

  • Mike R
    March 1, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    Marcin, I, too, liked the colour (color) self-portrait on Noah’s website. If I may say, Marcin, your English is very, very good. I wish I could speak another language, maybe French, which is useful in the Middle East.

    Panos, “He is like.. like, coming out of the water ( into the light )..
    Emerging from the darkness..”.

    Yes, thank you, Mr. P. for that; I hadn’t seen that. It’s easy to denigrate Art Photography (no dig here Jim, I’m with you on Emperor’s New Clothes) but some Art needs contemplation and time. Perhaps the problem is that Artists using “Our baby” – photography, to express themselves, rankles; it’s supposed to mirror life, right? like photojournalism, right? Boxes. boxes.

    Best wishes,

    Mike.

  • mustafah abdulaziz
    March 1, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    that’s pretty rad.

  • Ross Gordon
    March 1, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    The most interesting aspect of this photo for me is the reflection of his face over his left shoulder and the profile shadow over the right. That’s about it…

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    I wonder how well the images on his website are selling in the real world?

  • gina martin
    March 1, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    I like the light and the shadow on the wall.

  • Paul O'Mara
    March 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Ok, I want to take a stab at this. I have read your Artist Statement and have tried to put that into my assessment of this and I don’t get it. I am assuming this is a self exploration, but other than interesting light it seems uninteresting… to me. Ten years from now when you are commanding thousands for your vision, I will eat my crow. In the meantime, some of the interesting things you see(from what I saw at you website)may be getting away from you. Thank you Noah for sharing this.

    Paul

  • Bundão Total
    March 1, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    I wonder if Jim feels empowered by his opinions?

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Bundao, everyone on here is expressing opinions. Why do mine bother you?

  • wendy
    March 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    strong self portrait..
    love the light in his eye..
    eyes of the soul..
    also a bit mysterious..
    almost looks as if half the body is shaved..
    or something…
    Love your bravery in posting a self portrait
    on BuRN…
    and your willingness for ALL comments..
    very courageous,
    I think….
    **

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Panos:

    “He will steal all the ladies..:)))”

    uh, Panos, not all of us are persuaded by a pretty face…far sexier are your shots of Venice and your musical taste and sometimes your text. Cumulatively, the attitude they hint at tell me you are one hot guy. And to a certain extent, Lee Friedlander’s self-portraits tell me the same thing. He’s a man i could have lost my virginity to. ahem. Noah lost me with excessive bathroom musing about self…kinda like the weight-lifters at the gym who spend too much time preening before the mirror. Now, i know a lot of you see this self-portrait as moody and deep but to me it is pure newbie stuff. I agree with Paul, i hope Noah can tear himself away from the bathroom mirror to get out and start shooting really cool stuff again.

    kat~

  • Ali K
    March 1, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    “I wonder how well the images on his website are selling in the real world?”

    That’s one very stupid and useless question/comment…. Couldn’t you find better/smarter question? I could write thousand words over your useless question but I won’t bother this space… Eh! You just made me post my second post on Burn…probably the last one… beh…

    pretty good photograph, Noah… I like it…

  • Katia Roberts
    March 1, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    i’m with kathleen on this one.
    does nothing for me and i just can’t get past those awful tones
    on the face and chest from significantly poor post-processing.
    seems beneath burn. sorry.

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Ali, it is a VERY relevant question. Do you think DAH would be a Magnum photographer and be able to have this magazine or be able to attract the funding for projects like the Emerging Photographer Grant if he hadn’t sold a few photos along the way. In some way, Noah has to pay for cameras and lenses and computers and rent and food and transportation, and an Internet connection, etc.

    Unless you spend your life living off working at a job unrelated to photography, living off a trust fund, living off a spouse or living off grants, you’ve got to sell some photography to live. There seems to be some disdain for actually making money off images here.

    Its a very relevant question about whether or not he actually sells these prints.

  • Noah McLaurine
    March 1, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    I just wanted to thank everyone for looking and commenting and engaging so much with my photography. Unfortunately, my work prevented me from commenting earlier. Its amazing to hear so many varied and interesting opinions, i really do appreciate all of them.

    Since the process seems so important to the way the image is viewed, let me clear up a few things:

    The image was taken with a medium format film camera on black and white film. I developed the film myself (as I do with all the black and white images on my site) and printed it in my darkroom.

    The print is extreme in the range of tones and does not translate well digitally. That being said, maybe my monitor is very bad (or perhaps that digital nature of this (or any internet-based) forum makes people assume the worst technique), because it doesnt look as extreme on my monitor.

    The light was reflected from a mirror that I was facing and was blocked my a glass door on my left and a door on my right, which is why the image appears vignetted.

    Let me stress, the image was NOT post-processed in the manner that everyone assumed. The gelatin-silver print is extreme in its range of tones, but it is a straight print that has not been manipulated other than normal dodging and burning.

    Its amazing to be part of this forum and hear everyone’s comments. They are both helpful and interesting.

    If anyone has any more questions or comments, feel free to ask, I am happy to answer. Also, if anyone is in the New York City area, I would be happy to show them prints (I live in Brooklyn).

    Thanks a lot,

    Noah

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Noah, thanks for posting. You must have an issue with your monitor because the image looks almost plastic online, certainly not like a straight print.

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Hi Noah

    You are a very good sport! i apologize for assuming the worst..mea culpa! However, it IS the fault of the digital conversion that caused the quality to go south. I really wish we could see a better scan of the print, or better, a good scan of the negative would preserve the tones. I bet the shadow play is really nice. i still don’t care for the content very much, no offense. You really are a much better photographer than this one example suggests.

    Thanks for sharing this and hope to see more of your work in the future..but self-portraits are very hard to do well, imo. Just ask Cindy Sherman :)

    best:
    kat~

  • Patricia Lay-Dorsey
    March 1, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Noah, I am also attempting self portraits and know how damn hard they are to do with any degree of success. There is such a fine line between simply focusing on oneself and showing the essense of humanity that we all share. With me it is hit or miss…and to be honest, there are way more misses than hits. For every self portrait I consider a “keeper,” there are probably 150 that don’t make the cut. Not a great percentage.

    I’d be interested in knowing how many of those who have posted comments have spent any significant time trying their hand at self portraits. To my eye, you’ve captured something here and it’s in your eyes. I feel a questioning, a vulnerability, an uncertainty. For this reason it works for me. But, of course, this is just the start.

    I have read your artist’s statement and seen the “Spaces” gallery in which this self portrait appears. For me, the more intimate spaces work the best, especially those in b&w. But you’ll want to edit more rigorously. For instance, there are too many shots of your bed. Pick the best and go on from there.

    Noah, I encourage you to go deeper, to find that edge of self awareness, the place where your mind turns off and your gut takes over. Trust me, I know this is hard. Everything in and around us fights this kind of exploration. But you have already taken the first steps towards its realization. Please stay with it. It is worth it.

    Patricia

  • wrobertangell
    March 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    I did go look at the site and check the images. to be honest I am not crazy about the shot and in mho I found the set on the site to be a little cliche’
    I think noah has to dig a little deeper.
    it would be nice to hear something about his methodology other than the statement at the site.

    as for my critique on this shot and site in general, I think noah has to find a little more complexity to the shots he revealed to me. i have seen a lot of work that looks like this and I found myself kind of rushing through the site.

    best wishes,

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    Patricia, i did a lot of self-portraits at one time. But that was before i got up the nerve to even walk around the block with the camera in my hand. Once i hit the street, it was another story. i lost all interest in playing chief, cook and bottle washer. Trying to come up with a self-portrait that was worth even 1/10th the work that went into it was utterly exhausting! And that was with digital where you can just delete, delete, delete. I can’t even imagine how frustrating it would be with film although Francesca Woodman was damned good at it. i applaud the efforts of those who try self-portraits. Unfortunately quality and effort often have an inverse relationship.

    best:
    kat~

  • david alan harvey
    March 1, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    JIM….

    you always seem to be arm wrestling with the photographers here who feel you do not understand their pursuit of anything other than journalistic photography..or, you seem to question the value of so called “art photography”..i try to keep myself out of Burn as much as possible and only jump in with personal examples when i think i might be helpful…and i think i “know you” and the world from whence you come….anyway, a quick i.e…

    i am a little too sleepy to totally respond…but, i do want to write to you briefly on this subject of art and commerce…let me just say one thing before i fall asleep at the keyboard….

    first of all, i never ever had the selling of my work as a priority…my passion was priority number one, two and three….a quick interview with any of my friends will confirm this statement…as a matter of fact, i was quite surprised when in my earliest years someone was willing to pay me to take pictures…even more surprised in later years when someone was pleased to buy my prints…business acumen has not been in my quiver of arrows…fate, luck, karma, timing, eye on the prize, zest for life, etc. have served me a full plate, but financial security in the traditional sense has never been my dream….

    but, more to your practical point on photographers earning a living as “artists”…

    there has definitely been a shift in recent years on how the photographic economy has been divided…for example, at Magnum in the early years almost everyone photographed for magazines..that was the bread and butter of HCB, Capa, Erwitt, Stock , Haas etc etc…by the time i joined Magnum in 1993, the editorial/magazine world had already collapsed as the mainstay of our agency….

    surprise, surprise, for the last 8-10 years the primary business has indeed been collector’s print sales, book publishing and exhibition tours..yes, we still shoot for magazines because we love magazines…but, this is surely not much of a business anymore….yes, the “numbers” in our cultural department (art dept) have even exceeded the numbers in advertising etc….so simplistically put, this ethereal “art world” you may imagine is for REAL..

    now, this is not to say that everyone who calls themselves “art photographers” are earning their living as such…but, if one were to start a career tomorrow, i would bet on the chances of success of a photographer who took the gallery business seriously over someone who wanted to do social documentary magazine/newspaper photography…

    now, i will say this…the prints of mine that hang in prestigious places as “art” were usually quite simply me just enjoying a moment in photography…or , rather just a moment in life..there was no “label” to the moment…i was just taking pictures…..i.e. i have one photograph in the Celebrations exhibition curated by the late great Minor White at the Museum of Modern Art…the photograph actually came when i was supposed to be on assignment for the Richmond Times Dispatch, but sneaked away to attend a friends wedding reception..absorbed in the moment and only enjoying my friend’s good fortune and probably having had a beer or two i made “Joe’s Wedding”….in the newspaper darkroom i made i think 4 11×14 prints on double weight Kodabromide…washed them for 2 hours(i washed the hell out of all my prints) …some day these fiber prints will be very very valuable for my sons…i guess my point is this , who cares about the labels or from whence the picture came.?? is Erwitt an art photographer or a photojournalist??? he sure as hell has made more of a living selling to collectors than shooting for magazines….now, before you say “but he is Elliott Erwitt”, i will say well what about never heard of before ten years ago Alec Soth who ONLY cared about the gallery world…

    one of the main discussions (NOT), at Magnum and among other serious photographers i know is what kind of photographers we are!!! we are just photographers!! ….and so damned lucky to be such…i have never never heard a discussion by any iconic photographer on this very topic that seems to get discussed ad nauseum by so many!!!.if we have labels they are put upon us by others who are often missing the point…but, what the hell…who cares??? i always said at the beginning of my career and i say it now…give me my Leica and 10 rolls of Tri-X and i’ve got the world by the balls!!! nuff said…

    damned dude, i started writing on this and it woke me up!!! now i won’t be able to get to sleep….

    anyway, we will continue this chat i am sure…and in good spirit for sure…..

    cheers, david

  • david alan harvey
    March 1, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    KATHLEEN..

    do you know the self portraits of Sig Harvey (no relation to me)?? i think she is picking up where Cindy left off (well, maybe)…once upon a time on this forum we had a little self portrait “contest”…this was before you joined us…it was really really interesting …maybe we will do that again someday….up for it?? anyway, i do hope to publish your work here soonest….

    WROBERTANGELL…

    i will be on the west coast most of April…i do hope we meet this time around….let’s make it happen…

    NOAH….

    thanks for jumping in….i am in Brooklyn as well…we have quite a few photo events, gatherings etc at my spot in Williamsburg, so please join us….

    cheers, david

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    David

    Yikes, participate in a self-portrait “contest”. i already know what an exercise in futility that would be. The best i could come up with would be a mere copy of what better people have already done…but a tough challenge..hmm..i don’t usually run away from a good one. So, maybe. As far as publishing my work, well, you’ve never seen it to my knowledge..wait, wait, there was that one photo i sent you but that was just to use the submission process as a vehicle to recommend two other photographers because i couldn’t find a way to send you an e-mail. But i think i see where you are going with this. And i’m up for it. i can take being ground into hamburger as well as the next one–i think ;) ;)

    No, don’t know of Sig Harvey but will look her up pronto. Thanks for the reference.

    goodnight to Brooklyn from Costa Rica
    kat~

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 1, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    David:

    I googled “Sig Harvey” and nada..in fact, i actually found you on page two of the search results..perchance do you know where i can find her work?

    kat

  • Noah McLaurine
    March 1, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    Thanks David, that would be great.

    As I said in my earlier post, its great to hear this huge range of opinions. I generally think its better not to comment on my own work, i like to think it speaks for itself. However, since this is such an abstracted way of viewing it, it I feel like some basic info is necessary.

    Its a little odd (in my mind) for my photo to have sparked a digital/analog debate because I consider myself a “straight” photographer. I really value work that has not been manipulated and has merit for what was recorded rather than what was done to the record (sorry for the terrible wordplay, but I couldnt resist).

    Many of the images, including the self portraits, were done while I was teaching English in South Korea (I taught there for two years). It was a very complex time for me, I was on my own immersing myself in a foreign culture, yet I often felt extremely isolated. All of the black and white pictures were taken inside a house (most inside my apt in Korea) while (most of) the color pictures were taken outside in a number of different places (Korea, NY, Scotland). So, I suppose the entire project is meant to explore how we (I) react to our (my) surrounds and how those surroundings affect us (me). Hope this gives some context to the photos.

    Thanks again,

    Noah

  • Jim Powers
    March 1, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    David, I’m sure you are aware that many PJ’s think strongly that Magnum lost it’s way and tends more toward art than photography of real substance these days. I don’t, in general, agree with that. But I can see why many think so. But that’s another discussion.

    I don’t really care whether someone makes a living as a fine art photographer or a PJ or a documentary photographer. For many of us, those disciplines are all mixed into our photography. What I do not understand is the “screw the world, I’m going to do my thing and if I never make a cent I will remain true to myself” rhetoric that seems to be popular these days.

    Whatever you want to call your photography, you have made a living with it. Whether that was your primary concern or not. Or you and I wouldn’t be here typing at each other on the Burn magazine web site. Somebody has to pay the bills. But there seems to be a disdain here for being a working photographer.

    Maybe I am a hack photographer, but it has always paid the bills.

  • wrobertangell
    March 2, 2009 at 1:39 am

    david, sounds good, just keep me posted.
    noah, thanks for sharing more info, i find i need that, not sure why.

    best wishes,

  • david bowen
    March 2, 2009 at 5:48 am

    jim

    it´s just people having fun.. think of it that way perhaps.. i know it can seem pretentious however surely if only thought of in these terms it can be easily understood.

    it is by no means needed to love all that you see, since that would be daft as a brush.. opinions aside though there are more people practising photography for fun than ever before.. trends and the more obvious habits become more obvious – who cares though? it´s all photography and although some does not connect it is now part of the visual landscape and therefore needs to be considered.

    within money making photographers there is always the most interesting work – personal work – to be found.. i guess you have your own selection which will never make you money and which was never intended to make you money..
    make money from your personal work though.. that has to be a grand goal.. to decide what you will snap and to make a living out of it.

    like you i do not agree with the assertion that magnum has lost it´s way.. in fact it has found it´s way i believe.. theoretically photography has moved on such that what magnum presents now, for modern eyes, is just as emotive and powerful as ever it was.. philosophically photography has moved on and although it could be said magnum dragged it´s heal a little, (understandable with such a hefty archive to live up to), it is now firmly amongst the zeitgeist of photography.. presenting work from photographers with modern eyes.. i think magnum could even be a little more on the edge than it is..

    NOAH

    astonished that you say it is a straight print, since it has all the hallmarks of a subtle solarization.. does you darkroom have a light leak?
    i don´t have any real problems with the photo although i agree with the earlier poster that your colour self portrait holds more information about who you are.. to me this holds very little.
    it is amazing how many people take a self portrait to be a literal representation of the physical self.. when really it says very little about our journey or interior. i can understand this physical representation within the context of your wider project – collectively they give a good idea of your self. this gives little of that atmosphere away…

    while it does say something subtle, about ambiguity perhaps, to me it has become more an exercise in viewing photographic technique. i like the snap, therefore, and i like it more for the illustration of a clear technique than for the impression it gives me of your-good-self.. achieving one goal, for me, while achieving less with another.

    congrats on being featured and enjoy the darkroom..

    david

1 2

Leave a Reply

You must login to post a comment.