The photomontages from the reading seem like they would be very difficult to construct since they require a lot of creativity in displaying some sort of theme. They are similar to Duane Michals' photos in the sense that they rely a lot on perspective. What part of the photomontage does the viewer's eye look at first? That becomes their primary focus is the centralized theme for which the other images in the photomontage are left to rely on. The photos in the reading were confusing. What am I supposed to be looking at? However, it is important to combine all the elements of the photograph and soak it in.
I find it interesting how the reading creates generalizations for certain physical properties in a photograph. Reduced opacity is associated with subjective seeing. The fading images instill more emotion since the image is slightly hidden and forgotten. For identity, there is soft lining and the images are connected by this soft line. The merging creates a whole new identity instead of two separate identities for the different images. When there is a noticeable amount of space in a photo, its focus is on the world and how the viewer perceives it. It does not necessarily have to be the world as it is in the present, but can be a completely different world that the artist created. Finally, layering reveals there is a history behind the photo. The distant images in the back are the past while the forward ones are the present.
I know we are focusing on photomontages right now, but I really enjoy the photos Duane Michals makes with captions. The one on this post literally made me laugh out loud. It says "Madame Shrodinger and her cat are both wondering what the probabilities are that at this moment you are reading this."
I also liked that Michals' work relies upon interpretation and perspective. I found that refreshing because he wasn't trying to impose an idea on the audience, at least not as other artists that we looked at have done. And I think that the captions that Michals wrote are absolutely hilarious, too!
ReplyDeleteI love (emphasis on love) the photo that you've chosen in your response to Duane Michals. One of my favorites as well. His style really goes to show how honest and comical artists can be while still being creative. I found his work to be a bit of relief from other artists such as Heartfield and Hoch who used their artwork to rebel against authority or make deeply rooted statements. Although I have a love for rebellious art as well, it's always nice to be able to look at a picture and laugh at the caption. It keeps you guessing, and most importantly, keeps you happy.
ReplyDeleteI think your picture is very interesting and unlike what Hannah said above I think all of his work can be left up to interpretation. I think that he has blatant messages but he also has so much content in each picture that can have so many different meanings.
ReplyDelete