$20,000 Olive Cotton Award for Photographic Portraiture

Messages
3,243
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I'm not sure if this has been discussed, can't find it with the search, but something to think about

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/olive-cot...-be-given-the-prizemoney-20170726-gxj8n5.html

Regardless of the obvious, I'm not entirely sure that it qualifies as a photograph as no light was used in its production, or is it a photograph just because it uses photographic film, or indeed does it matter.

As for the portrait itself, does an interesting idea make it art/portrait. I can conceptualise a portrait that doesn't show the person e.g. maybe footprints of a long jumper in the sand trap, but I am struggling a bit with this one. Or is this just a lack of artistic sophistication on my part?

Cheers,

Graham
 
Yet another thing to make 'normal' people consider the art world as some sort of elitist group.


Steve.
 
Superb and inspiring I reckon

I did a similar conceptualisation of my meal with my daughter last night, only my artwork was 'drawn' on toilet paper as I cleaned up those memories

For me - there's an obvious connection between my work and the artist here's work ;)

If there is anything to moan about though its not the artist but the bloody stupid Judges

Dave
 
Having thought about this more, and re-listened to the video and re-read the text a couple of things occur to me.

One is its made me think a bit more about what a portrait is or could be, e.g my quickly thought up suggestion about the long jumpers footprints in the sand. While I doubt I would call it a portrait, it still inspired me to think of other ways of saying something about a person, which isn't necessarily, what you might think of as a portrait. The footrprint example might well work as part of a sequence of "portraits" some of which showed the person and some that didn't.

The other thing that struck me was the judge suggesting that because the grandmother had made the marks, this was a reflection of who she was, and thus a portrait, or words to that effect. Following this through, does that mean that all the photographs we produce as photographers, combine to become a sophisticated self portrait of who we are. If this is case, then should we think more carefully what kind of photographs we produce. I mean personal work primarily, but this could also apply to professional work.

I still don't think the original image should have won a photographic portrait competition, but as with Dave's comment above I have no issue with the artist, and the story, rather than the image, has made me think about my photography in ways I might not have done before.

Cheers,

Graham
 
Whilst I'm happy to see the work as 'art'...
1 it's not 'photography' at all
2 as per the competition rules, the copyright belongs to the grandmother. Whilst an artist working collaboratively can claim copyright, this 'artist' admits she didn't direct the grandma at all, ergo, the grandma 'created' the work.
 
... Following this through, does that mean that all the photographs we produce as photographers, combine to become a sophisticated self portrait of who we are. If this is case, then should we think more carefully what kind of photographs we produce. I mean personal work primarily, but this could also apply to professional work.

I thought we all 'knew' that our work says something about us as artists. That's why we produce different images when faced with the same subject.
 
I thought we all 'knew' that our work says something about us as artists. That's why we produce different images when faced with the same subject.

Yes, but that wasn't what I was trying to say, it was more about saying something about who we are, rather than just something about us as artists. I'm not entirely sure what I mean, but as an example, having watched a few videos of Bruce Gilden, interacting with the public, critiquing photographs and being interviewed, his photographs ( as a body of work) seem to match the person. This may be an illusion on my part.

So, trying to think this out as I type, if I asked friends to write down ten words that they thought best described what sort of person I am, would they use the same ten words to describe my photographs. I'm not at all sure how important this is, if at all, its just what I have been thinking.

Cheers,

Graham
 
I'm lost.
I don't understand how my artistic approach is detached from who I am.

There's only one 'me' and I thought those things were inextricably linked.
 
I'm lost.
I don't understand how my artistic approach is detached from who I am.

There's only one 'me' and I thought those things were inextricably linked.

That's fine, and good you feel this way. But, to expand on what I am trying to say.

In the days when I bought photographic magazines, there were regularly articles on how to take action shots, or how to photograph dogs or how to photograph churches or what ever. I would often then duly go out and take some action shots, dog shots and church shots, which were usually, well enough exposed, in focus, decently composed, and included the "tricks" explained in the articles. Over time I improved my skills and learned to look for a "good" photograph.

If you looked at my collection of photographs at that time, I had a large collection of all sorts of subjects, photographed in all sorts of ways, that demonstrated my skills, But that was really all they were doing, even though they were still "nice" pictures. Looking back they didn't say very much about who I was, other than I had a "good eye" for a picture and was competent at using a camera and darkroom.

Often when looking at the portfolios of obviously enthusiastic photographers I get that same feeling that the photographs are demonstrating skills rather than giving any/much insight into the photographer. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and perfectly valid use of photography. But as works of art, I think it needs to be more than this, and although not all of these portfolios are presented as art, many are.

So, to go back to my original point triggered by the story of this award winning (self) portrait. It just made me think of photographs not just showing how a photographer sees the world but also maybe something a bit deeper about who the photographer is. This led to the reflection that if you looked at my current photographs (50 years on from when I was rushing about photographing action, dogs and churches !), what would they say about who "I" am, and would that be the person I want you see, or the real me (whoever that is) or indeed would it match the person that people who know me see.

But it's no big deal, I was just trying to expand on what I had got out this story, and whether just thinking about it, might lead to an improvement in my photography, if it let more focus a bit more on things that I could clearly identify as being important to me.

Cheers,
Graham
 
Following this through, does that mean that all the photographs we produce as photographers, combine to become a sophisticated self portrait of who we are.

Yes, but that wasn't what I was trying to say, it was more about saying something about who we are, rather than just something about us as artists. I'm not entirely sure what I mean, but as an example, having watched a few videos of Bruce Gilden, interacting with the public, critiquing photographs and being interviewed, his photographs ( as a body of work) seem to match the person. This may be an illusion on my part.

Bruce Gilden says that he puts himself into his photos, that he identifies with his subjects and that he is essentially photographing himself.
 
Bruce Gilden says that he puts himself into his photos, that he identifies with his subjects and that he is essentially photographing himself.

When trying to think of a good example, he was the person that I immediately thought of, so it looks as if I feel the same way about his photographs as he does.
 
Whilst I'm happy to see the work as 'art'...
1 it's not 'photography' at all
2 as per the competition rules, the copyright belongs to the grandmother. Whilst an artist working collaboratively can claim copyright, this 'artist' admits she didn't direct the grandma at all, ergo, the grandma 'created' the work.

Agreed.

In no way is it photography.

She didn't create it.

It's as much of a portrait of her grandmother as the sandwich I made for my lunch today is a portrait of me.


Steve.
 
I saw this the other week. In no way do I consider it pretentious. I personally found the piece a clever take on what a portrait is and even a question to what photography is. It reminded me in some ways of Tracey Emins bed and how I see that as a portrait at a point of time in her life. Like Emin's Bed however, it divides opinion. I've since looked at other work by Varga and found it equally as interesting.

There is an article on The Guardian from the judge which puts the view of it across a lot better than I can:

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...graph-olive-cotton-judge-on-the-global-furore
 
I saw this the other week. In no way do I consider it pretentious.

I'm not sure anyone is calling the image or the idea pretentious, even though not everyone might not be that impressed with it, its the justification for it winning a "photographic" portrait award that is being described as pretentious. At least that is the impression I get.

I think there needs to be a better explanation of the process, as Lakin refers to it as "apparently" not being produced using light, and that it relied on "sensitising photographic paper to wavelengths of light" which suggests that light was involved.

If light was involved, I would feel happy that it qualifies as a photograph (still not all that convinced about the portrait bit), There is, as Lakin, says a long tradition and acceptance that cameras aren't needed for it to be considered a photograph, but it would be nice to know what role light played in the production of this image. I still think that is fundamental to it being a photograph.

Having said that, I think we accept x-rays as photographs, and they don't make much use of visible light, but then again we can't see IR or UV either, so maybe as long as its all from the electromagnetic spectrum it is sufficiently "light like" to qualify as light.

Do you know of any "traditional" photographic process that don't use light?

Cheers,
Graham
 
I am saying the work is pretentious. Once you are an established artist then suddenly "conceptual" art is a door that is open to you. Had Joe Public submitted this piece I can guarantee no award would be forthcoming.
 
I am saying the work is pretentious. Once you are an established artist then suddenly "conceptual" art is a door that is open to you. Had Joe Public submitted this piece I can guarantee no award would be forthcoming.

OK, sorry for any my misrepresentation.

I don't have a problem with the work itself, I think its good to explore these ideas, my concern is with it getting the award, and the justification.

Cheers,

Graham
 
No. It has limited aesthetic value. The idea is the art. Taking the risk to submit something so abstract.

It doesn't demonstrate any craft. Just cunning.

I'm not sure how an idea can be art without some form of that idea being expressed in some way.

Maybe from the artists perspective it demonstrates sufficient craft to share the idea. But my concern with this is that to make any sense of it at all, it has to come with a detailed description of the idea.

I don't understand the cunning comment.
 
I'm not sure how an idea can be art without some form of that idea being expressed in some way.

Maybe from the artists perspective it demonstrates sufficient craft to share the idea. But my concern with this is that to make any sense of it at all, it has to come with a detailed description of the idea.

I don't understand the cunning comment.
I knew a conceptual artist who sold a sealed envelope as a piece of art. No one knew the content. The buyer had to sign a contract not to divulge the contents. The 'idea' was the art.

Cunning, the cleverness of the idea, not the quality of execution.
 
I knew a conceptual artist who sold a sealed envelope as a piece of art. No one knew the content. The buyer had to sign a contract not to divulge the contents. The 'idea' was the art.

Cunning, the cleverness of the idea, not the quality of execution.

Mmmm, Ok, I now realise I didn't know the meaning of conceptual art, I have now looked it up :)

Thanks
 
Back
Top