Final Portfolio

My photographs explore the monotonous external appearance of contemporary living spaces in Orlando, Florida. Housing complexes throughout the city seem empty yet vast, strangely intimidating rather than welcoming or homely. Every road looks identical with endless rows repeating the same structure. Small details create the feeling of a constructed community hoping to convey particular ideas about the neighborhood as a whole rather than the individual human beings trying to call these structures their home.

            I am interested in how we construct our identity and the ways environments form our conceptions of the self. For example, I wonder how the exterior of our homes affects the way we view ourselves and the way we are perceived by others. In an age when the clothes we wear or the car we drive contributes to the construction of identity, how does the exterior of the structure we call home contribute to perceptions of the self? By approaching these buildings from alternative angles and different perspectives, I emphasize an underlying problem with contemporary structures that are rapidly and uniformly built to meet a consumer need.

Their blank, eerie façades outlined by the continuous blue sky create a surface level appearance of harmony and bliss. However, closer inspection reveals weird empty spaces, sickening saturated colors, and a strange lack of human presence. I photographed housing complexes in deprived and privileged neighborhoods with both similarly ordered, detached, and minimally decorated even extended to the highly manicured landscaping. Through my photographs, I encourage the viewer to contemplate the meaning of these uniform spaces in connection with modernity and the struggle for individualization.

Reading Response #7

It is interesting to consider the huge difference in terms of process with analog vs. digital photographs yet the relatively similar viewing experience we have with both types. The photographic history made such an impression on the medium that while the photographer has an abundance of possibilities in terms of manipulation (or even creating a stimulation completely detached form reality) photographers continuing to stick with the standard photographic language. I was surprised to learn that CGI decreases the quality of images to more closely resemble the “normal” photograph which suggests a connection to the real. Even as manipulations become more and more flawless, as a viewer we still associate the photograph with reality and other visual imaging uses this connection as a means to convince the viewer of the relationship to the real world. On the one hand we have become very photo savvy and cautious but on the other hand, we cannot shake the connections with reality which have persevered since the medium’s invention.

The panic instigated by the introduction of digital photography emphasizes the power of images. The scholars writing in the 1990s seemed to worry about the loss of realism as connected with the creation of identity. Photography is closely tied with human striving for order and understanding. The loss of realism would prevent the photograph from serving to contain and help the viewer understand the chaos of the world. Moreover, the viewer is put in a powerful position when viewing a photograph. The photograph provides the viewer with knowledge, order and the power of looking at perhaps what could not/ should not have been seen otherwise. As soon as the photograph becomes detached from reality, the viewer’s power is taken away. The world becomes more unordered because the viewer cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not. However, I think these concerns could be expressed at any point in photographic history. The photograph provides the comforting illusion of reality but as discussed in previous classes, arguably there is no such thing as photographic truth.

Q. Do we trust a poor quality photograph from a phone over a high quality photojournalistic photograph? Why? 

Work In Progress Critique #4

This week I initially continued to experiment with different manipulations in photoshop trying to convey the same eerie aesthetic as one of the images from the last critique. However, I felt that many of the other images I was taking did not work as successfully with this effect. I continue to experiment and I think my most successful photograph is the yellow block of apartments.  I returned to using sickly saturated colors to create an initial blissful appearance whilst hinting at something unnatural and distancing the viewer from the architecture. I think this photograph most successfully conveys my content because it aesthetically draws the viewer in but also makes them question if all is what it seems. The chairs lined up outside the windows all hint at human presence yet the space seems strangely quiet.

This second photograph that I feel most successfully conveys my content hints at the connection between our façade and external appearances with our identity. Whether it be the façade we present through the clothes we wear, the car we drive or the exterior of our house, they all contribute to how others perceive our identity. The flag hanging outside of the houses gives the only clue as to this person’s identity. The windows seems closed off and vacant, the chairs are empty and the structure’s design with its huge columns is both glorifying yet intimidating. By moving close to the sealed off windows and placing the flag centrally, I hoped to emphasize the limited amount we reveal of our identity on the outside of our home. 

Reading Response #6

When discussing early photography, I think the author brings to light an interesting point – that these early photographers did not see themselves as artists. Only later curators, art critics and other influential individuals in the art world raised their photographs to the status of art by displaying them in galleries. However, these individuals determine which of these photographers become key figures in the development of art photography and who does not make the cut. Photography’s history spans periods of colonialism, racism and gender inequality and I wonder how curators factor in the oppression of different people in deciding which artists they support and promote. It would be very easy for curators to perpetuate the power roles rather than subvert them and show alternative photographic practices from anyone other than the affluent white male. I was excited to read about the many different contemporary shows embracing heritage and gender but I hope that curators continue to look back to photography’s history and expand upon the canon of iconic photographers. I think this is especially important for the big art galleries rather than just the small ones looking at one specific type of art. On page 294, I really love the concept of the show Shifting Focus. The curator encourages women to actively look when viewing the art, and therefore, they subvert the male gaze.

I really enjoyed the author’s connections between modernity and the fundamental nature of the camera. Modernity reflects the growth of capitalism, the development of technology and advancements in science. Photography encapsulates all of these ideas. The camera itself is a commodity while the taking of pictures commodifies its subject. Also, it was seen as an important technological development rather than artistic development when it first came on the market. Its technical nature makes it the perfect medium for capturing the insensitive cutthroat world of modernity. It is interesting to me that Baudelaire and other early writers responded to the camera as unable to capture artistic expression because of it is mechanical. I think this is what helps it fit so perfectly into contemporary culture. What better way to deal with questions of identity, technology, commodities etc that through a machine that actually represents a part of this modern society? Also, the author shows how later Russian artists used the medium because of its democratic nature and ability to reach large amounts of people to instigate social and cultural change.

Q. Do you think photography/ art in galleries perpetuates cultural elitism as discussed on page 302. On the one hand, artists want to make some sort of comment but often art becomes deeply theoretical or assumes a viewer of a particular culture/ race/ social background etc for it to become understandable. Also consider that even by putting the work in a gallery context, the work is shown to the specific viewers interested in seeing that particular type of art.