I came across SuperMassiveBlackHole today. SuperMassiveBlackHole describes itself as Ireland’s leading international online photography magazine. It is available to download for free as a PDF in both screen and print resolution. The magazine seeks to represent photography, performance and sculpture (through documentation). It's published three times a year. The theme for the current issue (7/2011) is colour theory, seen from both a scientific and psychological perspective. Whereas colour is something which can be captured and modified with lenses, filters and techniques like infrared photography, it is at the same time something which affects us at an emotional level.
The magazine features contemporary photography, where the emotions/message often is on the expense of a technically good image. I should be able to appreciate this now after reading Cotton's book, but it makes me think that art is really what you get away with as Andy Worhol said.
To give an example, I looked a bit closer at Kate Wimmer's work, which was published in the magazine. These images fit in well with the colour theory theme. She shoots in black and white film, and uses three different filters, combining the images afterwords. This creates a technicolour effect. The subjects and compositions are not terribly interesting. They are a bit mundane. Looking at one of her images on her website, I can see that the horizon is loopsided, something I wouldn't dream of publishing. It's the three colour gimmick that makes the images interesting. The beams of colour create a magic feeling. The photos show something we can't see with the naked eye.The camera is the vehicule for this transformation, and it turns the key to see another world. The photographer claims to "explore the numious qualtiy in nature". Numious aparently means "indicating presence of divinity". (I had to look that up.)
I find the images slightly interesting, but not hugely so. In my opinion the images lack innovative perspectives or quirky ways of looking at reality. An interesting technique can't cover up dull subjects. I ask myself, is being published a proof of being a good/interesting photographer?
The magazine features contemporary photography, where the emotions/message often is on the expense of a technically good image. I should be able to appreciate this now after reading Cotton's book, but it makes me think that art is really what you get away with as Andy Worhol said.
To give an example, I looked a bit closer at Kate Wimmer's work, which was published in the magazine. These images fit in well with the colour theory theme. She shoots in black and white film, and uses three different filters, combining the images afterwords. This creates a technicolour effect. The subjects and compositions are not terribly interesting. They are a bit mundane. Looking at one of her images on her website, I can see that the horizon is loopsided, something I wouldn't dream of publishing. It's the three colour gimmick that makes the images interesting. The beams of colour create a magic feeling. The photos show something we can't see with the naked eye.The camera is the vehicule for this transformation, and it turns the key to see another world. The photographer claims to "explore the numious qualtiy in nature". Numious aparently means "indicating presence of divinity". (I had to look that up.)
I find the images slightly interesting, but not hugely so. In my opinion the images lack innovative perspectives or quirky ways of looking at reality. An interesting technique can't cover up dull subjects. I ask myself, is being published a proof of being a good/interesting photographer?