Flowers by Tony Mendoza

Reviewed by Geoff Wittig

Nazraeli Press,* 2007. Retail $75, Amazon U.S. $60.20

Link to Amazon U.S., Amazon U.K., Amazon Canada

Flowers have to be one of the most photographed subjects imaginable. I mean, how can you not like flowers, right? Everyone with a camera is tempted to take a whack at them. I can recall pointing my brand-new Pentax 35mm SLR at my wife's day lilies nearly 20 years ago and burning through some rolls. When those K64 slides came back I was underwhelmed by the results. My wife glanced over my shoulder at the light box and muttered, "Maybe you should try birds or something." Other folks have obviously had more success. In the last two years "brand-name" photographers including Howard Schatz, Barbara Bordnick and Joyce Tenneson have all done books of flower images. Current fashion appears to favor close-ups of huge drooping blossoms, or sepia toned images of dried up and dying blooms. The books do seem to fly off the shelves, so there's obviously a market for them.

Given the ubiquitious, done-to-death nature of flower photos, it takes some work to do something creative. Scott Peck's gorgeous series of flowers frozen in ice is one unique effort. Tony Mendoza's new work, titled simply Flowers, is another. Mendoza is a Cuban-born photographer probably best known for Ernie, a book of photos of the cat he shared a loft with in NYC. Published in 1982, it acquired something of a cult following. The images are genuinely witty, in an Elliott Erwitt sort of way.

Flowers is a new direction for Mendoza. The introduction explains how he began photographing a community garden tended by his wife, finding that the zero incremental cost of digital exposures made it painless to experiment. The resulting book of images has a consistent style and æsthetic that kind of grew on me. I must confess that I find most flower photography saccharine to the point of nausea. Mendoza's work is different. The flowers are all photographed from ground level—i.e. from below—with relatively short focal lengths. All are lit with flash, most about a half stop to a stop "hotter" than the sky behind them. The resulting images are almost disorienting, sort of a "Land of the Giants" perspective where the occasional passing bumble bee looks the size of a beagle. Some of the flowers are clearly past their prime, others immaculate. The level of well-lit detail demonstrates how bizarre many plants are when you really study them closely.

As a physical object the book is impressive for its dimensions, 12.2 x17.6". The fifty plates are therefore large enough to have serious impact; the color and detail really hit the eye. Some care has obviously been taken in laying out the images; the color palette and tonality of facing pages harmonize perfectly. The only negative is a quirk of the printing process; the plates demonstrate bronzing when seen at a glare angle, though they look fine under normal illumination. This is a problem familiar to anyone who's ever tried printing on glossy paper with a pigment inkjet. Mendoza's witty introduction and afterward add a bit of perspective to the project.

If you love flowers and gardening, this book is worth a look for its unique take on the subject. It may inspire you to dust off your flash and look at your own backyard garden again. It also demonstrates once again the impact of a consistent body of work, perhaps inspiring folks to organize a portfolio of their own. And that's not a bad thing.

______________________

Geoff

*The website of Nazraeli Press, the publisher of Flowers, is well worth a look for those who are interested in fine art photography. They specialize in quirky titles, some of which you are very unlikely to see at your local Borders or Barnes & Noble. They also appear to spend little if anything on promoting their books, so you have to seek them out. Their backlist includes many books by such luminaries as Robert Adams, Michael Kenna, Todd Hiro and Kenro Izu.

Consider yourself warned, however: for bibliophiles it's like letting the horse loose in the grain bin. —G.W.

Comments

[Justin Watt]

I knew I was onto something:
http://justinsomnia.org/2007/06/what-basil-sees/

Also, a California poppy take from the same vantage (at bottom):
http://justinsomnia.org/2007/04/china-camp-state-park/

[Bob Tilden]

Do you mean bronzing or gloss differential?

[Daniel Sroka]

"Given the ubiquitious, done-to-death nature of flower photos..."

As opposed to those other genres -- like landscapes, nudes, wildlife, street photography, and the ever popular depressed-looking-person-in-motel-room -- which are *much* less ubiquitous. ;-)

[Ken Tanaka]

YES, flowers are one of the most preferred subjects for amateurs with new cameras.

YES, flowers are one of the most preferred subjects for camera owners too timid, or too lethargic, to chase something with a pulse.

YES, flowers are very over-represented at places like Flickr.

YES, flower photography has been cited by various human rights organizations as one of the most popular forms of torture throughout the world. Rumor has it that most people who are rendered find themselves with their eyelids clipped open watching continuous slide shows of British garden photos. It's more effective than "waterboarding".

BUT....

YES, flowers and other growy things offer numerous possibilities to the genuinely creative eye.

YES, because of this, it's still worth looking at good flower work (even voluntarily!).

YES, I'd gladly rather spend time looking at good, creative flower photos than most peoples' lamely imitative black-and-white "street" photos.

So thanks for bringing this book to our attention, Geoff.

[Dennis]

Geoff, I echo your sentiments about flowers ... I'm happy with my own nature photography for the most part ... but flowers as a subject is tough ... I just haven't figured out how to photograph them to my satisfaction. On forums, there are plenty of subjects "done to death" as Daniel says, but many of those are done well ... I don't see flowers done well very often, so I'm appreciative of good flower pictures.

[Carl Root]

Ken,

Would you care to elaborate on what constitutes a "creative" flower photograph, as opposed to a "lamely imitative" street photo. Having been swamped with more of the former than the latter, I would consider flowers more high risk as a cliche, but I guess it depends on where you view most of your photographs, and what kinds of boring images are foisted on you.

I realize you can't post a link to a lousy portfolio, but at times like this, I wish we each had "good" and "bad" versions of each of the genres in question that we had taken ourselves, strictly for illustrative purposes.

[dane]

those are awesome shots.

[David]

I'm pretty sure Tony didn't even take those pictures...it was freakin' Ernie the Cat. That cat had to have learned something over the years.

[Ken Tanaka]

"Ken,

Would you care to elaborate on what constitutes a "creative" flower photograph, as opposed to a "lamely imitative" street photo. Having been swamped with more of the former than the latter, I would consider flowers more high risk as a cliche, but I guess it depends on where you view most of your photographs, and what kinds of boring images are foisted on you.

I realize you can't post a link to a lousy portfolio, but at times like this, I wish we each had "good" and "bad" versions of each of the genres in question that we had taken ourselves, strictly for illustrative purposes."

Hello Carl,
That's a fair query, given my remarks.

Of course I am no arbiter of good or bad. But, to me, a "good" photograph is one that I will remember seeing. I may not remember the photographer's name or where I originally saw the image. I actually might not have even liked it. But I can remember seeing it and, like a familiar scent wafting past my olfactory gland, seeing it again instantly recalls that memory.

So when it comes to such a common subject as flowers a distinctive presentation demands a different point of view and perhaps even a different medium. From what I can see, Tony knows this. He seems to be lighting the flowers for unusual color contrasts and shooting from different angles. Not long ago I saw some radiograph images --photography of a different ilk-- of flowers that were completely captivating and endlessly memorable. Justin (above) is also onto something worth continued exploration with more serious conviction, largely due to it's point of view.

As for lame street photography, well... Beggars and sidewalk smokers seem to be the "flowers" for young, camera-toting urban males who cannot find flowers. Their images do not inform us, they don't capture irony or humor, they don't reflect any insights into their subjects any more than a stuffed deer head informs us about wildlife. They're just personal trophies, usually converted to black and white to make them look like the work of Erwitt, Winogrand, HCB, etc. It may have been great fun for the fellow the capture such images --and isn't that 90% of the reason to pursue photography anyway?-- and their owners may enjoy getting comments like "Awsome capture, dude!" from anonymous visitors to their Flickr galleries. But the vast majority of this stuff, like the vast majority of flower photos, is chaff.

Again, just my opinion in response to your inquiry.

[Carl Dahlke]

For a great flower photographer take a look at

http://www.cameraflora.org

I've been watching this photographer for 10 years ever since he brought a set of 4x6 drugstore prints to a photo discussion group and asked whether he had something worth pursuing.

One thing I've learned from him is that any subject that can be photographed is inexhaustible. He photographs nothing but flowers and hass kept his work fresh and evolving for the entire time I've known him.

[Miranda]

Wow these photographs of the flowers are wonderful!!