Trees and Bees and Mysteries

One of the things that consistently fascinates me about photography is—to put it very simply, but perhaps not too simply—some pictures work and others don't. And no one strategy is enough to ensure that any particular picture "works." John Camp and I were talking a few weeks ago about the snapshots from the John Foster collection, and how astonishing, bracing, even chastening a gathering of really remarkable snapshots can be. The Foster collection shot at left is a masterpiece of a photograph, albeit an incidental one. Why is that snapshot so wonderful, and a thousand not too much different from it so banal? And what fascinated John: was the kid climbing through the window put there on purpose? If you saw this photograph in a museum, you'd think so. But we'll never know.

Similarly, when I was reading Jim Caspar's Myoung Ho Lee article at FOAM magazine [PDF link], I noticed that he spoke about the difference between a concept and a concept made real:

Conceptual art is often envisioned, at first, in words or quick sketches. Sometimes a preliminary description all by itself is sufficient to give life to an idea; it isn’t necessary to nurture the concept into three-dimensional reality to allow the idea to reach its fullest potential in one’s imagination. The blueprint is enough.

However, when a technically challenging idea is physically constructed on a large scale, the audacity of that performance confers even greater importance on the concept. Confronting the physical reality of a simple-but-preposterous work of art encourages us to consider the idea and its implications with a heightened degree of intellectual and emotional engagement.

And yet, even a brilliantly simple and unique conceptual idea like Myoung Ho Lee's, fascinating thought it has proven to be (the pictures have gotten widespread attention, enough to bring a measure of fame to the previously little-known photography student), is absolutely not enough, by itself, to forecast success. A couple of his pictures, in my opinion, are clearly hits, and a couple are clearly duds. So—clearly (ahem)—the concept can't be what answers the mystery I mean.

Myoung Ho Lee, Tree #2

Photography is a mansion with many rooms, and I'm well aware that tastes vary widely. Some people live and die in genres or categories of photography that I just don't care about at all, although I would guess that my taste is catholic enough (or my attention dilettantish enough) that the opposite can't be entirely true. But I'm not talking about that here. What I mean is how strange and ultimately mysterious it is that you can take twenty shots of more or less the same thing, and one of them (maybe) will "sing," or "work," or have "that certain indefinable something" that makes it a successful photograph, while the others don't—even thought they might show the same subject, combine the same colors, have the same meaning, impart the same information, exhibit the same technical qualities, show the same kind of light or lighting, embody the same concept. As I wrote in an essay many years ago: "A critic might build an interpretation around a good photograph which could easily be imagined to hold true for a similar but worse photograph as well."

I like something else Jim Caspar said in his essay; it gets at something about playfulness, serendipity, enigma. Characterizing viewers' reactions to Myoung Ho Lee's pictures, he mentions that at first they look like billboards—then he puts these words into the hypothetical viewer's mouth: "'This is not a billboard of a tree, it is a real tree!…No, wait, this is a photograph of a real tree that looks like a billboard of a tree.'" Later he quotes Ogden Nash lampooning Joyce Kilmer:

I think that I shall never see
a billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
I’ll never see a tree at all.

One thing I like about the Lee pictures is that they're not "decontextualized." They're partly decontextualized. They play with that idea—in context, out of context; integrated, isolated; belonging, apart.

Decontextualized [Richard Avedon]

Contextualized [Laura Wilson]

Anyway, I'm glad Lee was the one who got his idea. If that idea had been mine, it never would have gotten past the blueprints.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

[Ed Kuipers]

What Lee is doing in my opinion is making use of the estrangement factor. We are used to seeing trees al our lives, they are an integral part of every landscape and of our day to day lives. By isolating the tree from its surroundings he places the tree, its shape gouverned by simple fractal principles and thus inheretly beautiful on a pedistal, a podium and transforms it into a work of art. This kind of art is much akin with the art of Christo. But, and here is a big but, the question popping up in my mind is, is this photography. It's art, thats for sure, but what kind of art. I agree that "sheet + tree = great art", but does the subesequent picture taken, in itself ad to the art. In my opinion that question can only be answered by answering the following question "Does the final picture make an improvement over the tree and sheet setup experiences live?". Now that is a question only Myoung Ho Lee can answer. Personally I'm am only allowed to have my doubts.

[fred]

Avedon missed the shot, at least in comparison to the context shot by Laura Wilson. Not surprising considering the use of a view camera. The decisive moment lost?

[Paul]

At last, Mike at his best!!

[Ken Tanaka]

"Photography is a mansion with many rooms,..."

Well-stated, Mike. It's also a mansion with a room for nearly everyone's tastes and fancies.

Small anecdote: Several years ago I was with a group attending a conservator's talk in the museum's photography department work spaces. A large print of that Avedon bee image, which is mounted on aluminum, was propped against a wall seemingly peering directly out at the group from the sidelines. It was remarkable to observe the swelling distraction it caused. For those who've not seen it, it's nearly life-size, sharp as a tack, and is undeniably creepy in-person. If we had stayed in that location for another 15 minutes I'm certain it would have had to be turned toward the wall for public comfort.

[Ben Syverson]

From what Ken says, it sounds like Avedon nailed the shot. Wilson got more bees in the picture, but Avedon made something primal and visceral.

[Mike Johnston]

Ben,
The Avedon shot *is* the shot. It's one of the most famous and widely reproduced pictures from "In the American West," a project which was made into a sumptuous and celebrated book and exhibited (in enormous, larger-than-lifesize prints) all over the world. (And the subject of my first published article about photography, too.) The Wilson shot is just a set documentation, shot by Avedon's assistant on the project.

It does show more context, though.

Mike

[Rob Atkins]

Photography is a mansion with a darkroom. Couldn't resist. Sorry.

[Ben Syverson]

Mike,

Trust me, I'm familiar with Avedon's work, as well as the relationship between the two images. I was just responding to fred's comment about the "decisive moment lost." It doesn't make much sense to critique Avedon with the language of Bresson and street photography.

Personally, I love your idea of the DMD, but am highly skeptical about Bresson's concept of a "decisive moment." It implies the primacy of one niche of photography—basically, candids ("great capture, HCB!"). In the end, capturing a visual coincidence or the zenith of an action is just as artificial as other gimmicks such as heart-shaped bokeh or the studio lighting you find so distracting. :)

Ben

[Wayne]

I think what Mike is writing about regarding the Avedon is there is a photograph between the two, that is "partly decontextualized," that was never made.

wonderful writing about an interesting topic, thanks!

[Poagao]

There are indeed many room, many of them locked from the inside.

[Henk Jordaan Rebel reviews]

I would love to find some commonality in such photographs to learn and copy (?) the art. But therein lies the rub. Simply being different is not necessarily unique and copying a concept is an obvious failure or weakness. Van Gogh's wicker chair comes to mind... who would spend days or months painting a wobbly, broken chair, but I guess there may be a lesson there... No-one else has thought of it! Now do it well enough to capture the imagination.

As an aside... Mike's artistry is demonstrated above, but this time beyond photography... poetic prose is clearly another manifestation.