Alice Crowe Trichromie No. 2

While I've been really enjoying learning wet plate collodion, I haven't stopped shooting 35mm and digital. I don't plan on stopping any time soon. For 35mm, I still adore using my ancient Minolta SRT-101 body and Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 lens. I've owned the slightly faster 58mm f/1.2 before, and I don't think that its extra weight, price, and speed justify its significantly higher price. I also find it hard enough to focus at f/1.4 -- shooting at f/1.2 was frustrating as hell.

For nudes and portraiture, my longstanding preference was film over digital. It still is, but I've been shooting more digital lately. This would have been Big News in 2012, but I can confirm that Fuji's film simulations are pretty solid. I can't make myself shoot JPEG exclusively, but I have found that my X-T5's in-camera rendering in the Astia and Neopan Acros modes is at least as good as my manual RAW processing. Specifically, I've actually been blown away by my camera's "Neopan Acros + Green Filter" film emulation mode. It's fucking incredible. It's so good that I don't see myself shooting black and white 35mm again. I'm less impressed by the camera's Astia mode, but it's still at least as good as my "vanilla" color RAW processing. I just don't like shooting "vanilla" color as much as I do shooting either black and white or the psychedelically wonderful Revolog Kolor film. I've programmed in a "JPEG recipe" for Kodak Portra 400 that I'm looking forward to trying in good light.

Here are my favorite shots, and some notes, from my recent second photoshoot with Alice Crowe. 

Alice Crowe Revolog Kolor 1
File this under serendipity. I missed focus on her eyes, but the soft effect gives the image a dreamlike quality I like.

Alice Crowe Kolor No. 2
Sometimes the Kolor film is wild, and is exactly what I'm looking for.

DSCF0181 This isn't film, but it's at least as good as real 35mm monochrome film. And my Fuji X-T5's eye detection autofocus makes this a hell of a lot easier to shoot with a 50mm f/1.0 lens!

lovers

Andrew Wyeth & Helga Testorf

When I was ten years old, my mother purchased a book of The Helga Pictures. She admonished me not to read it, because it was "dirty." So, of course, I read it as quickly as I could. The Helga Pictures are a series of "268 paintings and drawings of German model Helga Testorf created by American artist Andrew Wyeth between 1971 and 1985." What is so fascinating about these pictures is that Andrew Wyeth kept them a complete secret from everyone, including his wife, until he was ready to release them into the world. They're clearly intimate studies of Helga Testorf's form -- more than just her body, they show her soul. Many assumed (and probably still assume) that Testorf and Wyeth were lovers, but both deny this. In a short film about her experience, Testorf states: "There are many ways of making love, you know." This statement nails it for me; Wyeth's nudes of Testorf transcend objectification, but instead study/celebrate/love/symbolize her in a manner that was secret, furtive, erotically charged, but not physically consummated. I believe that Wyeth and Testorf were not sexual partners, but that they loved each other as muse and artist, goddess and supplicant.

Susan Sontag & William S. Burroughs

"To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as a camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time." ― Susan Sontag, On Photography

"There is in fact something obscene and sinister about photography, a desire to imprison, to incorporate, a sexual intensity of pursuit." ― William S. Burroughs

These quotations are tough ones. I see truth in them, but not the complete picture. Sontag's statement that photography "turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed" juxtaposes well with Burroughs's "desire to imprison, to incorporate". What makes these quotations difficult for me is that there's a negative intent, or a negative effect, assumed in both Sontag's and Burroughs's statements. Put differently, Sontag's symbolic possession and Burroughs's incorporation are both violent acts -- an objectification that belittles and renders the photographer's subject a victim. So, what's the difference between the negative objectification of Sontag and Burroughs, and the positive glorification of Wyeth?*

In Wyeth's nude portraits of Testorf, I see a celebration of her. I agree with Sontag that Wyeth saw Testorf "as they never see themselves," but that this didn't result in Testorf's "symbolic possession." It's my opinion that Wyeth's objectification of Testorf instead resulted in a symbolic apotheosis -- a glorification of Testorf as a female figure, a muse transcending her body into a timeless symbol yet rooted in a furtive, erotic-but-innocent, intimate, and very real exploration of Testorf's form over years. Objectification through art is not inherently diminishing. Objectification through art can be celebratory. It can elevate the subject into a powerful symbol, though perhaps not as easily as it can degrade the subject into a specimen.

Conclusion & The Three Biases

In a recent conversation, my mentor wrote something that more concisely addresses some of the ideas I've explored above. I'll apologize to her in advance for quoting a phone text conversation, but she wrote:

"One thing that students have a hard time wrapping their brains around is that anything photographed is a symbol. It’s the context that makes all the difference. It can change the symbolism from good to bad, from comfortable to uncomfortable. It’s all about context. There are also three biases in photography. The first bias being the type of equipment you use. Everyone can choose any type of equipment, but it does have an effect on how you create images and what they end up looking like. The second bias is your eye. Everyone sees things differently, and if given all the same equipment, 30 people will photograph the same object in 30 different ways because of their own experiences. The photographers eye is made up of their own experiences in life, and how they have perceived and experienced the world. It’s kind of like an eye made up of history. The third bias is one that the photographer cannot control and that is the viewer. You can create most incredible image, but if your viewer is not ready to view the image, or does not have the background or interest to engage in the image, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s not that it doesn’t mean anything to everybody, it’s just that it doesn’t connect or anything to that viewer. So I told my students, they have two things they control, and one thing they can’t."

For my own art, my first bias is in my equipment and processes. I prefer a more abstract and symbolized photography than a sterile or neutral photography. On the spectrum, I'm much more of a pictorialist than I am a student of the f/64 group.

My second bias is my eye. My intent is to celebrate the beauty, the mystery, the sensuality, and most importantly the power of the female form. There's a reason I title the nude art section of my portfolio "Anima." I am compelled to do this. The secret intimacy and trust of a nude photoshoot are powerful drugs, but they're not sinister. I'd be lying if I didn't experience some of Burroughs' "sexual intensity of pursuit," but the pursuit itself is not sexual, prurient, or belittling. If it were, I would not allow myself to photograph nude women. Diane Arbus wrote: "I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do — that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse." I get this. I feel it. There is a thrilling covert naughtiness in the intimacy of nude photography. If there weren't, I wouldn't need to use a pseudonym. I also probably wouldn't enjoy it. If I found myself using my cameras, lenses, and overcomplicated processes to photographically leer at or violate a woman, then I'd throw everything away, burn my negatives, and delete all of my image files.

Which brings me to the third bias, that of my viewers. Sontag and Burroughs bring a negative bias towards photography. Whether this is from their lived experience or their intent doesn't matter -- as an artist, I can't control my viewers' biases. What I can do is try to influence who my viewers are by sharing my photographs only in venues where people expect to see nude art. I certainly don't want to offend, and I'm not looking to shock.** I can also write long-winded essays that try to explain why I am compelled to create the art that I do. Finally and most importantly, I can reward my subjects' trust and time by making the best art that I'm capable of.

 

*     Here, I'll acknowledge that some might not see a difference. I'm sure that some will see Wyeth's nude portraits of Testorf as exploitative objectification. And I'd agree that that opinion or perspective are just as valid as mine. The "simple" solution here is to avoid objectification by photographer by refusing to be photographed, while also avoiding exposure to imagery that one finds exploitative. The latter is much harder than the former, and I empathize with the frustration of those who feel bombarded by unavoidable sexual objectification in art, media, and life. Exposure to nude art should be "opt-in," and I'll freely admit that my own art isn't for everybody. This should go without saying, but none, especially the marginalized, should have to deal with any of this shit if they don't want to.

**    That's not to say that shock isn't a valid artistic objective. That's another conversation.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Alice Crowe Tintype No. 2

I had the privilege of collaborating again with the amazing Alice Crowe. She's rapidly becoming one of my favorite models to work with because of her professionalism, patience with my slow photographic processes, and great conversation during shoots.

For this shoot, we split our time between my living room and my garage studio. I'm still trying to dial-in my wet plate collodion process and garage studio lighting, and that'll be the subject for a blog entry of its own.

Based on the advice of two wet plate photographers I trust, I decided against using Old Work Horse collodion from UV Photographics for this shoot. UV Photographics makes a quality product, but given my struggles with lighting I decided to try mixing a different collodion recipe called "Old Dead Bride." Old Work Horse uses cadmium bromide, ammonium bromide, and ammonium iodide. Old Dead Bride uses cadmium bromide and potassium iodide instead.

John Coffer's Old Work Horse Recipe

240 mL USP Collodion
200 mL Grain Alcohol (190 proof Everclear)
200 mL Ether

1.6 g Cadmium Bromide
1.4 g Ammonium Bromide
5.0 g Ammonium Iodide

Old Dead Bride Recipe

120 mL USP Collodion
80 mL Grain Alcohol (190 proof Everclear)
80 mL Ether

1.7 g Cadmium Bromide
2.0 g Potassium Iodide

Well, I can say that the Old Dead Bride collodion does appear to be somewhat faster than Old Work Horse. But I found that it poured "funny" -- dried thicker and with waves. I'm attributing this to my errors in mixing and/or pouring, not the recipe itself. Regardless, the plates that I made have problems that look like development but are actually related to my collodion pours. I've actually been making a lot of progress in my developer pours, and can get really even development most of the time now.

img20240330_16301231

\\\

I believe in embracing serendipity, kismet, or simple dumb luck in my photography. I don't set out to make mistakes, and the previous sentence shouldn't be read as excusing poor technique. To the contrary: I try to learn from my mistakes and avoid making them where I can. That said, some of my favorite photographs I've made over the years have been flawed; I've just gotten lucky some of the time in making mistakes that are interesting or beautiful.

I also think that it's important to remember that my art is hand made. Because it's hand made, and mostly analog/film, it's going to be imperfect. If one is looking for sterile perfection, one can shoot with the latest and greatest technology. And, increasingly, one can forego the photographic process entirely and just ask an AI image generator to make a beautiful picture. Flaws and imperfections can sometimes be pretty, but they're always valuable when they show that an image is genuinely hand made. There's value in hard work, and in working hard with one's hands.