Tautochronos #8 - photography courtesy of Michel Lamoller
Και για τους καλοφαγάδες έχει ωραίο "οφτό" ...Οι κακές γλώσσες λένε πως το "οφτό" είναι νόστιμο, όταν είναι "κλεψιμέικο".ΠΡΟΣΟΧΗ! Προς αποφυγήν παρεξηγήσεων: Η διατύπωση αυτή είναι γενική και δεν αναφέρεται στη συγκεκριμένη περιοχή.
*** IMHO *** Photography is a 2D representation of 2D or 3D subjects / objects. Photographers have been cutting & splicing photographs for more than 100 years. While Lamollers work is EXTREMELY well executed, there is NOTHING in the examples shown which cannot also be created / reproduced in Photoshop / Barco Creator or similarly capable software. In fact, it can ALL be done on computer quicker, cleaner AND BETTER in 2D representation than THE MOST dexterous person on the planet would be able to achieve without computer.Pro Photographer - 45yrs photography experience - own studio 37yrs - computer graphics / image retouching 34yrs
I have not see the work in person, but suspect the physical/tactile alteration of surface is important. And that it may take longer than to acheive the same visual effect digitally, may, in fact, be a positive.
Regardless of whether I like or not, I have to applaud the effort and execution of this concept.
Great idea but, personally, I find these examples missing the artistic potential of illustrating interesting connections in time and the same location, or connections in space at different times. The obvious use of layering is distracting.
But there's potential here for something interesting.
The physical excavation through surfaces seems a compelling gesture - I assume this would be better disclosed when viewing the actual print(s). Were this to be a product of Photoshop layering, it would, to me, lose appeal.
Not photography in the traditional sense of capturing a viewpoint. At least not a technical geek's sense of what photography is. This is abstract, legitimate, art. Not only extremely complex to put together (requring much skill on the part of the artist), but also a great play on the metaphor of peeling back the layers on an onion. Although personally I don't really see much of the time-shift aspect, so perhaps different subject matter would bring that more to the fore.
So in other words, this doesn't jive with the majority of DPReview thinking. Not enough brick walls to detect vignetting and barrel distortion.
Looks like a lot of work and nicely done, but it's not my cup of tea, tbh. I'm a gearhead and not very 'artsy'... :).
It's creative, certainly. The concept of "space and time bending" is intriguing, but I don't see that on these images; I see layering.
The phrase "tautochronos" suggests some sort of "time equivalence", but I don't see that either.
Whether it be done by hand with physical media or by digital, the compositions are excellent, the technique, exquisitely handled. Exquisite eye candy belittles it but it is very pleasant and very well done. I don't get any messages here (which is Ok, because not all art requires a concept) but I do enjoy it! :-) Seems more (entirely?) about technique than subject matter, but I don't know the artist and what he's trying to express if anything. Its not quite David Hockney's "Pear Blossom Highway" using lots of polaroids to make up pieces of one scene. There are some street "painters"/artists with chalk where piece of the street turn into almost trompe l'oil (pardon my French, literally!) holes in the ground, or vaulted arches - and there' also that guy (artist) from out West (I forget his name, but his works are everywhere, no, not Ansel Adams or any other photographer, he probably uses either paints, etc.) who draws/paints? camouflaged animals. Interesting work - "I smell bacon!" ;-)
I like the goal of showing a time shift in a single image. I'm not seeing it in these images. Maybe this technique could be used in a more obvious way.
Original and interesting work.
I do hope an exhibition comes to the UK.
How rare is to notice that the place a shot taken must be few meters from a close friend's apartment...
I do find the method of excavating image compelling, and it does not strike me as gimmicky, as some suggest. Physically altering photographic prints is a well established vein in the history of art photography. I certainly do agree with some that certain works here are stronger than others. But overall these physical alterations of surfaces successfully invite investigation and contemplation.
Very interesting / cool!
Some people mention it's too chaotic, but that seems to me to be intentional, to throw off the senses, if it was too perfect it might be too slick and "easy". Just my 2c.
Execution doesn't quite match from what I expected from the description. Overmanipulated. Underwhelmed. Great potential if done subtly.
Brilliantly original! Thanks for bringing this to DPR...
Interesting idea but the execution is too chaotic in some shots, not in a good way.
Nice work. Creative. Thanks for sharing these.
Anyone who thinks these are odd or strange, well, you've seen something new. And that's not a bad thing.
Thanks DPR for posting these. I'm not going to enter the debates in the preceding posts about whether it's art, photography, useful, pointless or whatever. As far as I'm concerned those debates are pointless because they revolve around classifying these pieces. They simply are as they are, and I simply enjoyed them. Original, different stuff from my own, and entertaining.
Great work! Thanks for sharing :)The fact that he uses hands on techniques with a scalpel just makes it all the more impressive. I wish more photographers would think outside the photoshop box.
Now this is art. Not stupid a 40ft toilet that people call art. Two thumbs up!
SURREALLY TALENTED PHOTOGRAPHER & FANTASTICALLY ACCURATE POSING FROM MODELS!
AMAZING & INSPIRING PIECE OF PHOTOGRAPHY.
Very creative and nicely executed, though not my cuppa tea.
More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.
Thank you Jeff for taking the words right out of my fingers. So predictable are those here on this forum. The work presented here has forethought and vision, not just a click of a shutter that yields the next cat, flower, sunset, blah, blah and on and on.
Indeed, Jeff. The artist's work is definitely not traditional photography, but more of photomontage. The picture of the man clinging/merging into the brick wall was quite fascinating, and difficult to execute, but the overall effect of surreality is just about right. Some of the other images aren't as successful. This is an artist saying to himself, what can I do differently with the camera as an artistic tool? Something rather unexpected, it appears.But if your idea of photographic art is a single image perfectly exposed and processed, yet similarly jarring, perhaps you'd like Art Wolfe's Human Canvas series. There, the camera records the creation of artwork on/with the human form. Perhaps painters should be as outraged as the photographers here are.
... although let's not forget, both art and photography are subjective and everyone is welcome to their views. Personally, I didn't like these or the process, but each to their own. I think it's ok to say 'I don't like these' as long as its polite; and for people to lecture others for not being impressed or admirable ... Well, that's unfair.
Politeness is the key here. Although I'm more favorably inclined to the artist's work here, if I weren't I would not disparage the artist himself for presenting, and I would hope that others would be similarly measured in their invective. That is the crux of what Jeff is saying.
people have differing opinions. if they like it they like it, if they dont they dont. one doesnt have to be da vinci to not like something.
@chadley_chad So, you don't like them? No harm in that.
The normal etiquette among the more considerate posters is to compliment or encourage whenever comment has not been sought from you. Where you disagree or express dislike for another artist's creative viewpoint, such comment is backed up with fair access to your own work. That's essential to avoid being just another internet 'hater'.
Too many people use the internet as a form of therapy and a vent for self esteem issues, with little regard for other artists and photographers efforts.
That's not so say there isn't a market for ignoramuses spouting criticism to rile up an audience. Whole TV series revolve around that concept. But the 'critics' aren't people you would admire, or necessarily want to know.
@Eric: While I mainly agree with you comment, this part: "Where you disagree or express dislike for another artist's creative viewpoint, such comment is backed up with fair access to your own work." is kind of completely off in my opinion.
I mean, one does not have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting. Or to have the right to hang one (or not) on his wall. Or a photo. Or a photo-montage like this.
However, expressing opinions politely is what makes sense, and what makes a discussion work. As an artist you want (or you should want) to hear the criticism as well as constructive opinions, and know how to benefit form it. Of course "I hate it" is not criticism, as "I love it" is not "positive feedback". It's only that the "love" ones we like, and appreciate them, as they grow our pride.
@badi: You're right that opinion of any kind has more validity [and value] if it is backed by some reasoned argument. But 'I like it' is of course a positive and if we accept that affirmation is in itself a constructive thing this does at least give it SOME value. The opposite 'blind criticism' is of course merely negative, so intrinsically has no value. Other than that is reflecting badly on the manners of the would-be critic.
@Jeff Seltzer: "Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery..." Why do I feel that this was directed at me? :D You ticked off the majority of my "collection" in one sentence. Guess I'm the poster child for "wanna be photog." LOL! (fyi - no sarcasm here. Honestly thought it was funny.)
@cris: well, actually my idea was that "I like it" or "I hate it" are in essence the same = no value. And we consider the "i like it" to be constructive, just because it pleases us. And it does please us. But that does not change the fact that one "I like it" from AnonymousX has no more value that "I hate it" from the same online user.
I am not arguing with the fact that, more often, "I hate it" comments come from haters or trolls, and the "I like it" from lovely persons. But we share the same internet :)
So, because I don't upload any of my work to the forums, I don't have the right to say I don't like someone else's work? As badi rightly says, one does not have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting.
Indeed, one doesn't have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting. No one is expecting you to paint.
If you are going to make disparaging or discouraging public comments on another person's work, it would help a lot if you tried. Let others see the results of your efforts to put your criticism in context.
It's not a question of rights. It's a question of being fair, as you might rightly expect to be treated yourself.
:) it's an interesting discussion, so I'll continue a bit.Being fair has nothing to do with liking a work of art, or just any work. You can like one camera design, and dislike another (I don't give examples not to go off-off-topic), that is my right to choose the one i like, as well as to say that i don't like some model (and why). I don't have to try to make a camera myself, realize how hard it is, and say they are both nice.
As to painting/taking photos/sculpting/etc every one has his values and tastes. I like both abstract and realistic paintings, but when i look at one painting i like it or not for what it is, i don't report it to "my skills". If i suck at drawing, it doesn't mean i have to be in wow at every ugly painting just because the painter has slightly more skill than me. I compare it to other arts.
I merely said I didn't like the work; there's nothing disparaging or discouraging about that; and again, I don't see why I have to show my work to make my comments more valid. I remain polite and civil and stand by my original statement that the technique may be clever, but the outcome, for me, is not something I like or what I find pleasing or impressive to view (more confusing ... and should we really have to explain an image; surely a good image says it all!). Guess I'm not 'arty' enough lol!
For encouraging such a discussion, any author should be proud of his work.
Interesting work and well-done, reminds me of Hockney's "joiners". I think he needs more of an "idea".
Art using photographic images for base material. Interesting, unique and clever stuff.
Interesting. Confusing, too. Art is supposed to speak to me, and this does, but it seems to be mostly saying "I like playing with exacto knives." ;-) Kidding aside, this seem to be much more about layers than "space and time-bending."
As the saying goes- "To each his own".
Any photographer/artist doing something creative and showing something different is way better than the armchair critic who has no work to show.
Nonsense. You produce pointless stuff it remains pointless stuff. Arguably you should do something useful instead.
But in this case that's not the problem. The problem is that it isn't about photography at all.
"....the problem is that it isn't about photography at all"
Nope. The mere fact that there was a camera involved in the making of these images and light was captured to make an image possible qualifies this as an entry in the realm of photography
Also, the artists, inventors, photogs who dared to step out of the norm were once called out for pointless work. This reminds me of how some early photographers who played with separate red, green, and blue filters to create the first color images were once thought of as people wasting their time in an era of B&W.
@The Name is Bond That's your criteria? Something USEFUL?
FYI one could say ALL art is pointless. That's why it's art, it's made to be appreciated, not to be USEFUL. A painting won't get you to work, a novel won't cook your food, a song can't put a roof over your head. Is the Mona Lisa "useful"? Is watching "Romeo and Juliet" useful?
A map is useful, so should I start taking aerial photos as my "art"? That would be useful right? Would it satisfy your criteria for what photographers should do?
Is it ... Can we not be critics unless we've published work ourselves???
@chadley_chad Having your own published work certainly levels the playing field. For some reason, those who have, tend to be more accepting of other's creativity.
Paper layers instead of Photoshop layers.
This must be art!
I appreciate the hands on approach. Makes it more intimate to me. Probably is more enjoyable having everything out in the open in front of you instead of having to use a mouse or tab, zooming in and out, clicking, dragging, etc.
Doing something like this by hand makes it more of a "one of a kind" instead of being able to mass produce it with a sterile digital file.
Gimmickry, not photography.
In the same way that Ansel Adams' stuff was gimmickry, as it also didn't reflect what was captured by his cameras.
I don't think so. His was real photography; a close representation of something substantive.
This is just pointless silliness to wow the easily wowed.
And just who exactly are you to decide that someone else's work is pointless?
"Gimmickry, not photography."
More like creative, thought provoking, original, fresh, etc. A photographer that's saying something with his work instead of repeating the same old photos everyone else is doing.
Whether you like his work or not, at least he's trying to be original and doing a pretty good job at it. And this could lead to bigger and better things in the future that maybe you might actually appreciate.
If people like Michel Lamoller didn't take risks, photography would be pretty boring at times.
"Gimmickry, not photography"
And if you were alive when the camera first came out, you would have said, "gimmickry, not a real painter". The artist probably doesn't care if it's considered "photography" by you or anyone else. Newsflash: creative artists probably shouldn't spend time worrying if their work conforms to definitions set by others.
@"The Name is Bond" : Oh yes, the artist is definitely trying to trick you into thinking there is something creative there. Make sure you alert the world to the "gimmickry", ye? We need more protectors from "gimmickry" like you.
Any chance you can now wow us with "something substantive" of your own? Anything at all? You absolutely have to now, given your comments above.
We are waiting.
Seems like something you could do a lot more easily with digital layers and save loads of printing paper.
Ah, spoken like a true technical pixel peeper!
People still prefer the hands-on experiences of our physical world
To me, exceptionally creative.
I've done a fair amount of Photoshopping, and some composites with layers. However, I think it would be very time consuming to accomplish the effect with layers, so that it had the same look.
So yes, it would save paper.
But ... my speculation is that the actual art work would have a very, very different feel, in person. We have to use our imagination from the small JPEG's from DPR to visualize the real art.
There would also be a "tactile texture" as you handled it, that would be missing from a 2D print.
Yes, creative and inspiring!
Did I just take an acid tab or am I seeing things?