Conceptual photography

Any discussion of photography within Conceptual Art. Since the mid-1960s, conceptual artists have denied any interest in photography per se. To hear the artists tell it, photography was only useful or interesting to them insofar as it was instrumental in conveying or recording their ideas. Time and again artists describe the photographs themselves as either brute information or uninflected documentation. For many years curators, critics and historians have corroborated this reductive understanding of the role of photography in Conceptual Art. Sidestepping the aesthetic properties of conceptual photographs is convenient; it simplifies the distinction between Conceptualism and the more material-based practices of Pop Art and Minimalism. Taking the artists at their word, writers have also been able to divorce conceptual photography from the history of photography more broadly, maintaining a rigid distinction between conceptual and fine art photography of the same moment

As we know, however, the intentions of artists and the historical effects of their work are rarely synonymous. For example, artists who have benefited from the renewed critical and curatorial interest in Conceptual Art in the last decade have themselves resisted the label "conceptual."(2) This is understandable - no practicing artist wants to be pigeon-holed as an example of an historical movement. Yet the conceptual designation has been crucial to the historical understanding of this period of work. Along the same lines, the conceptualists' contrary stance on photography should not be accepted at face value. Despite their professed disregard for photography, the conceptualists participated in an important transformation of the medium, fueling a rise in the prominence of photography that attracted critical attention in the "Pictures" generation of the late 1970s and early 1980s

First-generation Conceptual Art is an important point of origin for the continuing success of photographs by artists who do not consider themselves to be photographers in the traditional sense.(4) The conceptual artists' very lack of investment in photography allowed them to generate new possibilities for the medium. However, they were not alone in this enterprise. Fine art photographers during the late 1960s such as Gary Winogrand and Lee Friedlander shared with the conceptualists an interest in identifying and subverting the conventions of photographic vision.

The refusal of conceptualists to take photography seriously on its own terms is rooted in the earliest definitions of their project. From the beginning, ideas were prioritized over the material form in which they were conveyed. Sol LeWitt provided a seminal formulation of this notion in his 1967 essay "Paragraphs on Conceptual Art": "In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work." LeWitt dismisses the material form of the piece as secondary, an "afterthought" so to speak: "When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art."(5) Due to its apparent immediacy, photography was an apt medium with which to pursue this idea-driven art.

The analytic model of Conceptual Art that Joseph Kosuth provides in his 1973 essay "Art After Philosophy" is even more rigorous in undermining the visual, material aspects of the work of art. Playing an end-game with Clement Greenberg's pursuit of the self-referential art object, Kosuth imagines a completely self-contained, tautological artwork, framed in language: ". . . the propositions of art are not factual, but linguistic in character - that is, they do not describe the behavior of physical or even mental objects; they express definitions of art, or the formal consequences of definitions of art."(7) Recent writers, however, have begun to remark upon a blind spot in this analytic formulation of Conceptualism. As British art historian John Roberts points out in his 1997 book, The Impossible Document: Photography and Conceptual Art in Britain 1966-76, the majority of conceptual artworks contain photographs, unruly visual elements that cannot be adequately matched by or contained in discourse.(8) This dynamic is evident in Kosuth's own famous works such as One And Three Chairs (1965) in which the three instantiations of the word "chair" - a dictionary definition, a photograph and an actual chair - are not commensurable. The piece clearly demonstrates the failure of language to contain visual or physical form.

<sub>You take your leave of me
But I never really get to leave
I am a street survivor
Making it through another day

Eating of your remains
Sleeping under your shelter
Living in your shadows
Making it through another day

If you smile at me
I will run away scared
Relying only on my instinct to survive
Making it through another day

No romance, no love at sight
Only fatigue and never ending appetite
Drinking of the rain and always on the roam
I'm a street survivor, won't you take me home?</sub>

Unlike a signature style, a Conceptual Framework has no rigid rules or "recipes". Instead, the Conceptual Framework is a set of broad and free flowing concepts open to one's own interpretation - based on your unique experiences and journey through life. As such, the Conceptual Framework allows each photographer to leave his or hers thumbprints on the images without having to fall into a "mold" that would inhibit creativity. In addition, the concepts at the basis of the Framework are ever evolving and changing - ensuring endless possibilities.

How did I come about developing my Conceptual Framework? As a wedding photographer, clients often ask me about my approach to photography. Rather than having a checklist of images I must capture, I shoot each wedding very differently by inspiring myself from its unique elements, details, and from the personality of the couple. In other words, I react to my environment. Although the images I capture look very different from wedding to wedding, something below the surface ties them together. What is this "invisible" theme linking my images?

To find out, I selected over 100 of my favorite images I had shot and looked for common recurring themes. How could these images be related to one another? What are the common threads? Why did I capture them the way I did (and not another)? Why do I find these images appealing?

What emerged from this study were six (6) distinct concepts. These concepts are the foundation and building blocks of my vision and are always at the basis of my images - but in different proportion. Drawing a parallel to cooking, I didn't have a recipe but rather signature ingredients on which I based my dishes.

The most predominant concept (a recurring theme) in my photography is that of creating simple shapes within the image. As an engineer, I like clean and simple shapes - which is exactly what I try to create when capturing images. When composing images, I think about what are the potential shapes I could create within the frame to accentual the message or emotion. Quite often, creating a shape requires selecting the right lens and point-of-view.

Ask Yourself: Can I create simple basic shapes such as triangles, squares, rectangles, and circles by using elements of the composition? Can I change my point-of-view to create or incorporate these shapes? Can I use a different lens to emphasize the shapes? Here are a few examples.

Image 1 uses the barn, grass, window, and door to create a series of four simple rectangles that balance each other

Color (or lack of) can be used as a compositional element. I subconsciously look for: high vibrancy, monochromatic elements, a limited color palette, or high contrasting and competing colors and shades. For a more subdued or relaxed look, use a monochromatic or limited palette.

Ask Yourself: Can isolate a unique color or shade? Can I bring in new elements that would contrast with the existing one? Can I balance a composition by adding a colorful element in periphery?

Basic but quite often overlooked in the heat of the moment, lighting- especially not typical - will drastically change the mood and outcome of an image. Thinking and seeing out-of-the-box is critical to creating images that will stand out. Don't necessary take the "easy way out" and look for the best light. In some instances, the worse light is the best light.

Ask Yourself: How can I use light to create a unique image? Can I light the elements in transparency - either from the rear or from the inside? Can I use flare to my advantage? Can I use a particularly difficult lighting situation and turn it to my advantage? Can I use shadows as a compositional element?

Point-of-view is often confused with perspective - which is the way objects appears to the eye. The point-of-view is what dictates the perspective. Most photographers will think of moving left or right and, with the prominence of zoom, will zoom "in" and "out". Physically moving forward or backward will change the image. Even better, changing your point-of-view up or down could bring the feeling of a bird eye view or even that of a child's vantage point.

Ask Yourself: Can you move back and forth to create a different image? Which detail have I missed by not looking up or down as a tourist in a new city would? Can I add a foreground element to create the illusion of "being there"? From the same vantage point, can changing my lens give a new perspective