10.08.2011 More from Kensington

10.08.2011 Enchanted Palace

On my recent day trip to London I took time out from galleries to visit Kensington Palace. After reading online about the installations included in the ‘Enchanted Palace’ experience I decided that it would be worth a visit. The Palace’s art and fashion installation is aimed mainly at getting people interested in the history of the building, with an interactive plot to magically involve people in discovering the princesses and their stories. Featuring light installations by artist Chris Levine, whose previously worked with Mario Testino and intriguing treasures from the sea-borne collection by Jane Darke. 

 

The Enchanted Palace reveals the emotion and drama running through Kensington Palace’s history. Contemporary fashion collides with the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection and real stories from the palace to create stunning installations, fashioned by leading designers, including Bruce Oldfield and Dame Vivienne Westwood.  

I really enjoyed the experience and recommend it to anyone, it’s magical and inspiring.

 

06.08.2011 Film love

After my last post I felt that I might come across as a bit of a film hater! when really this couldn't be further from the truth. Although I do not choose to work with analogue SLR cameras and film I thoroughly enjoy using them in my free time and ideas frequently arise from the many mistakes I make as a student photographer. The ability to make these mistakes and learn from them is something I have always admired in film and the debate on whether film is 'better' than digital (or vice versa) seems stupid as both hold such great potential as a creative tool. I'm sure most the kerfuffle was caused by photographers such as Goldin who fear the eventual disappearance of their 'process'. I find this a ridiculous statement to make however, as these people would continue and therefore keep film 'alive' as a niche technology.

As far as I know, making a good lasting image is difficult whether you are using digital or film. Any negative health effects of photo-chemicals is likely to be equal to the same damage done staring at a monitor editing all day! In the end it'll be the unique aesthetic that film allows (and is difficult to digitally duplicate) that will attract people to the process and as I was researching this I found that Paul Graham's new book, 'Films' explores the idea that basic grain is not easily mimicked by pixels. Graham himself is an avid user of film and in each new series he explores different aspects of what makes film so interesting.

 

My favourite series by him 'End of an Age', embraces the variety of colour balance from many light sources as he circles his pirouetting figures. He also talks about human mistakes which rarely/never happen with digital photography and how those small flaws created by mistakes give a handmade feel to the image. Graham’s ‘End of an Age’ (1999) consists of forty-nine colour portraits. The portraits avoid the direct gaze of the subject and capture them unaware and un-posed wearing dazed, searching looks in the club environment, which they are spectators. The images defy photographic rules making them often out of focus, obscured by colour cast and he uses a mixture of harsh, sharply defined flash pictures along with moodier available-light images. 

The conceptual meaning of this series can be read as the limbo between childhood and adulthood. The subjects body language adds to their vulnerability, often stood watching, completely absorbed by the events happening off camera. This series also avoids becoming a portrait of a culture as the club goers where photographed around the world and therefore the series becomes portraits of a collective condition rather than one of a particular group or nationality. The series can be read as a portrait of a generation, but it is also a portrait of a time.

3.8.2011 Has digital devalued photography?

Recently The Guardian newspaper has been debating an interesting point about the value of photography now that digitalisation has made it much more accessible to everyone. I have always thought that losing the use of film and analogue technology would be very sad and believe that anyone who's serious about photography should at least show an interest in the different forms of image making. However, the article in The Guardian featured comments from Nan Goldin, which for me put the fight of film in a bad light. She said:

"Everyone takes photos; now even phones can. The whole issue of digital is so depressing to me; my process is gone. There were all kinds of unknown things that could come out in a photograph, things you didn't know were there until you saw it; now it's all so flat."

 Firstly, digital technology has made photography very popular, it has become accessible to people from all backgrounds. The fact that anyone can buy a cheap camera and make images is fantastic; everyone deserves the right to explore their own creativity without the limitations of expensive (and sometimes confusing) technologies.

Secondly it's sad to see someone become 'depressed' over the so called 'loss' of her process. True there are lots of people using digital but I'm sure that people (myself and several of my friends and I'm certain many more) are still enjoying and experimenting with analogue cameras as the style has become more exclusive and experimental compared to the certain output of digital.

And thirdly, the accusation that digital images are flat is an outrageous comment, and certainly not fact. Digital technology allows us now more than ever to capture tiny details, which may have been lost on film. Also digital editing allows us to enhance the images we create to highlight areas of importance and add mood and character to an image.

I've never particularly liked Nan Goldin's work. I can see its appeal as gritty, 80's documentary but find I have out grown the aesthetic and no longer enjoy her work. If Nan Goldin is so 'depressed' by the future I doubt that she will be creating anymore ground breaking series' and it's sad to see someone whose life has been so consumed by photography find that the thought of change and new talent can have such a negative effect. I find her comments quite selfish and she should stop to think about all the good that photography can do for people now that everyone has the ability to express themselves in which ever form they choose.

The Guardian Poll: Has digital devalued Photography?