Future of Photography Q&A No.7 – Tamara Bogolasky

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Tamara Bogolasky’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

I first got interested in photography when I was about 12 years old and I found my father’s old Canon AE-1 camera and I became obsessed with learning how to use it. I thought it was really cool to develop your own pictures and the darkroom became my favorite place.

I feel the trigger would be completely different now with most people learning from digital cameras and not even printing the pictures most of the time. I feel like now, people take pictures for the instant gratification and rarely go back and see what they took a month ago.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

Photography will always remain a mixture between art and science, no matter how technology advances, the principles remain the same and there is still science in the process. Besides, technology and science go hand in hand so maybe now photography has become a more complex mixture of art, science and technology.

Continue reading

Future of Photography Q&A No.6 – Carlein van der Beek

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Carlein van der Beek’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

My background is in painting, abstracts, and mixed media. At the art academy where I studied, I was also able to take photography classes. I loved it. It was analogue, of course: black and white, developing your own film, working in the dark room. I have always been purely visual and photography gave me the chance to make images when it was not possible to paint.

The trigger wouldn’t be any different now. As I don’t have space to paint right now, photography is the only way of expressing myself at the moment.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

I switched to digital only 10 years ago. Though I loved working in analogue, I wouldn’t want to go back anymore, or only for a special project. To me, Photoshopping or apping, is – in a way – a kind of chemistry, science as well.

But instead of working with your hands, you have to “see” the process in your head. It did change my way of taking pictures. As my background is mixed media pieces, I am used to “building” images. I did so with painting and now I am able to do so with photography as well. In a way I am painting with photos. So to me digital together with the Photoshopping and apping is a gift that enables me to work the way I want.

Continue reading

Future of Photography Q&A No.5 – Philip Greenspun

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Philip Greenspun’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

My mother let me use a Kodak Brownie camera starting around 1970. I started out documenting boring family scenes. Probably with digital I would have started much earlier and experimented a lot more since the cost of film and processing was not affordable to me as a child.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

There should be a lot more great young photographers than ever before, since photography is now almost a free activity whereas before just a handful of photos would have used up a child’s allowance.

Continue reading

Future of Photography Q&A No.4 – Derek Ridgers

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Derek Ridgers’s responses.

The question I most get asked, more than any other, and which fits this Q&A well enough is: “How can I get started as a photographer?”

In the digital age this question is probably more pertinent than it’s ever been because there is so much less printed media around and so many more photographers.

My answer would be: know and research well your market and then look for gaps which aren’t currently being addressed.  Obviously there may be good reasons why those gaps aren’t being covered but there will always be opportunities for people who can see things that other people don’t see.  If you want to shoot ‘me too’ type fashion or glamour or kids or nature, fine.  But just don’t expect to get a career out of it.

In other words, don’t follow the crowd, look for something new which you can make 100% your own.  And if it’s new enough and interesting enough, people will beat a path to your door.

Continue reading

Every One of Them Words Rang True

Every One of Them Words Rang True: The Defiance of Time in Bob Dylan’s ‘Tangled Up In Blue’.

20120121-182837.jpg

Back in 2006, Bob Dylan was interviewed for yet another ‘Rolling Stone’ cover story. Looking back on the tumultuous decade in which he’d first made his name, Dylan reminded the interviewer, Jonathan Lethem, that he was “talking to someone who owns the Sixties”. Which is true. The flip side, though, is that for a long time, the Sixties seemed to pretty much own Bob Dylan. It was as though he had signed some kind of Faustian bargain with the spirit of that decade, guaranteeing him phenomenal artistic success and a quasi-religious following, but forbidding him ever to evolve beyond it. Had his infamous motorcycle crash in 1966 actually killed him, it might have been seen as a fitting end to Dylan’s story: it could have been his James Dean moment, the 500cc Triumph Tiger serving as a perfect metaphor for the breakneck speed and unpredictable trajectory of his Sixties career. Like some sort of countercultural Icarus, they’d have said, he flew too high, too fast, and was thrown back to the ground. Tragic, but inevitable.

Instead, after an ominous hiatus during which all sorts of rumours about the crash circulated, Dylan returned; but the Dylan who returned seemed even more of an enigma than the one who’d momentarily vanished. If Dylan’s audience had trouble relating to the new Dylan who emerged, Dylan himself had problems relating to his own art, and even his own sense of self:

“Well, it wasn’t that the crash was so bad. I couldn’t handle the fall. I was just too spaced out. So it took me a while to get my senses back. And once I got them back I couldn’t remember too much. It was almost as if I had amnesia. I just couldn’t connect for a long, long time.”

A lot of Dylan fans soon began to share that sense of disconnection. To many, Dylan’s post-crash career proved a letdown. If the stripped-back countrified arrangements and minimalist, biblically flavoured lyrics of ‘John Wesley Harding’ were bad enough, then subsequent albums such as ‘Nashville Skyline’ and ‘New Morning’ seemed ten times worse. By the mid 1970s, Dylan was seen as an anachronism, an artist whose only contemporary appeal was retrospective. The hugely successful 1974 ‘comeback’ tour with The Band, which had filled stadiums and set records for ticket sales, was viewed as an exercise in nostalgia, a chance for aging hippies and well-fed baby boomers to fondly recall the high tides of the Sixties from the calmer, more contented shores of the Seventies.

The 74 tour had coincided with the release of Dylan’s 14th studio album, ‘Planet Waves’, which received a fairly muted response: it did hit Number 1 on the US album chart, but only because of pre-sales; business dropped off sharply, and overall it was far from a spectacular success, particularly when compared with the record-breaking popularity of the tour. This served to reinforce the impression that Dylan was very much an artist of the Sixties. He had dominated that decade, but now that decade was becoming an albatross around his neck, threatening to drag him under. As the Sixties receded into the past, so the cultural phenomenon known as ‘Bob Dylan’, once such a powerful force, appeared to be ebbing slowly away.

Continue reading