Tuesday 1 November 2011

Environment unit Self-Appraisal


I started my environment unit by researching particular photographers & articles in response to workshops, lectures and seminars all of which I posted in blogs.
My initial photographer was William Eggleston looking at how out of place objects like rusty signs ruin the idealistic landscape in his ‘Southern Suite’ series;
 Mitch Epstein documented the way humans have cut through the landscape, living side-by-side one another like in the photograph ‘Hoover Dam bypass project, Nevada, 2007’.
I began to think about how artists can make something that should be looked upon as unattractive look appealing; I became very interested by the work of Joel Sternfeld especially ‘The high Line’ series.

When first built, the rail was seen as ugly but now it is portrayed as a hidden beauty above the industrial town captured by Sternfeld. I also looked at Robert Adams while researching for my pastiche whose work also related to my developing theme.

After watching the programme ‘Panorama: Britain’s Dirty Beaches’ commenting on the ignorance we have towards pollution specifically caused by Combined Sewage Overflow pipes. I was intrigued by the different effects it has on nature, humans and wildlife both aesthetically and well-being. I also looked a little at the techniques of Bernd & Hilla Becher, the way they obsessed over ugly man-made structures making them look pleasing like gas tanks;
 repetitively photographing them however I wanted my subject matter, sewage pipes to be less of the main focus to highlight human ignorance. I finally began to look at ‘Swamp & Pipeline’ by Richard Misrach and Andy Hughes work who both photograph ugly subject matter (sewage pipes & litter) in an attractive manner which fools the audience into believing it is something pretty and positive, leaving them to realise their ignorance towards the issue.
All of my research has led to my theme of human ignorance towards pollution & the destruction we as humans are having on the planet due to the effects of environmental contamination.
Like Andy Hughes, I used the beach as a backdrop to create a striking, attractive scene; I took 7 images of different compositions to create varying levels of ignorance. It is possible that people will still look at the images without realising what is in the frame; in most shots in pipes sit under lit in the foreground jutting out from the smooth beach. In the background there are different subjects which highlight the ignorance towards pollution- a play park, beach huts, wind surfers, hotel & apartments with supposedly perfect beach views.




I shot most of my images from a low angle along the beach to create a beautiful scene with the reflections in the water; they are also composed off centre which makes the viewer’s attention move across the scene making them notice everything in the frame. I chose a sunny day to create a positive atmosphere inspired by Hughes and Eggleston; the bright sunlight highlights the background but leaves the foreground shadowed giving an ominous feel to the subject.



I took the image in colour to highlight the vibrancy of the sky in contrast with the dirty tones of the sewage and rust around the pipes. I chose the backdrops carefully by walking along the beach and choosing sewage pipes with backgrounds which would support my theme of human’s being oblivious of their immediate surroundings.

2 comments:

  1. If I understand correctly your premise is that it is humanity's ignorance of pollution that prevents it from caring; and that if you beguile your audience into thinking that the pollution is "natural" and "beautiful" (using their preconceptions of the landscape art genre) the audience will start to re-think its attitude to pollution when it realises what it is looking at.

    I'm not sure I agree, or at least I want to argue with you, I want to rattle your cage. See how you respond to the challenge of a devil's advocate? For example, I would ask what is pollution? Is it not just a word to indicate a moral objection to a cause and effect? It could be said that what you call pollution is the effect of wealth. What is the difference between "natural" and "human" pollution? Is one better than the other, and if so, why?

    Who is your audience? Are they visitors to a gallery, magazine readers, young/old, middleclass, workingclass, local community etc? Are they like you? What are you? Why do you react to pollution and they don't? What makes you so different? What will happen when they confront your images? Probably they know about the manifestations of pollution, perhaps as much as you do, perhaps more. Certainly if they are sewage workers. What do you say to someone who says: I know all about pollution, so what? We are all dead in the long run, why should I care? Or someone who says yes, you are right but there is nothing I can do, or very little, that will change things, and anyway the making of your photographs caused pollution, what are you doing about it?

    Looking at your images I see experiements with perception: making something that most people would conceptulise as ugly, into something that they might see as beautiful. I'm tempted to say, it's been done before, what is the context of your approach that makes it different, what will make them (us) care to the extent that we change our behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Amy,
    After writing the above I started reading your October posts and feel a bit guilty. I've had a nasty cold the last couple of weeks and I temporarily forgot to keep up to date, that is to say I was a bit depressed. I was very pleased how you responded to my suggestions about Landy and Burtynsky. I enjoyed reading your analysis, I can see you were thinking about your audience, rejecting an outright shock tactic, opting for a more subtle, thought provoking approach. What I liked about Burtynsky is that he is ambiguous, he is more a neutral observer rather than a preacher (unlike the maker of the movie of his work). But the thing that intrigued be most about the movie was the portrayal of the audience - it seemed very middle class and western - the sort of people who go to art galleries, a self selecting group. Presumably they were concerned enough about the environment to attend the exhibition and view the work as "art". The audience did not include the Chinese working in the factory cites or the Asian ship scrappers. Why not? Perhaps because the middle class audience had a less direct idea about the source of their wealth and well being? What would the Chinese workers think if the factories were closed down and their aspiration for their descendents were thwarted? The middle class might not be happy if suddenly their i-pads became too expensive and unattainable. Nothing is clear-cut, we live in a complex human world which exists both in our minds and in reality. The thing about Landy is that he was shocking but he was trying to show how much we rely on things and how actually, life can continue without them. If we all shredded our stuff, in effect re-booted would we feel more comfortable about our attitudes to the environment? Would we be better off and happier? Perhaps, perhaps not - I don't know ...

    ReplyDelete