How
would you describe your style?
Style.
The word is such an interesting thought, in and of itself.
From the standpoint of being a working photographer, the
word style has positive, and negative connotations.
To
the positive, I want people to see my style as unique, and
drawn from many influences, both classic, and contemporary.
In my black and white figure work, I hope people see a strong
influence of the classic photographers from a bygone era.
I also draw my influences from contemporary painters. These
are artists, that I consider friends and mentors. Although
I do not copy their style, I do believe my view of the world
thru photography is strongly influenced by their thoughts
on art.
To
the negative of the word, when someone states my work as
a given style, it makes me wonder, if I am becoming repetitive.
Am I perfecting a concept, or just shooting the same basic
thing over, and over again? In short, does the viewer see
a consistency they like, or do they see the work as getting
stale? From that viewpoint, when I start hearing the word
style applied repeatedly to my work, I see it as a time
to move on, and try something new. I may revisit as concept,
but I don’t want to be pigeon holed, or limited to
single vision, a single style.
In
the long term, I really do not want to be known for a specific
style, or genre, I really do not want to limit myself, and
my vision in that way. I do however hope that the viewer
does see some basic consistencies in my work.
And
what are those consistencies? I wish the viewer to see strong
use of light and shadow, dramatic use of light. Whether
it’s ambient, or artificial, I want them to notice
how the light, the setup, was an integral part of the creation.
That light, paints the story, creates depth, and emotion.
To me, the way light plays across a subject or an object
is as critical as the subject itself. It’s all about
the light.
How did you start with photography?
Which
time? I’ve had a couple of starts, and false starts
with photography
As
a kid, a camera was always a part of my life. My first camera
was a garage sale roll film camera. I’m sure now,
that it would be classed as a Holga or Diana, but, I use
to have quite a bit of fun with it, but my parents could
never figure out why I took pictures of stuff around the
yard, the fence, details of the garage, that sort of thing.
Eventually, I wore the thing out, and gave up on it as a
creative outlet.
In
high school and college, I bought my first used 35mm, and
shot as much as I could with it. Some landscape, in college,
I even shot some nudes (girl friends/friends and the like),
and seriously considered it as a career. Family pressures,
and unfortunate loss of the camera shelved my ambitions
in the field. I did not pick up another serious camera for
almost 12 years.
My
current bend in photography started some years ago. My wife,
sensing that I needed a creative outlet, gifted me with
a 35mm just like the one I lost some years before. Meant
to be more of a sentimental item then anything else, she
was quite surprised when I took off with vengeance, and
within a year, built a complete darkroom. She is also the
reason I started working with models, I think she was tired
of me pointing a camera at her.
Would
you ever work as a photographer for the adult industry?
Define
Adult? My work is aimed at an adult audience. By adult,
I mean an audience mature enough to see beyond the nudity
of the subject, to see thru to the beauty of form, the composition,
and the lighting.
If
you mean adult, as in just for titillation, tossing out
artistic merit, then no, not interested. If I can contain
some artistic control, the ability to work with the editors,
then I am willing to listen to what they have to say.
Erotic
and Erotica? Yes. Crotch shots for the sake of an anatomy
lesson? No.
What is the biggest difference between erotic art photography
and the porn photography?
I
recently had a model comment: “One man’s art
is another man’s porn” and, I believe it. By
a number of societies standards, my photography is porn.
By my standards, it is not. So, by basis of what I do, I
do not attempt to differentiate between porn and art for
the viewer at large. Each individual viewer needs to make
that differentiation, and decide for himself or herself.
Whatever conclusion they draw, I can live with, because
by my definition, my work is artistic in nature.
In
viewing other people’s work, I do tend to look beyond
the above statement and attempt to draw a conclusion. And
the basic question I ask myself: Does it cause me to think
beyond the image presented? Do I wish to study it? Study
the composition, the lighting, and the mood? Do I find myself
viewing a story greater than the photograph? Is there more
to it than one more naked body, involved in various acts?
Is my emotional reaction deeper/greater than a physical
response to the appearance of an attractive body?
That
is the test I apply. It works for me. Squares and rectangles.
Artistic photography can border on pornographic, but not
all porn is even close to artistic.
What is your view on digital photography and all
the new digital photography artists?
My
reflexive thought? I am sure the creator of the eight-track
player believed they were on to a major trend to last the
ages.
First off, I laud them for taking the risk of tackling a
growing medium. Notice I did not say new, it is no longer
new.
We
now have several years of this type of work to review, and
the question I ask is this: Look at the early examples,
those items that were termed as good, or even great when
first produced. Look at them today. Do they still have impact?
Do they still have artistic merit? Or, does a three-year-old
image look like a cheesy effect from a 40 year old B-budget
film?
So,
these works being created today, are they truly original,
or the re-use of someone else’s tools and technology?
If all you are doing is applying stock processes to an image,
then, I don’t think they will last. But, a good image
IS a good image, and, it will last.
I
have a personal aversion to the look of the plastic fantastic.
The subject that has had so many effects applied to them,
that they no longer look real. I like to see some pores
in the skin, a touch of imperfection, maybe even a scar
or mark or two. Those imperfections, those marks are the
story of a human being, a real person, someone, that has
lived life to get to the point they are standing in my studio.
Those
consumed with the use of technology to compensate for an
original lack of vision, or lack a mastery of the basics
of photography, are doomed to be a flash in the pan.
Now,
before you think I am against digital, guess again. I use
digital, just like I use 35mm and 120 film. I shoot everything
in between a Holga and a Hasselblad, depending on the need
of the shot. I even have my eyes on acquiring and 8x10 view
camera. The new digital technology is just one of the many
tools in my arsenal to capture the look, the feel, the mood
I am going for.
So,
what do I think of going digital? It’s another great
tool, but to limit myself to only that tool would be to
limit myself artistically.
What
do I think of everyone else going digital? There’s
some great, some good, and some definitely awful stuff out
there just like film. We’ll see if the good, and the
great are viewed that way in 20 years.
Why does the model play such a big creative part in the
photographs? Isn't it just a matter of instructing her how
to stand and look?
Too
the second question. Absolutely not! The model/subject is
almost always an integral part of the creative process.
If they were not, I know a guy that works for a company
that makes true to life mannequins… Who needs a model?
All right, there are times where I am shooting a highly
stylized concept, and the models input is minimal, but those
are few and far between. Most of the time, I have in depth
discussions with the subject, to determine what, and how
we are going to shoot. My basic thought is that the subject
knows how their body moves, know how it flows knows how
to present themselves to the world. From that point, it
is a matter of providing direction to adjust for composition,
lighting and the environment. So, you have to work with
them, work with the subject to create a compelling composition.
Often
times, the best shots are those that are completely by accident.
The subject doing something “between” shots
and producing a look, and mood that I like. I’ll stop
her, and tell to back up and “do that again”.
In
the case of amateurs, and private commissions, the above
holds very true, but with professional models, the problem,
is just the opposite.
I
do work with pro models from time to time. These people
know how to move, how to look good, and they have achieved
this ability by working with many, many photographers. With
some, it’s almost to the point that they have stock
looks, and stock poses they know will work, and work well.
My job, in this case, is to break them out of that mold,
make them do something they have not done before, in a way,
no one has presented. So, even in this case, it is still
collaboration, by virtue of the fact I’ve told the
model my thoughts up front and, want to work with them to
create something new, and original.
So.
It is always collaboration in my opinion, there is not much
worse than a subject showing up, and just standing there,
waiting for me to twist them up like a pretzel, and shoot
them.
Why should people purchase your work?
Wow. Right between the eyes. Good Question. Why.
That, is a question I ask myself, every time I produce a
piece of work. Why? Why did I shoot it, Why Did I like it
enough to print and publish it? And why would anyone want
to own it. Not buy it, but own it. There’s a slight
difference.
The
idea of owning it is without monetary connotation. That
is to say, they enjoy it enough they would like to have
a copy: preferably put it on a wall, or at the very least,
put it away in an album for safekeeping. So remove the price
tag, and ask the question if people find it appealing enough
to want to call it theirs. I hope so.
And
that’s why someone should buy my work. That I am able
to capture something, a moment, a feeling a mood, a simple
play of light and form, that speaks to them beyond the image,
beyond a process applied to paper. That my work so motivates
them to an emotion greater than just viewing another beautiful
naked woman.
That’s
why I sell my work, why I attach a price to it. The price,
although inline with the realities of the world, is meant
as much to be a statement by the buyer, That they feel so
moved by the piece to own it, and then purchase it.
Where do you want to be in 25years from now?
Anywhere above ground and still breathing would
be a good thing. All jokes aside, where, and more importantly,
doing what?
In
my career:
In
25 years, I still hope to be producing original work. I’d
like to think that I would still have the opportunity to
use film and enjoy the darkroom, as I do now. I’m
hoping that I have had the opportunity to explore other
older processes, and formats such as view cameras and Platinum
printing. I’m hoping that I also stay abreast of the
tools and techniques of the time, and if I do become a relic,
that I have the wisdom and insightfulness to realize it.
Physically,
geographically, and emotionally
I hope that I am still working on some of my current series
and thoughts. I see them as continuations of a life long
process.
I
hope, I have had the opportunity to work with some more
great talent, in great locations, and to have traveled Europe
extensively.
I
hope, in 25 years, that I will have found a place on earth
that:
I
am free to create, be who I want to be, who I am to the
fullest.
I
am respected, and accepted. You don’t have to like
me, or my work, just respect, and accept, as I do the same
for them. Respect and acceptance of others, and their viewpoints
seems to be commodities that are in short supply here in
the Midwest of the United States
That,
in this place, wherever on the globe it may be, I can be
with the one I love. Share the world; share our creative
and artistic vision, together. And that together, we will
still have the power to see the beauty of the moment, whatever
it may be.
