Clock of Jean-Claude Lemagny

[elliot_n]

Interesting that you mention sacred art. Walter Benjamin argued that this sort of art had an 'aura', and that photography was responsible for destroying aura. (Though he seems to allow auratic (mystical?) qualities to some very early examples of photography.)

Both Benjamin and Barthes seem to be engaging with what makes photography different from other mediums. It's not clear to me whether Lemagny is doing this.

Are the essays where he describes the clock available online (in the original French)?

[Ivophoto]

Interesting that you mention sacred art. Walter Benjamin argued that this sort of art had an 'aura', and that photography was responsible for destroying aura. (Though he seems to allow auratic (mystical?) qualities to some very early examples of photography.)

Both Benjamin and Barthes seem to be engaging with what makes photography different from other mediums. It's not clear to me whether Lemagny is doing this.

Are the essays where he describes the clock available online (in the original French)?

I think there are books available in the native language, should be. I’ll do some research.

[KLaban]

...For many years, simply "look for the good pictures, print them, stick them on my wall" was a good enough purpose, a good enough plan of action. It still serves many people on LuLa perfectly well, and in a way I am a little jealous of them.

The stick 'em on my wall purpose is not one that I've ever adopted or have ever been the slightest bit interested in adopting, but at least it is a purpose. I have though stuck 'em on a lot of other folks walls.

As a working painter, illustrator and photographer my purpose was to earn a buck. Now the purpose is to satisfy a passionate, continuing and compulsive need to make images. In addition it's a wonderful excuse - as if one was needed - to visit those places that have always turned my head, drawn my eye. Place and purpose, purpose and place, which is the more important, should I care? The fact is the purpose, my purpose, is purpose enough.

[amolitor]

Here's something to think about. A fashion shot in the contemporary style. It's nominally about jeans, and the desire for expensive ones. But note the color of the trees in the background, compared to the color of the jeans. Notice that the railing hits her waist pretty much dead on. Then notice where the horizon line hits their jeans. None of these things are accidents. This is a wildly, profoundly, constructed photograph.

Where does it land on the documentary-external/conceptual-internal spectrum?
Where does it land on the about-the-subject/about-the-photograph spectrum?

I find it to be quite fluid in both dimensions.

But, while I cannot pin the thing down on Lemagny's clock, the clock does provide an interesting framework for thinking about the various ways in which this thing exists, was made, and can be understood.

[elliot_n]

Interesting picture. 3 o'clock (straight-up fashion shot). 6 o'clock (the visual games you refer to).

[Ivophoto]

Here's something to think about. A fashion shot in the contemporary style. It's nominally about jeans, and the desire for expensive ones. But note the color of the trees in the background, compared to the color of the jeans. Notice that the railing hits her waist pretty much dead on. Then notice where the horizon line hits their jeans. None of these things are accidents. This is a wildly, profoundly, constructed photograph.

Where does it land on the documentary-external/conceptual-internal spectrum?
Where does it land on the about-the-subject/about-the-photograph spectrum?

I find it to be quite fluid in both dimensions.

But, while I cannot pin the thing down on Lemagny's clock, the clock does provide an interesting framework for thinking about the various ways in which this thing exists, was made, and can be understood.

Very interesting example.
This is where it becomes exciting imo. Where a ‘model’ gets challenged by a keen producer how he picks up a image from a spot on the clock an drops it bluntly on a different location to make it work.
Like using a street picture according ‘the’ definition and use it to sell Fanta.

Like a bicycle used as decoration piece on a loft wall.

Ceci n’est pas une pipe?

[Rob C]

Here's something to think about. A fashion shot in the contemporary style. It's nominally about jeans, and the desire for expensive ones. But note the color of the trees in the background, compared to the color of the jeans. Notice that the railing hits her waist pretty much dead on. Then notice where the horizon line hits their jeans. None of these things are accidents. This is a wildly, profoundly, constructed photograph.

Where does it land on the documentary-external/conceptual-internal spectrum?
Where does it land on the about-the-subject/about-the-photograph spectrum?

I find it to be quite fluid in both dimensions.

But, while I cannot pin the thing down on Lemagny's clock, the clock does provide an interesting framework for thinking about the various ways in which this thing exists, was made, and can be understood.

How do you know that, Andrew?

There's no way of knowing how much of such photography is left to the snapper, how much is directed by a huddle around a monitor, how much is pure accident (bad one) and how much is just making the most of a lousy situation, location and even wose clothing?

I've done a lot of this sort of work and it's sometimes totally dependent on making the best of somebody else's rotten ideas.

Anybody with a minimum of visual ability will automatically find, instantly, the shape that best combines the background with the subject; that's all it is, automatic judgement and hardly a great deal of "wildly, profoundly, constructed photograph."

You layer too much science onto fashion photography; it's a percentage talent, a percentage chutzpah, a massive pecentage of rapport and another percentage of good luck or bad.

Trying to turn this stuff into a science and something beyond the snapshot is crazy.

[elliot_n]

Some background:

https://www.marketing-interactive.com/calvin-klein-launched-fall-2018-multimedia-campaign-featuring-new-jeans/

[Ivophoto]

Some background:

https://www.marketing-interactive.com/calvin-klein-launched-fall-2018-multimedia-campaign-featuring-new-jeans/

I would not underestimate Raf Simons, Belgians can be smart, you know

[Rob C]

Even the jeans fail any originality test. I've seen that kind of patchwork rubbish around for years. Local markets out here have sold stuff like it over many years; walking through the local one today, I see very tight jeans with spangles right down the legs (for about nine euros! My Levis cost around a hundred and twenty or so) so maybe the commercial's already out of date. It's what happens: the street's always faster than behemoths and fashions either persist a while or die rapidly. Either way, China smiles.

Guess used to do it well.

[amolitor]

Rob, I cannot say with any certainty how the photo from Calvin Klein got that way. Photoshop? Careful framing? There was probably a whole group of people involved, as you suggest, but perhaps the precise framing was one person's genius rather than the result of a conference? Who knows!

But I am certain that it is not a coincidence. Modern fashion photography is insanely controlled. It's completely maniacal. Some of them are crafted to look structured, made, but others are made to look loose and spontaneous. The building in the background is the same color as the earrings, or whatever, which could be a coincidence except than you notice that there actually are no other hues in the background, just different values of the same hue, and the entire background is the same color as the model's outfit and even her eyes are the same color. It's kind of creepy, and almost entirely subliminal if you're not attentively picking the pictures apart.

While I am fascinated by the whole thing I am at something of a loss as to the point.

Is it purely showing off for one another? Does it actually sell jeans, somehow? Is there some ridiculous theory behind it all? Is it just that marketing directors are tyrants and this is some way they show off their power?

[Rob C]

Rob, I cannot say with any certainty how the photo from Calvin Klein got that way. Photoshop? Careful framing? There was probably a whole group of people involved, as you suggest, but perhaps the precise framing was one person's genius rather than the result of a conference? Who knows!

But I am certain that it is not a coincidence. Modern fashion photography is insanely controlled. It's completely maniacal. Some of them are crafted to look structured, made, but others are made to look loose and spontaneous. The building in the background is the same color as the earrings, or whatever, which could be a coincidence except than you notice that there actually are no other hues in the background, just different values of the same hue, and the entire background is the same color as the model's outfit and even her eyes are the same color. It's kind of creepy, and almost entirely subliminal if you're not attentively picking the pictures apart.

While I am fascinated by the whole thing I am at something of a loss as to the point.

Is it purely showing off for one another? Does it actually sell jeans, somehow? Is there some ridiculous theory behind it all? Is it just that marketing directors are tyrants and this is some way they show off their power?

The more complex you make a gig appear, the more easy it is to collect the money.

I sometimes look at the many Peter Lindbergh videos where he has that large shadow box structure erected on a beach or up on a roof somewhere; there's always a million lights visible, but looking at the stills shots when I find them, they appear to be pretty simply lit. How much is essential and how much no more than the same game I used to play on studio shoots, where I knew before the people arrived that it was going to be shot on Nikon, but the Hasselblads and lenses were all casually on display, too, is anybody's guess... It builds gravitas and lets the people that have to be there feel confident you're not a pauper and have probably earned your place at the table. Like the expensive car, then.

:-)

[elliot_n]

Whether the formal elements that Andrew has highlighted were the intention of the photographer, or were only noticed by the art director after the event — or were perhaps not noticed at all (though this seems unlikely) — it hardly matters. Those elements are there, and they serve to activate the image. I don't see this as a harmonious combination of foreground and background elements (i.e. a 'good' composition), but rather an arrangement of those elements such that they create a sense of visual disorientation - similar to the way in which Lee Friedlander bolts a fluffy cloud on top of a signpost. And so the image points back to the medium, highlighting how one-eyed photographic vision works differently from human vision. Jan Groover, with her still-lifes in the 70s, was making a similar play. (Whether such tactics are at 6 or 12 o'clock on Lemagny's clock, I'm not sure.)

[Rob C]

Whether the formal elements that Andrew has highlighted were the intention of the photographer, or were only noticed by the art director after the event — or were perhaps not noticed at all (though this seems unlikely) — it hardly matters. Those elements are there, and they serve to activate the image. I don't see this as a harmonious combination of foreground and background elements (i.e. a 'good' composition), but rather an arrangement of those elements such that they create a sense of visual disorientation - similar to the way in which Lee Friedlander bolts a fluffy cloud on top of a signpost. And so the image points back to the medium, highlighting how one-eyed photographic vision works differently from human vision. Jan Groover, with her still-lifes in the 70s, was making a similar play. (Whether such tactics are at 6 or 12 o'clock on Lemagny's clock, I'm not sure.)

I'm sorry to appear a bit thick here, but I don't feel any disorientation at all with the picture. It seems to be a perfectly straightforward shot of two people standing on a plank or platform and leaning against some tubular structure with a bit of landscape in the background.

Now, if the video layout - the attempt to ape the American flag - is genuine or not, or a paste up of different boxes assembled in post, my iPad's too tiny to show. I'd be surprised if Cindy would be happy to allow her daughter to risk her life up a scaffolding that looks pretty shakey at best. Seen as a single image and not a composite (the video) would tick the box for disorienting, but from a fear of heights point of view rather than one of visual perception of what's real or otherwise.

But as with all modern concepts, I'm prepared to admit I'm probably missing something.

:-)

[amolitor]

Looking at the full spread (which also appears in the mag but I admit I did not inspect it closely at the time) it looks as if what *might* have happened is that the horizon line was hitting the models near thigh height, and someone said "hey, let's arrange them to fit the horizon line" and thence followed a lot of minute adjustments of camera height, and a lot of yelling and shuffling models around and adjusting poses (by radio, natch because the distances were pretty great).

This admirably fits Rob's model of "look, we're burning a couple million bucks here, best we generate a great deal of activity to make it look like we're earning our lunch, eh?"

I can visualize a lot of similar things "Nah nah nah that truck's color is all wrong it's got to match her purse, wot? Go round me up another truck, but it's got to be THAT color, see? see? Here, take the purse with you to the lot and pick out the right truck this time and make it snappy!" all for an out of focus blob in the distance.

Even if it is just a scam to fluff up the budgets, does it work?

elliot, do you believe that these surrealist (if that's even the right word) elements affect us even if we don't consciously note them? Your remarks suggest that you do?

[elliot_n]

I'm sorry to appear a bit thick here, but I don't feel any disorientation at all with the picture.

It's the same with the Friedlander image. Some people won't notice that he's fixed the cloud to the signpost. And others, when they do notice, will only shrug. That's ok.

https://www.rubixephoto.com/2017/08/08/mejora-fotografia-calle-street-photography-lee-friedlander/

[elliot_n]

elliot, do you believe that these surrealist (if that's even the right word) elements affect us even if we don't consciously note them? Your remarks suggest that you do?

I'm not sure, Andrew. All I know is that as soon as I saw that image, I noticed the exact same things you did:

- the patches on the models' jeans line up with the horizon
- the girl's black belt lines up with the metal bar behind her
- the colour of the background foliage matches the denim

And one other thing - the patches on each model's jeans, seem to have been taken from the other model.

Maybe these things are just easter eggs for students of photographic form?

Rob sees nothing remarkable - just a straight-up snapshot.

I do have an ongoing interest in photographs which are visually disorientating. Perhaps I'm too easily disorientated.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I'm not sure, Andrew. All I know is that as soon as I saw that image, I noticed the exact same things you did:

- the patches on the models' jeans line up with the horizon
- the girl's black belt lines up with the metal bar behind her
- the colour of the background foliage matches the denim

And one other thing - the patches on each model's jeans, seem to have been taken from the other model.

Maybe these things are just easter eggs for students of photographic form?

Rob sees nothing remarkable - just a straight-up snapshot.

I do have an ongoing interest in photographs which are visually disorientating. Perhaps I'm too easily disorientated.

I have looked at the same mage again and again. I personally think it’s fantastic. If that’s just luck I wish I was that lucky.

[faberryman]

Am I stating the obvious when I note that this shot was taken on set with a photograph as the background.

[elliot_n]

Am I stating the obvious when I note that this shot was taken on set with a photograph as the background.

It's not obvious to me.