Clock of Jean-Claude Lemagny

[Ivo_B]

Ok, I tried to translate using DEEPL. I hope it make sense.

Extract from 'Beeldcultuur' an essay written by Johan Swinnen: Founder of institute of arts in Antwerp, Lector on the University of Brussels, and lector on the Sorbonne in Paris.

2.3 'THE CLOCK' OF JEAN-CLAUDE LEMAGNY

The analysis model of the Parisian photo historian Lemagny in the form of an analogue clock attempts to create an order in contemporary photography. The clock consists of four segments, each divided into areas of interest. The advantages of this model are the flexible handling and the fact that it introduces a number of concepts that make it possible to distinguish and name a whole number of aspects of the photo content.

For convenience we will indicate the different points on the circle as on a dial: 12 o'clock at the top, 6 o'clock at the bottom, 3 o'clock at the right and 9 o'clock at the left. The vertical axis (or north-south, or 12 o'clock - 6 o'clock) is the photo as a photo, the photo that questions itself. At 12 o'clock we find the photo as an idea of itself, the conceptual photo, and at 6 o'clock we find the photo as a material reality, as a sensitive surface, as a tangible object. At 12 o'clock it is about the idea of the photograph as a trace of 'it was' (dixit semioticus Roland Barthes), and at 6 o'clock it is about the photograph as an objective fact (pixels-gelatin-salt-silver-paper).

The horizontal axis is no longer that of the photo that questions itself, but that of the photo that questions a separate reality. The answer to the question 'What is photography?' is no longer 'the image one forms of it' (as at 12 o'clock) or 'pixels, gelatine, silver and so on' (as at 6 o'clock), but 'a means of showing the outer reality' (at 3 o'clock) or 'a means of expressing the inner reality' (at 9 o'clock).

-At 3 o'clock we find the direct, engaged report, like the war report. Think of the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Klein, Koen Wessing, Nan Goldin, Carl De Keyzer, Martin Parr, Mario Giacomelli, Bmno Stevens and Robert Capa, among others.

At 6 o'clock we find the so-called abstract tendencies, which are interested in the materiality of the photograph and in its suitability to represent the material. This is where the work belongs, for example:
Pierre Cordier Julien Coulommier, Vik Muniz, Jürgen Klauke, Arnul fRainer, Jan Dibbets and Luigi Ghirri

At 9 o'clock we find the dream and what we call 'the surreal', like Duane Michals, Bernard Plossu, Arnoud Claass, Nobuyoshi Araki, Dirk Braeckman, Dieter Appelt, Robert Mapplethorpe.

At 12 o'clock we then see photographs that the author did not even take, but which he shows so that we might think about the nature of photographs in general.
Think of the work of Christian Boltanski, Marcel Broodthaers, Michael Snow, Joachim Schmid, Thomas Hirschhorn, Joan Fontcuberta, John Hilliard.

Those four main points, which serve to orient us, are in fact contact points, and the only thing that exists is the route from one point to another. So when we start at 12 o'clock and go with the hands of the clock, we start from a photo that is completely neutral and transparent in relation to its utilitarian function (for example, a family photo) and go to a photo that witnesses an increasingly harsh and expressive reality in order to arrive at the war or catastrophe photo (3 hours) Along the way we come across works that show a perfect balance between content and expression. If we continue our journey after 3 hours we come across images whose form is becoming increasingly important.
First because they show very violent events in themselves, then because they represent increasingly extravagant and even outright distorted forms. In this way we come to the realisation that a photograph is only a whole of forms that consist of the black of silver salts; these photographs border on the so-called abstract works.

From 6 am to 9 pm we go from matter to dream, and the point of equilibrium (around 7.30 am) is then found among the authors who have managed to reconcile the presence of the object and the inner life. The works gradually become permeated by an increasingly internalized mystery until we find ourselves, at 9 o'clock, in the middle of the surreal, with images composed of all possible elements so that others can share the inner vision of the photographer. In the last quarter of the circle we go from the dream to the concept. We find more and more direct and even banal photographs, but at the same time they are moments of the photographer's inner life as a visual being. Finally, we reach 12 hours through works that want to be nothing but what they want to say in the most intellectual or popular way.

EXIT:

Just as the compass rose gives the sailor the freedom to go where he wants, so this scheme leaves the user free to place photos on the clock as he sees fit. The model is a practical tool that allows us to become familiar with the variety of images we use to create our own pictures.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

[Ivo_B]

A nice story I want to share as well: (also from this nice booklet)

The parable of the hunter.

The traditional photographer believes there are meanings in reality as the hunter knows there are rabbits in the field.
It comes to him to hunt, to aim, to shoot, to bring home the loot triumphantly.

The innovative photographer knows that the rabbits do not really exist, that it is his own mind that sticks meanings to reality.

And this summarizes perfectly what I believe is the difference between stifled by genre and definition and liberated by unchaining ourselves from the latter.

[elliot_n]

Extract from 'Beeldcultuur' an essay written by Johan Swinnen: Founder of institute of arts in Antwerp, Lector on the University of Brussels, and lector on the Sorbonne in Paris.

Ah, he's the author of the encyclopaedia article I linked to earlier:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cFVsBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=Jean+Claude+Lemagny+clock&source=bl&ots=dyUcsaTf4_&sig=KLsahat90ZFNFFEHiPk3Sn2Scwo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGoJ24u8XeAhXGK8AKHda0D20Q6AEwC3oECF0QAQ#v=onepage&q=Jean%20Claude%20Lemagny%20clock&f=false

Thanks for posting this translation. He makes a good attempt at explaining the 'content', 'form', 'object', 'subject' categories.

But I still find it all very confusing

For example, is it right to equate abstraction with materiality?

[32BT]

A nice story I want to share as well: (also from this nice booklet)

The parable of the hunter.

The traditional photographer believes there are meanings in reality as the hunter knows there are rabbits in the field.
It comes to him to hunt, to aim, to shoot, to bring home the loot triumphantly.

The innovative photographer knows that the rabbits do not really exist, that it is his own mind that sticks meanings to reality.

And this summarizes perfectly what I believe is the difference between stifled by genre and definition and liberated by unchaining ourselves from the latter.

I do not necessarily want to be dragged down this rabbithole, but Genre is a stickerlabel you place after the hunt, not during the hunt. When publishing material you don't get to sticker you labels randomly because there has to be a reasonable subset of understanding. Sticking meaning to reality is a learned response exactly because there was a reasonable subset to exchange meaningful communication with.

If you want to converse with other people, like we do on this forum, either through words and verbal language, or through images and visual language, it helps tremendously to attempt to conform to some conventions. It doesn't mean you need to be conventional, but "innovation" or "experimentation" is not a free pass to explain away "misunderstanding" by the rest of the world. We already touched upon Shutter Island didn't we?

;-)

[Ivophoto]

I do not necessarily want to be dragged down this rabbithole, but Genre is a stickerlabel you place after the hunt, not during the hunt. When publishing material you don't get to sticker you labels randomly because there has to be a reasonable subset of understanding. Sticking meaning to reality is a learned response exactly because there was a reasonable subset to exchange meaningful communication with.

If you want to converse with other people, like we do on this forum, either through words and verbal language, or through images and visual language, it helps tremendously to attempt to conform to some conventions. It doesn't mean you need to be conventional, but "innovation" or "experimentation" is not a free pass to explain away "misunderstanding" by the rest of the world. We already touched upon Shutter Island didn't we?

;-)

When leaving the house with a 35mm lens, taking position on a pedestrian crossing, or leaning to a light pole, is that not a preset to do street?

Or carrying a 500mm on a Manfrotto with gimbal, is that not a preset to shoot birds or other stuff that fly or run?

Walking around with a TS17mm on a Arca Suisse, could that point in a certain direction of genre?


Or do we take an Iceland cruise to shoot cityscapes?


There is more sticker labeling before the hunt than you imagine. Not?

A photographer walking out with his 500mm excludes himself from shooting a wide landscape. That’s not a problem, but imagine somebody find landscape only valid when shot with wide angle. Is that not stupid?

I don’t have any issue with a label or genre to categorize, I have an issue to ignore what does not comply to the definition, because that blocks any evolution

[Ivophoto]

If you want to converse with other people, like we do on this forum, either through words and verbal language, or through images and visual language, it helps tremendously to attempt to conform to some conventions. It doesn't mean you need to be conventional, but "innovation" or "experimentation" is not a free pass to explain away "misunderstanding" by the rest of the world. We already touched upon Shutter Island didn't we?

;-)

Well, I agree on syntax, it prevents Babylonian confusion. But that should not leave themes where syntax is not yet defined be unspoken.

I do not agree on visual language. This should be as free as possible. Not saying that a kind of guide to find a way in this image culture labyrinth is not helpful.

I’m a bit a visual anarchist, maybe.

[Rob C]

1. When leaving the house with a 35mm lens, taking position on a pedestrian crossing, or leaning to a light pole, is that not a preset to do street?

2. Or carrying a 500mm on a Manfrotto with gimbal, is that not a preset to shoot birds or other stuff that fly or run?

3. Walking around with a TS17mm on a Arca Suisse, could that point in a certain direction of genre?

4. Or do we take an Iceland cruise to shoot cityscapes?



5. There is more sticker labeling before the hunt than you imagine. Not?

1. No. I always leave the house with one camera with one lens; I almost never have the slightest idea what I'm going to shoot or even if I'm going to shoot at all.

2. I never shoot birds now that I'm an adult. I used to as a horrid kid, then skin them. If I venture out with my 500mm it's to get doughnuts, regardless of what the subject may be; it's why I bought one for the second time - lens, not a doughnut. I never buy doughnuts; they were best made chez moi. Maybe doughnuts become the genre?

3. Egotism; pride; diverted Leicaphilia?

4. I've never been to, and have no intentions of going there, but doesn't Reykjavik offer some cityscapes of a unique kind?

5. That's the stroke some folks strike. It's a selection, a choice; neither a rule nor an obligation.


;-)

[32BT]

I’m a bit a visual anarchist, maybe.

Visual anarchy is fine, perhaps sometimes even necessary, and if you want to educate people and turn them away from convention, simply make room for it. Do as Keith did, open a thread called "Unconventional Street" or "Experimental" whatever, but even you will likely agree that posting distinctly landscape images in a Street section for example is not going to help wean people off the conventions tit.

What if one might be as bold as opening an Anarchy thread in the Street section and start posting Landscape images there, that be punk, no?

[Ivophoto]

1. No. I always leave the house with one camera with one lens; I almost never have the slightest idea what I'm going to shoot or even if I'm going to shoot at all.

2. I never shoot birds now that I'm an adult. I used to as a horrid kid, then skin them. If I venture out with my 500mm it's to get doughnuts, regardless of what the subject may be; it's why I bought one for the second time - lens, not a doughnut. I never buy doughnuts; they were best made chez moi. Maybe doughnuts become the genre?

3. Egotism; pride; diverted Leicaphilia?

4. I've never been to, and have no intentions of going there, but doesn't Reykjavik offer some cityscapes of a unique kind?

5. That's the stroke some folks strike. It's a selection, a choice; neither a rule nor an obligation.


;-)

Sigh...

You also could confirm I have a point.
You little rascal, you.

[Ivophoto]

Visual anarchy is fine, perhaps sometimes even necessary, and if you want to educate people and turn them away from convention, simply make room for it. Do as Keith did, open a thread called "Unconventional Street" or "Experimental" whatever, but even you will likely agree that posting distinctly landscape images in a Street section for example is not going to help wean people off the conventions tit.

What if one might be as bold as opening an Anarchy thread in the Street section and start posting Landscape images there, that be punk, no?

Hm, I’m not sure why this heads in this direction....
This topic is about all but genres, that is pulled in somewhere, it seems difficult to get rid of it and talk in abstraction of genres.

Ok. No prob.

Of course I’m not going to put a landscape in a section for, let say, jewelry.
But I certainly will try to stretch and challenge the definition of the genre.

[32BT]

I mean in a general sense, not you specifically.

More on topic: perhaps it's interesting to see how Visual Anarchy can be approached with the clock? I always like to understand the extremes first. They usually simplify comprehension of the nuances.

[Ivophoto]

I mean in a general sense, not you specifically.

More on topic: perhaps it's interesting to see how Visual Anarchy can be approached with the clock? I always like to understand the extremes first. They usually simplify comprehension of the nuances.

Good idea, do you have a certain image in mind?

[Ivophoto]

What if one might be as bold as opening an Anarchy thread in the Street section and start posting Landscape images there, that be punk, no?

That’s not what I mean with visual anarchy.  The anarchy is in the creation not in the exhibit. (Although......)

Deep Purple with the philharmonic, is that reversed anarchy?

[32BT]

Good idea, do you have a certain image in mind?

How about your "horizontal girl on the beach" shot?
I think it fits something i would dub "surrealist street", might not be anarchist but i'm fairly sure it is unconventional enough to challenge existing ideas of street, no?

[Ivophoto]

How about your "horizontal girl on the beach" shot?
I think it fits something i would dub "surrealist street", might not be anarchist but i'm fairly sure it is unconventional enough to challenge existing ideas of street, no?

Yes. And that is why I posted it in the street section. And that was the start of the mildly flame war against me by certain individuals. It is somewhere on the left side of the clock, but where exact? Hm.

[amolitor]

I am failing to see any kind of logical/philosophical basis for the "clock" versus a simple XY chart.

The clock suggests that there is some sort of natural progression from 12, to 3, to 6, to 9, and back to 12. But what I am seeing is more of two independent variables, "the photo as representation" versus "the photo as an object itself" in the vertical axis, and a "inner reality" versus "outer reality" in the horizontal axis.

[Ivophoto]

But what I am seeing is more of two independent variables, "the photo as representation" versus "the photo as an object itself" in the vertical axis, and a "inner reality" versus "outer reality" in the horizontal axis.

Exact. See the translated text I posted earlier.

[amolitor]

The translated text left me still unsure what the clock was doing in there

I can grasp the "clock" as a sort of guided tour through what is, ultimately, a 2 dimensional space, and that makes sense. The circle of the clock's face is pleasant and symmetrical, but I don't see that it has any special privilege over any other meandering path.

Having identified the model as representing 2 independent variables, the natural question of "well, what about this other variable? Or that?" arises

But let's set that aside.

I happen to think, having thought about it a great deal, that placing photographs into scheme merely "as themselves" independent of other factor doesn't work. A photograph can appear surreal in one context, viewed or interpreted in another, but as straight documentary in another. One presentation might show the photograph-as-object, another the photograph-as-representation.

A closeup of watchworks might be seen as abstract, hung on the wall next to other closeups of other things. In a book about watchmaking, it would be documentary. Printed and hung in a show about printmaking techniques, it is a photo-as-object, the same print in a show about abstraction-through-closeup it becomes a photo-as-representation.

Schema like Jean-Claude's clock are thus best seen as ways to visualize, the categorize, our own understanding and reaction to a photograph. This is not to say that "it's all subjective" because it is not. In that book about watchmaking, most people will quite likely experience roughly similar reactions to, understandings of, the closeup photograph of the Tourbillion's inner workings. And that more-or-less shared grasping of the photograph can reasonably be discussed and dissected. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but to be honest if you aspire to make pictures for other people, it's worth a little bit of a think.

[amolitor]

Notably, to throw up a single photo in an already contentious forum thread is completely pointless.

Without some surround, we cannot hope to categorize our grasp of a picture. By surrounding it with pointless grumbling about street photography, other pictures intended only to provoke, and half-hearted philosophical conversation, how on earth are we to make much sense of the picture? It is surrounded only by a sort of surrealist mess of text, there is almost no way to discern anything of useful intent in the presentation.

So, to put up a photograph, alone, here, and to ask "where on the clock does this go?" is a meaningless question.

What pictures, if any, go with it? Is the picture to be imagined with a wide white mat and a narrow black frame on a featureless white wall in an expensive building called "a gallery"? Is the picture in a book of photographs of Warsaw? Do you intend me to imagine her as your mother, or as a stranger?

Photographs are not paintings. With a painting, presented without context, we at least have a default: we should imagine it in a massive gilt frame, hung alone on a wall. Photographs, contrariwise, have many lives, are seen in many ways and many places. Without at least a little guidance, we are at sea and have no hope of grasping the thing.

You might as well say "in Dickens book Our Mutual Friend there appears a short passage, what do you make of it: 'the'?"

[32BT]

Notably, to throw up a single photo in an already contentious forum thread is completely pointless.

Pointless to whom?

OP already mentioned he believes the exercise itself is meaningful enough for him and his photography.

That said: are you suggesting it could only be applied to a body of work?