JUROR’S STATEMENT, September 19, 2005
Congratulations, first of all, to all the photographers participating in this year’s Juried Photo Show. The level of excellence was quite good all around, and the winning entries are fine examples of the emotional depth and social importance that photography is capable of.
First of all, to briefly explain the selection process: it’s not possible to include ALL the work that is submitted, so unfortunately, some criteria must be applied to the work in order to achieve the goals of the Arts Center, yet still encourage work by beginning photographers as well as include work from the more accomplished participants.
The first criteria would be the artist’s choice of subject matter and the artist’s interpretation of that subject matter. Photography is the act of pointing a camera at something, and seeing it. If the photographer can show us something as if we are seeing it for the first time, he or she succeeds in engaging our attention. For instance, unique subjects that display a distinct emotional depth, personal interpretations of subjects that communicate a sense of awareness or humanity, imaginative perspectives that convey a sense of irony or humor, and significant subjects that explore great social or artistic themes would all be welcome in a show of this kind. Subjects that border on the derivative or overly photographed might easily be passed by.
The next criteria would be technique. Technique is a tool that allows artists to realize the emotional or intellectual depth of the subject; to convey its meaning in a way that is essential to the image itself. The technique used to realize the image should render the image meaningful and memorable. If technique overpowers the subject and becomes the subject itself, then the first criteria, the important subject matter, may be rendered secondary and less vital. The technique, no matter if it’s in a straight print, an alternative process, or a Photoshop tool, should emphasize and enhance the subject of the photograph, rather than try to impress us with a magician’s sleight of hand. There’s a fine line between vision and confusion. If effects are what you are after, ask yourself, "Why?" If the answer is meant simply to impress, then remember, less is more. It's one of the hallmarks of great art: knowing when enough is enough. The artist refines more by elimination and simplification than by trying to cast the net too far. As Da Vinci said: “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” I would tend to agree.
Technical excellence, on the other hand, is a slightly different area of concern. Images that fail at technical excellence are more likely to be passed by. Examples of lesser work would be landscape photographs that are not sharp due to focus problems or camera motion (unless motion or focus IS the subject), Photoshop images that are of poor resolution or overly manipulated, computer prints that are not printed well, color prints that are not color corrected, B&W images with poor contrast, or any print not mounted well. Images with problems such as these will usually give way to more accomplished work. My advice to landscape photographers: unless an image is tack sharp, keep it small. The larger your print, the more apparent will be the failings of your equipment; 35mm is not the ideal format for this work. And using the sharpening tool in Photoshop will not help. Ansel Adams used a large format camera for good reason.
There should be a strong intent behind every choice that the photographer makes: the all-important choice of subject matter, the personal perspective or point of view, the framing (photography is an act of selection and elimination), the details that make up the composition, and (perhaps most unique to photography) the moment that is chosen to open the shutter. These are the criteria that should be considered for every image, and the stronger your vision, the deeper your image reaches into our consciousness. Lofty goals perhaps, but we should all set our sights, inevitably, at higher marks.
That said, I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to see your work, and encourage each one of you to continue with your efforts. It’s all a learning experience ... and this is solely my view of the medium of photography. Another juror's view could easily be coming from a different place, and that's what makes juried shows such as this such a challenge.
John Hames, 2005
Addendum:
The winning entries … the Honorable Mentions:
1. A tiny, size-is-not-everything, image of an eggplant (?), seen from below as if monumental, yet only two inches square; a pinhole image, a rare albumen print, warm, soft, delicate, distinctive, illuminated as if from within; a perfectly realized less-is-more image.
2. The silhouette of a man, walking away from the viewer, with indistinct buildings and trees in the background almost as if etched away or scraped off the surface of the print, leaving the lonely shape of the man, forlorn, alienated, alone and lost, walking into the nameless beyond; a scene straight from Camus; a gum-bichromate print, an ‘unphotographic’ process perhaps, but one that plumbs an emotional depth, perfectly accomplishing the intent of the artist.
3. A pinhole image of a woman, nude, interior, partly in shade, partly in direct but gentle light, a beautiful, soft-focus image, glowing skin, harkening back to 19th century Pictorial imagery, and the classical study of the eternal nude: romantic, timeless, shameless, and not so perfect as to be unattainable.
4. A gorgeous color print of a flower, an exotic plant, a weaving, mesmerizing web of petals and leaves, all texture and intense lighting, a clarity that allows us to smell the fragrance (imagine!), that dramatizes what could easily have been a boring subject, yet this one glows with a translucence as if the photograph itself were alive and breathing.
The three Prize Winners:
Third Prize: A simple image of a bedroom, a made bed, a cast iron bed frame, a window beyond the bed, bare walls, dark interior. Floating, as if above the bed, or in our imagination, appears a faint image of a small boy, and a woman (his mother?), affecting, simple, and perfectly printed. The poignancy of the work - the bare bedroom, the faint image - almost like a recollection, it does just that: brings us back to the memories contained in photographs by reminding us that the image of boy and woman is not real, they are not there, all we are left with is the memory.
Second Prize: A simple image of a pregnant woman, nude, except for a fine veil over her entire body: a death shroud? Upon the edges of the veil are what seem like highlights, or reflections, of a lace-like pattern, a glowing outline, translucent, describing her curvature, her fullness, almost as if an aura surrounds her, defining her soul; an apparition? Her beautiful eyes looking right at us, as if she knows that we are looking at her; as if to challenge our notions of beauty and modesty, life and death; as if looking at us from a transcendent place where we cannot go.
First Prize: An astonishingly sad image; a naked woman, kneeling in supplication, surrounded by the faces and cameras of what appear to be soldiers staring at her, gaping, taking pictures. She sits in front of them, as if on display; we view the scene from behind the woman, her face hidden, her head hanging, as if in shame. We see the faces of the men, as if nothing is wrong, as if they are enjoying this, as if they want more. We are moved to pity, to concern, to outrage. We want to stop them, somehow to save her, but her face is already lost, the damage done. A sad, powerful, indictment of exploitation and oppression … this is reality, the photographer’s most vital, crucial (and most challenging) subject … disturbing, powerful, memorable: the essence of a socially conscious photograph.
Congratulations to all for well-seen, beautifully presented, powerful images.
