Just for Fun No C&C will be given: An Abstract Series in Progress

Ken posted this developing series in a controversial and currently hot thread. We can look further at Ken's work here. ADK



I strongly echo Rachel's remark: "Oh, dear. What a can of worms. Asher, think carefully about this."

Among the strengths of OPF is that it's not Flickr. It's also not a gear hound club. It's a generally mature, thoughtful place where many aspects of the photographic process and photographic appreciation can be discussed. No, it's not really all that broad of a membership. But Asher makes sure that it remains an open-minded place.

It's also worth noting that many people are very involved in photography but never take a photo. I attended an event Friday evening where a handful of people dropped over a quarter million of their dollars on photographic art that would never pass muster on any Internet form -- including here. I doubt that any of the buyers ever attempt serious photography, either. But they're all deeply involved in supporting the photographic art community.

But like Doug, I'll punch my ticket to be on the safe side. None of these images have anything near the intended impact in such tiny form and at 72 dpi. Each features immersive detail which is lost here. But here are three from an abstract/expressionist series I've currently in development.

The second one is especially interesting.

Rachel Foster said:

The second one is especially interesting.

Click to expand...

Interesting, as in what?

Intriguing. It draws my eye and keeps it moreso than even the others. It's almost mesmerizing.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Interesting, as in what?

Click to expand...

They all show worms!

Haaaaaaaa! Nicely done, Nicolas.

Guys,

Look again. I think that these pictures must be seen as a group. We assume that Ken has serious intent and has not lost his mind. To me the series is about "order and disorder" in nature and our society. Unlike first order pictures, these do not give immediate eruptive experience, as in view a sunset, a naked person or a flying eagle. Such photographs we can all appreciate without even any thought. We look and then we react. On each subsequent glance we might understand more and even bring our whole life to be evaluated on this pictures new framework.

Here, however, the pictures do not pay off on a first glance unless we had already very strong references that moved us previously. These images therefore require cognition, thought, attention and pausing long enough to be able to find meaning, relevance and even significance to us. In order to fully appreciate the collection we take the risk that it's all a joke on us. However, it might not be and then we might miss out on a much richer sense of esthetics. That in itself, we may value highly for the boundaries the work tests and the opportunities we are given to apply our own values, wishes, and even baggage to this odd image architecture.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Guys,

Look again. I think that these pictures must be seen as a group. We assume that Ken has serious intent and has not lost his mind. To me the series is about "order and disorder" in nature and our society. Unlike first order pictures, these do not give immediate eruptive experience, as in view a sunset, a naked person or a flying eagle. Such photographs we can all appreciate without even any thought. We look and then we react. On each subsequent glance we might understand more and even bring our whole life to be evaluated on this pictures new framework.

Here, however, the pictures do not pay off on a first glance unless we had already very strong references that moved us previously. These images therefore require cognition, thought, attention and pausing long enough to be able to find meaning, relevance and even significance to us. In order to fully appreciate the collection we take the risk that it's all a joke on us. However, it might not be and then we might miss out on a much richer sense of esthetics. That in itself, we may value highly for the boundaries the work tests and the opportunities we are given to apply our own values, wishes, and even baggage to this odd image architecture.

Asher

Click to expand...

Hi Asher,

Firstly, my question to Rachel was serious as I wanted to know what she's meant to say with "interesting". I am taking these series of photographs by Ken very seriously, trust me. I have seen them some time ago at Ken's portfolio website and have really appreciated them from the word go. So no, I do not think for a second that Ken has lost his mind. This is not a joke on us at all. I will properly react to the series at a later time and if Ken wants us to react.

PS: Ken refers to this series as "Conceptual/Other Visions" in his website. "Abstract series" is IMO not the right term to use as none of these three pictures are actually abstracts.

Cheers,

Hi Ken,

Just to let you know that I like the #2 image very much, and I do appreciate your sharing it.

IMHO, the image has a very good composition of "subject and it's reflection" with an added twist to throw the viewer 'out of balance'. I'm looking for the right words here, but I hope you understand the feeling I'm trying to express (and I hope it's what fascinated you as well).

Cheers,
Bart

So what is number 2 ? I can tell one is windows on probably a skyscraper and three a tree.
Don

Don Ferguson Jr. said:

So what is number 2 ? I can tell one is windows on probably a skyscraper and three a tree.
Don

Click to expand...

It is the side of a car in the rain...

Gee, I didn't realize that Asher had created a separate thread for these images...and that there was a whole conversation under way...I'm blushing!

So at this point I feel compelled to offer some remarks regarding them and their series.

The basic concept of the series is to create a set of photographs that, at first appearance, have visual relationships to some of the expressionist, abstract expressionist, and action/abstraction works of mid 20th century painters such as Jackson Pollack, Willem De Kooning, Joan Mitchell, Mark Rothko, et.al.

Distinct from the works of those painters, however, each of my images is captured from an actual scene or subject and is produced with minimal manipulation. That is, these are not products of randomness or of pure whimsy: these are each real subjects honestly captured.

For example, the first image is a U.S. Federal office building at day's end. I chose it because unlike a commercial office, government offices tend to have a uniform lighting on each floor. So here the windows, at first glance, create the appearance of a coded bit pattern. That's about all you can see at this tiny size and resolution. But at the full print size the approaching viewer begins to see differences in the windows. At a foot from the print you can see people in some windows, and even the ubiquitous bunch of shiny Mylar balloons, the universal artifact of office celebrations. So this is one example where an image must be seen large to fully experience its intentions.

The second image is, as Cem suggested, a dirty car. In this case it's a car that's collected a dusting of road salt after a sloppy winter. The patterns in the dust give the impression of trees upside down. In fact, I originally hung the print upside down -- an interesting effect. But then decided that that represented too much of a manipulation.

The third image is, of course, a cluster of winter trees. Presented as such, it gives a very strong impression of some of Jackson Pollack's work. But here is another example where size really matters. Viewing the large print of this image rewards peepers; the closer they get the more they see. At a distance they see about what you can see here, a general impression. But as they get closer they begin to see objects in the trees: birds, squirrel nests, plastic bags, even a shoe. So the image has a painterly overall feeling but it is actually filled with details (that I'm even still discovering!).

Here are a couple more from the series.

(Crystal refraction)


(Aerial of Lake Michigan at midday in winter)

This latter image is another example where size matters. At this size you get the overall impression. But on a large print you can see all the little fractures in the ice and birds resting in the ice and in the water.

Right now I have approximately 30 images in this series, which I've been working on for just about 18 months. I don't think it will ever be "finished", per se, but I hope I will be able to at least do something with it --publish and/or show it-- by next spring.

While I enjoy hunting for terrific one-off images, it's work toward a cohesive concept that really moves me forward. Such projects, even the tiniest or most practical ones, force me to try new (to me) techniques and explore new possibilities. One thing nearly always leads me to another and another. I've no need (or desire) to travel to earth's end to find images. Give me a camera and swivel chair and I can nearly always find at least five images in 360 degrees.

Ken

I'm glad you've joined the conversation!

I've come back to these pictures a few times and hadn't yet decided what to say, but had comprehended the intent that viewers can 'walk into the image' by getting closer and seeing more and more detail. The tree image is an obvious candidate for that treatment, and the office picture, too, must work well.

The decision to adopt a minimal processing regime also makes a serious statement of intent - again I appreciate understanding that piece of the jigsaw.

How do you hope to show them and how big with the prints be to achieve the necessary impact and yet maintain detail when viewed close up?

Thanks

Mike

Hi Mike,
Showing some of this work properly represents a multi-faceted challenge yet to be resolved. Some can be adequately presented in a high-quality book But others require a larger scale. I've only printed up to 17" x 24" but some of these images should be printed much larger. I've eschewed marriage-like gallery representation partnerships for any of my work but that may ultimately be the only way to get this shown properly.

Ken Tanaka said:

Hi Mike,
Showing some of this work properly represents a multi-faceted challenge yet to be resolved. Some can be adequately presented in a high-quality book But others require a larger scale. I've only printed up to 17" x 24" but some of these images should be printed much larger. I've eschewed marriage-like gallery representation partnerships for any of my work but that may ultimately be the only way to get this shown properly.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ken for sharing this fascinating series.

What do you think of showing your picture twice, once, the largest size you might choose, and a second time smaller with red circles and then for each of these a 100% cut out of the detail there? This way we could indeed see the part balloons or the huddle over a water-fountain or box of donuts.

Asher

Ken Tanaka said:

Hi Mike,
Showing some of this work properly represents a multi-faceted challenge yet to be resolved. Some can be adequately presented in a high-quality book But others require a larger scale. I've only printed up to 17" x 24" but some of these images should be printed much larger. I've eschewed marriage-like gallery representation partnerships for any of my work but that may ultimately be the only way to get this shown properly.

Click to expand...

Ken

Yes, 17 by 24 isn't really big enough to achieve the 'immersion' I imagine you're looking for. It's a fascinating search to find subjects and an approach that allows that. At the same time, I recall your recoiling from the current (perhaps recent?) trend to produce huge prints on various media style substrates. I don't think there's a conflict, but a challenge for you. Gallery representation would likely increase that.

Very interested in your thoughts and conclusions.

Mike