content after form

I had an interesting conversation with my brother at the lack of “content” in my projects. He thought that I should use this medium in order to convey a specific, important subject which would create a powerful message for the viewers of the work.

He stated, "My only criticism is that you _REALLY_ need a subject matter worthy of your talent. Photography is a language (which you "speak" extremely eloquently) but until you find something worthy (?) of being communicated, you're not 100% there. What do you want to tell the world? Of course, knowing me, I looked at your photographs and imagined some of the news stories of our day being captured in this format (war/natural disasters/poverty/etc...) How that would catch everyone's eye!!! Try it sometime!"

I quickly, and vehemantly, disagreed with him and then considered why I so strongly disagreed. To me, content comes after the form, not the form after the content. I am inspired in specific places and want to capture those moments. Photography becomes a method for documenting and for freezing a particular instance. I can’t go out and look for these magical moments. I have to be aware and alert and ready to interpret when I happen to notice them. In this regard, I collect and I frame; I gather what reveals itself to me. I edit what I see, rather than construct with deliberate intention. I am responding to something there, rather than finding something to then interpret. The accidental quality of the Holga adds to the “happenstance” methodology of working. This allows the work to be a response rather than an authored piece with prearranged intentions. It is not meant to be ambiguous, but rather documentary in nature.

I am construction a journey, a story based on multiple parts. This journey takes on the nature of a road trip, of following certain routes by what captures my interests. I do not map out a specific course of travel and follow a predesignated road. I start at a point, and allow the place, the setting to guide me. That is how I travel and this is how I work. I set up an experiment and allow the process to show me the way to continue. I might hit some dead ends, but am usual very excited and surprised by the result which allows me follow my gut.

When we were discussing our “punctums” Sarah mentioned that my work is very circumstantial. I use what I find, what I happen to stumble upon. This is not a lack of planning, per se, but more a gathering and interpreting of what is in front of me. I think on my feet and use what I have. I respond to the site and conditions given to me. The initial steps might seem “accidental” but how I interpret and respond to the accidents is where the translation and interpretation come into play. I interpret the happenstance with deliberate intentions.

I do not think this methodology is random, but rather sequential in following a train of thought. It allows for continuation and development of particular ideas, and is logical in relationship to where it started from and where it will end up. This process was how I worked in architecture school, as well as how Martin taught us to develop a simple form through multiple iterations and explorations. The process is built upon previous explorations and lessons learned.