|
Mark Daniel Lacy: On Photography, p2. Interview by Janni Chowdhuri Tell me about some of your favorite photographs. Some of them I don't know the names of, so I'll tell you the (names of the) photographers. I've always liked the work of Gordon Parks, like his image of Ingrid Bergman in Sicily, and Flor Gardino, who I've only seen exhibited once at FotoFest. There are many photographers that I value in the history of photography. But what about some of your own pictures? Making images is a process of discovery. I remember the moment when I learned to visualize an abstract lighting concept. I was photographing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. I saw that I could make this static monument appear to the viewer as a photograph of live action. For my classes, I was able to work continually on subjects that were important to me. I did pretty straight-forward documentary work in independent music clubs. I worked out solutions to translate the images I had in mind to photographic prints. (In this work) I was constantly trying to document the intense energy of punk bands and their fans, their aggression and their dedication to independence. As entertainment comes under greater corporate control, the issues of independence, determination and economy continue to expand. I tried to photograph people in other environments to show a real connection to this movement, in addition to the performers on stage. It must be exciting to be a photographer. Yeah, it's all models and presidents and jumping into combat. I have done those things, but I wasn't invited to any wrap parties. I went to interview Jamie Lee Curtis in Los Angeles and discovered that I hate Hollywood. It's exactly that glorified reporter and paparazzi ignorantly making you think there's some high artistic value to mindless entertainment that I came to hate. There is an almost endless supply of people who get into photography because they want to photograph models and celebrities, and there are only a few who do it really well. They are also paid well and that's why it's so competitive. If you have a real purpose for photography, and you really accomplish something meaningful, that can be exciting. I used to exhibit my photography, at first in galleries, and then in public spaces where more people could see it. People who see photography really take blindness for granted. I photographed blind children with terrible conflicting emotions. I almost felt like people shouldn't be allowed to look at the images if they weren't going to think about the issues. I included all of the information about the photographs in a language exclusive to the children, Braille. The objective was to make the viewer acutely aware that information common to one group was not available to another. What is the most exciting photograph you've taken? Many are meaningful, but you mean exciting to take? These days I'm very excited about the places I go to photograph, like Copper Canyon in Mexico or the Florida swamps. I've recognized the great value of landscape photography. That wasn't the case when I studied in fine arts. As a student, I dismissed the pretty pictures of clearing winter storms because they weren't gritty enough, or more because they didn't address what was wrong. They seemed to be made by people who were too easily satisfied with the things that were right on the surface. Corporate photography was the enemy of all fine arts students. It was designed to make you believe everything is alright and (it was) so shiny and clean that it couldn't possibly have required talent or dedication to make. I assumed that everything looked as pristine as it looked in the magazine and television ads. Little did I know, this superior image quality was extremely difficult to achieve. I only worked on landscape pictures around San Luis Pass and along the Gulf Coast to practice photography, and because one of my teachers made me live in Galveston and do it all summer. But I considered social themes, especially stage-diving and protesting, to be challenging and important. When the police raided the club or went after flag-burners on their horses, I was quickly transformed from interested observer to aggressive photojournalist. I've tried to stand up against riot police on horses to make a picture. I've jumped from a plane, without proper instruction, let me add. I've photographed in dangerous situations (that) I don't like to remind myself of. Sometimes you have to forego safety to be in the right place at the right time to make something meaningful. I'm still as passionate, but the setting has changed. Now I sit in the desert and decide if I should look for water or wait for the light. I even went on a great Indiana Jones adventure through a fierce lightning storm in a swamp crawling with banana spiders to see some 5,000 year old canoes, because I wanted to see another photographer cover an assignment. It was exciting. I didn't even have my camera with me. Don't you take it everywhere? I've heard photographer say there's nothing they won't photograph. They'll let the photo editor make the decisions. (I don't think) that way. On one occasion, at least, something meant so much to me that I couldn't take a photograph (even though) I had my camera. There are scenes in my head that couldn't possibly translate as photographs. I'll clearly have to do some writing if I want anyone to know about those memories. A picture today may be worth a thousand words and ten thousand dollars, but written words and other means to deliver concepts are absolutely necessary for anyone who can think above modern electronic media. Is digital photography taking over? It is clearly the dominant trend in photography and will be the future. Many people bought into it while it was obviously in a throw-away state of development, a new technology providing substandard results. Right now, it is approaching the image quality of small format film and has a few advantages over film. It can be edited and disseminated more easily. It is not cheaper and the highest quality standards cannot be achieved more easily. Film isn't going to go away overnight. Some films are too well developed to just get rid of, but more importantly, many nations are not as computer-equipped as the United States. Mobility of digital images is a big problem if you don't have a computer. Companies are working out solutions, but you have to be cautious about temporary fixes. They clearly realize that they need to make it more accessible to people without computers. Film is still expensive by many standards and low-grade digital prints aren't free. I suspect film will achieve the status of vinyl records for a segment of the population and will be revered as a fine art by some. I've been hesitant to go digital and people like to attribute that to being afraid of new things, but I've been producing digital video for years. It's important to know what's viable and affordable. I made images with a digital camera years before most people had access to the Internet and I made a digital negative to manipulate and print from before there were digital cameras. Most designers can't imagine life without a computer, but I designed a publication using a computer before the (University of Houston) publications office had computers. Digital quality has to meet or exceed the resolution of fine film before it will be of much use to me. It will replace 35mm at a reasonable price right away, but I'm not sure when it will replace medium and large format films, which offer much higher resolution. Why is the resolution so important? It's most important in promotional publications and for scientific applications. Sharpness of detail can be extremely important. I find myself limited sometimes by knowing too much, feeling that I expect, or am required to achieve a high standard. I may have made more exciting photographs when I wasn't aware of certain limitations. But as I said before, I find the challenge of lighting to be a great creative outlet. But I still miss taking photos with no concern for the light, and leaving the film in my hot car and developing it in hot developer. Photography instruction in most universities in this country is terrible, but that trial-and-error learning method is sort of fun. How is photography taught? Well, I believe students should use slide film to learn about metering and lighting before they use more tolerant processes. Students using color negative film or automatic digital cameras have a lot of room for error. Slides require near perfect exposure. Of course, they also provide the best color matching for publication and they are great for educational presentations. If you have ten pictures and a silly PowerPoint presentation, LCD is fine, but for 200 beautiful images, show me the slides. I've seen some pretty sad digital presentations. So, back to teaching. Often students use black and white film, learn to process it and then see what they can salvage in the darkroom. It's still going on today to some extent. You're in a much better position if you can read light and make a calculated exposure. If you intend to record scenes with a creative outcome in mind, knowing the technology is required. If it doesn't matter to you or you're not capable of it, set that camera on auto. There's much more to it than that. Photography is a product of light and time, with almost infinite variables, and it requires extensive technical knowledge that photography professors usually cannot teach. They often don't feel it's their obligation. Students often begin in a field of study, fine arts, commercial or journalism, before the really know what they want to do with photography. They are often mismatched with a particular stylistic or conceptual approach. They should learn different approaches and then pursue a specialization. There are also many issues they need to study -- legal, ethical, social, and even business practices. I never knew there was so much to it. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface, which is the big problem with film! |
