INTERVIEW: "Q & A with Richard Misrach"

Monolake 2, California, 1999.

Questions and Answers: Richard Misrach

“In preparation for the High’s installation of On the Beach, Richard Misrach took time to answer a few questions about his influences and experiences over the course of his career” for his new solo exhibition titled “On the Beach” recently opened at the High Museum in Atlanta.

Your photographs often draw attention to human impact on the environment. Why is this issue important to you? Do you have a positive or negative view of the direction in which we are moving, given all that you have seen?

RM: It is the great paradox of human existence. We must exploit our environment to exist, and we risk destroying it (and ourselves) in the process. It’s an extraordinary delicate balance and a compelling subject for one’s life’s work.

But there is also a deeply personal element to the work because I love being in the landscape: I find an aesthetic pleasure there that I don’t quite understand. My pictures are as much, maybe more, about the existential mystery of what I experience in the landscape than about civilization’s relation to it.

As far as the future of the planet, it’s hard not to worry. Just because we haven’t set in motion an irreparable calamity yet, is no insurance that we won’t in the future. Our nuclear arsenals, overpopulation, energy challenges and pollution remain growing threats. And yet, more than likely, it will be the unexpected that will be our undoing.

You have typically focused on the American landscape, free of human figures. In On the Beach, figures populate many of the scenes—why? What brought about this change?

RM: After 9/11 several images of people falling/jumping from the towers were published in newspapers. Those images were some of the most terrifying and heartbreaking I’ve ever seen. I was haunted by them.

In the past, I photographed people in the landscape where they usually introduced a sense of scale and relationship to our manmade environment. The people falling from the towers provided a whole new kind of scale: a relationship to the abyss—the abyss that haunts all of us. Because of those pictures, I found traces of our relationship to the sublime—fear, resilience, defiance, peace and joy—even in the most ordinary activities by the sea.

You’ve been asked a lot about how you made the photos. What inspired you to assume that particular vantage point? How does it enhance the images and/or the message behind them?

RM: The unusual “god’s eye view” draws attention to itself implicating the photographer in the process. This was important to me, as I was struck by the fact that right after 9/11, people carried on with their lives as if nothing had happened. People were vacationing and I was working; it was really weird actually.

It reminded me of that great Bruegel painting of Icarus falling into the sea. As Icarus plunges to his death, the farmer tills, the ship sails, life goes on.

My photograph of the handstand evokes the painting while inverting it—the legs represent the resilience? Obliviousness? In the face of our national tragedy. Even at the moment of such a profound national tragedy life inexplicably goes on.

Also, there is a sense of voyeurism and surveillance embedded in the all seeing vantage point. It is a relatively benign reminder—nobody is really compromised—but the camera is always watching in our Google satellite world.

To create the On the Beach series you used an 8×10 view camera. Can you talk a little about the technical advantages and challenges of working with a large format camera?

Untitled 696-05, 2005

RM: From a technical standpoint the 8×10″ camera was the wrong tool for this project. It is a cumbersome suitcase that requires reloading for each shot and has slow shutter speeds. It is not good for quick captures or stopping movement. By the time I would set up the camera, focus, load the film holder, pull out the film slide and depress the shutter, my subjects had often literally swum out of the frame. So many great pictures were missed.

That said, the fine detail afforded by the large negative, when I did get what I wanted, was crucial to achieve the intimate gestures and grand scale of the work.

You are perhaps best known for your images of the American West. What drew you to that landscape? How do you choose a location?

RM: I was born in Los Angeles and surfed and skied growing up. The western landscape was my universe. Since 1968 I have had five Volkswagon campers which I’ve used to travel the West for 2 to 3 weeks at a time. I throw in my camera, food, film and some coolers with film holders, and head off without any destination in mind.

If it’s hot, I stay north, cold, I head to southern deserts. Basically, I wander around chasing the light from dawn to dusk and see what I can discover.

I usually found that if I had a preconceived idea for a project it wouldn’t amount to much. Discovery—an aggressive receptivity, if you will—of what is in the landscape provides the inspiration for new ideas.

With the advent of digital technology, photography has consolidated its position as the medium of the masses…what are your views on the prevalence of photography on the internet and the use of digital? How has it impacted your work?

RM: So far the omnipresence of imagery on the internet hasn’t had a huge impact on me. However, digital production has completely changed the way I work and think about photography. I haven’t shot film in almost two years and am now making all of my own prints again (haven’t done that since the 1970’s). Some prints are as large as 10×13 feet!

Having full access to the new technologies has encouraged me to play and experiment in ways that take me back to when I was a beginning photographer. And given that everyone now in college will have the same opportunities—access to the means of production and radical new tools—the medium is destined for big, important changes. I can’t imagine a more exciting period for photography.

Over the course of your career photography’s place in the world of fine art has shifted and evolved. Do you feel that the way that photography is perceived/accepted has changed significantly since you began?

RM: Despite historic claims to the contrary, photography was marginalized by the art world for a long time. However, in the last decade and a half, photography has been at the fore of art world practice. Moreover, when I began photography the idea of making a living selling work in galleries wasn’t even a fantasy. Now, for better or worse, photography has entered the art marketplace big time.

How did you break into photography and what advice would you give to aspiring photographers?

RM: I think it was in 1968 that I saw the work of a young photographer, Roger Minick, hung on a wall in a small gallery at UC Berkeley where I was a student. I was deeply moved by the content of the work and the beauty of the prints, and I knew immediately that was what I was supposed to be doing with my life. I had never felt that before. Advice to aspiring photographers—follow your passion and work hard. If you are worried about career or marketplace, find another line of work…

Picked up via American Suburb X

Joel Meyerowitz LEGACY

That old Mr Meyerowitz has done it again with his latest book published by Aperture due to be launched round about now.
I remember hearing about the parks project a few years ago and thinking what a wonderful (and mammoth) project to take on.
This will be an important book for photography and a unique documentation of New Yorks parks as only Meyerowitz could do.

Did you know there are nine Royal Parks in London? I only know this because I have been pitched for a job to photograph them. Stand aside Joel I might be in the bushes....

What weighs half a ton and makes you look like a miget.

On occasion I have being known to go a bit smaller and lighter and dig out my Pentax 67. I stole the camera from my wife after she went totally digital. Having swapped my Mamiya 7 for three 10/8 lenses and a packet of gum drops I thought the Pentax was a pretty decent alternative even though it weighed four times more and sounded like a sack of spuds being dropped each time you pressed the shutter. In no time at all I had taken the Pentax, added a wide angle lens, (which cost me three pounds), a cable release and a big lens hood. I had made the camera my own and I was now in a Pentax six seven state of mind...
I like the idea of just walking around with a camera without the whole rigmarole of a large format set up although I would never really use it for any serious work as the neg is just a bit too small for those big juicey prints.
Well without whaffaling on that fat 6/7 broke down today, jammed like a three wheeled Asda trolley. Up to until now I had found the Pentax to be quite a reliable piece of kit and had even managed to pull off a two hour -20 degrees shot at Utah Salt flats last Christmas (the winder froze, but it didn't jam, see image above).
Naturally I took the 6/7 beast to my operating table in the garage and began surgery with the help of a penknife and a small set of screw drivers. Within seconds I had removed the cap on the top of the film winder crank and was faced with a small screw which obviously I removed. I was then blinded by a glint from a shiny metal washer which proceeded to launch from its position sending small ball bearings and springs everywhere. Several choice words later I was on all fours not really knowing what I was looking for other than very small components my fat fingers would never be able to pick up. This lasted for many hours until I finally admitted defeat as the parts where nowhere to be seen. The Pentax was now well and truly knackered..
And so I lay the once mighty Pentax in the photographic draw of peace (in pieces) and vow never again to take a camera apart (well at least not a Pentax).

And so a dilemma which faces us all from time to time. Do I;

Get the camera fixed which would probably cost more than the camera is worth.

Claim it on the insurance and put up those premiums.

Tell my wife I have broken her beloved camera where upon she attacks me breaking both my arms and all my fingers. But then when I am in hospital she feels so guilty for her actions that she buys me a new camera.

Cannibalize the parts and build an almighty 'ultimate' camera capable of shooting any format and even has room for a digital back..

Keep dreaming.

A to Z.

I came across this and thought it would go nicely with my gallery survival guide I wrote last week. An A to Z of things all B Moders should know.

Archival: Refers to the way a negative or photographic print is processed - usually meaning that the negative and print have been washed long enough to eliminate chemicals which could later cause discoloration or other types of degradation, and that a print is additionally made on a fiber-based paper. Also refers to materials used for matting, storing, and protecting photographic prints and negatives from the deterioration caused by chemical reactions.

Artist's proof: A print which is made for the artist's use and is not included in the numbering of the edition.

"C" print or color coupler print: Negative to positive printing process. A print that is made when photosensitive paper is exposed to light that passes through a negative film.

Contact print: A print which is made by placing the negative directly on top of the paper, thus producing a print the same size as the negative.

Digital file: A computer file which contains digital information, including a digital image.

Digital image: An image made up of light-sensitive units called pixels that can be captured in a number of ways, including with a digital camera or a scanner.

Digital print: A print that is made from a digital file. Digital files can be printed on high quality ink jet printers (IRIS, Epson) or on traditional photographic papers using a laser printer (KristÕl).

Digitally re-mastered print: Refers to a high quality reproduction that is made from an original print or a copy negative. It involves scanning the image, correcting any imperfections, and returning the work to how it originally looked. One of the benefits of this digital technique is that the work is very finely articulated, so much so, that when it is enlarged, there are often details present that were not visible in the original print.

Emulsion: A light-sensitive compound that is usually suspended in gelatin and applied to films and papers.

Giclée® print: Refers to a print produced using a combination of computerized imaging and high quality ink jet printing.

KRIST÷L: A fine art archival print process that incorporates the technologies of the Heidelberg Tango drum scanner with the Cymbolic Sciences LightJet 5900 laser printer. Printed on one of three Fuji Crystal Archive papers, these prints offer vivid color and sharpness with an estimated life of 60 years or more.

Ilfochrome/Cibachrome print: Positive to positive color printing process. A print that is made when photosensitive paper is exposed to light that passes through a positive film (i.e. slide).

IRIS: One of several digital printers that prints from a digital file. The IRIS is a high quality ink jet printer which lays millions of blood-cell sized drops of ink on a substrate up to 40 x 50 inches large. The inks used by artists in IRIS printing are archival and, depending on the paper, can last up to 75 years without noticeable fading.

Modern photographic print: Contemporary print made from an old original negative. Sometimes when a modern print is made, both the date of exposure and the date the print was made are noted.

Negative: An image in which the highlights, colors, and tones are the reverse of those in the actual subject. The film negative can be used to make a positive print.

Palladium/Platinum print: A palladium print is a print formed by exposing a negative in contact with paper sensitized with a palladium (a metal) compound, and developing the exposed paper in potassium oxalate. This process makes an archival print that lasts far longer than any other type of photographic print. Another prominent characteristic is the wide tonal range that the process produces. The ultra-fine mid-tones can be represented in 25 tones from white to black. Because the process does not require a gelatin surface, the emulsion soaks into the paper, thus forcing the paper to become an integral part of the final product.

Polaroid SX-70: One of many instant cameras, the SX-70 uses a process called dye diffusion in which a chemical developing pack and three layers of emulsion are sandwiched together with a backing layer. After the image is exposed, the pack is broken by pulling the photograph through rollers at the front of the camera. Development of the image takes place within a couple of minutes.

Print edition: The limited number of prints that will be made from a negative, transparency, or digital file. Usually this number is noted either on the front or back of a photograph, using a fraction-like number. The top number represents the sequential position of the print (first, second, third, etc.) while the bottom number represents the total number in the edition.

Resolution: A term used in both traditional and digital photography to describe the quality of the image. A high resolution digital file has 300 or more pixels per inch. Film is considered to have high resolution when it has a slow asa (speed) thus having fine grain.

Silver print: A term encompassing all photographic prints made on a paper sensitized with silver salts. Most black and white prints are in this category.

Slide: Usually a 35mm, mounted positive transparency made from any number of "chrome" films. The ilfochrome (positive to positive) process can be used to print a slide, or, if a "C" print renders the desired effect, an internegative of the image needs to be made first.

Substrate: The material on which an image is printed, usually paper.

Traditional photographic processes: The processes that use film and emulsion-based photographic papers.

Transparency: a film positive.

Vintage Photographic Print: An image printed around the same time as the negative was made.

I thought of would start this one with an image from George Tice. An absolute marvel in the fine art market of photography. It surprises and shocks me that I have not mentioned the likes of Mr Tice on here before, but that's probably because I am too busy moaning about pixelization or some twit with a silly hat and a leica. The above image has been with me for some time, torn from a magazine and magnetized to the side of my fridge along side a Polaroid of one of my puppies. The Petit's Mobil Station (1972) is by no means a timeless image (the car in particular tends to ooze the 70's) but it's nostalgic rich atmosphere makes it pretty easy to live with and I imagine I will always warm to it each time I reach for the milk.

So this brings me to the question; What will happen to todays fine art imagery? and in particular todays landscape photography. It seems obvious to me that the work of the Americans Misrach, Meyerowitz, Shore and Sternfeld of today will very much be collectable in the future (they are my favourites afterall) because large scale images of Americana will always be appealing and this lot will be more affordable than Westons and Adams in years to come. But what about the rest.

While it may seem obvious that the likes of Andreas Gursky will always command a high price to at auction I think its fair to say that many of his Dusseldorf school followers will fall by the wayside and become forgotten. I cannot imagine that today's popular deadpan, minimalistic, muted large scale imagery will be as popular in five or ten years time. You only have to look back at the eighties when people where donning their walls with photographs (or posters) of people kissing in public or models on the beach with their sandy jubblees out to see how often the market changes. Of course this is only my opinion and theres a very good chance that a lot of these images may be as popular in the future as they are today, may be even more so..

As for me and the other thousands one step up from the bottom, well who knows. But regardless of this we should always remember one thing...

KEEP IT ARCHIVAL.

The Hidden and Unfamiliar.

There's a great little talk by Taryn Simon here.
She has certainly projected herself into photographic stardom with her fasinating work. To be honest I was always more interested in the content of Taryn's work more than the actual photography and was a little put off by the fact that all her images require a lot of necessary text. But once you study the work and look a little deeper it really is top drawer with the images and text form a unique look at things we rarely talk about, this my friends is real talent.
Sometimes a photographer just seems to pop up from nowhere and you think to yourself 'Where did they come from?' and 'Why are they suddenly getting all the glory when thy have only been around five minutes?'. But the truth is, they have probably been working away for years to produce a large body of work, this takes real commitment and a belief in what they are doing. Most of all it deserves a proper look..

ITS OUT THERE SOMEWHERE..