DOODLES4DARFUR

'Doodles for Darfur' is an initiative set up with the primary aim of raising money for those who have been affected by the war crimes and genocide in Darfur, through the Aegis Trust and in affiliation with Aegis Students.

This initiative begins with the help of students at the Arts Institute at Bournemouth donating photographs, illustrations and paintings that they think are worthwhile to the cause, with the hope that they will be auctioned for a satisfactory price. As well as raising money for the people of Darfur, this event will help spread the awareness of modern Genocide and humanitary injustice.

It is crucial for us as creative individuals to not only have a political and cultural conscience, but a social conscience as well.

We have an advantage as artists to bring a fresh and creative voice to causes of this nature, and often, our voice can be the most effective.

Remember that we are the future, let our voices be heard.

Peace, Aimee-Jayne.

With work by Nick Walker, James Cauty, Martin Parr, and Guardian photographer Clancy Chassay

• Date: Wednesday 22nd April 2009
• Time: 13.30 - 19.30
• Where: Arts Institute Bournemouth, room A024 (photography dep)
  
• Details: Facebook It/www.aimeejaynerutherford.com

07813373385

To lay my head on a Thursday

God Blessed America
This Land is Your Land. By Woody Guthrie
written February, 1940

This land is your land, this land is my land
From [the] California to the [Staten] New York Island,
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters,
[God blessed America for me.]

As I went walking that ribbon of highway
And saw above me that endless skyway,
And saw below me the golden valley, I said:
[God blessed America for me.]

I roamed and rambled and followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts,
And all around me , a voice was sounding:
[God blessed America for me.]

Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn't say nothing
[God blessed America for me.]

When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
In wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling;
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting:
[God blessed America for me.]

One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple
By the Relief Office I saw my people --
As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering if
[God blessed America for me.]

'Sleeping Structures' 120 Shots

New Work: Sleeping Structures (working title)

Interview with Simon Norfolk

06.03.08


Simon, you gave up photojournalism in favour of landscape photography in 1994. However, how do you see the current climate in editorial photography in Britain at the moment?


I’m not really based in the UK, but a lot of my work is still editorial, as in a lot of the work I do is funded by editorial outlets. I’m making a good living out of the kind of work I do as well. Personally, I feel it’s going great, but I’m in a very lucky position. 15% of what I earn is made from editorial work, and I have the option to say no to things. To protect my reputation, sometimes I have to say no. The more I do this, the more I understand what it is I am doing, the kind of work I am making. ‘Don’t do crap basically”. Don’t take photo’s of your girlfriend’s bum you know, and show that and say ‘yeah that’s good.’ Maybe when I am older and have fuck all to do I’ll do that.


The UK market, there is no money, no imagination, the editors have no power. I have powerful friends who write letters for me and it’s important to keep those contacts. I’m producing work I think is interesting.


Your work explores how warfare and human conflict is and has affected our landscape. I think it is controversial but true to say that perhaps images of dead bodies are not necessarily interesting or as affective to the public anymore, so do you think your work is successful in perhaps showing people the effects of war because of this different angle through landscape?


Yes, you have to push it further. The reason why photo’s don’t work, is because people aren’t looking for new ways to tell a story. We are a bit tired of the ‘starving African kids’ aren’t we? What these images do is they describe the world again, and again, it’s repetition. I want to know WHY these images have been taken. Reason, cause, economics, not novelty. I am interested in the explanation of the causes of war, not to tell the same story again and again. If you see an image of a dead body, you don’t think “ok so how did this happen, what was this person shot with, why is their head hanging off like that etc..” You say “Oh god that’s horrible, turn the page..”. What I want to do is not repel you, but seduce you into my place, challenge your prejudice.


That is interesting, because I am going to South Africa to do some work for the organisation you are talking about next week. I suppose for me as a young photographer it’s important to understand what’s going on, what I can do and what photographs I can take, or how, that work..


Look I know of photographers now who have been to places, taken those photographs of starving children, and had bid auctions and raised money and done something DIRECTLY to change or affect something. I look at those images and I have nothing against them, but I wonder how they will change the world. They don’t explain to us WHY this is happening, just that it is and it has been happening since 20 years ago when I was supposed to go and buy a T-Shirt and a key ring and you told me this was going to change, but you are still photographing it and it’s still happening. WHY? I am proud that I live in a world where people like you want to change things and want to do something, but I am questioning how and what you are going to do. Make images I suppose that talk, not describe..


Is it fair to say your work is political? I worry as a young photographer about photojournalism’s future, what will happen to it. There are so many clichés and so many things we are not allowed to talk about. Did you move from photojournalism because of this?


The content of photojournalism is still interesting don’t get me wrong. I like uncovering stories, researching as a journalist does. You have to dig a bit deeper, you won’t find the information you need on the BBC news tonight. I still shout at the TV, at the news, but I am looking for new ways to engage people, explain what you are doing, don’t describe it. The approaches to journalism at the moment are boring, I think that’s the problem.


Obviously context is incredibly important in your work, but how would you describe the relationship between text and image?


My images certainly are meaningless without text, because context is crucial. But you have to think about things like text, you know, captions etc. Does this go here before the image or after it or at the end or what? Context must be wider, for example, my book on Afghanistan isn’t necessarily going to be interesting of you have seen what is going on, seen the images before or the videos or the news articles. I suppose my photo’s are like anti-photojournalism. I describe it as a parasitic relationship. You won’t understand my images unless you are familiar with photojournalism. My job is to take all the stuff you know about Afghanistan, and compound it, intrigue you, seduce you, teach you. I want you to say “Oh shit, I didn’t know THAT..”, or “I thought I knew what was going on but….”


How important is the bookwork for a photographer?


Well economically, books don’t make sense. They are a huge financial commitment. In terms of building a reputation, well they are vital. It keeps you abroad of the pack, can shape how you make your career. The book I suppose is the one place you can dominate and control the piece. I have to compromise with galleries, websites etc. With the book I can nail down the meaning of a piece of work. The book is the purest place. Everything else is laden with compromise, al other meanings detachable. The book is mine, I suppose like a memorial? Fifty years from now, my website won’t be there. But my book will hopefully still be on the shelf and you can pull it down and have a look at what I thought was important, fixing a meaning maybe, “When I was in charge, this is what I had in mind”.


What is your personal involvement with your work? How important do you feel ethics and morals are within the industry?


Well it’s crucial to what I do. I am making a living in the art world, and I am exhibiting in the art world, so I suppose I am in-between two houses of photography. A lot of photography nowadays are about untruths, you know with digital and photoshop etc. The difference with my work is that you BELIEVE I have been there, that is THAT place. The first time I lie to you will be the last. And I have to cover my back, I have to research, have to thoroughly research so you can’t say ‘no that didn’t happen there, it happened there like this..’. I have to “research my nuts off” basically. People want to play games with the truth, I trade on your trust.



Do you have any doubts about your practice, and if so, how do you deal with these doubts?


Well maybe I don’t get as many girls throwing themselves at me like I thought I would, (laughs) but yeah I get doubts. If someone pays $3000 for a print I made, I sit there and say I didn’t pick up a camera to do that, for that particular purpose to make money. I doubt the effectiveness, whether the world will change, do the pictures tell the story I want to tell? I worry about the economics of the industry, will it last? I don’t agree with some of the politics of some of the editorials that publish my work, I suppose I actually though about writing essays on the back of the prints so nobody can change it. But that’s too crude, it’s pointless. I suppose most of my doubts are challenges really.



What do you want your audience to see? What is your strategy, and do you think your images are provocative?


Yes they are provocative, people have told me they move them, make them think. A good image should provoke. A really good image changes your mind. As for a strategy, I suppose my only one is from far away people can say, “look at that, it’s lovely”, get up close and it’s like “shit, what the hell is that, that’s awful..” I want you to see the world the way I see it. I use my work t reach people, I guess the best way to lecture is not to lecture.



How do you see your career developing over the next 5 years? Obviously you moved from photojournalism to the gallery as such, would you consider moving on to other avenues? Obviously as you get older and start taking photo’s of your girlfriends bum.


(laughs) Well she has a lovely bum. But I am uncertain of the things I have to do, so I do a lot of different photography. Advertising, editorial etc. A bit of different things. Photography is changing, so I have to keep my avenues open. I keep a good relationship with my galleries, if you look at a catalogue of Paris Photo from 10 years ago, where are all those people now? They still have to make a living. People are being nice to me now but I don’t know what is going to happen in 2 years. You can’t trust the fuckers.


How important is education do you think in photography, in other words, do you have to be taught to be a photographer?


(laughs) That’s two different questions isn’t it? Education with a capital ‘E’, I mean, that’s shocking. I get students e-mailing me and writing to me and asking me for a job, and I think ‘yeah, you’re a good kid, but what skills have you got to offer me?’ It’s pitiful. Student have no knowledge of the industry, I mean the lecturers are doing great getting £40 000 a year, but what are you getting? Student debt? Is that it? Education with a smaller ‘e’, well that’s another thing. Where is the passion? The FIRE? It took me 20 years to get where I am now, 15 of those years I was mimicking other people, not really understanding what I wanted to do. I guess I educated myself. Get the technical skills, web design. It’s so vital.


What are your feelings on Post grad, so MA etc? How important is theory, critical analysis etc?


People who do MA’s, Post grads, it’s ridiculous. Writing theoretical essays about what’s right and wrong, that’s a waste of time. People should concentrate on making good pictures. There is no passion with students, no motivation. Be passionate.


Well you’ve kind of answered it really, but there are 15 000 graduates leaving universities with a degree in photography ever year, what is your advice to someone like me, about the enter third year. What avenues should I consider taking, how should I enter the industry. How did you enter the industry? Work experience etc?


(laughs) Students now, the ones who come to me, they have no skills, they aren’t meeting people on the outside world. They final images they make aren’t directed at the outside world, they are directed at the three people in the institution grading their projects. Milk your course, demand the courses in software skills you need, get forced into doing work. Gear yourself up for leaving, students now aren’t ruthless enough. Instead of getting drunk at your final show, ask yourself if the works any good? It’s not the end, you haven’t completed something you are just beginning, it’s your launch pad for the next 4 or 5 years. Get onto those curators, get them to your show. I see these students at their final shows with their mums and dads and their friends from school and everyone patting them on the back saying, ‘haven’t you done well dear’. It’s a fucking joke. I go t shows sometimes, when I have the time, and I see this. I want to see a good business card, a website. Use that £20 000 effectively, be ruthless. Your degree show isn’t a party, you have to work! Have plan. When Damien Hirst’s year had their show at Goldsmiths, they had a hitlist of people they wanted there. Not a huge list. But they paid for minicabs to go and pick these people up, bring them to their show, and take them home. Be ruthless. Get contacts!


Do you still have a physical portfolio? If so, how much work is in it etc?


I haven’t got one for my editorial work, it’s too busy you need things immediately. So I have a good website and I spent a lot of money on that. My advertising agent has a physical portfolio because in advertising they like to see prints. Those are beautiful I mean, they cost me £2000 a piece. My galleries have a copy of each print they show of mine, so that acts as a portfolio.


How do you approach galleries, how often do you show etc. How important is it to you to show in a gallery?


I show at commercial galleries every 2 years, have 4 or 5 big photo festivals that I show in each year, and 7 or 8 big shows a year. I have one in New York in May, I haven’t shot for that though yet so it’s a bit risky (laughs). And I have one in Brighton in October. I have three commercial galleries, one in the UK, Los Angeles and New York, and every two years it sort of circulates and I have a main show in one of those galleries.


How do you feel digital imaging is changing photography? It’s definitely dominating it, so do you use film or digital?


I just shoot on film, using a large format wooden camera, made of Mahogony. It’s got a £45 000 digital back, so I have to be careful the places I go, I don’t want to be mugged by some thirteen year old little shit, as much as I love the idea. I think the economics of photography are changing, digital is quicker and cheaper etc. People still get shocked when I say I can’t get them their prints immediately, maybe they have to wait 2 weeks. I am talking from a truth point of view I suppose, we are dealing with integrity and truth. My images are really real. Yes I scan in my negs, so I print digital. The manipulation however, that’s the same as I would do with a black and white negative. There is no montaging etc, yes I change the colour slightly, lighting, dust and scratch etc, but that’s so I am happy with the image. With digital it’s easier to make images of falseness, we are dealing with the elusiveness of truth, the elusive truth of the document. It’s easier t fool around with nowadays.


Finally, are there any photographers you admire? I know that you are influenced by painting, but what about the history of photography? How do you keep informed on current practitioners, how the practice is developing etc?


Well I don’t really get to go to galleries as much as I would like, I am never here. But I read a lot of reviews, I go to student shows when I can. I read pretty much all the photographic magazines, Foto8; Source etc, and some American ones too. I suppose it’s mainly through photographic press.

In terms of photographers, do you mean ones I feel make the same kind of work as me or one’s I like? There are a lot of photographers I like because I like the way they work, they have fire and passion, imagination. They don’t bore me. As for landscapes, I have always liked Shaw, mainly Richard Nisrach though. He entertains me, seduces me. David Maisel, and arial photographer. He’s abstract, but very political, military pollution. I’m trying to think, I will e-mail you some in a minute…

…someone you would relate to actually, Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanan. They want to tell you something you don’t know, there are these multiple layers. They are always challenging you, you never see the same thing twice.



A special thank you to Simon Norfolk for his time and patience in organising the interview. It was conducted via telephone.

The Impact of New Technologies on Photography

“It doesn’t really matter if this is photography or not, However, the new may turn out to bear more than a close relation to what has gone on before.”



Photography is much more malleable now, in a way in which it has never been before. It’s been proclaimed since the 1990’s that Digital photography is the death of traditional photography, but it must be taken into consideration whether or not the medium is as important as the social, political, racial etc issues that photography as a whole, regardless or form, deals with. In this essay I will be exploring how new technologies have altered traditional perception of photography.


When French painter Paul Delaroche was faced with the invention of photography, he apparently declared, “From today, painting is dead!” Now, 150 years later, it seems that we are in discussions over photography’s death. Could it be argued that the foundations and status of the photographic document is being challenged, though the widespread introduction of computer driven imaging processes, i.e. Photoshop, which allow photographs to be faked, adjusted, and passed off as real ones. The view is that unable to tell the fake from the real, viewers may lose their faith in the objective truth of the photographic image, and the medium may lose it’s perhaps argued, initial purpose as a conveyor of information.


There is no doubt that computerised imaging is rapidly replacing or supplementing traditional still image making processes in many commercial situations, for example in journalism and advertising. In 1989, Bill Gates created a company specifically to buy and sell the electronic reproduction rights to a huge database of images, so extensive that they “capture the entire human experience throughout history.”
The Corbis Corporation then went on to acquire the Bettmann Archive in 1995, and with this came control over the world’s largest private depositories of images, 16 million overall. Corbis leases these images, in the form of data stored on digital files, to those who are willing to pay for specified electronic ‘use rights’. Thousands of images are added every week, acquired from individual photographers, as well as institutions like NASA, The National Gallery of Art in London, the Philadelphia Museum of Art etc. It seems that Corbis’ view has been for a very long time, that in the only kind of images that are going to matter are digital.


Image integrity is the issue which is mostly associated with digital photography. Though it may be seen to be much more convenient, quicker than tradition methods, it is an overtly fictional process. What I mean by that is that it is a practice known to be capable of fabrication, and digitization abandons the rhetoric of truth that has been such an important part of photography and it’s cultural success. Geoffery Batchen suggests that digital processes return the production of the images to the creative hand, (to the digits). So in fact, digital photography has a closer link with the creative processes of art than with the truth-values of documentary.


Many European newspapers considered adding an ‘M’ to the credit line accompanying any image which has been digitally enhanced or manipulated. However, such a credit line would not actually tell readers what has been changed in the image, casting doubt over the truth of every image in that publication. This is no doubt why many American publishers have been reluctant to adopt the same standard designation. For example, Time magazine describes various covers it published from 1993 to 1996, all digital images, as “Illustrations”, “Photo-Illustrations”, “Digital-Illustrations”, or “Digital Montages”. But this whole dilemma is more rhetorical than ethical. Newspapers and magazines have always manipulated their images in some way, think cropping, selecting etc. So does digital photography just mean we have to admit to ourselves that we edit, we adjust, we in some way even with traditional photography, manipulate.


This history of digital photography, similarly to elements in traditional photography’s past, is associated with endless deceptions and unacknowledged manipulations. Think the National Geographic cover from February 1982, where the pyramids were moved closer together, or the TV Guide cover from August 1985 which merged the head of Oprah Winfrey with the body of Ann-Magret. These images were obviously seen as ‘Illustrative’ by the editors, and not subject to the same rules of truth as journalistic images. Time magazine still continues to regularly employ digital imaging to produce catchy cover art for issues ranging from the conflict between North Korea and South Korea, to the popularity of cyberporn. However, these methods have landed editorials like Time in trouble before. On June 27, 1994, it chose to place a digitally darkened L.A.P.D mugshot of O.J Simpson on its front cover. The extent of this manipulation wasn’t mentioned by Time, but that same week Newsweek chose the identical, yet unedited mug shot for it’s front cover. The comparison was evident, on every newsstand. Faced with public criticism, the editor of Time had to explain the reasoning behind the magazines apparent racism, and it’s decision to alter ‘the facts’. The editor argued that his alterations raised “the common police mugshot to the level of art”, and argued that such interventions had always been allowable within journalism as long as the essential meaning of the photographs are left intact.


All this can hardly be blamed on digitalization. The history of photography, as I stated before, is full of images that have been manipulated in some way. The production of every photograph requires some intervention and manipulation, light levels, exposure, chemical concentrations etc. Photographers ultimately, whichever practice they use, manufacture the image they make. So, in that sense, photographs are no more or less truthful than digital images.


Now we return to the discussion of photography’s ontology, to the ideas which are supposed to give photography its distinctive identity as a medium. Roland Barthes discounted resemblance to reality, in saying that a photograph does not depict someone as they are entirely, but it does say that they were once there in front of the camera. We can be sure that they were once present in time and space. Reality may have been manipulated, or enhanced, but photography does not discount reality’s actual existence. Susan Sontag says that the photograph is “something directly stencilled off the real,” Rosalind Krauss defines it as “a kind of deposit of the real itself.” It can perhaps be said that photography is the worlds memento mori, allowing the world to be it’s own photographer. A photograph of something has long since been held to be a proof of that things being, even if not of its truth.


Computer visualisation, however, allows images to be made in which there is maybe no direct referent in an outside world. It is possible for these images to have no origin other than their own computer program, and only posses the look of the photographic instead of being inscribed by the things it represents. So how is photography threatened by the digital age? It is clear to us that photography will never entirely disappear, for the culture it sustains is too strong. Photography has never been one technology, for two centuries it has been developed and it’s still here. Even if we continue to identify photography with archaic technologies, like camera and film, those technologies themselves are tangible through the idea of photography. A photographic culture will always exist in some way or another. It can be argued that even if the computer does replace photography, it still relies on humans to operate, thus still relying on the initial vision and creativity of the eye, as would be done through a camera. In this modern day, with all our technologies, the conceptual stability upon which photography identity is presumed to rest upon is questioned. Photographs are privileged over digital images because they are indexical signs, images inscribed by the very objects that they refer to. This implies that whatever degree of variation to originality there is in a photograph, it will still be a more truthful and direct imprint of reality itself.