Fruggums - Filed under 'art'

December 28, 2009

Semester of a Photographer, Part 2

Once again all my classes were 3 hours (except Studio which was four) and this time I had class five days a week. So here we go again.

1. 21st Century History

The first of my humanities courses, this course aimed to answer some seemingly simple questions about human civilization and how we got here. Things like - why does most of the world speak English? Or why the Industrial Revolution began in England ; and how did they manage to conquer a big chunk of the world? It also encompassed current issues such as climate change and the evolving relationships between developed and developing countries and the powers that are shaping them (a big part of the study was based on multinational corporations).

10 assignments and a final project. Part of what I did for my finals is here.

2. The Myth of Self-Creationism in American Literature

Yes, the course is as impressive as it's title. This course was all about the myth of the American dream and how it has manifested itself in American literature right from the start. Readings (and there was a lot of reading) ranged from Thomas Paine to Saul Bellow to William Faulkner to Ralph Waldo Emerson to WIlla Cather to Fitzgerald to - oh you know what I mean.

Two exams. Fantastic course, the professor was extremely engaging so he managed to pull it off.

3. Critical Eye

Probably the most intellectually stimulating of my courses, this one is a mix between photographic theory and philosophy. It deals with how we absorb, interpret and understand photographs. It's a crash course on the photograph as an object, how it functions and how we engage with it. There was a lot of Susan Sontag and Roland Barthes thrown into this course, obviously. Class was sometimes at MoMA, galleries or museums.

Three (challenging) papers and a midterm exam.

4. Digital Photo

Ah finally, here come the more photo-photo-photo courses where I can show you work (you wouldn't want to read my dense lengthy papers from the above three). This is the intermediate Photoshop class that aimed at stepping up our digital skills. My final portfolio is the first group of images at the end of the post.

There was a midterm and a sprinkle of in-class assignments.

5. Critique

Quite simply the class of all classes. The central focus of the semester always lies in Crit class. This is the class where we work on a project for an entire semester and bring in work each week to receive (constructive) feedback and further develop the idea. It's the second portfolio below.

6. Studio

Perhaps the most fun class of all. What's better than learning how to shoot beautiful photos in the studio? Models, lights, cameras, all flying about and great pictures coming out of it. It's the last portfolio at the end of the post.

That's it folks.

Compared to the previous edition of this post I haven't punched in the blood, sweat and tears that has to go in behind all of the work up here. It's the finished product that counts this time around.

Welcome to 2010.

Click here to download:

Semester_of_a_Photographer_Par.zip (3275 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles college photography

Comments [0]

October 8, 2009

Modern Criticism

Artists have to deal with it day in and day out. Well, not really 'deal' with it, but require it. Sift through a splurge of reactions to find that one person who appears to make a little bit of sense.

For some reason we require a form of validation that what we're working on happens to be acceptable (or even better, appreciable) to someone other than oneself. Here's the cool part, most of the artists we recognize today didn't need that (Robert Frank being my favorite example). They just went along and worked on what they had to.

When we ask someone for criticism we're putting them in a position of power. They are suddenly put on the pedestal and given the right to form a (hopefully unbiased) opinion on what they think about something. Part of the problem is, when someone is asked to be a critic, some people are put in this subconscious mindset that whatever they come up with has to be criticism. This is where most of the praise just withers away. To be given the title/power of 'critic' means that you obviously are regarded highly for your opinion by that person. Hence he/she expects something unique, useful and honest from you. Which means the 'critic' here, to keep up his/her won status, is going to consciously search for negatives to either balance out the positives or negate them altogether. Otherwise, what's a critic?

When I'm working on something I'm always asking people what they think. I listen to all of it. I accept around 13-17% of it. I act on about 1% of it. There are very few useful critics around. There may be several hundred good ones, but they probably aren't of much use. A large lot of people are unaware that this applies to most if not all artists and isn't just me being a narcissistic dick. For one its impossible to act on 99% of critical suggestions because 1) It doesn't fit with what the artist wants to convey and 2) Another critic already conflicted with your recommended course of action.

So really what criticism is is a little fun game we artists play. We skip along asking what you think and throw it out until we reach somebody who can actually help more than just critique. We're a confused lot. Half the time we don't know what our own vision is and sometimes we rely on other people to figure it out and scratch at it. Sometimes we just need a nudge in another direction to get things going again. And sometimes playing the criticism game is the only way to get it.

By now most of you who have ever offered me advice or opinions are probably thinking 'Hey, WTF - well, this guy doesn't need to know what I think anymore' and its probably true (even though I'll still ask you and continue to play the game). Look at that sentence again, it centers around you, not me. Those are the sort of people who are out throwing opinions (and will do so when asked) at people for their own mood. I'd like the opinions that are centered around me, because it's my work and not yours - and if you treat it the other way around anything you have to say will be useless.

And that's modern criticism. And y'know what? Guilty as charged.

P.s. It goes without saying how much worse the people who can't be honest are. Even if your opinion could turn out useless don't hide it. Lying and saying you love it is worse than saying you hate it but you're not sure why.

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles photography random rant

Comments [1]

September 29, 2009

The Contact Sheet Project

This is a photographic project I've been wanting to execute for quite a while actually. As my critique teacher made me notice it took all of 6 months for the lingering stagnating idea to become what you see now.

Check out the series here, though it isn't complete just yet, and will remain an ongoing passive project.

I also have done another mini-series this semester which I'll be putting up on my photoblog first before uploading it to my portfolio.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art college photography pictures

Comments [0]

August 28, 2009

Semester of a Photographer

I've been asked many a time - what exactly do you do at college?

Since most (alright, all) of my friends have absolutely nothing to do with the arts it seems weird to them to study photography full time for four years. I mean, after all, anyone can take good pictures (right?)

Do I have exams? Do I have textbooks? Hell, what do you do all day?

Finger-paint.

But anyway, since I'm so sick of being asked what why and how I thought I'd outline a semester of work and then create an URL to this page and just slap it onto whoever asks next. And maybe it'd help anyone who plans on studying photography in the future.

This is the first year, so it's all about 'foundation' and basics.

1. Photography Workshop

This Monday-morning 9AM class goes on till 3PM in the afternoon.

The first 3 hours are spent Darkrooming. In the first semester, it was B&W and the second, color. When working with film and light-sensitive paper, it can take up to an hour and a half to make a perfect print. I don't want to explain the entire process in the darkroom, just know that it does, it's a lot of work and takes a lot of skill to get it done right. Just imagine making a photograph without any digital intervention and you have enough of an idea on how complex it must be.

The next three hours are spent in critique.

The bulk of this class is spent outside the classroom or the darkroom. It's coming up with a project and executing it. Working on a new segment of it every week. It requires a lot of thinking and a lot of time. Especially since I had to travel far and wide to do my project (sometimes three hours each way). So just creating work for this class takes up a good few days of the week (and if it doesn't turn out right it has to be done all over again). And then printing it before critique. I usually bring in ten prints, and those can't be made in the three hours before class.

Here's some first semester work :

Click here to download:

Semester_of_a_Photographer_tag.zip (1283 KB)

And some second semester work - the last two (see the full series here).

2. Foundation Symposium

This was the second Monday course I had from 6PM - 9PM.

This course was divided into six (I think?) parts. Each part covered a different topic. Examples were career prospect introductions and industry standards, video, photographs as art objects etc.

I ended up creating a lot of fun stuff in this course.

In Video :

Drumbone from Azhar Chougle on Vimeo.

And working with text (see the full series here) :

I put in more than the required effort for this class so ended up spending quite a bit of free time working on javascripts/tiny_mce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js?1251442053" type="text/javascript"> next week's project.

3. History of Photography

I really liked this course even though it has the word 'history' in it. It was a pretty thorough two-semester long introduction to how photography got going and how it's evolved into current-day what-it-is. We got to see a lot of amazing work this class, that was education in itself. And on a field trip we got to see real photographs from the 1840s.

There was a textbook. So there was studying and exams. Two exams (mid-term and final) along with a few papers and a creative project. So it was quite a bit of work but fun work. A bit of mugging for the exam but after all it is history so it's excusable.

Was my only class on Tuesday from Noon to 3.

4. Literature

Hah, this was all reading and writing. We read some particularly strange things such as Candide and Whitman and Rumi (I liked none) but the professor was an ecstatic jumpy fellow. And we looked at a bit of art and did a bit of thinking so it was all good.

His essays were really challenging so that was what made this course for me. Relating art and literature to current events and things like that. Pretty complex stuff. Especially that really long research paper at the end of it.

5. Digital Imaging (second semester only) :

This class was basics of Photoshop. Being self-taught in most of it already I didn't learn much here, but I did pick up a few neat tricks and was forced to work in ways I wouldn't have normally. There were no tests or exams, instead weekly assignments, which for me, culminated in some (personally rewarding) and excellent work. Examples below.

Click here to download:

0Semester_of_a_Photographer_tag.zip (775 KB)

6. Intro Photo (first semester only) :

This was a course to make sure that we know everything that we should before going on to advanced things like studio. Explaining the basics of photography and dejumbling things like ASA and what film is made of and how the darkroom chemicals work.

This course also had an awesome professor who would bring in amazing cameras and show us how to use them. Like Mamiya's and Hassy's - even a view camera. So it was a lot to learn and there were only two tests which were fairly simple for me.

--

So with all the courses, work and my additional travel, concerts and such it became a good time. The next two semesters are going to be a big step up from the past year. I have studio, and two difficult humanities courses along with the usual. And work and gym.

So I hope that sufficiently illustrates what being a full-time photography student is like. All the classes above were three hours, by the way. So I'd have a straight 9-9 day sometimes with a few hours in between for a nap.

And for those who didn't know jack about my work you got a nice taste of it up there.

(I study at the School of Visual Arts. It's my second year this fall)

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles college photography

Comments [5]

May 3, 2009

The Amateur Photographer

I've been meaning to write this post for a while, especially since my position on it has changed in the past couple of months.

As an amateur soon (hopefully) turned professional photographer, I deal with and observe several amateur photographers on a daily basis.

Obviously there's a difference between a person such as me who is pursuing photography as art and career and a person for whom photography never extends beyond a hobby. There are also a certain group of people stuck in between - the 'serious' amateurs, to whom I'll devote a special paragraph later on.

How do I feel about amateur photographers? I'm quite neutral towards them actually, and probably will be going forward. There are things I love, and things I despise about them.

Realize two things here 1) I was once an amateur photographer, each professional at sometime was and 2) Amateur photography today has been shaped almost completely by the advent of affordable digital photography.

Here are the things I like about having this class of people around. For one, they give my corporations a great deal of funding to keep developing their professional line. Sony is the best example here. Without their compact camera division flourishing, their advent into the professional market would have been all the more risky. Amateurs are easily conned into spending large chunks of money (XYZ Megapixels!) which means that large corporations don't have to pay much attention to the technical aspect as much as the 'cosmetic' hype (hello Nikon D5000). More of that money can go towards their pro line.

Here are the things I dislike about amateur photographers (honestly, most of these didn't apply to people like me during my first year, but some did, which I've expanded upon). For one they buy multi-thousand dollar DSLRs they use on Auto. It's frustrating to me when someone goes ahead and buys a camera worth that much money and end up not knowing a thing about it. Even worse, some assume that they have professional cameras and then compare it to mine, which is a modest setup, but that's the thing - they will never realize that you don't need to spend thousands of dollars to get great photos. It helps, when you know how to use it, but if you don't, it's just technical jargon that you can rant about not knowing what it all means.

Next, some amateurs can be a bit stubborn at times. I can't blame them for this one though, its perfectly normal. When they get a "great shot" by their standards they get so pumped up and excited about it to the extent that they can compare it to a professional's work (yes, it happens). They aren't very down to earth sometimes. But you can't blame them here, they aren't exposed to great photography in the first place. A large part of them follow the misconception that photography is about the camera, and I'm no greater than them unless I have a better camera. Looking at my work, the first question is usually "What camera do you use?" Guess what, both my cameras are out of production, but I'm extremely happy with them and I can still make great pictures with them. Realizing that it takes the skill of a photographer and not the circuitry of a mass-produced digicam to accomplish a great photograph is a hurdle nearly every amateur (who dares proceed further than amateur) has to overcome.

This one applies to me too - amateurs think film is dated, old and nothing compared to modern day digital. Like most amateurs today, I started out with digital, so I thought the same "Why would anyone use film?" Right? Well, wrong. Film has dynamic range and resolution that hasn't been achieved in the digital world as of yet is your straight and honest answer. And well, it is a lot more rewarding, fun and skillful but that's another story. Also, amateurs, please - just because one is a photographer does not mean we know every single model and make of camera out there - we know what we work with and that's it, Google a review for yourself, but if you need assistance comparing cameras with tech specs or image quality examples, we'd be glad to help, just don't rattle off DSC-PZ10 and expect us to know anything, it isn't our realm.

Right, the 'serious' amateur. They form a minority of the amateur spectrum. And I'm glad most of the amateurs I interact with fall into this class. They are the ones who have an honest love for photography. They're down to earth people who pursue it as a passion only because their day job happens to be something a bit less adventurous (they might say otherwise, and they're right sometimes). They know their cameras and value them well. They don't make art, but they can make some damn fine pictures nevertheless. Always out to learn, very few amateurs progress to this stage, and these are the people who could turn professional if they push themselves hard enough.

So as I said - I'm neutral. Photographers wouldn't be anything without amateurs, because that's where everyone has to start, there's no trickery to evading this stage. It's just that with digital photography, everyone thinks they are a photographer now (and some of them are, and move forward) - people seem to be pushing it a bit too far sometimes.

End of thesis.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles photography rant

Comments [3]

April 16, 2009

Target Audience

As a photographer, I have two target audiences.

It gets irritating sometimes.

There are the 'normal' people. They don't get art. They won't try. That won't change. They'll go by looks. Depth and meaning, not required. They look for an impressive visual. So this would probably be the photo they're most attracted to. Or something similar. And that's alright.

There are the artists. My professors, classmates and anyone who knows art. Looks can't cut it here. There has to be depth below that surface. Hey, it has to be aesthetically working, but that alone can't make art sometimes. Innovation thought and meaning. So this would probably be my most successful artwork.

The hardest part - to cater to both. The two audiences are so frustratingly incompatible most of the time that essentially I have two different portfolios, and each audience will probably never see the other one.

The saddest part - I find the 'normal' stuff fun, yet pathetically easy sometimes. Its so easy to produce pretty photos. And it can get boring. It isn't challenging. Sure I'll fall for it once in a while but art is always aiming higher (suggesting that the artistically inclined audience is a 'higher' audience, are they?).

There are times when things mix. And mix well. These rare occasions are the special ones. And its happening more often as time goes by. When portfolios dare to merge just a little bit. Audiences have an equal reaction (negative, or positive). Maybe that's a photographer's goal? To get to the point where you can produce work that would appeal to nearly anyone. Artist or not.

I don't know. Lets see.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art photography rant

Comments [0]

April 7, 2009

Creative Industry

I consider myself quite privileged to be able to pursue a career within the creative industry. Creatives of course include designers, photographers, artists and such, but also fellows like application developers and authors.

The Creative Industry, as I'll call it, works quite differently. Hence, anyone who happens to be a part of it, works differently too.

If you stretch it far enough, one can consider any trade creative, but you're just fooling yourself. But there's a vast difference between 'creative' and 'problem-solving'. Most careers fall into the latter, if at all. You don't have to be creative to solve a problem (though if you are creative, you end up solving it better)

There's the common myth that the creatives never end up working as hard as everyone else. Being an art student myself, I get that quite often. "Anyone could've taken that picture" - classic. Well I'm going to step up and put our case forward.

Creating a piece of art requires far more effort than studying for an exam. Sure, studying for an exam is irritating, time consuming and includes a bit of painful procrastination. But really all there is to it is reading a book over a few times (maybe more if there's something to understand). Maths isn't creative, there's a set of methods to follow, pick one, progress, find next method, move forward, and of course while doing this make sure you follow all the rules. I'm not saying anyone can ace a Maths exam, that isn't true. What I will say is that the number of people who can is far more than the number of people who could create a piece of art.

When you're creating art, there are two obstacles that no-maths-examinee will ever face.

One, you have to do it like nobody else has done it (approached it, thought of it, shown it) before. Maths would be a lot more interesting if this was possible (I'm talking student level)

Two, there's no right answer. No solution to aim for. Where you go with it is completely up to you, you're on your own.

This is besides the fact that creating art is more time intensive, brain-powered and nerve-wracking than studying. We make it look easy, I know. That's because we love what we do (its the equivalent of your 'studying') so we don't complain about it as much.

There's also competition. Sure, in non-creative industries there is too right? You apply for a job. Selected from a pool of applicants. Well, guess what, in the creative industry you aren't applying for anything. There's no real pool of applicants, but you still have to be better than them. You're pretty much standing on your own out there.

What sets people apart in the non-creative industries is the points on their CV (in most cases).

In the creative industry, the unique element you bring to the table is yourself and your art. You could have assisted the greatest photographers in the world, received a Masters Degree from who-knows-where, but if your art is rubbish or you're not a people-person there's a chance you won't get anywhere.

The inspiration for this article came from the new design I finished for my home page. In this industry, there are no rules. In fact if anything is Times New Roman, size 12, double-spaced, get out. You really have to showcase yourself to the world. Do it however you want. But show that you have something more than talent. I think the changes I made are a step towards that. It isn't targeted towards my friends or acquaintances , its targeted to someone looking for a creative person to handle their next project. Seeing that layer below a portfolio becomes essential sometimes (and sometimes I fail at doing that). Being unconventional and thinking out of the box is of course part and parcel. Creating identity, that isn't necessarily, because that takes more than creativity, it takes a unique sort of person to do that.

There's just so much to say on this. But I'll end with this. Although I made it seem the creative industry is this cruel beast, well, it is. And that's why we're in it. Its challenging. Its different. And we love it just for that. Getting to spend your career in it is the most difficult thing in the world but also the most rewarding (to me, at least).

The End.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles design photography

Comments [0]

March 27, 2009

A Good Photo

I hadn't thought about this until a few weeks ago when I met the critique professor I'll have for next semester.

What really makes a good photo?

Its quite a cliche question, but for a photographer, a very valid one.

I realized that a pretty/beautiful/lovely photo isn't necessarily a good photo. The problem is, for a photographer, its easy to take a pretty picture. Its easy to make a pretty picture in Photoshop too. What's hard to make is an interesting photo. Even harder, a unique photo. Something that you can be sure of nobody else could have done in the way you did. An approach never seen before, a subject never seen that way, something like that. Getting a 'Wow' from an audience isn't enough sometimes. Pushing for a photo which they can stare at for a while and think about, to me that's getting at what a good photo is all about.

From thinking I had hundreds of good photos, I see that I really only have a handful. And its not something to be saddened by. I then had to accept that producing a good photo is going to take a lot of work, time and of course, error. But realizing and accepting this is important for a photographer. This starts with being able to objectively judge your own work so that you can spot the good ones in the first place (something I'm still not very good at)

Sadly there are simply too many photographers out there. Sadder still, a lot of them could duplicate the same photo you just created and possibly do it better than you could have thought possible. Unless you really bring something different to the table. Why should someone hire you? Quite a tough question to face, especially when your salary is riding on the answer.

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles photography

Comments [0]

Tags

art