Portfolio: Lis McMahon

“Our bodies are our gardens, to which our wills are gardeners.” –William Shakespeare

Gardens is a Fine Art series that examines the intimate personal stories of women. This project is about the female experience, our struggles, societal expectations and our own ideals of womanhood. This series takes those ideas and beliefs and creates a garden that symbolizes each subject’s own personal story. The subjects are manipulated portraits of women turned into gardens utilizing artificial plants, flowers and makeup. The concept reflects on what this means to identity, our relationship to our own womanhood and the parallels that can be drawn between women and nature. These gardens are crafted using “florigraphy” and the Victorian era “Language of Flowers” so that each piece of the created garden has a specific meaning to each subject’s story. This creates dual layers of meaning through the symbolic use of the flora and fauna weaving the unique stories of each woman.

See the full body of work at: https://www.lismcmahonphotography.com/gardens

And the Winners Are . . .

Spring Show 2017 concluded Saturday after great success!  Congratulations to all our School of Photography winners.

A little more on the Spring Show . . .

Each year, AA, BFA and MFA photography students submit their best work to the Annual Spring Show. A faculty jury selects the best images for exhibition alongside all other departments, and together we launch this massive event at a key location in San Francisco, attended by thousands of visitors. On opening day, selected students participate in a portfolio review, where industry leaders provide valuable feedback. Our past reviewers have come from PDN, The New York Times, and the Rolling Stone magazine. Industry guests then vote in numerous categories, and the School of Photography gives away brand new awards like cameras, printers, and lighting kits!

Visit more School of Photography videos on our YouTube page.

It may be that photography is for the birds.

by James A. Bowey

It may be that photography is for the birds.

At least that’s what I’ve concluded over the past year as I’ve presented When Home Won’t Let You Stay, a traveling photography exhibition and community conversation series about refugees in America that I began at AAU. As a documentary artist I’m interested in how images can be used to bridge divides on contentious social issues. But what can a photograph really do against the rising tide of cynicism and division that has engulfed contemporary political discourse?

Mohamed (2016)

Mohamed (2016)

Sattar (2016)

Sattar (2016)

This nagging question has compelled the development of my work and research, and I’ve designed a variety of venue-specific exhibitions and installations to explore how this project can engage audiences and prompt new understanding of the plight of refugees. These include a framed gallery exhibition, multimedia presentation, and intermedia projection installation. As I’ve studied audiences interact with the project, I’ve seen many viewers who question the acceptance of refugees suddenly turn to tears. One young viewer in Minnesota sent a message to her teacher: “Before attending the ‘When Home Won’t Let You Stay’ exhibition, I was dreading having to go. I had no idea that a 15-minute show would completely change my opinion of an entire group of people.” But why? What is the role of photography?

The intermedia projection installation is presented on 17 giant screens encircling a darkened auditorium-size room. A single spotlight illuminates an unadorned wooden box in the middle of the space. During the 15-minute looping presentation with an original music score, images, first-person stories and text appear on different screens around the venue. With each appearance of a new portrait and story, the audience moves unprompted and en masse across the space toward the images. I designed the installation so viewers would walk around in a simulation of migration, but this is something much more. Image after image, audiences move in silent unison as if they are coordinating their steps, in both a personal and shared experience. As I’ve watched this collective movement I’ve begun to understand the special power of images.

When a flock of starlings glides across the sky in beguiling murmurations it seems beyond comprehension. It is understandable that a bird would move in response to their neighbor’s movement, but how do hundreds of birds, separated by hundreds of feet, move as one? This question has vexed scientists for centuries, but they think they may have found the answer in cutting-edge physics. Through video analysis and computational modeling, researchers have discovered that starlings' movements can be explained as “critical transitions” in which systems transform instantly from one phase to another, such as from liquid to gas. Each starling in a flock, like sub-atomic particles, is connected to every other starling by a network of energy poised to change phase. When the flock shifts in unison, it’s a phase transition. Scientists believe that starlings may be a beautiful manifestation of an unexplained force that exists throughout nature.

As human beings we phase easily between connection and disconnection, love and hate; and it is reflected in the shape of our society at a given moment in time. Our photographs are holders of that mysterious force that determines the critical transitions of society. They are tiny quantum radiating empathetic energy that prompt the next interweaving phase of human connection and understanding. Our society ebbs and flows, accelerating and decelerating, toward different states of empathy and justice; and like a flock of starlings, we are all connected to one another, poised to take shape through the personal and shared experience of photographs. Inside the wooden box at the center of the projection installation is a stack of cards with a photograph and story for viewers to take, with a simple message: “We shape our world by the stories we tell of others.”

A flock of birds shows us how.

If you’d like to connect and talk more about photography and this project, you can reach me at jbowey@jamesbowey.com.

The Golden Section vs. the Rule of Thirds

by Natalie van Sambeck

All images are created by the author unless noted otherwise.

Sure we’ve all head of the rule of thirds.  It’s a basic composition principle intended to create more balance within your composition.  To do this we divide the image into thirds both horizontally and vertically.  This breaks up our image into nine equal parts creating four intersections points referred to as “sweet spots.”  These sweet spots are considered to be areas where the eye is natural draw to so the idea is to place the subject of focus either along one of the four intersecting points or along the grid lines.  As you can see in the image above, the legs and the rose are positioned along the lines with one of the sweet spots intersecting just above the knee.

While this is a common compositional principle in photography, have you ever wondered where it came from?  Technically speaking, painter, writer, and printer, John Thomas Smith, first coined the term in 1797.  Smith was commenting on some observations he made over Rembrandt’s painting The Cradle, which was two thirds in shadow and one third in light.  However, in my humble opinion the rule of thirds is really an over simplification of the Phi grid, which comes from the golden section.

Otherwise called the golden mean or the golden ratio, the golden section is an irrational mathematical constant that equals to approximately 1.6180339.  Plato was the first to discover this golden ratio, which he expressed in a line.  Looking at the image below we see line A is divided into B and C.  The golden section says that A is to B as B is to C.  In other words, Ais 1.618 times longer than B and B is 1.618 times longer than C.

The number 1.618, which I’m sure you all recognize as Phi, is responsible for the fibonacci spiral.  Otherwise called the golden spiral, the fibonacci spiral is naturally found throughout nature with a growth factor of Phi.  That means that every time the spiral turns a quarter of a circle, the spiral grows so that it is one golden ratio away from the center of the spiral.    

So what does this have to do with the Phi grid and the Rule of Thirds?  The fibonacci spiral can be constructed inside a golden rectangle and both the fibonacci spiral and the golden rectangle is constructed using the golden section.  Do you know that the closest aspect ratio we have to the golden section in photography is 3:2?  This should not be surprising since 35mm film and most digital cameras follow this aspect ratio.  That’s not to say that other aspect ratios don’t have purpose and meaning but that’s a topic for another day.

Now back to the golden section.  If you look at the illustration below, you will see the large golden rectangle and the fibonacci spiral.  Notice how the large golden rectangle makes a square with a new but smaller golden rectangle.  This new golden rectangle can then be divided into a new square and an even smaller golden rectangle.  This can go on and on just like the spiral does. The smallest golden rectangle in the illustration, located in the upper right hand corner, makes up one of the four corners that make up the Phi grid. 

The next three images below show the rule of thirds, the Phi grid, and both the Phi grid and the rule of thirds.  As you can see the two principles aren’t too far off from one another.  However, some would argue that the Phi grid creates a more natural and balanced feel to the rule of thirds.  I am personally inclined to lean towards the golden section over the rule of thirds.  In fact, I find that I naturally apply the Phi grid quite frequently in my compositions.  A case in point would be the self portrait illustrating the principles below.  As you can see from the second image, one of the Phi lines cuts right through my eyes.  I would like to say that I created this self portrait with Phi grid in mind, but the truth is that this was coincidental.   However, this awareness in my own work has led to my personal belief that the Phi grid is more natural that the rule of thirds.  This is of course my opinion.  You may disagree.

Did you know that Henri Cartier-Bresson, who was first a painter before a photographer, often applied these sacred geometry principles when framing his compositions?  What’s even more compelling is he refusal to crop any of his images.  Take a look at the following image below.  You can see where the 3:2 frame is slightly larger than the golden rectangle but you can also see how he used the the fibonacci spiral in his composition.

In closing I would like to leave you with one more idea to think about.  The Phi grid is just one of many compositional principles that stems from the golden section.   Principles such as the occult center, the golden section from the double square, rebattement, ricocheting, and symmetry with triangles are just some variations of the golden section that many of the painting masters as well as photographer’s have used to successfully compose a master piece…and they didn’t use the rule of thirds.

 

[1]  Harris, John R.  Who Wrote the Rule of Thirds. Web. Retrieved on November 28, 2016 from https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/who-wrote-rule-thirds%3F

[2]  Olsen, Scott.  The Golden Section: Nature’s Greatest Secret. Walker Publishing Company, New York, New York, 2006. Print.

NOTE:  Both illustration came from Scott Olsen’s book and the last image was taken from http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/11/28/objectivity-vs-subjectivity-what-makes-a-great-street-photograph

The Purpose of Mistakes

by Troy Colby

Since moving away from my hometown almost two years ago. One thing that I have come to love and embrace living in a college town is the access to a major university and world renouned art museum.  This allows for many opportunities to see works of art and attend many artists’ lectures that I could have never before.

This Friday night was one of those nights. British photographer Richard Learyod was speaking at the Nelson Atkins Museum. Lectures at the Nelson so far that I have seen are based more in an interview form vs. the typical artist following a PowerPoint that they have created.  Giving the interview was the head curator of the photography department, April Watson. 

Over the years I have seen a few of his images online and through my studies. I honestly had no idea of how the work was made or really anything about him.  I think that it is important to know how he came to do the work he does now.  Born in 1966 in a small mill town in England.  This was a town that was on the verge of extinction even when he was young.  He stated; “not much was ever really expected out of you coming from that town.”  Right out of high school he chose to go to art school, the first in his family.  During art school they gave you a studio space and pretty much told you to go to it.  Within this space he experimented with dabbing developer in blotches on the paper, the camera obscura and played with using direct positive paper.  In art school he found that the work can be very easily to be swayed in its outcome.

After school he left and became a commercial photographer.  “I found commercial photography very easy. It was a great life. I got to travel all over the world, just to take pictures.”  He stated.  Once digital came into place and the work became more and more polished which lead to the commercial life “killing” his passion for photography. So he ended up quitting.  Bellow his commercial workspace another large space became available.  He had no idea of what he was going to do with the space at first.  During this time he was teaching on the side.  He wanted to go back and do something with the camera obscura, since he really enjoyed it in the past.  So he built a wall in the middle of the space and had the intent to make still life images with this newly constructed camera.  The wall to this day is always changing.  “I like tearing it down and starting new all the time,” he stated.

It started with a few portraits and snowballed into three bodies of work: Portraits, Figure studies and still lifes. He tends to use a few models while his assistant finds others.  “It just wouldn’t look right having a 50 plus year old man trying to pick up someone to go back to my studio to take their picture,” he stated.  Agnes is one model that he has been using since she was 19.  “She has a timeless look. I don’t want you to be able to have visual clues or evidence of what time period the image was taken,” Richard stated.

image2.JPG

When asked about the technical side of the photograph he stated that it is important but it doesn’t make the image.  It does separate the work just slightly different from the millions of images taken daily but just this much. Holding up his hand showing a gap between the figures.  The process has the subject sitting in  one room alone and in the other room Richard will capture the image coming through the camera obscura on Illford chrome direct positive paper at an ASA of 3. In the end he stated, “most people don’t care about the process. They are just able to read a good photograph.”

In being in the room alone the model is given time to “decide who they are going to be in the photograph. Some people have what it takes to give themself to the process and others just don’t have it.” Richard stated.   This was vey insightful for I personally have stumbled into this in my years of shooting others as well.  It is tough to imagine a model sitting in a room all alone with no site of the photographer making the image. It is really a process in isolation. In showing a slide show there were a few other poses of one of the images in the gallery.  “Go back, go back those are terrible,” he said in a funny tone.  “No, You learn something from looking at peoples mistakes. So that is why they are there.”  I have been to a good handful of lectures and some show how one image might have lead to another image.  But none have really shown mistakes for the sake of doing so.  Even though you can tell he doesn’t really want to show them. It allows for an open discussion about the process and our ability to recognize what is good or bad in the end.  When asked about the color and tone of the images from an audience member asking more of a technical question he answered. “People are very accepting of the wrongs in photography.”  He understands that the color balance is wrong but it only furthers the images intent and it is a part of the process too that causes this. “Film in the UK vs. the US have different makeups, this combined with the camera obscura causes some of these shifts.”  I gather that Richard is very aware of what it takes to make a technically good photograph from his years of commercial photography.  I personally feel as if he cares about the technical side but is more concerned in the end about the image capturing the emotion and soul that the sitter is willing to give. 

The last question of the night I was an odd question that was directed to the curator of the show.  I felt it important to mention it for it was an odd moment.  Someone in the audience asked, “Do the size of the prints make you want to show the work?”  I got the impression that the viewer did not care for the subject mater in the work and might be a bit jaded on seeing it hanging in the gallery. Maybe I am wrong and it might be wrong for me to say so.   I felt as if it was a bit rude to ask but she gracefully answered it. “No,” she stated. Going on to explain that the process of the work is important but the subject mater of the human connection is more important.  The work “holds my attention and in the end that is what is important,” April said.  In the end is what Richard had ultimately tried to avoid the technical conversation of size and process.  For I feel he realizes that a photograph can be timeless with the right amount of emotion and passion put fourth in the work.  Many times throughout the lecture you gather that he is very humbled that the work has gained this much recognition as he sits in the lecture chair in a pair of average pants and white undershirt that looks well worn, while sipping on a glass of wine. 

In viewing the work up close they are so immersive that you become engulfed into the gaze of the sitter.  The work is simple in its exterior at first glance. Though the more you view it the more you become connected within the image and start to scratch what is really going on under the surface.

The work is up at the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City from February 10 to June 11, 2017.

Watson, April. In the Studio with Richard Learoyd. 17 February 2017.

Images, by Troy Colby

1.     Agnes in Red, 2008
2.     Lecture Shot
3.     Agnes in Red, 2008 in back ground foreground,  Vanessa, 2013