(from “Family Jewels”), 2007
© Kamden Vencill
(from “Family Jewels”), 2007
© Kamden Vencill
(from “All Our Limbs Have Fallen Asleep”), 2007
© Kamden Vencill
(from “All Our Limbs Have Fallen Asleep”), 2007
© Kamden Vencill
Kamden Vencill has some intriguing work. Take a look at Family Jewels and All Our Limbs Have Fallen Asleep.
4 Comments
August 29, 2007 – 9:58 am
All the photographers’ works you post are indistinguishable.
August 29, 2007 – 10:44 am
Dear Anon(ymous),
These are just artists that I happen to be looking at for various personal reasons – most of which are not so heavily concerned with aesthetics. Since these artists are “curated” by me, there’s no doubt that my own visual preferences, even those that are subconscious, play a role in what shows up here. I, however, have no problem telling them apart from one another.
Your lack of ability to do so is not my crunch.
That said, I do find your comment useful if only you would elaborate. Would you be inclined to explain what you feel makes these artists, as you say, indistinguishable? And, also, what this means to you?
I feel that an explanation may open up conversation on a larger topic that is seemingly valuable.
August 31, 2007 – 7:51 am
hmmm… stumbled upon this with the morning coffee here. i agree that comment is useless without further description.
however, the notion of not being heavily concerned with aesthetics is curious to me, especially in light of contemporary work. my impression is that a lot of the current banal ( no negative implication) color photography directly references the austere aesthetic of work done (begun) in the 70′s. these images of ‘everyday america’ present a consistent neutral palette and feelings of objectivity and anonymity. the work is being done in pursuit of concepts that transcend the locations, but none the less i think there is a definable aesthetic. is it possible to effectively pursue a concept without having first carved out an aesthetic, or at least adherence to an approach? trying to overcome formalism becomes its own aesthetic doesn’t it? hard to articulate, but maybe my question is more along the lines of visible vs. conceptual homage (either way- never an arguement for hdr).
i apologize if this sounds circular, but in some ways i also sometimes feel eager to see a new aesthetic… maybe even some saturation. perhaps provia just wouldn’t jive with the documentation of urban blight… not sure. just kidding really, but this topic is a recurring thought for me.
nice work with this blog by the way…
August 31, 2007 – 9:46 am
I thought I should have added a sentence after the one about aesthetics – something which, maybe, would have pointed out that it’s virtually impossible to not concern oneself with the visual properties of a piece of art. Photographing, in a way, changes the world into an aesthetic. But, to your question:
In my own work, I struggle with this. And, as you said, even the effort to overcome formalism becomes it’s own aesthetic. I think the only individuals that get away from this are “amateur” photographers – those who are shooting a roll of film (or series of digital images) for, at the height of this category, their first time. However, as fine art photographers – those who understand how the scene will translate onto film or the digital plane – it’s important to consider the approach and what it means to adhere to it.
Corey, thanks for your caffeinated comment!
Does anyone else care to respond to this? What about what Corey writes about palette and early color?