IC - Week 1 - Where I am now?

I identify my practice with the approach represented by the artists dealing with the photographic medium in an unconventional way like Lucas Blalock, Laura Letinsky, Illit Azaulay, Eileen Quinlan and many more... I search for my own, distinctive way of conveying the ideas with photographic records the same way I have done so when working with other mediums like painting, drawing, digital illustration and most recently the wearable objects. I explore the different techniques, apparatuses and the potential of the multidisciplinary solutions.

During the last months, I experimented with the methods of depicting the forms and structures which are to me, for various reasons, intriguing and attractive visually. I photograph the ordinary objects around me with focus on the objects which are widely considered as rubbish - the byproducts of everyday consumption. 

It is a rather common subject nowadays and there are many amazing artists out there dealing with ordinary things like Laura Letinsky, Nigel Shafran, Stephen Gill, Jessica Backhouse, Wolfgang Tillmans and many more about whom I will try to write in the following posts. 

Stephen Shore was one of the pioneers of depicting the ordinary matter:

"To see something spectacular and recognise it as a photographic possibility is not making a very big leap. But to see something ordinary, something you'd see every day, and recognise it as a photographic possibility - that is what I am interested in. (Shore in O'Hagan, 2015)

The quotidian matter is a starting point in my works but I am not interested in a straight indexical representation. I photograph the objects out of their usual space and arrange in a way the formal qualities take over the primary function. In the frame of my capture, they exist as an independent forms stripped out of they commonly acquired meanings but there is still a layer of a narrative communicated to the viewer by the titles and statement. 

Susan Sontag says: 

“The painter constructs, the photographer discloses. That is, the identification of the subject of a photograph always dominates our perception of it - as it does not, necessarily, in a painting” (Sontag, p.92)

One could challenge this opinion nowadays having in mind the multidisciplinary, abstract and experimental practices. I don't think it applies to my work, even though the reference to the real objects is rather clear, the focus is shifted to the formal and abstract qualities. 


On the 'depictive level' the frame and vantage point seems most important in my works. In the 'Displaced' series I position the main subject centrally in most of the works and by that defining the closed composition typical for the product photography. The image is captured from the top central position parallel to the image background. The shape of the subject is distorted and blurred out by the method I use so the 'product' to focus on is the new, unseen, abstract form instead of the common and recognisable object. Time has also significant a role in those works as they're comprised of three consecutive shots merged by camera into one. 

 Untitled, Unwrapped series, Rita Rodner 2017

Untitled, Unwrapped series, Rita Rodner 2017

In the 'Unwrapped" and "Nothing is a mistake" series the composition is open an the frame has a role of the window open to some abstract space.

 Untitled, 'Nothing is a mistake' series, Rita Rodner 2017

Untitled, 'Nothing is a mistake' series, Rita Rodner 2017


REFERENCES:

  • O'Hagan, Sean (2015)  https://www.theguardian.com, "Shady character: how Stephen Shore taught America to see in living colour", 
  • Sontag, Susanne ( 1977