Sunday, November 09, 2008

I’m in Fraction

I’m pleased to be a part of the current issue of Fraction Magazine (Issue 4, November 2008). You can see my work in Typologies: A Group Show, alongside my friends Rachel Barrett, Chris Mottalini, Tamir Sher, and Verner Soler, among others.

The magazine also features work from the always amazing Richard Renaldi, along with Adrienne Salinger, David Eisenlord, Suzanne Révy, and Norman Mauskopf. Check it out.


Copyright © Rachel Barrett


Copyright © Chris Mottalini


Copyright © Tamir Sher


Copyright © Verner Soler

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Graham Miller

I’ve been obsessing over the photo at the top of the Flak Photo home page (the fourth one below) for a while now, and I finally e-mailed Andy Adams to find out who was behind it. Turns out it’s Australian photographer Graham Miller, whose project Suburban Splendour is stunningly beautiful. Graham was kind enough to e-mail me some photos to use in this post, just before heading out for the Pingyao International Photography Festival, where a selection of his work is being shown. You can also find him in Hijacked, Volume 1: Australia and America. Meanwhile, you can find me swimming in these images.


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller


Copyright © Graham Miller

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Choosing projects

Yesterday, I posted a few pictures from a project I’ve been thinking about for a few months: a series of portraits of kids with their babysitters. Melissa Lyttle commented and said, “But why?” Good question.

The idea for the project came to me in the car with S. (where most ideas come to me). We’d been listening to This American Life (Episode #351: “Return to Childhood 2008”), and in the first segment of the show, Alex Blumberg tries to track down Susan Jordan, who babysat Alex and his sister when Alex was 9 years old. Here’s the bit that grabbed me:
These are the things that I remember about Susan Jordan. . . . Me and Susan flipping through one of those Time-Life books: Rock ’n’ Roll through the Decades: The Sixties. She has long, brown hair. She’s incredibly skinny. It’s 1975. She’s wearing bell-bottom Levis, a faded jean jacket. She points to a picture of a bloated man in a powder-blue rhinestone jumpsuit, sitting cross-legged on a stage, before a crowd of crying women. “That’s my favorite picture of Elvis,” she says. This information seems somehow personal, and important.
This transported me back to the ’70s and ’80s, back to super-skinny Debby Jones standing in front of the full-length mirror in my parents’ bedroom, wearing a bikini, pinching herself, and saying, “Don’t I look fat?” Lisa Piaskowski, who had a crush on the cousin of one of our neighbors, and who gave us a love note to run over and put on his windshield when he was at our neighbors’ house. Suzie Dragoo, sitting on the deck, with the phone cord stretched from the wall in the kitchen, crying to one of her friends about a boy.

The years when you babysit are tumultuous ones. Everything is drama. Feelings are extreme. And you bring that into the lives of the younger kids you’re charged with watching. If a teenager babysits for one family more than a few times, the kids usually feel a connection to her. And she tells them things she might never tell her parents or her peers. Teenagers think kids don’t listen, or don’t understand. But kids are like sponges, especially when this exotic creature called a teenager comes into the house.

I like the idea of trying to look for that connection in a series of portraits. As I said in my response to Melissa, I’m just getting started in this, and I’m not sure whether it’ll go anywhere. But I usually have to try things to see if they’ll work. Maybe the portraits alone won’t do it. Maybe I would need to incorporate words or kids’ drawings. Or maybe I’d need to change it up and, instead of doing more formal portraits, take more candid shots (the way I did with my sister’s wedding). I don’t know yet, but I like posting things that are in progress, not fully formed or defined, because I think there’s something to be gleaned there about the process.

Rob Haggart posted today about the importance of choosing a subject. He quotes from a Guardian article in which Elisabeth Biondi, visuals editor of The New Yorker, talking about photographer Pieter Hugo, says, “Some people have said to me that Pieter’s subject is so dramatic that it would be hard to take a bad picture . . . but, you know, a photographer chooses his subjects, and that, too, is an important part of having a great eye. Photographers go where their instinct leads them and then try and work out their fascination for the subject through the photographs they take.”

What we don’t often see are the starts and stops, the missteps, the things that don’t go anywhere. I work out what I think by writing. I work out what I feel by photographing. I don’t know yet what I feel about this subject, or whether the depth of my feeling will be substantial enough to take me anywhere. But I’m interested enough to try.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been thinking a lot about my In Store series, about why it doesn’t work for me, why it’s stalled. I think there are two key reasons. One of them is that the idea occurred to me as a concept, a theme, something I could get my hands around. I do think the proliferation of storage facilities says something about our culture. And I think it’s an interesting story. But I have no connection to storage facilities myself. I don’t have stuff in storage. I have a tiny apartment and comparatively little stuff.

This is not to say that all photographers must have a personal connection to their subjects in order to make great photos. It’s just that I think I’m at my best—in writing, in photography—when I make it personal. If I’m not feeling anything, something’s wrong.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Yusuf Ozkizil (a.k.a. Chutney Bannister): The Surreal Line

I realized recently that FILE magazine has a feed for its projects (and for its single shots, too, but the projects are what interest me most). I used to check out FILE periodically, but sometimes months would go by between my visits, and I didn’t want to miss any more of the work that FILE publishes. Boy, am I glad, because the project that showed up in my Google Reader today is one I love. It’s The Surreal Line, a project by Yusuf Ozkizil (who goes by the pseudonym Chutney Bannister on Flickr):
The Surreal Line is a series of images taken from an ongoing project, documenting moments of chance on the London Underground where static billboards and posters coalesce with the world around them.

I’m interested in how these advertisements, specifically designed for delivering one message, can have that story completely hijacked—often by the mere framing of a window—creating an entirely new context. Commuters, who are somewhat static, withdrawn, and locked in their own private routines, are oblivious to these momentary collisions. I’m fascinated by these chance encounters, and, needless to say, I gave up reading on the Tube after my first trip on the surreal line.
Here are some of my favorite examples from the project. Click here to see the whole slide show.


Copyright © Yusuf Ozkizil


Copyright © Yusuf Ozkizil


Copyright © Yusuf Ozkizil


Copyright © Yusuf Ozkizil


Copyright © Yusuf Ozkizil


Copyright © Yusuf Ozkizil

P.S. This is why not banning photography on public transit is so important.

P.P.S. This is how to use advertising photographs, change them up, make them your own, and call them, justifiably, art. Can you tell how I feel about Richard Prince’s appropriation work?

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, April 18, 2008

Revisited

I’ve gotten some play (here and here) with this image from my South of Cota series, but the more I look at it, the more I think it could be better.


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

I was looking for a marine-layer day, and I was hoping I wouldn’t have to wait for June gloom to get one. Lucky for me, we were socked in with it this morning, so I tried a few more shots. I think I like them better than the original, but I’m still weighing it and also trying to figure out which of these two I prefer.

I don’t know what I’d do if these people ever trimmed their trees any other way.


Copyright © 2008 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2008 Liz Kuball

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, March 10, 2008

Robert Frank in Vanity Fair

The April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair—the one with Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, and Amy Poehler on the cover—has an interesting article on Robert Frank worth checking out. Here’s an excerpt from the end:
Robert Frank is an enigma: hard and empathetic and melancholic all at once. He abhors schmaltziness and syrup. I asked him if he would like to see a photograph of my baby. He answered, “Why should I want to see that?”

It is the same with him about photography. Digital photography destroys memory, he believes, with its ability to erase. Art school is another problem, teaching students to be blind. Editors are worse—they poke the artist’s eyes out. Photography: One minute it’s not art at all. Then perhaps it is. And then again it is not. That’s Robert Frank.

“There are too many images,” he said. “Too many cameras now. We’re all being watched. It gets sillier and sillier. As if all action is meaningful. Nothing is really all that special. It’s just life. If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn’t an art anymore. Maybe it never was.”

And maybe it is his fault. Who would believe that a hairy little man could take snapshots of nothing and make millions of dollars? Anyone can take a snapshot. So, maybe, anyone can be famous if he gets lucky once.

Frank watched the dancers for a long spell, until his wife appeared, twirling among them. The old man laughed a real laugh. “I am happy today.”

We smoked a cigarette and said nothing. There was no more to ask, which was good. He had no more to say. Then this occurred to me: “Do you carry any photographs in your wallet?”, I asked.

“One maybe.”

He removed his billfold from his back pocket, flipped through some receipts and a medical-insurance card. There it was. The only picture the master carried was a business-card photograph of Niagara Falls with block lettering underneath it that read, niagara falls, in case its holder should forget what it was he was looking at.

“It must be very beautiful, very romantic,” he said somewhat hopefully. As it turned out, Robert Frank had never been to Niagara Falls. “Is it? Romantic?”

“Yes, quite romantic,” I lied. Let the old man be happy.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 25, 2008

I’m in Flak Photo today!

Check it out.


Copyright © Flak Photo

Labels: , ,

Monday, December 31, 2007

Farewell, 2007

When I was a kid, a year seemed like forever. But in the past decade or so, every year has seemed to move faster than the one before, one year bleeding into the next. I always thought this was because, when you’re younger, one year is just a larger percentage of your life—a relativity thing. But 2007 has been the longest year I’ve had since I was a kid, and that’s forced me to revise my theory: I think the reason time seems to stand still or move much slower when you’re young is because you’re learning so much; every day is full of possibility and excitement and there’s none of that days-running-into-each-other stuff. And that’s why 2007 has been so long for me.

I love a year that seems to last forever.

I spent 2006 taking photography classes, learning some of the technical stuff that I needed to know, and though that was important, it wasn’t until I made the decision in December of 2006 not to return to school in January that things really took off for me. Suddenly I was in charge of my own education, and in my opinion, there’s no better way to do it.

I had no idea then that blogs would become my greatest teachers, or that so many of the photographers I’ve met through blogging would become such good and true friends. I went from starting the year without any real sense of what I wanted to photograph to ending the year so full of ideas that the trouble is, I don’t know how I’ll fit it all in.

My work appeared in A Field Guide to the North American Family, and online at the Humble Arts Foundation, FILE magazine, White Wall Collective, and a variety of blogs. I was part of three group shows (in New York, Los Angeles, and Detroit) and had my first two-person show, in L.A. I received Honorable Mentions in the International Photography Awards and the Hey, Hot Shot! competition (and was featured on the HHS blog twice). After being afraid to go out and make portraits, I ended the year with my own self-proclaimed Portrait Month. And best of all, I got to hang out in person with Shawn Gust, Shawn Records, and Amy Stein, all of whom I met through blogging.

All in all, 2007 was a wonderful year for me and my photography. Not one to be easily satisfied, though, I’ve spent the past few weeks looking ahead to 2008 and trying to figure out what I want to do differently. I recently read Stephen Shore’s letter to a young artist (excerpted from Letters to a Young Artist, published by Art on Paper magazine, and available for purchase here). Here’s the bit that gets me:
I’ve been teaching at Bard College for more than 20 years. I’ve also had the opportunity to meet graduate students at several institutions over the years. More and more, I see students who are driven by a desire to have a show in Chelsea and be a successful artist. Certainly not all students, but I’ve seen a definite shift.

This is understandable, of course. However, for me, it has little to do with why I make art. I believe that art is made to explore the world and the culture, to explore the chosen medium, to explore one’s self. It is made to communicate, in the medium’s language, a perception, an observation, an understanding, an emotional or mental state. It is made to answer, or try to answer, questions. It is made for fun. In short, it is made in response to personal needs and demands.

A student might see a great work of art and say to himself, “This is a great work of art. I want to make a great work of art, too.” And so, the student sets out to try to do so. And if he has some talent, he might produce something that looks just as though it were a great work of art—almost convincing. If one didn’t know any better one might actually mistake it for a work of art. The only problem is that the great work of art that the student so admired was not a product of these same motives. It was the by-product of these same motives. It was the by-product of the artist’s personal quest.
And so my goal going into 2008 is to carry these words with me: to ask myself over and over again why I’m a photographer, and whether what I’m doing is in keeping with the answer to that question.

Although I got a kick out of looking at people look at my work on gallery walls, that feeling doesn’t begin to compare to the feeling I get when I’m photographing. So I think worrying less about who’s seeing my work and concentrating more on the work itself will be key to my happiness in the year ahead. It won’t bother me one bit if, one year from now, I’ve had no other gallery shows. But it will bother me if I don’t make significant progress on my In Store series (if not complete it), if I haven’t started working on one or two of the other projects I have in mind, if I haven’t better defined for myself what I’m trying to say, if I haven’t discovered the work of photographers I hadn’t known about before, if I haven’t spent time with some more of my blog friends, if I haven’t grown as a photographer, and most important, if my photography has not improved.

There is so much to try, so much to succeed at, so much to fuck up. Attention for my work would be great; but I can live without that, easy. What I can’t live without is photographing.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Not the 323

It’s been one of those rare Friday-night-and-Saturday combinations that counts as an entire weekend on its own—screw Sunday. Had the best meal of my life, with the love of my life, in a town I want to go back to again and again, but only with him. Even got a few pictures in the process.

Here are two from last weekend and two from this weekend. (Hint: The 323 area code is not the place I want to go back to again and again.)

P.S. My work is featured in FILE magazine this weekend. (Not sure how long it'll be on the main page, but you should be able to find me here no matter what.)


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Evoking, conveying

E-mailing with Shawn Gust the other day, and congratulating him on his recent inclusion in Flak Photo, I mentioned another recent Flak photographer, Lane Collins, and her photograph of her grandparents, which I really love.


Copyright © Lane Collins

Shawn said that Lane’s photo reminded him of one of Justin James Reed’s photos from his Westward series.


Copyright © Justin James Reed

Very similar at first glance. And yet the expressions on the faces of the subjects communicate entirely different messages and leave me with entirely different feelings. I like both images equally well, but the more I look at them, the less alike they look.

Since my post yesterday about Taryn Simon’s work, and since raising the whole issue of the feeling evoked by an image (or the lack of feeling), I’ve been thinking a lot more about my own work and what I’m trying to convey. I had the discomfiting realization that most of my own images in my In Store series don’t evoke any strong feelings in me (pot, kettle, black). So I started trying to figure out what exactly I’m trying to convey in the project. And that’s when I realized that the difference is in conveying versus evoking. Am I trying to convey a message to the viewer? Or am I trying to evoke a feeling in the viewer? One way isn’t better than the other, and both may apply. But I need to get a better grasp on what my intention is (convey vs. evoke, message vs. feeling, what message, what feeling) if I hope to take my photography up a notch.

Nothing like critiquing someone else’s work only to discover what’s lacking in your own.

Labels: , , , , , ,