Recently we went to Montreal for a week or so. I've never really had success in taking photos in Montreal. I’ve taken nice images driving to Montreal, and driving away from Montreal. But except for a photo of my hotel window there is honestly not much to talk about. About halfway through the trip I stopped carrying my regular landscape camera around and began to rely on just my iPhone.
Now Montreal is a great place, I like the food, love the Montreal Museum of Fine Art. I’m a member of the Museum. There are numerous galleries we go to. And the city is full of wonderful concrete brutalist structures, especially the Metro stations. What more can you ask for But somehow I always find myself taking a few photos for Facebook friends, a selfie here and there, and lots of iPhone images of paintings, sculptures, and works by other photographers I saw and want to look at some more.
I tried several times to come up with a plan, a concept, a photo project idea while I was there, but as soon as I arrived home those images met the delete button on my computer. One series I thought looked really promising, images of small side streets off of main roads, was just a fail. These are basically back streets. You see them in a lot of towns, but in Montreal, they are green, full of trees, and plants, and have an unused, rural look. You take six or seven steps away from the commercial area and you are in another place. I started this series with my iPhone and then re-walked the areas with my camera. But I didn’t have my tripod and handheld in the early morning and late afternoon light the depth of field was too short. And after my second round of taking these images, I realised that while taking these images I was just standing in the wrong place, every time. If my heart had really been in it I would have carried my tripod with me. It would have helped me focus and slowed the work down. I knew I was just marking time.
My Montreal experience reminds me of William Egglestons experience in Paris. After finishing his project, one assigned to him by a foundation, the work he created received mixed reviews. Both Eggleston himself and various critics have expressed dissatisfaction with the project and subsequent book for several reasons: First, Eggleston talks about his lack of connection with the City. While he had visited the city several times, his book was part of an assignment he needed to complete. Watch the video below, Eggleston does what Eggleston wants to, period. The whole process was different than his usual way of working. His style of shooting often involves a deep connection to the places he photographs. He seems to know the landscape, the street, the rooms, walls, ceilings, everything about the places he focuses his work on. Critics and Eggleston himself felt that his work in "Paris" lacked this connection. The photographs didn't convey the same intimacy and understanding of the subject matter. The quality of the images was inconsistent, and while Eggleston is celebrated for his ability to find beauty in the everyday, vernacular and mundane, the selection of photographs in this book did not resonate strongly with audiences or critics. His approach to taking images, which might have been groundbreaking in different contexts, was perceived as less impactful or insightful when applied to such a well-documented city. The images just, to me, didn’t say much about Paris, and honestly didn’t seem connected. They could have been taken everywhere. It’s not just me who found the images less than expected, He seemed to have been too removed from his subject, too unfamiliar with the mundane details. Just as I found myself in Montreal. When something isn’t going well in my work, I often take out his book “Paris” and look through it….thinking about what’s missing, and what is to be avoided. It’s the only book by him I wouldn’t recommend.
As I look through the images I took I’m disappointed that they were images of just what caught my eye. There was no connecting thread for 10 days. No narrative. I could tell I just didn’t know this place well enough. Planning, it seems, needs to take place before you leave the house (or at least the hotel room).
So is all lost? Not really. I think some of my best learning takes place when things don’t work out. Some days I go out with my camera and come back with nothing, not a single image. Those are days I try to learn something from because what I learn will most likely save me a lot of time, and effort, in the future.
After deleting a lot of the images I have 10 printed and they are taped to the wall. I’m thinking a lot about the monochrome images, and the odd light in several that is the city lights reflected down from the low clouds. There is something very lonely and oppressive in these images.
I’m also thinking about these images compared to a lot of Japanese photos where the contrast is way more than I’m comfortable with. On my desk is a book by Daido Moriyama. Every time I look through one of his books I am struck by the directness of his images. He isn’t kidding around. I’ve printed out a few of his images to remind me to be more direct. I’m thinking I need to take 2-3 shots every time to get a variety of contrast when doing monochromes. I’m thinking about what to do with singular images. Images are not part of a project, not part of a sequence or collection. How to put a collection together of images that are unrelated in theme. I’m thinking of how to mix some of my colour images with monochrome images. Often I take a monochrome image with my iPhone, and a colour image with my regular camera. They are so very different. The colour images are often very complex, and the monochromes simple, direct.
At the gallery door as we are leaving
As I’ve mentioned before I find it’s often very helpful to look at several images together rather than one at a time. Comparing and contrasting, looking for common elements, looking for things that work well in one image, and not in another, or seeing something in one image that would have “fixed” another. In teaching art this is a technique we often use when doing group critiques. We avoid looking at one image and instead, ask for 5 or so. The learning process is easier when you have contrast. In my old studio, when I painted, I often would work on 3-5 images at the same time, standing way back, in the corner of the room, to see them together.
I bought a new printer. An Epson 8500. It makes prints that last…not too long. But when printing on matt paper they look remarkably good. I need to be able to see several images at a time, on paper, on the wall. It’s a cheap, quick way to see what I’ve done on paper. The blue construction tape I use to tape them up reminds me they are not the finished product, they are the start. It’s all a work in progress. “Use tape, you might have to move things around to find where they fit.”
A Recent Photo from Tokyo
Please, comments help get attention for my essays. I try to add a couple of short, fun and informative videos on to every essay to help you find out more about who influences my work. Post comments, photos, questions!
A Video on Moriyama
https://www.moriyamadaido.com/en/
A Strange Little Video on Eggleston (if you are unfamiliar)
A very nice post, Jim. I was in Montreal for a weekend a while back and didn’t try to make photos although I’d like to go back up there and plan accordingly.
I think something interesting is happening with your b&w iPhone photos, seems like a good direction for you. Perhaps it’s the simple pleasure of walking with that iPhone camera instead of planning it with your full camera (and tripod) that makes the difference but it’s worth doing it more and as you said, printing the work in progress to see how it comes together is a great approach. I look forward to seeing more.