Kept Light » art

Atelier Reisman

A. Cemal Ekin — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:48:51 +0000

Although I posted some videos showing Arnie’s work, I thought still images may better convey his creations. Below are some of the highlights from their richly decorated yard. Even the inside of their home shows many of Arnold’s art. The titles are totally my creation and Arnie may or may not concur with them. Enjoy art created mostly from recycled materials.

[Show as slideshow]

Macunagasi Izzet Efendi Mansion, Safranbolu

Macunagasi Izzet Efendi Mansion, Safranbolu

A. Cemal Ekin — Sun, 09 May 2010 16:45:31 +0000

In 2005 I visited Safranbolu for the first time, and ended up extending our planned stay from 2 days to 4. The town received the UNESCO World Heritage Site designation and has remained like a time-capsule, at least so far. The streets, the houses, actually mansions, the lifestyle mostly reflect how the town looked several hundred years ago; bar the cell phones, the TVs, and the

Macunagasi Izzet Efendi Mansion - Click to Play Video

A lucky stop at the door with a sign that, I believe, said “Zamanlik”; roughly translated “time-barn” (entirely my term and the owners may not prefer the translation). There we met Ibrahim and Gul Canbulat working on their project to build and store the collective memory of the town, thus the name. After a brief conversation, they were kind enough to invite us for coffee at their newly restored house. Later that afternoon, we went to the Macunagasi Izzet Efendi Mansion. The couple lovingly restored and decorated the structure to its early glory. They were kind enough to allow me to take photographs in and around their house, which I believe was the first time a stranger was allowed to do; thanks Ibrahim and Gul for that experience.

I produced a video slide show, a photo book and shared them with the Canbulats. Recently, with the more advanced production software I have recreated the slide show remaining fairly close to the original version. This new rendering should provide a smoother video experience and a larger view port. I hope that it conveys the enchanting charm of the town, and more specifically the beauty of the Macunagasi Izzet Efendi Mansion; enjoy!

(View with Flash if the Quicktime version does not play when the image is clicked.)

Painterly? No, thanks!

A. Cemal Ekin — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:23:57 +0000

Many viewers say “oh, such a painterly photograph” when they like a photo you show to them. They mean that in the sincerest way and to compliment the photographer on his or her achievement when they say “it looks like a painting.” This unnecessary, unsuitable accolade has been attached to photography since its beginning. When Talbot, Daguerre, Niépce created their first images, people saw them as “nature’s pencil” and photography as an extension of painting. Going back further provides a stronger link between creating an optical image and painting as painters used a device, camera obscura, to aid them in creating their art.

Cut off Figure

Although it might have been somewhat understandable in the early days and years of photography, this perception of seeing photography as an extension of painting, and a second class one at that, is no longer justified in my view, and viewers need to be disabused of this notion to fully appreciate photography. Let us not forget, photography also influenced painting in profound ways, a fact that does not make anyone to utter “oh, what a photographerly painting” when they see Degas’ horses or dancers. Yes, he was indeed influenced by photography like many other painters. After photographic examination established once and for all, for instance, that all four legs of a horse are off the ground at some point when they run, but never at a point where they are stretched all the way back and front like all the paintings depicted them until then. Degas painted his horses accurately and also some parts of their bodies outside his paintings just as a photograph may do due to framing. His dancers were depicted not only in performance, but often getting ready for it in not necessarily flattering ways. After all, if photography could capture life as it unfolded, why could painting not, and still be painting.

Nude Descending a Staircase - Duchamp

Another example is Marcelle Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, as if photographed under a stroboscope, a style unheard of until the invention of photography. One medium influencing another is nothing new but this does not make one an extension of the other.

Multiple perspecitves hide a skull at the bottom

Photography has unique qualities and should be viewed with these in mind. Painters never felt obliged to put a frame around the frameless world or to see the world from a single vantage point. They organized everything neatly within the borders of their canvas and sometimes even twisted the perspective of different elements in their paintings. Holbein’s Ambassadors is the prototypical example of multiple perspectives and a hidden image due to extreme distortion on one of these planes. These are not inherent characteristics of photography, camera points, establishes a vantage point and frames the photograph. Everything fits into this perspective and some parts of the world are cut or cut out. Photographs are “selected” after an analysis of the environment where paintings are synthesized to reflect the mental image in the mind of the painter. Examples abound.

Regrettably, this view of photography as an extension of painting is adopted, even aspired to by many photographers. They revel in the notion that their camera and photographic technique can produce something “approaching painting.” I believe the growth of one’s vision in any art form depends on understanding the qualities of the medium one uses. Now, I am not suggesting that photography cannot be impressionistic, expressionistic, realistic, romantic, pictorialist, etc. Any photographer may produce a body of photographic work that will fit those styles without being compared to painting. Studies of motion and its effects on photography can result in very interesting photographs. However, this techniques carried to the extreme in the line of creating something like a Rothko painting is merely “brush envy.” Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to impose a particular view on anyone’s art. I am merely defending the art of photography as a self sufficient form not needing the crutches of brushes and stretched canvas.

Some may argue the point by using the example of super-realistic paintings that can easily be mistaken for a photograph. I would like to point out the name used for this style, “super-realistic painting” which defines it in the domain of the medium rather than calling it “photographerly painting” and extending it to the domain of photography.

Photography as an art form can stand on its own two feet, and very well. Look at the history of photography, see the works of Adams, Weston, Steiglitz, Evans, Sander, Bourke-White, Lange, Hine, Cartier-Bresson, Cunningham, Callahan, Siskind, Shore, Eggleston, DeCarava, Meyerowitz, and many more. Also, acquaint the mind with the writings and works of Szarkowski, Sontag, Robert Adams; enjoy the works of the above and other legendary photographers. Then, leave the crutches of canvas and brush, learn the medium, use it, and enjoy it. Capabilities of the medium are very broad and with the advent of digital photography they can be extended even more within the scope of photography and photographic art. Forget about brush envy.

And, please, don’t flatter me by saying how painterly my photographs are, or they look like paintings. They are photographs; I am a photographer, not a frustrated painter.

On Photography, a Panel Discussion

A. Cemal Ekin — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:05:24 +0000

The following video recording is from a panel discussion I moderated in 2007. Fair warning, it is over one hour long and no photographs are shown. It is a conversation on photography, art, and various dimensions of both.

Chihuly at RISD

A. Cemal Ekin — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:35:14 +0000

Last Friday we went to see the Chihuly at RISD exhibit, for me that was the second time. This time, I took a better camera than my iPhone and took some photographs as I saw the pieces. Seeing the photographs is not the same as experiencing the real things. Enjoy.

[Show as slideshow]