I’m going through a lot of old magazines ripping out the photos I like and tossing the other 99.5% of the paper.

One thing I noticed in the stack of what I’ve kept, the models don’t look at the camera very often. I sometimes tell new models “don’t look at the camera unless you mean it.”

I look at all of these thousands of images in the magazines I’m tossing out, and I have a visceral reaction to compelling lighting, compositions, dances of color on the page. When I look at a photo in which the model is just standing there deer in headlights waiting for the shutter to click, supremely unconfident, no matter what is going on in the rest of the image, I have a strong dislike for the whole. If it is an interesting setting, I am even angry at the photographer for wasting it on an uncompelling subject.

To me, photography is only a rush when it feels challenging, and if the model just stands there looking at the lens, waiting to have their picture taken, it is uninteresting. I don’t like when they submit to the process, when they are having their picture taken rather than being interesting.

Unless you have the confidence to stare down the lens or tell a story, don’t go near it, the lens will know you are weak. The lens is predatory. To use it is always to be hunting for something. When the prey is immediately submissive, the hunt is dull.

A good list:

50 Best Websites for Moviemakers 2009

My feelings tend to imprint directly onto images. If I feel apathetic or tired, I get these:

If I feel frustrated I get this:

When I feel like being a technical photographer I get this:

When I click with the model and feel inspired by the styling I get these:

My mood and outlook directly affects what I am capturing.

Decoration is a craft. Art is an anti-science. The pinnacle height of achievement in a craft is the perfect modification of a material into a vision. The pinnacle height of achievement in an art is the perfect modification of a vision into a metaphor. Some things can be both. Art cannot exist without craft. Craft cannot exist without art. Yet there is a vast difference from the goals of artists and craftspeople. Craft has a finite goal, the production of something tangible. Art has an infinite goal, the induction of something intangible. Craft relaxes. Art excites.

I have been working as a fashion photographer for several years, and I have amassed a small but vital collection of images. I would like to make a book displaying a selection of these images. Each contribution of $60 toward this effort will entitle the contributor to receive one signed copy of the finished book.

- Ched

contribute here: fundable.com

I haven’t wanted to post much about the new radio show I’m producing, but I wanted to give an update of some sort here. I can’t say where the show will be aired yet, or who the first few guests will be, because we’re still working out syndication and some other things, but hopefully I can post that information soon. I’m almost afraid to jinx it, things seem to be going so well on this project. Cross your fingers!

The show is going to be called Light and Gravity. It is about photography and cinematography, but more generally about images and applied creativity. The “light” part of the title is pretty obviously relevant for photo and cinema, light is how you record images. The word “gravity” refers not to the Newtonian force, but to the importance of images as communication. We will be talking a lot about artist intent, editorial images, and viewer perception. In other words, it will be some pretty deep stuff.

Sandy Ramirez is going to co-host with me, and has been a big help in working to line up master photographers to interview. Currently looking for a cinematographer to join the on-air team.

The first few episodes should be done and ready for air in late February.

For each weekly one hour show we will have a main guest to interview live on the air, along with discussion of news from the photography, film, and creative arts worlds, and usually a pre-recorded feature or two. I’m up in the air about doing call-ins. We may take questions live from the forum on modelmayhem.com.

All art, like science, is hypothesis. There is an innate desire in humans to understand the world around them. Art is one attempt at an answer. Just as science seeks to find explanations through observation and experimentation, so does art.

It could be argued that science is an art. It could also be argued that art is a science. Whatever they are, they both involve testing ideas and looking for answers. They both involve curiosity.

Science is an art, in that creative leaps of faith are required to hypothesize. Science is nothing if not creative problem solving and a way of working to understand the universe.

Art is a science, in that when one is creating, one applies rules to carry out an experiment which might produce a result. In the process of the creation of a work, one tests these rules. Each choice is a rule. Are you going to use light blue for the sky? That’s a choice, a rule. You or someone else can later try another color and compare the results. Each work of art one starts is an experiment testing some hypothesis. The outcome is always uncertain. There are always unplanned results in complex rule systems. When the work is complete, both the final product and the memory of the process add to our knowledge of how things work.

Science and art are both linked at fundamental levels.

ARTICLE

This article on Karl Lagerfeld was in the March 19Th issue of The New Yorker, and though it is quite long I really enjoyed the reading. It’s good to know that the people at the top of the fashion food chain are crazy-seeming artists just like me. I especially liked the part describing the work environment in his home and the descriptions of his diversity of interests.