Introduction

I have recently received tutor feedback on Assignment 2 which raised a number of points that I will address in this post. General feedback about the photographs was positive, but my tutor questioned how effective the joint themes were and whether I had played things too safe by not electing to publish the post (for reasons outlined in the assignment).

Feedback Points

The first point was about the themes. My blending of street photography composition with studio lighting was evident in the series and my tutor indicated that some images were stronger than others. He highlighted One and Four as the strongest, which aligned with my own views on the series. I liked the humour in both and I think they worked best from a lighting and composition perspective. My tutor took issue with the idea of challenging the viewer in terms of how the images were shot. He rightly pointed out that most people viewing them wouldn’t know or even care how they were taken. While I had fooled a few photographers with the use of artificial lighting, this technical distinction wasn’t really a strong theme. I have to agree, which is probably why I wanted to have a creative link as well as a technique one.

At this point, I raised my concerns that the brief steers us towards experimenting with techniques and approaches while the title Vice Versa suggests a specific inversion of them. We agreed that this was my interpretation and accepted that the main reason that I struggled not to merely invert the techniques from a technical perspective was that portraiture is not a genre of photography that I am at all comfortable. When I feel that way about a topic, I tend to revert to type.

The second point of feedback was my strong connection with and management of my models. It was cited as a strength the series and the creative process that I was able to engage openly with my models, who are all friends of mine. It was clear from the final images that the collaboration between photographer and subject was strong, which made for more natural results. This point raised the main critical point about the series. I had elected to not publish it out of respect for two of the models who weren’t comfortable with it being widely circulated. Although my tutor accepted my reasons for censoring the work, he made the great point that this act undoubtedly had an impact on the strength of the series in the context of challenging convention. Other ideas such as challenging gender conventions within the series, e.g. having one of the men dressed as the cheerleader in Four, were discussed. These were good suggestions that I think were perhaps lost by my slightly blinkered view of the brief.

We discussed the conversation that I had with my cohort about how the use of paid models as a way of avoiding the discomfort. The point that I made was that paid models would be easier in that regard but would potentially lack the natural feel of the work that came from my relationships with my subjects. The overall conclusion was for me to look into examples of self-censorship in art and those who genuinely broke boundaries with their work. The artists Pedro Meyer, Richard Avedon and Joel-Peter Witkin were recommended to me, which I will be looking at in parallel with Part 3.

Other feedback was received about my writing style and some of the work within the exercises that raised interesting questions. However, this post is about Assignment 2 so that is not included here.

In conclusion, I cannot disagree with any of the feedback that I received. I was happy with the photographs individually and as a series, however I was aware that the response to the brief was weakened by my use of composition and lighting rather than subject. I felt that the subject-based theme worked well, but take on board the comments about self-censorship.