The camera is being reconfigured, so we have to rethink camera/subject relations. Not only is the thing itself disappearing, with production of one of the most emblematic objects of modernity halving in one year (thanks to Jason O’Brien from the ANU for that tip-off), but there are more and more signs that the shuttling back and forth of object and image is becoming a permanent enmeshment. Clothing is being engineered to resist the paparazzi’s blast. Kate Moss, one of the most papped women of all time, models a T shirt engineered just for her. Seemingly an innocent black T shirt, it briefly broadcasts ‘FUCK YOU CUNT’ when hit with a photographer’s flash, thereby supposedly rendering the image worthless in the celebrity marketplace (although, cannily, this anti-pap campaign only adds to Kate’s celebrity value). Apple have also just patented a ‘concert camera blocker’, which undermines one of the main uses of its own smart phones by emitting infrared signals from a stage disabling smart phone cameras, technologically enforcing ‘reality’ onto concert goers who may prefer their pop culture mediated. I’m sure there are other examples. We photo theorists are still too hung up on images and image ubiquity, we need to think about other dissolving technological categories as well.
Tag Archives: 2016
Catoptrics literally and figuratively
In 212BC Archimedes supposedly used a parabolic ‘burning mirror’ to set the attacking Roman ships on fire. In 1646 Anthanasius Kircher, in his book The Great Art of Light and Shadow speculated that Archimedes would have had more success if he had used multiple mirrors each focusing the sun in a giant parabolic shape. Kircher’s groundbreaking catoptrics were borne out in today’s solar furnaces and generators. Now Spencer Tunick revises the idea at the current republican convention and with his trademark naked participants. As 100 nude women hold large mirror discs ‘to reflect the knowledge and wisdom of progressive women and the concept of “Mother Nature” into and onto the convention center’ Tunick joins the figurative metaphor of enlightenment to age old catoptric science. However the women are phalanxed to form a series of flat reflective surfaces. The work would have had a different valency if he had organised their naked bodies into a parabolic surface as Kircher suggested, focussing their rays onto Trump , who invites volatility.
Magic Lantern Horror Show Video
A video of my Magic Lantern Horror Show, performed at the National Portrait Gallery with members of the Gallery and the ANU School of Music, is now on line.
Photos of my magic lantern show at Canberra Obscura
The estimable Andrew Sikorski has posted some shots of my magic lantern performance (along with Andromeda is Coming) amongst his documentation of the Canberra Obscura Art Party on his site Life in Canberra.
You can see me using my own latest technological innovation in projection which I call ‘a bit of cardboard with a hole in it’. Derived from the ‘burning in tool’ of the traditional darkroom printer, the ‘bit of cardboard with a hole in it’ held over the lantern lens spotlights details and narrativises the slides like Ken Burns did with his (now infamous) ‘Ken Burns effect’ in such landmark ‘archivally based’ documentary series as his The Civil War of 1990. I was also inspired to use the ‘bit of cardboard with a hole in it’ by the author of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He came to Australia in 1920 on a magic lantern tour to show people photographic evidence that the dead returned from beyond the veil. In Adelaide, according to Doyle’s account on page 76 of his book Wanderings of a Spiritualist, ghosts literally inhabited the machine and took over the magic lantern to demonstrate the proof of their survival:
I had shown a slide the effect of which depended upon a single spirit face appearing amid a crowd of others. This slide was damp, and as photos under these circumstances always clear from the edges when placed in the lantern, the whole centre was so thickly fogged that I was compelled to admit that I could not myself see the spirit face. Suddenly, as I turned away, rather abashed by my failure, I heard cries of “There it is”, and looking up again I saw this single face shining out from the general darkness with so bright and vivid an effect that I never doubted for a moment that the operator was throwing a spotlight upon it. … [N]ext morning Mr Thomas, the operator, who is not a Spiritualist, came in in great excitement to say that a palpable miracle had been wrought, and that in his great experience of thirty years he had never known a photo dry from the centre, nor, as I understood him, become illuminated in such a fashion.
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Andrew Sikorski, Canberra Obscura, Martyn Jolly with ‘Andromeda is Coming’
Octavio Garcia
Catalogue essay for Cihuateotl’s Myth by Octavio Garcia, PhotoAcess, 26 May to 19 June, Canberra, gallery below.
Octavio Garcia
What kind of photograph is a chemigram? It’s made with an ordinary sheet of photographic paper, but negatives aren’t projected onto it in a darkroom. Instead, the lights are left on. This super overexposure ‘charges’ the paper with the maximum potential to react to photographic chemicals. To make the various tones and lines of a picture the photographer must manually modulate the amount of physical contact between the halides embedded in the paper and the chemicals in the developer and fixer baths.
The photographer applies resists of various sorts (lacquers, syrups, sprays and so on), which are then selectively removed to let the chemicals penetrate into the emulsion. Garcia applies a hard resist and makes intricate incisions with a scalpel, chemicals penetrate the cuts, leach through the emulsion, react with the halides, and lay down deposits of metal compound. Through alternating sequences of peeling, soaking, developing, washing and fixing complex images emerge in delicate tones and lapidary colours. The images form through obscure reactions deep in the subterranean strata of the emulsion. If you insist, it’s a process of drawing, but you couldn’t call it ‘mark making’ in the conventional sense. The photographer can direct, but he can never completely control, the slow leaking and leaching as his potent chemicals work their way through his intricate incisions.
Photographers often experience something transcendent in the normal light-based photograph, as the ‘pencil of nature’ delicately writes herself as an image. And I suspect chemigrammers feel a similar deep connection to similarly large, if not more chthonic, forces, as reagents migrate through emulsions and metals microscopically crystalize themselves. If conventional photographs come from the same family of images as paintings, perhaps chemigrams come from the same family of images as tattoos —at the endpoint of a long laborious physical process both tattoo and chemigram appear not on top of, but inside of, a sensitive surface.
Recently there has been a worldwide resurgence of interest in chemigrams and other cameraless photographs of their ilk. A major book Emanations: the Art of the Cameraless Photograph (in which quite a few Canberra-connected photographers get a guernsey) is about to be published, and an exhibition of the same name is currently on at the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, New Zealand. Late last year, The Alchemists: Rediscovering Photography in the Age of the Jpeg, was held at the Australian Centre for Photography; earlier the J Paul Getty Museum mounted Light, Paper, Process: Reinventing Photography; the year before that the International Centre for Photography mounted What is a Photograph?; before that, the Aperture Foundation toured The Edge of Vision: Abstraction in Contemporary Photography and the Victoria and Albert Museum mounted Shadow Catchers: Cameraless Photography.
Looking back over all this diverse activity you get the sense that many cameraless photographers are seeking a connection to larger forces, often environmental or historical — not a ‘feeling’ of connection, or an ‘image’ of connection, but an actual connection. The sense of actual connection Garcia seeks is historical. Chemigrams are a process as much as they are an end result, and through the almost ritual process the chemigrammer undertakes in the darkroom he can almost feel as though he is continuing, in a way, other equivalent rituals from the past involving sacred libations of various sorts. In his head Octavio Garcia has distilled the chemigram process down to two sacred elements, paper and water: paper, through which the sacred symbols of humans are created and transmitted through the generations; and water, through which life itself is sustained.
Garcia is concerned with his ancestors. As a contemporary Mexican he feels a pull down through the generations, down through the layers of colonial and postcolonial disruption and dislocation, down through the genetic dilutions and recombinations of history, deep down to his ancestors — the ancient inhabitants of Veracruz. Garcia uses his scalpel to incise designs derived from his cultural past into the chemigram resist. Previously he has copied the drawings found in the paper codices collected from Pre-Columbian civilizations and now kept in museums. More recently he has recreated a colossal Olmec head, dating from a millennia before Christ and weighing several tons, which he reconstructed at original scale from a photograph he took on a pilgrimage to the Museum of Anthropology in Xalapa, where it now sits.
In the series exhibited here he has worked with sculptures in the same museum and made by his ancestors more recently (only one to one-and-a-half thousand years ago!). The sacred figures emerge from Garcia’s chemigrams with a kind of geological force. The gesture of Garcia’s wrist is there, as it has swiveled and turned the scalpel to manually inscribe the image of the museum aretefact into his resist layer, but through the darkroom process his drawing interacts in a physical way with the slow propulsions of chemical reaction and metallic deposit. The combination produces an image a bit like fossil suddenly revealed in a split rock, or the faint outlines of an ancient settlement only discernable from the air, or the eroded groove in a petroglyph revealed in a chalk rubbing, or any other of a chain of associations to do with the tangible presence of the ancient past.
The most popular tattoo designs for our deracinated age are ancestral symbols, Celtic braids or whatever. But Garcia goes much further, and much deeper, than these attempts at readymade off-the-shelf skin memory. In his endless search for the presence of his past through the chemigram he has invented both a new visual language and a new ritual process.
Martyn Jolly
#standupstripdown
The hashtag #standupstripdown has been invented to be used by people like Heather Whitten who want to post family photographs with naked children. In the latest of a string of such incidents her image of her naked husband cradling her sick and naked son in a shower has been taken down several times by Facebook following complaints by people disgusted by the potentially paedophilic readings the photograph could carry. The disgusted complainers who are having such a lamentable chilling effect on our visual culture misunderstand both semiotics and paedophilia. Even if it unpleasant to imagine the occasional paedo using such images for sexual gratification, the psychological effect on our whole society of NOT seeing images of such rich aspects of life, love and bodies is far worse. Others complain that the children in such photographs cannot give their consent and may be shamed or embarrassed when they grow up. But image making and image sharing in our culture cannot be reduced to a infinite series of micro-contracts over ‘self image’ between two quasi-legal parties. Such a legalistic conception of self image as an owned ‘property’ also reduces the complexity and richness of our collective visual culture. I’ve previously written about this so I don’t know why people aren’t taking any notice of me. Perhaps I didn’t think of inventing a hashtag.
In Bangkok triangulating Francis Chit and being reminded of Charles Bayliss
When we were recently in Bangkok we had a lovely afternoon with the super gracious Gun Susangkarakan who we had met when I was giving some seminars at Chiang Mai University Faculty of Fine Arts Department of Media Arts. Gun is an ace temple photographer (hard-core old-school, 8×10 selenium-toned contact prints). He took us to Wat Arun (Temple of Dawn).
You can also just glimpse this temple in the left hand corner of Francis Chit’s fabulous 1886 shot of Prince Vajirunhis being escorted to the Grand Palace for his investiture as crown prince, which is now in the National Gallery of Australia, and featured in Gael Newton’s 2008 show Picture Paradise.

Francis Chit, ‘Prince Vajirunhis escorted to the Grand Palace for his investiture as crown prince. ‘Bangkok 14 January 1886. National Gallery of Australia
Chit had previously shot the Wat Arun from across the river in 1865.
And he had climbed its stair to use it as a platform for a four-frame river panorama in 1863/64, when the river was a rice export port.
I was reminded of the five-frame Sydney Harbour panorama Charles Bayliss made from the roof of that ‘temple of commerce’, The Sydney International Exhibition Building, in about 1880, before it burnt down. Both have the same ‘aspirational’ loftiness, with architectural details from their improvised platforms projecting into the frames
Fortunately Wat Arun is now being restored and is covered with a fine cross-hatching of scaffolding.
But the question remains, from where in the Grand Palace precinct did Chit shoot the investiture flotilla? Nineteenth century photographers around the world craved elevation and were always intrepid in gaining it. Did Chit get a special tower made, or was there a tower already there as part of the port infrastructure?
Won’t You Buy My Pretty Flowers?
Here is a new set of life model magic lantern slides I have just acquired. I love the twin perspectival vanishing points of the first painted backdrop, the photogrammed snow flurries in slide two, and the weirdly frozen Beckettian choreography of the passers-by in the final slide. They were made by Bamforth and Co after 1897 in the UK. The song originates from the US in 1877 and is by George W Persley, Arthur W French, George Clare. (Although interestingly it was re-published in 1887 under the names of the American stage actress Miss Jennie Calef and producer H. P. Danks, after they had used it in their play “Little Muffets” — a clear case of IP theft and copyright infringement.) Later Bamforth and Co. recycled the original shots as postcards with the choruses as printed captions. I’m looking forward to one day projecting these slides, perhaps life size and outside in an urban setting, accompanied by a singer, as part of our project Heritage in the Limelight: The Magic Lantern in Australia and the World.
Underneath the gas light’s glitter,
Stands a fragile little girl;
Heedless of the night winds bitter,
As they round about her whirl.
While the thousands pass unheeding
In the evening’s waning hours;
Still she cries with tearful pleading,
Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?
Refrain.
There are many sad and weary
In this pleasant world of ours,
Crying in the night winds bitter.
Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?
Ever coming, ever going,
Men and women hurry by.
Heedless of the tear drops gleaming.
In her sad and wistful eyes.
While she stands there sadly sighing,
In the cold and dreary hours,
Listen to her sweet voice crying,
Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?
Refrain.
There are many sad and weary
In this pleasant world of ours,
Crying in the night winds bitter.
Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?
Not a loving word to cheer her.
From the passers by is heard;
Not a friend to linger near her,
With a heart by pity stirred.
On they rush the selfish thousands,
Seeking pleasure’s pleasant bowers;
None to hear with sad compassion,
Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?
Refrain.
There are many sad and weary
In this pleasant world of ours,
Crying in the night winds bitter.
Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?
The difficulties of producing a nineteenth century spirit photograph revealed with the help of Craig Tuffin and Lisa Clunie!
Last year I was enjoying watching the participants of the Alchemists Workshop make tintypes and salt prints at the ANU School of Art, which they were doing after having their minds blown by the early photography collection of the National Gallery of Australia. The highly knowledgable and highly generous Craig Tuffin, and the intelligent and light hearted Lisa Clunie, agreed to help me in riffing off a carte de visite of the Melbourne spiritualist Dr Walter Lindsey Richardson and a kneeling spirit, taken by the spirit photographer Frederick Hudson in London in 1873-4, and now in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia. I have previously written about this very important carte de visite, and its reception back in Australia. And I kind of thought I sort of knew how Hudson had made it. But it is only when you are confronted with the task of creating a similar image, under similar conditions and using wet collodion emulsion, as Hudson did (although he used collodion on glass, not metal as we did) that you realize the complexity of detail and organisation which Hudson needed to command. If the exposure was made on one wet plate, and if Richardson was to remain unaware of the presence of the human model for the incarnate spirit, then, while Richardson was detained, perhaps with chatter from an accomplice, in the small waiting room of Hudson’s suburban backyard glasshouse studio, the spirit must have been exposed, but against some kind of moveable black screen. Then both spirit and screen must have been removed out of sight before Richardson was invited to enter the glasshouse. The alternative is a negative sandwich, but to me the similar sharpness of both Richardson and the spirit does not suggest a sandwich.
Man to Eat Rats once more
By far the most popular magic lantern slide of the nineteenth century was ‘Man Eating Rats’. Lanternists would even specifically promise it in their newspaper advertisements, so audiences knew they could go along and enjoy themselves making the requisite snoring and chomping and lip-smacking noises. I’ve had a copy of the slide for a while. But while the circulating rackwork rats worked perfectly, the sleeping man’s gluttonously bearded jaw was missing. Fortunately the ANU School of Art has a wealth of skill and knowledge and Waratah Lahy was able to paint me a beautiful new jaw and beard (on a replacement piece of polycarbonate) which works perfectly. I’ll be showing it this Friday evening at the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra. I’ve also just brought a slipping slide of a phrenologist alternately examining a head of a ‘low’ type and a head of a ‘high’ type. Once again Australian National University historical expertise, through my colleague Alexandra Roginski, was able to provide me with actual phrenological readings from the period. So we’ll be performing this slide as well. There’ll be heaps of other slides, including The Gin Fiend.