Interview: Luke Strosnider.

Luke Strosnider, who I mentioned in the recent post Luke Strosnider: OnMeasurement. is not only an accomplished artist but also a regular contributer to Afterimage (http://www.vsw.org/afterimage/) and the City Newspaper (http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/).

I am very pleased to present below a recently conducted email interview touching upon his work On Measurement as well as wider concerns related to the production of the photograph as image and the photograph as object.

Many thanks to Luke for taking time out to answer the inital and subsequent questions.

The work Ansel Adams | New Landscapes and the integral Polaroid work On Measurement, all highlight a 'photography' opposed to the the use of a lens, of actually taking photographs (as indeed, does your web address: lensless.net). How do you situate these works along side your other, lens based works ('Moments Seen or the Camera Obscura works)?

The camera obscura works fed into my fascination with the tension between photographic images and our perception of "now." Some of the obscura works employ actual glass lenses (Now On View), some don't (Views; also, the unique prints are all made from lensless apertures). But they were all explorations of that distance between a visual moment (seeing something) and the experience of said moment via a photograph at some later point.

My more recent projects are an attempt to make "art about photography". Making "photographs about photography" is extremely difficult (look at Isaac Layman to see some great work in that vein). Ansel Adams | New Landscapes and On Measurement continue that inquiry about what a photograph is and our experience of photographs (and the information they contain), but I'm trying to do so with photographic "symbols" and referents instead of actual images.

A I began making the "straight photographs" of Moments Seen after I'd finished a course on the Zone System. That process left me feeling distant from why I'd started making pictures in the first place: that epiphany you feel when you see something you consider photographable. So I was interested in making something that was about the "nowness" of the act of photography. Polaroid was a way to reduce the distance between that moment and the print, I distance that felt agonizingly far when working in the darkroom.

You mention making "photographs about photography" which, of course, was explored by a number of conceptual photographic artists - for want of a better phrase - during 1960's and 1970's. Keith Arnatt, John Hilliard, Lew Thomas, for instance. A lot of their work concerns the apparatus, the process of taking photographic images, while On Measurement is more engaged with the photograph itself as an object.

I wanted to highlight the process of photography more than the idea of photography. When I first started rolling the brayer over the Polaroids, I was stunned by the abstractions formed by the chemistry. Then it hit me: this chemical paste - that we use to attempt to "measure" so much - is just as capable of making something beautiful without the primary tool we use to "take a measurement" (the camera). For me, it opened up this whole other use for the film.

While producing the work On Measurement to what degree, if at all, did you view the process as a performance?

I never consciously considered it a performance, but creating the work certainly had performative elements to it. I'd begin by removing an individual sheet of Polaroid film from the pack, then use a printmaking brayer to burst the chemical pod and spread the developer, then into the typewriter. Sometimes, to get the desired impression of a particular letter, I'd have to strike the same key over and over. Those who saw me doing it (or heard the clackclackclack of the electric typewriter) would come and watch me make them for a few minutes.

The larger reproductions of the individual Polaroids on your web site do not show the white border: is this intentional?

(Just a note: on my new website - http://www.lukestrosnider.com - I've refrained from showing the white borders on any of my Polaroid projects.)
It's sort of a boring answer: I felt like editing the white border was the best use of screen space. But thinking about it a bit more, I do make a distinction between my Polaroid pictures and art objects. When I create reproductions (prints) of my Polaroid photographs (as in Moments Seen, Home, Nashville to Denver), I make them without the borders, treating the Polaroid as a "negative" to be reproduced. However, I see On Measurement more as an "art object" than a series of pictures, and the tactility of the object is important to that work in a way that it's not in my "straight photographs".

Do you see any correlations between digital and Polaroid photography?

Certainly. I mean, of course they are completely different animals (tactile vs. intangible, unpredictable vs. consistent). But they are similar, both providing us experience and re-experience of a moment in a very short span. But it's really that photographic object that sets Polaroid apart. I was pretty jazzed to see what would happen with the new digital cameras with integrated inkjet / "zink" printers (and made "instant" ink prints) but now, with the increasing spread of large-ish screen phones (iPhone, etc.), my guess is that people are going to be less apt to share "instant" photos on paper. Now we can just pass the phone around.

I was very aware of this last night. I was in a pub and a live band were playing. The music was so loud is was difficult to be heard. At the table next to me a group of people were taking photos of themselves and then passing the phone around - with much hilarity. And I thought about this having happened with Polaroids in some dim and distant past! Do you think that the lost of the photographic object - and not just Polaroid - is a concern?

The problem with so many photographic processes is that they are complicated, industrial / chemical procedures and are (were) mass produced entirely by corporations. We can't really "homebrew" Polaroid or Kodachrome (as we can tintypes / collodion processes ... and those are still going fairly strong). It is exceedingly odd: the original photographic processes will live forever, while the industrial capability to mass produce Polaroid (and many others) lasted about 60 myears. (I do offer my best wishes to the Impossible Project, btw!)

I don't dread the "end" of the photographic object (nor do I think it will ever totally go away), but it certainly is something to be considered carefully and deeply (and explored artistically). But I think the transition from sharing images on paper to sharing them via screen isn't going to stop, and I'm excited to see what comes next. It's a weird, exciting time for image making.

The e.e. cummings quote incorporated in On Measurement, when read in relation to a general disposability of the integral Polaroid and its often disregarded status as an artistic medium, certainly indicates a reluctance to leave behind the 'old' (Polaroid) technology. The use of a clam box seems to be a way to state its importance.

To me, that quote is a statement on the futility of trying to "capture" things (ideas, emotions, moments) via systems of measurement (and I consider photography as one of these systems). If you can measure it, it's inconsequential; but if it resists metrics (things like "ideas", "beauty," etc.), then it has worth.

I hadn't considered the quote in direct relation to Polaroid's "disposability", but it's an apt reading. Primarily, I used integral Polaroid because it revealed - rather beautifully, I think - the weird chemistry that is used to create these images / measurements. We have such deep trust for the veracity and meaning of these little squares; in the end, their just measurements of light and color made with chemical paste. But despite their "inaccuracy" or the futility of it all, they are important. That's where the clam box comes in: despite the flawed measurements that photographs offer us (and their disposability), they do need to be preserved and venerated. I wanted to give them the treatment that "fine art" photographs often receive.

Are there any artists engaged with with integral photography that have caught your eye recently?

Mike Slack (http://www.mike-slack.com/) has a new book coming out this Fall that I'm excited to see. His photos really stand out as exemplars of what I love about "straight photos" made with Polaroid integral film: weird slivers of seeing, those moments where you look at something plain but see something astonishing. I think that's when Polaroid shines. It's somehow capable of revealing the infinite mystery of small, often forgettable visual details. Slack's work excels at this.

In closing, what form / number will the edition of On Measurement be? When will it be available?

I'm still ironing out the details, but I hope to make an announcement soon. I aim to have a fairly small edition, and to have it finished by the end of 2009. Please keep an eye on http://lukestrosnider.com for information or to sign up for email updates.

More from Luke Strosnider can be found at:

http://touchingharmstheart.com/
http://visualthought.tumblr.com/
http://lensless.net/
http://lukestrosnider.com/

Feel free to add any comments...