Ex 5.2
Introduction
What a difficult choice to make: there are so many wonderful shots that I would like to tackle, or rather pay homage to. having seen so many wonderful images recently, I started to try and find something that I could work with.
I started to flick through some photography books that I have and was instantly taken by Harold Edgerton's Bullet Through Apple, 1964.
The rich colours, deep colours, the intensity and power of the frozen moment is stunning.
But the question was how to "respond" to it as suggested in the brief.
My first ideas were to take a picture of the destroyed apple (I was looking forward to that), although it seemed too obvious - not that that is such a bad thing - I just wanted to do something different and hopefully creative. But what?
My second ideas was to take a picture of the same scene but with the bullet missing - the untold story of Edgerton's misaligned pistol (that sounds like the worst euphemism ever used!), but again that didn't stick. My third idea was instead of interpreting the word "respond" in the logical sequential meaning and obvious common usage of that term, I thought I would just respond to the picture as an idea; as a moment. This lead me to the idea of taking a picture just before Edgerton fired: the imminent undeniable knowledge of knowing what is just about to happen seemed like a slightly better take on it than the expected consequence of the chosen shot; a fine challenge to undertake on my part and no doubt much easier to realize - although probably less fun - than the obliterated apple (and a darn sight cleaner).
The set up
This shot shows the camera position (on the tripod) and the hi-tech improvised micro studio on my desk. I used a bullet (kindly donated from a friend in the navy); an apple (with some colouring painted onto it by me); a wooden drawer as the base; my trusty torches (one is being used on the apple the other is on the desk to the right); and last but not least my son's blue small portfolio as the backdrop. Like I said, hi-tech stuff.
Here, the ceiling light is on as well as the torch-light on the apple, but for the Edgerton shots I just used a torch.
Edgerton used, understandably, a very complex set up for his lighting as can be read here from Edgerton-digital-collections.org site (photo 97 notes). Here's a small excerpt:
"The duration of the flash in this photo is about 1/3 microseconds. The amount of light given off is small enough that the exposure must be made in total darkness. To trigger the flash at the proper moment, a microphone, placed a little before the apple, pickes up [sic] the sound from the rifle shot, relays it through an electronic delay circuit, and then fires the microflash..."
Not having the difficulties Edgerton faced with supersonic objects, I just stuck to my hand-held torch. Interesting to discover (post my shot) that there wasn't much light given off, something I had guessed from studying his picture carefully (from different books and many good quality online examples too).
I imagine that it must have been (and presumably still is?) quite an event using the set up that he had back in 1964 - just listen to this description also from the Edgerton Digital Collection website:
"This picture was made with an EG&G Microflash. At the heart of the microflash is a quartz or Pyrex tube, around which are wrapped two electrodes coming from from [sic] the capacitor. Through the process of conduction, a high voltage spark sent into this tube causes an arc of electricity to jump between the electrodes on the outside, resulting in a bright flash. Unlike most electronic flash lamps, which are filled with xenon, the microflash uses plain air. This choice produces a much shorter afterglow from the flash than a xenon lamp. When this flash is triggered, the arc displaces the air around it, much like lightning in a summer storm. And the microflash produces its own thunder, too, like a gun shot."
How about that: produces its own THUNDER? Amazing. Quite something to witness I bet.
My response to Harold Edgerton's 1964 Bullet Through Apple.
I basically constructed the base in Lightroom using the clone tool - a little too much sitting in front of a screen for my liking, but I have to admit that it was worth it looking at the final product: it has a strong resemblance to Edgerton's shot (if a little too crisp compared to his shot), but I am happy with it, it's close enough.
Conclusion
Terry Barrett's interesting essay Photographs and Contexts (Goldblatt and Brown, 1997,
p. 110-116) is full of thought-provoking observations. His idea of using three contexts when interpreting or "adjudicating" a photo are certainly something I think I should bear in mind when looking at photos from now on (and not looking through them as he nicely points out in The Weight of Photography (Swinnen and Deneulin, 2010, p.152), although I'm not sure I have grasped the subtleties of these aspects just yet.
To some extent, I think my picture here overlaps the meaning of Barrett's "internal context" and his "original context". It's pointless comparing my own set up when shooting my shot with that of Edgerton's, we are worlds apart; despite this, there remains similarities: we both purposely set the shot up with intentions (however clearly diverse our objectives may have been); my blatant mirroring of the elements within the frame underline these similitudes: there is a clear and evident resemblance in content.
The "original context", if I have understood its meaning, refers to the environment in which the camera and subsequent image were set as well as the photographer's iseas, or, as Barrett puts it: "...namely, that which was physically and psychologically present to the maker at the time the picture was taken..." which seems very similar to "internal context" to me, just as "...information evident within the picture..." and "...information about the picture's making." could be argued to be different ways of saying the same thing: surely what was physically and psychologically present or relevant to the photographer at the time of shooting would be seen - or revealed even - by the content and information evident within the frame?
There is little point talking about Barrett's "external context" being the "information surrounding the picture in its presentation" here as my picture is presented online, something quite alien to the 1960s I'd say. That being said, if we take the phrase information surrounding the picture in its presentation to be referring to the culture-bound information of the viewer looking at the pictures, then we could find some affinity between the two shots.
There is a clear stylistic resemblance to Edgerton's original shot although I don't believe my shot's relevance stops there; as I mention above, the fact that we (presumably) recognise this image as the famous bullet-through-apple shot by Harold Edgerton (but without the frozen bullet passing through the apple) creates a tension, an expectation of the inevitable event that personally pulls me into the shot, fascinates me. Reminiscent of - but nowhere near as powerful as - Cartier-Bresson's Behind the Gare St. Lazare, 1932, there is that "pregnant moment", that enticing allure of the known, the looming fact imminent and undeniable.
There is also a calm before the storm feel to this shot too; a quiet foreboding hovers over that calmness, after all, there really is nothing we can do to avoid the apple's spectacular and glorious demise, is there?
The fact that I have used a very clear (if slightly silly) title adds to the (presumed once again) familiarity with the photo and the ensuing event. Barret reminds us of how "It is easy to alter the meaning of a photograph, generally by altering the contexts in which it is shown, specifically by adding text.", as well as how "Language accompanying a photograph can over-determine the photograph's meaning." but I feel that this seemingly clarifies beyond any doubt that we are looking at a pre Edgerton's shot.
But that is obvously not what we are looking at at all.
The implied question "...Or Not?" at the end of the title also plays with and uses this pervasive point of how text accompanying an image gives (or takes away) meaning to it: Does it enhance meaning? Or radically change it? Does it imply and suggest ambiguity?
By adding this subtle question to the title I feel I have suggested an alternative to Edgerton's finale: maybe there is hope for that apple in the end?
With this response to his fabulous image, faithful and superficially akin in appearance to his shot, is, in fact, a denial of his iconic result: in my universe the apple never explodes.
It is forever there, having dodged its bullet; waiting for nothing to happen, which is exactly what did happen.
After all, it's not even a real apple, it's just a photo of one.
Sources
Johnson, W., Rice, M., Williams, C., Mulligan, T. and Wooters, D. (2012). A history of photography. Köln: Taschen.
Swinnen, J. and Deneulin, L. (2010). The weight of photography. Brussels: Academic and Scientific Publishers (pp. 147-172)
Goldblatt, D. and Brown, L. (1997). Aesthetics. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall (pp. 110-116)
Koetzle, H. (2011). 50 photo icons. Cologne, Germany: Taschen.
Ang, T. (2014). Photography. New York, New York: DK Publishing. (p. 203)
Edgerton-digital-collections.org. (2016). bullet « Search Results « Harold "Doc" Edgerton. [online] Available at: http://edgerton-digital-collections.org/?s=bullet [Accessed 4 Oct. 2016].
"This startling image first illustrated a lecture by Edgerton entitled "How to Make Applesauce at MIT." Moments after the apple is pierced by the .30 caliber bullet, it disintegrates completely. What is so surprising is that the entry of the supersonic bullet is as visually explosive as the exit. (from "Stopping Time" (1987), p.126) The duration of the flash in this photo is about 1/3 microseconds. The amount of light given off is small enough that the exposure must be made in total darkness. To trigger the flash at the proper moment, a microphone, placed a little before the apple, pickes up the sound from the rifle shot, relays it through an electronic delay circuit, and then fires the microflash. The careful lab preparation heightens the anticipation, but never quite matches the surprise and wonder that our eyes transmit to us, as we hold onto the after image in the dark. At that point, we know exactly what the flash illuminated and what the film, hopefully, recorded. This picture was made with an EG&G Microflash. At the heart of the microflash is a quartz or Pyrex tube, around which are wrapped two electrodes coming from from the capacitor. Through the process of conduction, a high voltage spark sent into this tube causes an arc of electricity to jump between the electrodes on the outside, resulting in a bright flash. Unlike most electronic flash lamps, which are filled with xenon, the microflash uses plain air. This choice produces a much shorter afterglow from the flash than a xenon lamp. When this flash is triggered, the arc displaces the air around it, much like lightning in a summer storm. And the microflash produces its own thunder, too, like a gun shot. To quiet the noise, a glass tube, sealed with a rubber cork at the open end, encloses the quartz tube. For bullet photography, a reflector is plaved around the assembled lamp to concentrate the light in one spot."
-image 97 full text from here.
Contact sheet
Comments
Post a Comment