2 Cents: Burdocks

Yesterday's NY Times had a lovely article by Kathryn Shattuck about a new book by author Janet Malcolm. Malcolm, who writes frequently for The New Yorker, is especially well-known for her biographical work, most recently 2007's "Two Lives," about Gertrude Stein & Alice Toklas.

Malcolm's newest book, "Burdock," is her first as a photographer. (Malcolm is of course no stranger to photography as a writer; she is famous for her 1980 book "Diana & Nikon: Essays on Photography"). It contains "28 photographs and a two-page essay by Ms. Malcolm." The photographs are all of burdock leaves; burdock is a plant, often thought of as a weed, that grows widely. Here are a few of Malcolm's images:


(From the International Herald Tribune's website).

Malcolm explains her technique, as well as her reasons for photographing burdocks in particular:

I prop them in small glass bottles and photograph them head on, as if they were people facing me. No two leaves of any plant or tree are exactly alike, of course, but burdock leaves are of conspicuous and almost infinite variety. They are also outstandingly large -- more than two feet long in some cases -- which makes them extraordinarily good photographic subjects.

Malcolm cites Richard Avedon's portraits as her inspiration, explaining that

Avedon radically extended photography's capacity for cruelty. The ravages of time and circumstances on the faces he photographed were mercilessly, sometimes gruesomely, recorded. As Avedon sought out faces on which life had left its mark, so I prefer older, flawed leaves to young, unblemished specimens -- leaves to which something has happened.

Even from the small images, Malcolm appears a capable photographer. She admits, though, to not knowing much about photography:

I'm afraid I'm self-taught and not very well taught. I know that I know what to do. It isn't that I've taken some step to become a photographer: I've become a photographer of burdock.

That's fine by me. Nothing wrong with knowing only what you need to know to achieve your end.

Someone should tell Malcolm about tripods, though. (I'm tripod-free 99.99% of the time; but then I don't do studio work or still-lives.) As the article describes, Malcolm uses a "Leica camera [with a] close-up lens," and does her shooting freehand:

She demonstrated her technique by steadying herself against the wall at the top of the stairs [to her attic studio] and pointing her camera in the direction of the small table against the opposite wall, on which she places her leaves.

I'm doubtful that a Leica is the best tool for this sort of thing; but regardless, surely steadying the camera on a tripod is a good idea under these circumstances.

Anyway, the article is well-worth reading: Well-written and incisive about its subject matter. Malcolm's photos also look beautiful, and the connection of the burdock project to her deceased husband is touching. I look forward to seeing the book in person.

*****

Finally, in the realm of non-photographer artists who photograph as a sideline, Malcolm is certainly better than fashionable painter Elizabeth Peyton. The NY Times had an article about her photography last week as well. (Apparently, there's a museum in Connecticut that's currently exhibiting her photographs. I won't dignify the museum by saying which it is; any institution that would show this crap is not worthy of naming.)

Like her paintings, the subject matter of Peyton's photographs are the "beautiful people" of the art-entertainment-industrial complex. I dislike Peyton's paintings, but her photography is far worse. A few examples should suffice.

Here's Peyton's photograph of her boyfriend Tony Just, who I believe is some sort of artist:


Here's another Peyton photograph of a hipster art guy, hanging out at LA's Chateau Marmont:


And another member of the Peyton posse, this time in NYC:


One more:


The images speak for themselves.

I'll leave Lou Reed -- another non-photographer artist who photographs -- alone. Lou, at least, is a capable photographer, even his stuff is not to my taste.