WW II Bunkers

Perhaps a few more comments regarding Cem's series?

Conveying the nature of a place with a few photos is a tough task, even for the simplest and most familiar of places. If you doubt this claim, try to convey your home in 10 images. Not a realtor's tour, but your feelings about your home as you live in it.

A place signifying as much negative history as this bunker is a real challenge. But it's a challenge today principally because such scenes have become cliché settings for horror films and fashion shoots. I can almost guarantee that it would be the rare 30 year-old, born nearly 35 years after the end of WWII, who would look at these images and make any association with WWII. (For that matter, it's almost as rare for a 30 year old to have any knowledge of any history at all.) They see a potential location for teen sex and drug use, an "awesome" location for a photo shoot for a local band. They look on the floors for the condoms and syringes.

That's the image that Cem must somehow overcome to get to the place's nature.

But just what have you decided to portray as that nature, Cem? Yes, it's an interesting place. Yes, you have made some interesting images of it. (Perhaps a few side-swipe being a bit over-processed, no dount due to the darkness of the scenes.) But I'm not sure you've completely decided what to convey. These images are impressions of the place at one point in time.

Revisiting such a place repeatedly is essential for formulating a visual concept. Terry Evans, an acquaintence and renowned photographer, visited and over-flew nearby steel mills many times over a year to assemble a body of images that she's still not sure convey her impressions. (Terry's 66 years young, perhaps 5 ft. tall, and has more energy than a blast furnace.)

So Cem, my suggestion is that you're on to something with this bunker. Revisit it at different times of day and times of year. Can you get -- do you need? -- permission to shoot more formally at the site? Perhaps try a larger format camerafor perspective and detail? Don't discount using a bit of supplemental light! (Climbing Mt. Everest without oxygen is not nearly as intertesting as simply climbing to the top of the damn thing.)

Don't discount just visiting the place without a camera just to be there for a few hours. Smell it. Listen to it. Watch how light moves though it.

First and second impressions of a place are important. But I wonder if there's more that your skillful cameraship can capture and convey about this cold, damp, empty place of small concrete rooms and passages, Cem.

Hi Ken,

This is excellent C&C I can learn from and use it to improve myself; thank you very much.

Ken Tanaka said:

Conveying the nature of a place with a few photos is a tough task, even for the simplest and most familiar of places. If you doubt this claim, try to convey your home in 10 images. Not a realtor's tour, but your feelings about your home as you live in it.

A place signifying as much negative history as this bunker is a real challenge. But it's a challenge today principally because such scenes have become cliché settings for horror films and fashion shoots. I can almost guarantee that it would be the rare 30 year-old, born nearly 35 years after the end of WWII, who would look at these images and make any association with WWII. (For that matter, it's almost as rare for a 30 year old to have any knowledge of any history at all.) They see a potential location for teen sex and drug use, an "awesome" location for a photo shoot for a local band. They look on the floors for the condoms and syringes.

That's the image that Cem must somehow overcome to get to the place's nature.

But just what have you decided to portray as that nature, Cem? Yes, it's an interesting place. Yes, you have made some interesting images of it. (Perhaps a few side-swipe being a bit over-processed, no dount due to the darkness of the scenes.) But I'm not sure you've
completely decided what to convey. These images are impressions of the place at one point in time.....

Click to expand...

Ken this is very true. I haven't gone there with the objective of portraying the nature of that place using a series, let alone memorialize the WWII explicitly. I was looking for individual images in line with the goals I have stated earlier and I quote myself:

Cem_Usakligil said:

1) I wanted to shoot pictures which could eventually be a part of my portals portfolio.
2) The pictures had to be as simple as possible but no simpler than that.
3) As usual, the elements of time, choices and mystery all had to be present: The pictures should make the lookers think/feel something.

Click to expand...

So it is rather correct that these images are impressions of the place one at a time. Actually, I now think that it was a mistake to mention the fact that these were WW II to start with. Had I shown these as being the pictures of unidentified locations, the lookers would look at the pictures differently. That would have been perhaps more fitting with my stated goals.

Ken Tanaka said:

....Revisiting such a place repeatedly is essential for formulating a visual concept. Terry Evans, an acquaintence and renowned photographer, visited and over-flew nearby steel mills many times over a year to assemble a body of images that she's still not sure convey her impressions. (Terry's 66 years young, perhaps 5 ft. tall, and has more energy than a blast furnace.)

So Cem, my suggestion is that you're on to something with this bunker. Revisit it at different times of day and times of year. Can you get -- do you need? -- permission to shoot more formally at the site? Perhaps try a larger format camerafor perspective and detail? Don't discount using a bit of supplemental light! (Climbing Mt. Everest without oxygen is not nearly as intertesting as simply climbing to the top of the damn thing.)

Don't discount just visiting the place without a camera just to be there for a few hours. Smell it. Listen to it. Watch how light moves though it.

First and second impressions of a place are important. But I wonder if there's more that your skillful cameraship can capture and convey about this cold, damp, empty place of small concrete rooms and passages, Cem.

Click to expand...

Ken all very true and I agree fully. I wrote earlier that I have been there many times before so I am actually doing exactly what you've advised. I have been there with as well as without the camera. That is the reason why I could focus on creating these particular compositions by taking only 11 pictures. Looking back at my pictures from the past when I've first visited this place, they are in a totally different league. If anybody out there is listening, please take this advice of Ken very seriously, it really is an excellent way to improve.

I will revisit some other time. At that time with the goal of conveying the nature of the place and not for making individual pictures.

Cheers,

Ken Tanaka said:

But I'm not sure you've completely decided what to convey......

First and second impressions of a place are important. But I wonder if there's more that your skillful cameraship can capture and convey about this cold, damp, empty place of small concrete rooms and passages, Cem.

Click to expand...

This Ken,

I how I feel in terms of the pictures, (even recognizing and acknowledging the technical, mastery in overcoming a huge dynamic range to almost total darkness),n that they might be the beginnings of creative expression, not the artist's direction in play. Bart alluded to this in that we had the freedom to go anywhere we want in the interpretation.

Cem,

So should the "Rape of the Sabine Women" be instead interpretable as a fun inter-ethnic country dance? To stop that, the artist gives us the title and paints in a way to tip the scale of choice. You have obviously a major respect for what "is" and not would is behind what "is". You expect the relevance to come through without you committing. I don't think this set of pictures is going to work that way. I know you carefully constructed everything to be as you have shown. Maybe there are several sets of interpretations you might make, and that could be a point in itself. Perceived neutrality to the subject matter shouldn't be one of them.

Asher

Hi Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Ken Tanaka said:

But I'm not sure you've completely decided what to convey......

First and second impressions of a place are important. But I wonder if there's more that your skillful cameraship can capture and convey about this cold, damp, empty place of small concrete rooms and passages, Cem.

Click to expand...

This Ken,

I how I feel in terms of the pictures, (even recognizing and acknowledging the technical, mastery in overcoming a huge dynamic range to almost total darkness),n that they might be the beginnings of creative expression, not the artist's direction in play. Bart alluded to this in that we had the freedom to go anywhere we want in the interpretation.

Asher

Click to expand...

I have explained a couple of times before that this was exactly what I intended to achieve and the pictures represent what and how I wanted to show precisely. As the artist himself, I guess I should know whether these pictures were the beginning of a creative expression without direction or not. Of course once the work is published one cannot dictate how each person should feel about them. The freedom to go anywhere with your interpretations was exactly one of the intended results. It seems that I have achieved to stir feelings/emotions and that should be enough for me.

Asher Kelman said:

....Cem,

So should the "Rape of the Sabine Women" be instead interpretable as a fun inter-ethnic country dance? To stop that, the artist gives us the title and paints in a way to tip the scale of choice. You have obviously a major respect for what "is" and not would is behind what "is". You expect the relevance to come through without you committing. I don't think this set of pictures is going to work that way. I know you carefully constructed everything to be as you have shown. Maybe there are several sets of interpretations you might make, and that could be a point in itself. Perceived neutrality to the subject matter shouldn't be one of them.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I decide when I should be neutral to my subject or not; it is not something anybody can impose upon me. The moment that happens, it ceases to be my work. Of course, the lookers are free to think and to interpret freely. The picture may or may not work and the critics may be right. It may even be utter rubbish. Nevertheless, they cannot request the artist to change his work according to their own wishes or interpretations. What I have shown here is not a work in progress. I did not tell you that I was on a journey of exploration. These pictures are not simply the drafts and preparations for what is yet to come, they stand on their own. The pictures may be re-processed in a few months' time in the area of tone mapping and contrast; but they will still be the same pictures. Their essence will not change. When I asked for C&C, I wanted to know whether the pictures worked for the lookers or not. In both cases, I wanted to know why. So that I can decide whether my self imposed goals have been achieved or not. Also, to put any good suggestions to use in the future pictures and/or to help me fine tune the post processing of these images later. Which I will certainly do. Thanks again to all those who have provided their kind C&C in this tread, I really appreciated it.

PS: FWIW, I am now seriously considering never to post a picture again which has a title, context or explanation to it.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Hi Asher,


I have explained a couple of times before that this was exactly what I intended to achieve and the pictures represent what and how I wanted to show precisely. As the artist himself, I guess I should know whether these pictures were the beginning of a creative expression without direction or not. Of course once the work is published one cannot dictate how each person should feel about them. The freedom to go anywhere with your interpretations was exactly one of the intended results. It seems that I have achieved to stir feelings/emotions and that should be enough for me.

Click to expand...

I don't question your intent at all! It's just that in making the pictures as you have done and writing:

"I've processed the pictures in a quick and dirty manner"

So, the way appeared open for more aggressive discussion of processing in a slow and careful manner. That got us on the wrong track. It also perhaps lead to Ken questioning how you separate your work.

With the title "World War II Bunkers" your presentation is indeed neutral in that you do not lean one way or another, just carefully show us what is now there. You have a perfect right to protest anyone wanting you to change things! However, your opening started us on a somewhat different set of expectations, even though you have clarified this subsequently.

To the obvious extent that you object so strongly to any suggestion that you should not be neutral, your intentions are obviously engraved in the pictures just as you wished. Who'd have thought that "neutrality" could arose such strong passions!

Cem_Usakligil said:

nPS: FWIW, I am now seriously considering never to post a picture again which has a title, context or explanation to it.

Click to expand...

Frankly, Cem, my good friend that is not such a great idea. The assertion that some make that pictures must speak for themselves works with $100 U.S. currency bill, an assassination, a man on fire, an artistic nude or an official picture of a 1Ds Mark 1V. These do not require titles or much in explanations.

It's more often than not an utter conceit to assert that "good art does not need a title or explanation!" I admit, it does have a ring of truth to it like many common aphorisms. Sure, if our education is sufficient and it's hung in a collection that itself has or creates context, then it can go unmarked and work very well.

For our pictures, however, I doubt we can do as well! That's especially difficult on a subject so complex and fraught with misunderstanding as the left over relics of World War II. Think about what we older guys still obsess about: some 61 million souls lost their lives! So your choice of Bunkers to photograph is hardly a neutral subject for more than a few of us! Therefore a neutral presentation is going to stir strong opinions and you cannot expect otherwise or even harmony, LOL! I have challenged you to take your work further. Maybe not here, as these are essentially done and delivered and well received as they are), but when you revisit the bunkers, as Ken has suggested, (using your current work and this discussion as a platform), you may want to look at the place and it's links to the past in a new way, not to please us but to push your own boundaries and imagination.

I hope you are able to understand that while you have all the valid restraint in making your art, I, in viewing it have my our own nightmarish baggage to contend with. After all, this is not a series of pictures of pretty flowers or long forgotten cathedral passageways. To me, at least, this happened just yesterday!

Asher

Cem, so nice to see your post. It's been a long time and you were missed.

Suffice for me to say that this post shall satisfy the historians, the artist, the photographer and the philosopher.

Very well done indeed.

Regards.

Cem_Usakligil said:

PS: FWIW, I am now seriously considering never to post a picture again which has a title, context or explanation to it.

Click to expand...

That's actually an appropriate strategy. Most photographic art is presented in such a manner.

Cem,

Remember, I distinguish pictures that are obvious and have immediacy, (like nudes, nursing infants, sunsets and piles of autumn leaves) and from those that deserve and demand more consideration and processing, such as your own photographs in the Portals Series, that I admire so much. Until one's body of non-obvious work is known and while we are still seeking feedback, at least here, introduction helps us. Then we, hopefully make wrong assumptions less often. I take your remark. "I am now seriously considering never to post a picture again which has a title, context or explanation to it" as one of throwing up your arms at the statements I perhaps unwisely made, that seem to you so annoying and unjustified. For sure you were correct when I implied how you should be non-neutral instead of asking you to consider that for future work. Honestly, I don't believe keeping occult your intent, reasoning and hopes about the pictures would have helped you in the past several years to get feedback you have valued.

Amitiés,

Asher

Cem_Usakligil said:

PS: FWIW, I am now seriously considering never to post a picture again which has a title, context or explanation to it.

Click to expand...

Ken Tanaka said:

That's actually an appropriate strategy. Most photographic art is presented in such a manner.

Click to expand...

Ken,

I'd first point out, that here, we're just sharing our work and the goals they serve for us. The latter help us know the path each of us are on. Then we can have feedback from which the photographer, (filtering away most or much of the opinions based on their intents), can perhaps find, at least, hints of worth to their work. Besides that, it's hardly universally true that, "Most photographic art is presented in such a manner", i.e. without title and context.

Perhaps I misunderstand and you do indeed support "having context and titles" here in OPF. If so, then read no further. However on face value, it does seem you might think otherwise. Let's address that possibility that presentations of photographs are generally done without context introduction or titles, as Cem says he's considering implementing in future for his work.

Let's look at the presentations we, merely "the art-loving public" come across with:

• Museums: Consider, in many or most museum photography exhibits, work has been prepared by scholars over the past year. When we enter, likely, there's a text on the wall in each room and often a title by each picture. Usually too, there's a wonderful guided tour on tape and/in person. In addition there's often explanatory pamphlets and several published texts with fine reproductions exploring the works further.
  
  
• Art Galleries: In a gallery, they might also have pamphlets, books and knowledgeable curators. When an exhibit opens, a critic will often cover it in newspapers articles, referencing aspects of the work and where it fits in the body of the artist's output and collected art in general. There's usually a printed catalog sheet with tiles and prices or the latter is on request. Gallery owners can offer an erudite coverage on any of their works. That's their bread and butter, after all. So gain, all the aspects we ask for in OPF are clearly covered, one way or another.
  
  
• Photographic Specialists: In a private collector's store, both the seller and purchaser likely know each other over the years and the work shown, and if not the photographic specialist can explain the importance of the print. Collectors aren't usually haphazard and in short get to know the artists they collect and then have a basis for addressing work in the same genre. An untitled print would still be a delight and valued no less. After all, it's from a family of pictures they have come to know like their own.

No doubt, your quick remark has contingencies that clarify this. But still, the elephant in the room is the aphorism that "A work of art should speak for itself". If this were always true, then I'd fail to appreciate much of the fine work I have learned to enjoy.

Asher

Cem

I will say this again - I think you have achieved the stated aim - making more images in your portal series - there are a couple here that add to the work I have seen online. I just want to see more, I am greedy!

The technical aspects are of no concern to me - these images as you said - in this forum were not the finished render...

Portal above all for me provides a space for me to imagine.. That for me is where I find my centre in these images and the rest online. I read them within that context...

Cheers

Cem, I've been looking at the images in this thread for a couple of days.

I have to admit that the title of the thread didn't thrill me.
I don't think of poking around in old bunkers as my thing (too busy getting sand between my toes{it's Spring here and I'm ecstatic at having my feet out of shoes}).

My thoughts didn't go straight to imagining the history of the place (that came later), I was just taken immediately by the compositions, I find each one has several entry points, you go from one layer to the next and the image with the floating duckweed in the bottom of the bunker does this best.

I could carry on a bit more but as someone didn't instantly connect with the implied history,I can tell you that as purely well balanced, composed and intriguing images they stand alone.

As images that have all that and layer upon layer of emotional suitcases stacked on for good measure, they are quite superb.
Some of the most powerful images I've seen for a while (and I think you know, I don't always throw my compliments around).

... layer upon layer of emotional suitcases

Andy brown said:

My thoughts didn't go straight to imagining the history of the place (that came later),

Click to expand...

Interesting and a critical point, you stayed on your feet. You're baggage didn't trip you up as you descended into the bunkers! I was not so lucky. But then you came off with far better understanding.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Hi,

I went out to shoot this afternoon as I have been itching to do so. So I've visited a nearby town where there a couple of WW II bunkers which are open to public.......

Click to expand...

Andy brown said:

I was just taken immediately by the compositions, I find each one has several entry points, you go from one layer to the next and the image with the floating duckweed in the bottom of the bunker does this best.

Click to expand...

Andy, I wish you had posted this before anyone else commented! How apt!

Andy brown said:

I could carry on a bit more but as someone didn't instantly connect with the implied history, I can tell you that as purely well balanced, composed and intriguing images they stand alone.

Click to expand...

Yes, without the history, it's easier to approach them and get absorbed, for the shapes, spaces and openings do, pull us in, where we imagine endless maizes of possibilities beyond.

Andy brown said:

As images that have all that and layer upon layer of emotional suitcases stacked on for good measure, they are quite superb.
Some of the most powerful images I've seen for a while (and I think you know, I don't always throw my compliments around).

Click to expand...

Now the emotional feelings overlaid on the architecturally sculpted concretorium; succinct and well deserved!

Asher

Cem,

Andy's analysis and division of reactions, first the architectural sculpture in concrete and only after that the "motional suitcases" allows me to approach the set of pictures in a new way. For me, my own eruptive emotions went ahead of my esthetic sensibilities, blinding me. With "quick & dirty" on my mind, it seemed that correction to cover the emotional aspects was obviously in order.

Cem_Usakligil said:

So I've visited a nearby town where there a couple of WW II bunkers which are open to public.

Click to expand...

However, now looking at the spaces without the figures of the war, I am in the Venice Biennale, engaged with the pure sculptural aspects of a new commissioned work with concrete and space, made to look old. I thought of it as "Concretorium", standing on its own, as art. This picture, the 2cd in your series, represents my thoughts best, a structure made for form of openings and blocks of concrete with the patina of time and an interplay of space, time and consequent decay.

Then, as Mark shows, we add the suitcases: the work has new power and meaning far beyond the structure. Then it should dim and once again I start over with the war,

Asher

Cem,

Several links in post #12 need attention when you have some time!

Thanks,

Asher