Topic 2: Methods and Meaning
The difference between methods, methodologies and concepts took me a while to work out and embed as a framework for understanding approaches. I had to make the following notes after a few listens of the explanation given:
A method is the way something is done (technical, research, presentation)
A methodology is a system of doing things as well as their analysis. Emphasis here is on the repetition (as pointed out by LH regarding Barth’s approach) as well as the reflection or awareness that one is doing it.
A concept is the intention or goal one wants to achieve with the above. This may be gleaned retrospectively (as pointed out by our discussions in the seminar). Sometimes you just make photographs because you want to.
I feel an understanding and awareness of these three delineations are important and should be used as a framework for reflecting on and judging the success of my work as it develops. I will use these as an evaluative checklist.
I am becoming more aware of the spectrum of understanding and interpretation of ideas within the peer group but also the course team and wider academic discourses. The mutability of ideas and the transient nature of meaning, regarding terminology and theory is quite interesting. This was reinforced by our inability to put a definition on criticality. Rather than seeing this as a negative I regard it as an opportunity to add to the broader academic discourse. It’s better to think what I have to offer is of value rather than feeling I need to get it right. I suppose this is what finding a position is about. Find your corner and speak from that perspective. I’m finding this is becoming more apparent in the fora, as I’m taking time to read others’ responses and consider their contribution as valid as mine. Equally, I hope mine is seen as such too. I’m also becoming more comfortable reading comments on my posts as supportive feedback as I would like my comments to be read.
I feel the focus on methods and how these create meaning has helped me to understand my practice a bit more. I have been hard on my practice to date and have feared that there’s nothing going on ‘behind’ it, in terms of hefty rigorous research or agenda. But I’m starting to observe, and value decision making I have made and how these have created meaning in the work. And that the meaning I want in the work is there. I would still like to develop this further through wider reading and criticality but take comfort from the fact that what I have been doing is not devoid of these things. Someone saying they’re not sure what to do because for their whole career they’ve been told what to photograph made me appreciate the privilege I have coming to the course with my experience as a practising artist.
John Baldessari : Floating: Color, 1972
What methods and methodologies have you consciously applied in your practice to date to communicate a concept or an intended meaning?
I consider my practice to be quite heavily imbued with methods and methodologies which communicate meaning and was quite happy to see commonalities between my approach and that of the photographers presented this week. Baldessari’s work has been the most valuable lens through which to reflect on my practice. His paired back, limiting approach is something I share. He speaks of limiting aesthetic choices (Iversen 2010: 138) to the extent that he wants to avoid making things look good. In my own work I use neutral settings, strict formal composition and flat lighting to achieve a scientific style of image making. I aim to record information without embellishment. In addition, I often communicate ideas through series of images and rarely present stand-alone images. As with any sequence of image, the meaning of an image can be expanded by comparison to those before and after. Indeed meaning can travel through an image from one to the other. However, as with some of Baldessari’s work, I present series of very similar images which offer the viewer many visual outcomes, often of the same subject. In light of my research I now see my main methodologies as ‘choosing and comparing’ (Iversen 2010: 138)
Chris Finnegan, arrangement 150, hardbound book, 2010
Can you identify and describe methods in your practice that convey meaning, which you might not have intended at the time?
In my project Someone Else’s, Somewhere, 2015, I made a series of compositional studies of the urban landscape of Berlin. At the time these close-cropped vignettes of municipal scenes were an attempt to use the vernacular spaces and architecture of the city to create images that speak to any urban dweller. I saw these in correlation to Constable’s paintings of everyday bucolic scenes. The location, Berlin, was irrelevant. I wanted them to speak for and of themselves.
However, reflecting on these in relation to the concept of psychogeography (COVERLEY, 2010: 90) I can see a different reading and a new understanding of my methodology emerging. My movement through the city and my capturing of these scenes create a narrative. A subjective ‘I’ emerges, a flaneur or Joycean perambulator. These images, avoiding the obvious tourist locations, suggest a Debord-style ‘derive’ summoning an alternative experience of the backstreets of Berlin and its ambiances. I wonder now how the series would read to a Berlin resident. I am reminded of Michael Schmidt’s Berlin nach 45 and it’s evocation of Berlin at the time of shooting.
Chris Finnegan, Someone Else’s, Somewhere, 2015
Michael Schmidt, Berlin nach 1945 (Berlin after 1945),1980
Have any of the practitioners you looked at this week (including your peers) given you any inspiration for strategies or methods you might ‘impose’ upon yourself to expand the creative possibilities of your own work?
I have been particularly drawn to Baldessari’s methods and strategies. I had known of his work before now but hadn’t quite realised how conceptual or minimalist his approach was. I had previously seen his work as frivolous but I now see him equatable with Ruscha and Nauman in his approach. I particularly would like to embrace his notion of imbalance in his work and of getting in his own way (Iversen 2010: 137-9). I will refer to these two ideas when evaluating my approach. They remind me of advice given by a former tutor during my Fine Art degree ‘You’re not being dangerous enough’.
I would also like to revisit my street/urban photography in light of psychogeography and plan to make a McFarlane-style journey around Cork city. I have tried this in the past in different forms, following what Ruscha refers to as the ‘self-assignment’ and feel this approach will be good for generating some work from which I can start to extract ideas for further research.
Chris Finnegan, 5 Chinatown Stacks, 2015
COVERLEY, M. (2010). Psychogeography. Harpenden: Pocket Essentials.
IVERSEN, Margaret. 2010. Chance. London/Cambridge Mass.: Whitechapel Gallery/MIT Press.
‘Michael Schmidt, Berlin Nach 45, Steidl, 2005 | Bookshop Le Plac’Art Photo’. 2022. Le Plac’Art Photo [online]. Available at: https://placartphoto.com/book/1238/berlin_nach_45-michael_schmidt [accessed 3 Feb 2022].
MOSS, Chris. 2022. ‘In the Footsteps of Giants: The Ultimate Ulysses Walk around Dublin’. The Guardian, 2 Feb [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2022/feb/02/james-joyce-tour-the-ultimate-ulysses-walk-around-dublin [accessed 3 Feb 2022].
ROWELL, Margit. 2006. Ed Ruscha, Photographer. 1st ed. Göttingen : New York: Steidl ; Whitney Museum of American Art.
