Thank you for sending me that link. I found the images very interesting. I like the use of the mirror which may well have been to reduce material costs.

I share the same sentiments about the background with the wooden strip. Aesthetically, they are somehow more invigorating. Regarding the prints at the FCCJ, they are smooth prints but the paper itself bleeds nicely. Enough so that people have mentioned that the pictures share a quality with paintings.

About your final question, it very much depends on someone’s view of art but many would agree that art always dips into various fields. These works do qualify as visual research which is why they come under anthropology. However, I am not one for pigeon-holing art as any one thing and I believe that it isn’t possible with art in the contemporary sense. In all honesty, the tension between art and social science is part of what makes these photographs interesting. Would you agree? Some might say that the body of work is slippery when trying to define it but then again, how would you describe an english teacher in Japan?

Cheers,

Gary

Thank you for your response. Some of my comments might have been a bit harsh so I did go to your web site (which is very nice by the way) to see more examples. Your project comes off much better as a whole rather than by the few images that have been offered as samples. The things that really stick out and seem interesting are the slightly different positions of the hands and facial expressions. Here we can see some personality. I also tend to like the background with the wooden strip. Victorian or not I like to see different textures used in the space within the frame. Are your exhibited pieces finished/smooth prints or are they the actual pieces pasted together? Again, seeing that kind of texture seems more appealing.

It is interesting that you use the phrase cataloging. Yesterday I was reading Newsweek on-line and they had a piece about mug shots of the mid 19th century and how they were used to catalog possible criminals. Now such a catalog seems to have turned into art. The photos come from Least Wanted: A Century of American Mugshots by Mark Michaelson (editor) and Steven Kasher (editor), (New York: Steidl/ Steven Kasher Gallery, 2006). The Newsweek url is http://www.newsweek.com/id/209842

One final question, if I may. You have explained how you see your work as art. How is it anthropology? Thanks.

Cheers,

Steven

The photographs will also be shown as part of an installation at Zuishoji Art Projects in September. Details of that exhibition can be found here: http://www.tokyoartbeat.com/event/2009/0299.en

Although the images will be presented in a slightly different way, I hope that you will still find it of interest and hope to see you there.

Gary

Thank you for your comment about my works. I think I should probably stress that these photographs were not made with the intention of being aesthetic objects. They were intended as informative images and the method of placing them against a simple background is a nod to Victorian methods of using photography as a means of cataloging.

With regards to the imperfections in the montage, they are actually intentional. Having trained under a digital commercial photographer, I am fully aware of the need for a perfect image but I believe that the age of digital manipulation has caught up with us and the cracks need to be shown. Like it or not, people suspect manipulation of an image using Photoshop. I am frequently asked how I achieve the “effect” in Photoshop and people are surprised when I tell them that each image is layered, albeit on a screen, by hand. I only use Photoshop as a digital piece of paper upon which I place other digital bits of paper that have images attached to them. I believe in transparency (particularly regarding the image and the technology used to make it) and a perfect image doesn’t offer much but suspicion.

I should also note that I do not see myself as a photographer but rather an artist using the medium of photography and my agenda is therefore quite different. My work is grounded in Vilem Flusser’s call for a “philosophy of photography” and I see my responsibility as being to question the medium and the apparatus used to produce it.

I hope that goes some way to relieving your concerns.

Kindest regards

Gary

As for the FCCJ, the club is a private member’s club, but also a venue for press conferences, events and exhibitions. It’s always treading the line between exclusivity and openness. The exhibitions are open to the general public but unfortunately non-members can’t order in the bars and restuarants. A good reason to join the club!

The disadvantage of showing photos in the Main Bar and the Sushi Bar is, as you say, that people are eating and drinking there. The advantage is that many of the club’s 2000 members will see each exhibition multiple times. We also get many more people coming in for press conferences and as guests of members.

A side note, Tony. I think you are doing a good job of promoting the photo exhibitions at the FCCJ. But when a non-member goes to see the exhibition, it is an odd experience to say the least. The photos are arranged around and behind members who are eating and drinking. And a non-member cannot even order a drink at the bar on such a hot day. I was fortunate to receive a free glass of water from a young, kind female bartender. But I did not feel so welcome to stay and actually view the exhibition. This is all fine for a FCCJ member audience, but you seem to be inviting the public as well.