777. Matilde Huerta

  Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:52:34 +0200   ¡Hola! Mi nombre es Matilde Huerta. Soy profesora de fotografía en la Escuela de Arte de Oviedo, en Asturias (España). He llegado a su página buscando imformación sobre Pedro Meyer, fotógrafo que me parece superinteresante, y del cual me declaro admiradora.   ZoneZero me parece una iniciativa valiente y necesaria para un panorama de la foto en Latinoamérica. Me parece estupendo, además, que esté también en Español.   Gracias por su página y muchos saludos desde Asturias.   Matilde Huerta. 21 de Junio del 2000  

Wednesday, 21 June 2000

779. Ernesto Peñaloza | MARAVILLOSO !!

  Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 18:22:05 -0500   Pedro: Muchas gracias por las novedades de junio, me parece maravilloso poder disfrutar del libro de Carlos Jurado en las páginas electrónicas de ZoneZero ¡¡Todo El arte de la aprehensión de las imágenes y el Unicornio por Internet!!   El Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas de la UNAM tenía el plan de publicarlo el año pasado, pero es de las cosas que afectó el paro ...   Muchos saludos y felicidades Ernesto Peñaloza M.l  

Thursday, 08 June 2000

781. Rosa Dávalos | Saludos desde Aguascalientes, Ags.

  Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 18:22:00 -0400 (EDT)   Pedro Meyer, El consejo editorial de la Gaceta Escape Cultural (Aguascalientes) está compuesto por personas cuyo interés está dirigido principalmente al área de la fotografía. El contenido de esta publicación está compuesto por temas asociados a la fotografía y otras disciplinas del arte, intentando mostrar un punto de vista fundamentado y actual. Uno de nuestros principales medios para la realización de la gaceta es mantenernos actualizados en cuanto al avance de la fotografía y la producción de imagen. Para cumplir con este rubro, la consulta en Internet es la fuente más recurrida por la mayor parte de los miembros y colaboradores de esta publicación. En este sentido, la página ZoneZero resulta de gran interés y ayuda, dada su amplia visión y cobertura sobre los aspectos que se refieren a una parte de lo conocido como arte electrónico. Antes que nada, queremos felicitar a usted y a su equipo de colaboradores por la labor que desempeñan.   Por otro lado, en cada publicación tratamos que los artículos vayan ligados, de alguna u otra manera, en cuanto al contenido. En el siguiente número está planeado tratar el tema de la fotografía digital. Además, es costumbre contar con la opinión o manifiesto de una persona conocedora del tema. Por esta razón, el consejo editorial de la gaceta, está interesado en que nos conceda una entrevista; y dada la distancia y disposición de tiempo, proponemos que ésta sea por medio de internet. Así mismo, proponemos que la fecha de la entrevista sea fijada en uno de los días en el período del 29 de mayo al 1o de junio y, de preferencia en horas de la tarde.   Esperando respuesta positiva y sin otro asunto que tratar, reciba un cordial saludo de sus amigos de XkpCultural.   Atentamente, Rosa Dávalos Directora Editorial  

Friday, 26 May 2000

783. Emmanuel Hilado

  Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 09:15:48 +0800   Oh... you asked that I tell about myself...okey.   I consider myself an amateur photographer although I have been making photographs since 1968. I used to do mainly black and white, doing my own darkroom processing. When the cost of film and printing paper became prohibitive and when my Miranda Sensorex camera started to malfunction I stopped for a number of years. Then I got myself a Yashica T4, and challenged myself to make good photographs using only this simple camera. I was happy with the results. Two years ago I started learning Photoshop and a whole new world opened to me. I have been able to restore some of my favorite black and white photographs and make good computerized prints out of them. I am now trying to make a website where I can dissplay some of my photographs and poems.   I have been looking into ZoneZero for about a year now...and finally I have decided to register and perhaps be a participant.   Hope you include me in your mailing list. Thank you. Bro. Manny.  

Sunday, 14 May 2000

785. The button on the carpet

      I went to a farewell party given for a friend of mine; it was in a home in the Hollywood Hills. I was standing around waiting for the food to be served when I noticed that a button had fallen off my shirt. I bent down to look for it on the floor and to my surprise I discovered lying right there before me an array of colors and shapes that I had not noticed before. My first reaction was to grab my camera and record an image of the moment. I have looked at that picture off and on for quite some time now; it has grown on me. I started to wonder why.   It dawned on me that I didn't have a clue as to who was in the picture. I did not know the person sitting there with the green pants and purple socks. From looking at the evidence I couldn't determine the profession of the individual wearing such attire, after all it could be a painter, a lawyer or doctor (remember, this was Hollywood), an art historian, an actor, a curator, a caterer, undercover policeman, athlete, decorator, clown, salesman, tourist, poet, web designer, musician, etc . I do remember however that they were all very amused that I would take a picture of the button as I had found it on the carpet. As so often happens, only the photographer knows what is going on within the frame. The evidence found in this picture sends one scuttling for a time reference anchored in the sixties (even the shoes!), yet here we were in the mid-nineties when the picture was made. Photography is so confusing when it comes to being a reference to the "real," isn't it?   I am drawn to such pictures because photography is open-ended, and capable of making countless statements that have more to do with the viewer's perceptions than with what the image actually contains. Some viewers would find the fact that there was a button on the carpet ( I did not put it there digitally...honest!) an ineluctable proof of the documentary integrity of this picture (provided nothing else had been altered, obviously) but would mention nothing about the color rendition of the photograph, evidently assuming that the colors in the carpet, and socks, and table, etc. actually were identical to those which could be seen at the party. But how would I know what those exact colors were? How does anyone remember an exact color? Does it matter what the exact colors actually were?   Judging by the great effort it takes to make color reproductions as good a match as possible to the original ( both in print and on the screen, as well as in photographic prints), I can safely assume that in most cases we are observing nothing more than a "close" reproduction of what the "real" color actually looked like. Now this is not a trifling issue, as many psychologists, art historians, and designers would agree, as colors have a definite emotional connection to what human beings derive from looking at them.   If we find that colors within photographs hardly ever live up to their original reference, and no one appears to make too much of a fuss about this (yet we know that the values of colors are undoubtedly important), then why would we raise our eyebrows if the button in my picture had been placed there by me? Why am I asked, " but you did not put the button there, did you? " and yet no one ever asks me for the exact color match of the socks, for instance.   I now understand why I have been attracted to this picture over time. We don't know who is in the picture, when it was made, nor if anything that is shown to us in the image actually was the way it looks.   Funny, some people consider such a straight picture (I even have a negative to prove that it was not altered) to be a documentary image!   Pedro Meyer Mexico City May 8, 2000   For comments post a message in our forum section at ZoneZero.       http://zonezero.com/editorial/mayo00/may.html        

Monday, 01 May 2000

787. Frits Gierstberg

  Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:11:24 +0200   dear Zonezero dear Pedro Meyer, please put me on your mailing list so I will be informed about the latest news from Zonezero. I am chief curator of the Nederlands Foto Instituut and the Foto Biënale Rotterdam (see www.nfi.nl and ) and of course I have been regular visitor of your website for a long time (but was never aware of your e-mail service). Your website is very interesting, so I'll be back again soon.   Thanks frits gierstberg.  

Thursday, 20 April 2000

789. John Blanchard | Hello

  Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:03:25 -0700   I was refered to this page by my Digital Photography instructor Kurt Norlin who is master photographer and excellent teacher. Thank You for being here on the web and I look forward to using this site as a tool for my Education.  

Wednesday, 19 April 2000

791. Bobbie Wolcott | Re: ZoneZero news/april 2000

  Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:18:34 -0700   Dear Pedro,   Regretfully I requested to be removed from ZoneZero news. I have been inundated with mail that does not pertain to the Center. I am afraid I inadvertently included you in that message. Please accept my apologies, and yes, please continue to send us your news.   Sincerely, Bobbie Wolcott Assistant to the Director Center for Photographic Art  

Wednesday, 05 April 2000

793. Justin Ide

  Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 23:09:20 -0400   Please register me for your mailing list. You have a great site and I have only touched it thus far but will be sure and come back as well as pass it along to those I know.   Thanks Justin Ide.  

Monday, 03 April 2000

795. Tahir Ün | Editorial

  Date: Sunday, April 2, 2000 11:11 AM   Dear Pedro Meyer,   I wish translate some of your editorial writings in Turkish for our on-line magazine "fotografya" (mean of world of photography) http://ankara.ada.net.tr/fotografya .. Would you give permission about this matter. Also the classical and digital photography is problematical topic for turkish photographers today. Site will be transfer to its new address is http://www.fotografya.net after current issue.   Regards,   Tahir Ün http://www.tahirun.net.  

Sunday, 02 April 2000

797. Redefining Documentary Photography

      When presenting some of my digital pictures, I am frequently confronted with the comment: "but surely this is not a documentary photograph, is it?"   Before we move on to respond, let us first establish hopefully with some degree of clarity what we understand by a documentary photograph. As I see it, the intentions of a documentary photographer are to record some aspects of reality, by producing a depiction of what the photographer saw and which portends to represent that reality in as objective a manner as possible.   If we can agree to that description, I can already see our critics pounding on their desks accompanied by some degree of glee on their faces, as they suggest that this is precisely the reason why there is no room for the computer to be used in recreating documentary images.   I believe we have already discussed in all sorts of forums the fact that photography per se, is tantamount to manipulation. That the impact of the lens selected, the film chosen, and all the other technical variables leave ample room to question the so called "faithful representation" of reality. So let us not mull over this one endlessly, as I think it thins the debate rather enhances it.   Let us explore today, the parallels between photography and other forms of documentary work. For instance, a journalist brings together his writings, which represent a synthesis of what the journalist saw and/or heard, above all by what he imagines are the lines of reason behind the information selected. The journalist is not some copier machine that simply reproduces mindlessly what is placed on the platen in front of her. He weaves and puts together the information in order to insure that it accurately portrays the information presented in a decision making process that supports the story being presented.   A documentary filmmaker does not just shoot film or video without some sort of editing process in mind. We only assume that the actors are not hired, that they are real life characters, and that the settings are also real life environments rather than constructed sets. Of course one can go on from profession to profession related to documentary work, and you will always find the same sort of rationale; the belief that the representation was based on real life situations and that the information however real still had to be processed and edited before it was presented to the public.   So why are so many people up in arms about the idea that a photograph edited in the computer is not really a true documentary representation? As I have come to understand it, it has mainly to do with past traditions and customs. It apparently flies in the face of reason, that if one would alter an image, it no longer could call itself a document. What is wrong in that analysis is that any and all alterations have been treated equal (they are all bad). We know for a fact that not all alterations have the same justifications behind them, that some alterations can even contribute to enhance the veracity of an image rather than the opposite. Furthermore, many of the fears related to the conceptual changes for photography have to do mainly with a loss of certainty of what the photograph actually is delivering, in so far as a document, with little debate about the veracity of the content of a given image.   We are of course dealing here with the same sort of ethical debates around editing a story, be that with text or film, even sound tracks, something everyone has been discussing for a long time. For photography it is no different. Why should it be? If anything is different it's because in the past we could not reasonably edit photography in the way we can today, so when the tools first appeared that empowered us to do so, everyone just ran for the exits. All those other mediums had always been edited and were malleable to the nth degree; photography in that sense, was less flexible. Not that one could not alter documentary images, just ask the Soviets about all that they did in this respect. I sustain that photography always lived a life of false pretenses. Today when we intend to remove that disguise all sorts of defense lines are drawn.   Of course photography can lead to deception, it always could. What is more, it's open-ended nature in so far as meaning goes, has always been used to support whatever the intentions of the photographer. The digital age has not rushed in an avalanche of alterations as some would have thought would be the case. If one looks around what is being produced under the name of photographs one will discover that these are mostly illustrations. Another category that has grown recently is that of expanding the realm of the "fantastic" again with no attachment to the real world. What is less evident however is the work that is being produced that looks like traditional photographs but created with untraditional methods, namely digital ones. The reason for this is quite obvious: unless you are willing to offer the recipe for how you made the image, no one can really tell what was done (provided it was done well). That is what makes people so nervous and unwilling to consider as documentary an image produced digitally.   Let us look at the cover of ZoneZero this month. We decided that the title for this image would be: "Where is the Money?" (Which in Spanish has a double entendre that is quite nice, as the title "A dónde está la Lana" is based on "lana" meaning at the same time money as well as wool, for instance that of the sheep in the background). And the title "Where is the Money" also brings us back to that famous sentence by Cuba Gooding Jr. asking Tom Cruise repeatedly: "Where is the Money?" in the film Jerry Maguire (1996) . Or in looking at the image one could also recollect that other famous phrase; "Greed is Good" by Michael Douglas in the film, WallStreet (1987). For me it was interesting to relate such "first world" movie sentences to a reality in the "third world". I guess that when it comes to some basic human attitudes we are all universal.   Interesting questions arise by the juxtaposition of the man showing us the money. Why does he put up that money? Is he asking us to pay for something? Is he doing so because he wants money for being photographed? Is he selling us some sheep meat? Does he think he needs to pay for his photograph? What is the relation of power in that encounter between the photographer and the subject and as an extension us the viewers? What role do the sheep represent in all of this? Are they symbolic of something other than their physical presence?   Let us now evaluate the elements, which compose the image. First is the issue of the origin of the parts used. In this case the two main elements are the man holding the money and the background image with the sheep being skinned. Both pertain to the same place and were take in contiguous moments in time. They belong together as it were, as they have their common roots of space and time in a small village in Ecuador where I took the pictures. The only thing that did not occur in the final picture is that they appeared visually as they are presented here.         The background picture is turned left to right in order to have the light fall in the same direction in both components of the final image, as well as making space for the man holding the money. Such an alteration, I consider no different than what ordinary editing does in film, or when words are accommodated for better reading within a text. However this leads to an interesting issue within photography, namely that of luck.         Had all these elements appeared before my camera as they are in the final picture, I would not have required doing anything further. Photographers became accustomed to the notion of "having content and geometry make an appointment", as Max Kozloff once stated so eloquently, in great part through luck. One knew one was "lucky" to have everything fall into place, even though we took full credit for all the timely decision making abilities involved. The only problem with some of these so called talents, is that more often than not, the coincidence of content and geometry coming together would not have been visible to the plain eye under the best of circumstances. Or worse yet, one would proceed like fishermen who go about their task casting a wide net, and then seeing what came up in the catch. Photographers shooting off numerous rolls of film with motors on the camera in order to shoot faster than even the eye can see, and then going through the "catch" to discover which were the "good ones". The process then called euphemistically, editing.   I am of course not questioning the validity of patience that some great photographers have exerted in order to get at exactly the image that they imagined, but even when patience was at the core of such endeavors an element of chance would inevitably crop up here and there.   I personally dislike the notion that my work be determined mainly by luck. I'd rather fail on my own efforts rather than attribute poor results to the absence of luck. The reverse of this argument is of course that I like to determine what an image looks like on the basis of my intentions, not chance.   Having said that, photography has today a wonderful opportunity with which to enhance its options to create an image aside of luck. Now I can, like other creators who choose to create a documentary story, pull all the strings of what makes an image a stronger one, by either eliminating, adding, re organizing, those pieces of information which make up the picture.   As far as the factual evidence of "what was", as some like to state, are those traces of light which give evidence of what was there. In my picture nothing appears within the frame that wasn't there, in so far as the reality of the space. Yes the order has been altered and changed, but then what is the difference between my computer alteration, and the photographer who chooses his or her angle to place a camera? Or when the photographer asks, sometimes by nudging ever so lightly for those depicted to move their location to a more favorable light or position.   Colin Jacobson, wrote in a letter to me some years ago about his concern that in the future, digital photographers would become increasingly sloppy, because they (photographers) could, after all, erase those elements, which they were too lazy to deal with in the first place. I am sure that sloppy work preceded digital technology and thus the argument about such risks only tended to obscure the rich potential for making ever better images, precisely the opposite of his concerns. He was preoccupied the tools would be misused, I was convinced of the opposite that they would lead to creativity not sloppiness.   I urge photographers everywhere to test the waters, to experience coming up with documentary work that is very strong by means of applying digital technology. The risks for abuse are obviously present, but they have always been there, for other mediums as well, none of this ever stopped responsible creators from using all their tools. Documentary Photography has been redefined; it is time to prove it.   Pedro Meyer México D.F. March 20, 2000   For comments post a message in our forum section at ZoneZero.       http://zonezero.com/editorial/abril00/april.html    

Sunday, 26 March 2000

799. Learning in a New World - Part II

  Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV What Do You Know? Access to huge amounts of information has caused some in education to start questioning whether measuring quantity rather than quality and performance best assesses an individual’s knowledge. With knowledge increasing faster than ever in human history, "knowing that" (facts) seems a lot less relevant than "knowing how" and "knowing why."   Against the barrage of information and "knowledge," individual learners need a different set of skills to be successful in the new world. Learning how to learn is now recognized as a crucial skill for learners of all types, and of all ages, over and above the ability to memorize and recall specific facts. In other words, students (learners) do need to master and have readily available a core set of skills and facts, but to be really successful in the future will require these learners to master new skills and attitudes: How to locate, process, synthesize and communicate information, and a fundamental attitude shift toward "knowledge" that considers it not a fixed target but an evolving personal and social process.   What we know today about practically any field is likely to change within a few weeks, a few months, or just a few years. And the circumstances in which individuals will find themselves "learning" will be quite different, and more varied, than the traditional classroom of the past. Look at any old picture of a classroom and you see a setting designed for the 'transfer' of information from an authoritative figure (the teacher), who usually relied on a limited set of sources for that information (textbooks, mainly). The goal in this case is to transmit the information as efficiently as possible, in the hope that the learners will be able to recite it back as evidence of their learning. Somehow, being able to recall bits of information when queried is supposed to prepare us for a productive life -when in reality, the number of times when a job depends on that skill is probably very small.   Even within traditional schools, universities, and training organizations there is a growing recognition that this should not be the only approach, and several alternatives have been and are being tried with varying degrees of success. If a school wants to teach something other than facts, how can it go about it? What should students learn beyond the facts?   The most interesting approaches, from my perspective, are those that begin by questioning even the methods to teach "the facts," and the basic skills (reading, writing, basic numeracy) that go with them. Take the traditional setting and do away with it: assume that teachers and students can work and learn better when the physical layout of the classroom does not have all chairs facing in one direction all the time. Think about activities that can go on within that learning environment that allow teachers and students to approach the material from a variety of perspectives. Expect students to be capable of developing their own understanding of the subject under study. Challenge teachers to become learners side by side with the students, and to be willing to learn from them as well. Provide the resources and tools to let students explore subjects in depth. Evaluate the learner's progress through something other than a paper-and-pencil test. Engage the community, especially the parents.   It is in the issue of resources that the Internet has started to change Everything -while changing nothing yet for huge numbers of people around the world. When students are allowed and encouraged to assume greater responsibility for their learning, many people (even the parents!) are surprised to see it happen. This responsibility may take the form of having access to a vast collection of resources and use it responsibly despite the many easy temptations. This is key.   In the past students did not have to assume any responsibility for the context of learning (the classroom) nor the sources of information they were allowed to use (textbooks): they were there, and nothing else was really expected. But with the Internet, learners in any context now are being asked to reflect on the sources, and to grapple with questions that simply don't arise often with textbooks (e.g., "Who is the publisher of this information? How do I know that they are a trustworthy source?"). Because both the quantity and quality of the information present new practical challenges, our pedagogies are also being challenged. And once the way we teach is open to question, 'what' is being taught is also opened up.   Our understanding of learning is evolving from a largely personal, isolated experience ("remember, no cheating on the test!") to one that is social and connected, where I learn from others and I can teach others as well. Because there are so many "facts" and "information" the task is not so much to recall the one the teacher wants but to be able to locate it efficiently, understand why a particular fact is important, and how it fits with other related facts. My own understanding of these relationships is enriched by conversations, interactions, and collaborations I participate in actively with teachers and fellow learners. My mastery of a particular skill (e.g., public speaking) is developed in social settings rather than in isolation chambers where there's no one to help me improve my performance. The teachers are there to guide my explorations thanks to their experience, not to limit my curiosity and creativity. What I learn is much more than facts: it's the stuff of life.   Pedro Hernández-Ramos   Next time: Imagine that the social aspects of learning are presented in a completely different way: instead of face-to-face, the interactions, conversations, and collaboration are taking place through computer networks. Worse, better, or no difference?.   You can contact Pedro Hernández-Ramos at: pehernan@cisco.com   Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV   http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/hernandez/hernande2.html      

Tuesday, 21 March 2000