External Analysis 002
Richard Chabot
DUALITÉ
Today’s member contribution comes from Richard Chabot, and it’s about a specific project he’s working on. Here’s a description in his own words:
“I am working on a series that I may call «Dualité». It might be in reaction to all this «Woke Stuff». Every situation is like a medal where we perceive and understand the 2 perspectives. To me, the best way to express this is through diptychs. Does it make sense to you and what could be done to make the concept more intelligible?”
I got in touch with Richard to better understand what he had in mind. Essentially, he’s looking to highlight the current social reflex to accept a single truth as gospel, without trying to see the other side of the coin. To him, this polarization is akin to putting blinders on and leads to society becoming more and more fragmented.
So DUALITÉ—duality in French—is about showing two realities side by side.
Strength of message, strength of image
This sort of project, in my opinion, lives and dies on the power of its images and their ability to force questions by confronting us in some way. With this in mind, for me, the most successful diptych is the one I used as this post’s banner:
Not because of any shock factor related to religion/nudity, but because it contains layers beyond what might be considered an obvious opposition: there’s the “masks required” sign followed by the urgency of six exclamation points; there’s the light bulb in a broken light fixture, bouncing off the Madonna figure; the iconic Marilyn Monroe poster that also suggests popular culture and a very different era. These elements are adding a subtext to the initial message, making it much richer than a simple dual contrast.
At the other end of the spectrum, the least effective diptych would be this:
The light and colours are nice and there’s a mood to the image. But in regards to this project, I’m not pulled into further exploration because I immediately identify the image on the right as a crop of the left image. So I already know the picture—I receive it as an aesthetic manipulation. Now, here’s where context matters: if all the other diptychs were about isolating one element and opposing it to an original composition, then I believe I’d be looking at it differently; the proposal, in this case, would be about fragmenting reality—something I’ve written about previously. And in fact, Richard mentioned this when we had our chat.
But given the social content of the other diptychs (and his own basic premise), this one seems like an outlier that muddies the waters. It goes back to a basic principle: are we shooting the brief or are we trying to fit stuff into it, retroactively? I can certainly be lazy as hell, but if I set myself a new framework I never go back to my archives. Because if the impulse didn’t exist during capture, then I didn’t shoot that impulse. I think it matters.
Coming back to the Madonna/Marilyn diptych: I also find it’s the most successful image in terms of processing, which leads us to the next point.
Visual treatment, continuity and coherence
This is obviously a work in progress, but I do think it’s important to highlight the visual treatment of the submitted work. Let’s look at the four diptychs together:
Several things are going on that, in my opinion, break the flow:
Background colour: there’s a matter of personal taste at play, but regardless of what we choose to use as a background, I feel strongly about using the same one across the board. Colour is always a distraction, so unless it’s meant to be a part of the message, it should be invisible. If it’s all the same, it disappears; if it changes from one image to the next, it stands out and becomes part of the narrative.
Processing: the look and styling of the images vary pretty wildly from one to the next. This does go back in part to the “shooting the brief” point I mentioned above, but it’s also something we need to be aware of and control during the post-production phase. Every image doesn’t need to look the same, but most narratives benefit from a certain amount of visual consistency.
Aspect ratio: following-up on that, the 3:2 diptych seems out of place. It’s obviously a question of balance right now—one of these things is not like the others—but again, I tend to believe the series might be more powerful by sticking to a single direction in terms of layout.
Just for fun, I “homogenized” the images by converting them to black and white and re-creating the house pair using a square ratio:
This is a quick conversion: some of the resulting contrast isn’t optimal. My bad.
I know, I know… I also used this trick in the last Analysis—and I’m not suggesting the series should be monochromatic. But this allows us to see all the images as a single entity, in the same space, which I believe is useful as an overview.
…
So here’s my takeaway: this is an interesting project. But I would suggest establishing a much more specific framework, both in terms of content and in terms of look. This means processing, but also lens and camera choice which can have a huge impact on the coherence of a series. I’m always fascinated by the way a photographer’s pictures are influenced by the tools that are used: Diane Arbus’s transition from a 35 mm to a medium-format Rolleiflex; Alec Soth’s switch to an 8x10 camera and the way it affected the relationship to his subjects.
All of this implies self-imposed boundaries that most people might never realize. But they will feel them. They will sense a thread that ties the work together.
I hope this helps. Huge thanks for your submission Richard :)
P.S When I started my main blog—eons ago—it had a name: Dualité….;)
