Black
and
White and
Color
AN INTERVIEW WITH
PHOTOGRAPHER DIANA ADAMS
3.
Smithsonian Series
DRIFT:
Let's talk about some of your photographic projects, the Smithsonian
Series. The photos are stark and beautiful--in their own way,
they are definitive versions of the Smithsonian buildings. How did
that project come about?
ADAMS:
That project came out of experimentation with film. Infrared film
needs certain conditions--you need bright sunlight, you need a dark
place to change your film. For instance you have to load and unload
in closet. So I read about this other film that Ilford manufactures
(SPX) that has 20 percent infrared and 80 percent regular film. So,
I bought some downtown, went for a long walk on the Mall and starting
shooting the Smithsonian buildings just to see what the film was like
and how things would turn out. By the end of the day I inadvertently
had the beginnings of a body of work about the Smithsonian.
DRIFT:
I'm amazed to hear that! The pictures are so expressive and purposeful,
one would never know that you did not set out to finally capture the
essence of these places once and for all. So, it is really your curiosity
about your tools and materials that lead you to this expression. How
many pictures do you take before you have something you are satisfied
with?
...a
photograph is not necessarily judged individually, but by how it
will fit in with the others from that same series...
ADAMS:
I might take up to 30 to 60 images then choose one that appeals to
me. And I don't always know which photograph I will finally choose.
Most photographers, including myself, work in series, so a photograph
is not necessarily judged individually, but by how it will fit in
with the others from that same series. The photographs have to work
together. Something about the progression or the use of space...something
related from one picture to the next.
DRIFT:
Again, I believe your Smithsonian Series is definitive-particularly,
in their mood. If I wanted someone in another country, who had never
seen the Smithsonian buildings, to know what they looked like or felt
like to be in the presence of, I would send them these photos. Also,
in this collection I see the larger notions--the abstract and austere
grandeur of Washington, D.C. itself. One perhaps can catch a glimpse
of Washington's subtle moral and aesthetic aspirations and see how
those aspirations co-exist. Lastly, the photos can serve as a portal
onto what makes Washington, D.C., in its own fashion, quite sublime.
I think one way they achieve all of this is at least in part how they
eschew of all the unnecessary elements such as tourists and their
baby carriages, cabs, and so on. Happily, you only included the essential
structures.
ADAMS:
In a way, they really are outside the current aesthetic in photography
for exactly what you said--all those elements have been removed. If
you were doing something really contemporary in photography you would
take big garish pictures showing all the detritus.
Including
tourists with play clothes on, ice cream cones melting, people laughing,
whining, being hot...
DRIFT:
It would seem to me that the contemporary photography you are describing
increasingly has more to do with commerce than it does art. Those
peripheral elements refer me to the ambiance of magazine and TV commercials
desperately trying to convey where the action is. I believe the peripheral
elements can be included in a work of art if they add to the whole
in a meaningful and original way. However, I still believe it is more
of a challenge for an artist to trust the central material he or she
has either created or chosen rather than trying to spruce up something
inferior with cheaply bristling ambiance. I'm referring to a central
tenant of minimalism--trust the central material at hand. Of course,
this material must be quality stuff. It must have an almost eternal
characteristic or value.
ADAMS:
One of the reasons I've enjoyed photographing the Smithsonian buildings
so much is because I'm freelancing on the weekends and have to shoot
these inclusive, busy pictures. And I have to shoot hundreds of them.
These pictures have all kinds of elements, all kinds of chaos in them.
So, it's rather a relief to walk around and do these very quiet things
which don't have this messy humanity (laughter).
DRIFT:
Where do you envision these photographs? Who especially do you want
to see them?
ADAMS:
Of course, it would be marvelous for the Smithsonian to take interest
in them. Also, I
would like architects to appreciate these photographs. I would love
to exhibit them at the American Institute of Architects or the National
Building Museum.
DRIFT:
Would you discuss the architectural considerations of this project?
ADAMS:
A lot of the museums are primarily rectangular boxes-which most Washington
buildings are given the building codes which allow only a certain
height. If you really look at one of these buildings from all sides,
you can get an idea of what the architect's motives were. What elements
were added for enhancement or meaning --because symbolism plays a
very significant role in Washington. So, some of these building have
decorative flourishes added and, of course, there are the fairly well
known sculptures placed alongside. These elements work well together.
For instance, if you know the sculpture, you can also identify the
building. So, in some instances, I have tried to incorporate the sculpture
associated with a particular building. I actually re-shot the Air
and Space Museum because I was not satisfied with what I had. This
time I focused on a sculpture to one side and juxtaposed that with
the way the windows looked from a certain angle. It ended up looking
like a more interesting building, whereas only seen straight on it
could appear to be otherwise. It's been a challenge because all of
these buildings could just as easily be big boxes if their context
or details were not taken into consideration.
< D
R I F T H O M E > < Top
of Page >
