Bent and Broken

In the digital age the equipment to produce photography has reached unparalleled heights of precision and performance. Digital imaging sensors are now capable of resolving extreme amounts of resolution and dynamic range beyond what film was capable of, and computer-aided design and improved engineering methods have made ever more spectacular lenses freer than ever of undesirable characteristics. And with such technical achievements, it’s perhaps unsurprising that a lot of the discourse around photography and ‘popular’ social examples of it in practice focus around ever more precise technical perfection. Dynamic range, sharpness, fine details when viewed at 500% magnification–these are easily measured metrics and they are bandied about but… do they actually make something a good image? Good technical details can enhance certain good photos and make them excellent, but, is the reverse true as well? Can a strong image overcome flawed technical execution on the strength of its whole? Some of my favorite images the past few years have been ones I would’ve formerly thrown away; motion-blurred, missed focus, blown highlights. But, I keep coming back to them on the strength of the image. Annoyed with so much chatter around me about what makes better photography that always focuses on the technical, I began to consider that perhaps the best way to regain some perspective was to set out to make flawed images on purpose, and see if they could also be good. Utilizing a mix of digital and analog cameras, vintage lenses, light painting, multiple strobes, motion blur, long exposure, and other erratic and eccentric techniques I have set out to purposefully use flaws to build images. The results are unpredictable, and often difficult to produce, but when they hit the mark they have a captivating, haunting quality to them. Some of them are merely bent, a few are outright broken, but all of them have visual interest and coherency despite not obeying a single rule of technical convention.