tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74300302315269937852024-03-27T01:37:28.411-05:00KATIE O'NEILLKatie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-17044216725214867352010-12-04T17:40:00.006-06:002010-12-06T23:21:07.770-06:00Is Photography Over?<div><a href="http://www.sfmoma.org/pages/research_projects_photography_over"><u>Is Photography Over?</u></a></div><div><br /></div><br /><center><img src="http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcrogrgQnO1qdcgb2o1_500.jpg" /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">John Baldessari.</span></center><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Many of the arguments posed in this symposium are rehashed and outdated theories that no longer even need to be discussed at this level - Jennifer Blessing discusses her belief as photography as indexical, Barthes and Stieglitz and Szarkowski are mentioned various times, there is talk of dying materials and digital manipulation. If the panel, by default of its members is assuming an educated audience, then half of the arguments are really already "over." This panel is dominated my white, male, western figures, also, which speaks volumes to me about the conception of photographic theory. This alone assumes those engaged are a part of an elite group of "accepted" photographers. Firstly, as Douglas Nickel observes, this is a problematic question because "photography" is an extremely loaded term. It depends on what we're talking about. The medium as a whole, historical views or theories on what photography supposedly is? "Photography over? More often these days, it feels like it's only just begun." This is what Vince Aletti claims and you know what? I want this to be true, but in reality, I'm not really a believer. I don't believe photography is "over", either. As many of these arguments display and as Lorca diCorcia brilliantly puts it, its just tired.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Tired indeed, I am very tired of hearing the same boring argument rehashed and redisplayed. The only person who really appealed to my sense of photography's place in art history was Beshty who makes an important argument that is often glossed over in photographic discourse. Art, not just photography, is a business, a money maker, an institute. Its planned and assembled into a neat degree programme and taught to you, marketed and sold to you. Beshty claims that the "crisis" of photography is one largely created by its critics, creators and teachers. He asks, why is there a visible segregation of photography departments within art school, when these distinctions do not exist in the contemporary art world? As for these distinctions not existing in the art world, I am not entirely in agreement, but I do whole heartedly agree that the segregation of photography from art in teaching institutions is infuriating. It is something I have always had a problem with and yes I would love for photography to be over and art to dominate. Why is painting, sculpture, performance art, etc lumped under "art and design" and photography is separate? I'm not a photographer, I'm an artist who enjoys making use of photography and desired to learn more about it then other mediums. Why then, is my only option to be isolated from the rest of the art world? If you disagree with this, take a walk over to the A&D building and realize how much you're missing out on.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Perhaps this is my own personal gripe and many of you may be content with just learning about photography and that's not my complaint. My concern is that by segregating departments in this way, photographers are essentially being pigeon holed into one area and isolated to a particular set of rules, standards and expectations and this, in my opinion, is artistic suicide. As Peter Galassi puts it "there is a difference between anything being possible and everything being the same." If photography constantly strives to be accepted as art, why is it so exclusive? As Corey Keller claims, calling yourself a photographer rather than an artist has a very layered connotation. Many may find comfort in being a part of their own special world, their own private room in the art hotel, but personally, I'm greedy and I want it all and I really wish learning institutions would facilitate this better. I think this would result in more interesting, radical and experimental work, better and more engaged arguments about photography and a new perspective of its relation to the larger art world.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Is photography over? Absolutely not. There are many photographers I've met who still believe they are making truth, who still believe large format cameras and the perfect print is the only way to make work, who align themselves with the Michael Frieds of the world and believe this is the only way to go. These people have remarkable talent, I am not denying this, (there's nothing wrong with making beautiful prints, of course, that's what we're here to learn!) I am simply pointing to the fact that there is a certain way "good" photography is positioned and this is far from being over. The cornering of photography as its own (often boringly conservative) medium in art schools is alive and well. There has been such a fuss kicked up about digital and the loss of materials, but the reality is nothing much has changed. Yes, it is really sad to see beautiful papers and films go and old processes fade out, but people are still using photography in a very similar, slow moving way. Photography is not radical enough (speaking in contemporary terms) to be over. After all, it matters as art as never before! After three years of studying photography I am a little jaded, so excuse my personal art baggage, but I think its all very blown out of proportion and Beshty is one few who points to the facts. Photography "for the wall" is nowhere near over. Some of the most radical or different work I have seen is that created by people not formally studying photography who are experimenting with the medium and this depresses me. Photography is not over, far from its just a bit stuck. Large, beautifully printed work is amazing, but its beginning to look far too similar and say less and less. Perhaps this is why my favourite photographers are those who have a complete and utter disregard for the preciousness of the medium and how it is supposed to work. I get more of a thrill out of looking at photography made by people from other areas of art, who are experimenting with the medium, rather than the work I see everyday in my own department. I seem to see more "new" ideas here. What does this say about Contemporary photography? I would love to know if I am alone in these thoughts (which I frequently find I am) or do others in the class share this view?</span></span></div></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-59077454328729914602010-11-29T22:26:00.002-06:002010-11-30T01:19:18.788-06:00Relational Aesthetics - Nicholas Bourriuad/Ben Lewis BBC Documentary<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">During his meeting with the artist, Lewis asks Bourriaud what is the difference between Modern Art and Relational Aesthetics. Bourriaud explains that past art was defined by the fear of consumption, as seen the work of Warhol. Modern Art was born of “production” based society. Bourriud believes we are now living in a “communication based society.” For example, he mentions one of the artists in his book Santiago Sierra – who paid Africans to dig holes in the earth and hired Eastern European prostitutes to perform S&M. He claims, “the worst aspects of relationships today are shown, people hire people, they make them their slaves." He calls this work “a ground or sensibility for today.” I am a little skeptic. I can see how this work is about communication; perhaps about the troubled channels it weaves in Contemporary society. However, this type of work is not something that shocks me, something that I have never seen. According to Lewis, this type of art is based in Minimalism and Conceptualism but the key factor that makes it difference is simple: the use of ordinary people. Here is where I get a little uncertain. Art has always been dependent on ordinary people, it has taken advantage of them, utilized them, included them, exploited them, helped them, the list goes on. How is this new? I am extremely interested in the idea of Relational Aesthetics, but it seems too broad to be applied as an “ism.”</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/christobisquayne.jpg" /><br />Jean Claude and Christo, ‘Surrounded Islands’</span></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Perhaps if I read Bourriaud’s text myself, which I plan to, I would have a better understanding. Lets consider Jean Claude and Christo’s ‘Surrounded Islands’ from the 1980s. The pair could in no way have embarked on this project without help from hundreds of paid workers who helped cut, unroll, ship and place the giant pink material over the water surrounding the islands. Could this be Relational Art? (Jean Claude and Christo do claim labels are for wine bottles only and not art.) The pair has said their work is always “prepared and used by people, managed by human beings for human beings.” The point of this work is to change how we view our environment and as a result allow us to think critically about our world, as we had previously been unable to. Or what about the art work of Yoko Ono. ‘Cut Piece’ required the participation of the audience to make the concept come to life. (Ono had members of the audience cut off pieces of her clothes until she was naked as a commentary on the need for love and unification in society) Is this Relational art, too?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_34U8ylseQBQ/TEh4W2S8SEI/AAAAAAAAAIM/3XmH8Fnk-6E/s1600/02+yoko+ono.jpg" /></span></center><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />Yoko Ono, ‘Cut Piece’</span></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Despite its broad applications, the main separation from Modern Art seems to be the essential dependence on interaction with humans. This is no Lewis Baltz photographing still, lifeless America. Relational Art embraces social interaction and depends on it to function. As Lewis claims, Relational Art "used minimal forms to make political statement. It dislikes capitalism and often relates to the space it is exhibited in. It is sometimes useful." Lewis shows how broad this application is with his light switch gag which is received coldly by Holler. However, this is what I enjoyed about the documentary. By way of Lewis’ personality, the pretentious veil of the art world was lifted and despite his sometimes cringe worthy jokes, he asked questions that everybody thinks, but are often too afraid or embarrassed to ask. Sadly the art world is full of useless art, not to mention crashing bores. Lewis is an amusing catalyst to this. Lewis almost resembles a character from the Office (UK version) and I loved it. There are some problems with the theory and the artists who work within its definition and Lewis unintentionally brings this to light.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The examples Bourriuad gives in his book, Vanessa Beecroft’s "scantily clad women" in VB 35079, Philippe Parreno’s Japanese cartoon character, being liberated from mass cultural narratives, Felix Gonzalez Torres stacks of boiled sweets and Rirkrit Tiravanija’s kitchen cooking all certainly fit into his description. There are two main problems though. Firstly, this art could be lumped into various other categories. The main characteristic of an “ism” is a certain continuous aesthetic or formal quality (most of us can easily point out a Dada artwork, or a Cubism piece). I would not instantly recognize any of these pieces as purely “relational.” Secondly, as many people have mentioned in their blogs, a lot of this art is not very significant, irritating and could easily be performed by anyone. As someone who spends a lot of time defending art that is regularly called “useless” or “non-sense” I am not in anyway claiming that art that can be performed by anyone is worthless. However, what has always been of great importance to me and my taste in art is the significance of a piece in certain socio-political contexts. Take Duchamp’s readymade ‘Fountain,’ for example. Many people pull their hair out at this type of art, as it is “too-easy.” However, it is the idea and timing of this art that makes it so incredibly significant. Rirkrit Tiravanija cooking meals in his apartment, however, not so significant. I don’t think all art has to be significant. Why not make an art piece about cooking a meal for people you like? I have no problem with this, but it’s not particularly important to me. As Lewis mentions when interviewing Phillipe Parenno, Relational Art does not have to have a particular meaning. Parenno’s incredibly boring and depressing piece is simply just a light illuminating an empty room. Personally if I’m ever making art like that and getting paid for it I’ll jump off a bridge, but Parenno doesn't seemed concerned with this, and that’s simply the reality of the art world, not all artists care about making significant work all the time.</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://images.nymag.com/arts/art/reviews/rirkrit070514_560.jpg" /></span></center><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />Rirkrit Tiravanija</span></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Lewis goes on to claim Relational Art is often Left wing, "like the plot of the Matrix, but with Capitalism instead of killer robots." He includes a clip from ‘Vicinato II’ which discusses "soft capitalism" and comments on the absurdity of the old political systems disguised and relaunched. I can’t help but agree with Gavin Brown who sees this work as made by "incredibly unradical people who play a game of a radical life” and calls it "incredibly pretentious.” It seems the Relational Art “group” Lewis focuses on is one exhausted and depressed by Capitalism, rather than an energized force of social change or upheaval. Talking to Lewis, Carsten Holler claims, "fulfilling needs is saturation, the post utopian ideal would be to give this up. The goal would be not to have a goal anymore." It seems this is what is achieved in Parreno’s work.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Obviously there is a common thread in this work but I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea of Relational Aesthetics. What I see in the works given as examples is huge contempt for Capitalism and an attempt to involve and include the public rather than exclude them (although some do exactly this). However, the most radical and exciting change for me is the breaking away from traditional museum, frame based art, via the mixing of medias, including photography. (The Ice-Cream van convention discussed in the Royal Academy with Simon Pope, for example). I disagree with Lewis. This is most certainly not an “ism” (I really dislike the placing of genres in general, its way too limiting), but rather a common theme, a sensibility, a result of similar living conditions and its saturation of minds. I don’t really think its useful to try considering Relational Aesthetics, as a new genre of photography, as the terms just isn’t solid enough. However, photography plays a central role in all contemporary art, as does video, the Internet, etc. Photography is integral to the documentation of these so called Relational art works and essentially become the end product of the work itself (the documentation of the hole digging, for example). In this vein I can see how photography could be considered as “relational art.” Think for example, of the simple street photographer. His/Her pictures would not be possible without the interaction and participation of everyday strangers.</span></div><br /></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-73306553132070974502010-11-19T18:43:00.004-06:002010-11-19T20:51:44.750-06:00Photography as Narrative.<center><img src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/SCN_0003.jpg?t=1290221470" /></center><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">In Swarkowski’s article, he explains how photography exploded into the world, disturbing the second reality created by painting. Photography added a new layer of vision to art and planted what Swarkowski calls “remembered images” in our minds, which fundamentally saturated our mental images of the world. He explains, with a strange similarity to today’s concerns, (his use of the word “stream” of images) how photography became the “everyman’s” too, a less precious medium than painting. Swarkowski outlines how photography evolved through various experiments, accidents and systems, he calls “section views through the body of photographic tradition” (3). In his first section “The Thing Itself,” Swarkowski describes that the condition of the 19th Century was not to remember the moment itself, but the photograph of the moment. Obviously, as he acknowledges, this creates complex problems. Even, if as Hawthorne claimed, the photograph outshone the painting in its ability to unlock the secrets of the world, how can we trust its image?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><center style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://digitalapplejuice.com/wp-content/uploads/image/roach/rockynook/rejlander.jpg" /></center><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Swarkowski continues by expressing his view that photography is a failed tool to convey narrative. Its rather curious, reading this article from 1966 to read Swarkowski’s description of Robinson and Rejilander’s composited negatives (1857) as “pretensions failures” in the eyes of the art world, received poorly in comparison to how work such as this is received today. From the image above, we can see that these composites are similar to the work of contemporary photographers Fried categorizes in his “new regime.” Robinson and Rejilander are the original Wall and Crewdson, yet in their time, their work was criticized. Why such work viewed differently today? Is it that the work of Wall, etc, now has the support of cinema to hoist these images into acceptable art? Is it the distance from its shaky past as painting’s competitor? Is it that the moments Wall attempts to recreate a “near documentary” rather than “near painting?” I think this is really interesting to consider. As Swarkowski, the general consensus during his time was that if you need text, your photographs are not good enough, if you are mocking painting; you are disregarding photography’s true power to capture the “decisive moment.” I think the dominance of advertising and television along with of course the internet, in more recent times has again shifted our view and allowed these type of images to be, not only acceptable, but expected. In fact I would go as far to say, as Fried so aggressively suggests, if you’re not photographing “for the wall” you will have a hard time being recognized as a professional photographer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><center><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Duchamp_-_Nude_Descending_a_Staircase.jpg" /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Marcel Duchamp 'Nude Descending a Staircase.'</div></center><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Photography is in a very different place now and I wish Swarkowski could write this article again, in 2010. I would love to hear his views of Fried’s claims. What influenced the work and the structures then was, as he mentions, other photographers and painting (as he mentions, Duchamp’s motion paintings which merged Cubism and Futurism to create a radical study of stop motion) and positivistic studies of the world (Muybridge’s galloping horses). The world has changed an insane amount since then, so much so that Swarkowski’s terms need to be expanded. The decisive moment is no longer dominant. Photographers have slowed down and are realizing their power to construct stories through methods used by Wall and Crewdson. In the 60’s, the “real” moment was privileged; in 2010 the recreation of the real is dominant. Simply ask the one classroom of students at Columbia and I am willing to bet half are working with recreated or fictional images rather than snapshots, students don’t wander the streets seeking out the decisive moment, they don’t have time for that. Photography was not such a widespread practice in terms of degree programs in the 60’s and I think this accounts for the shift also. Working in an institution with deadlines and rules hinders intuitive and impulsive work. The Jeff Wall’s of the world are taking over whilst the Henri Cartier Bressons are suffering. Swarkowski’s view is that photographs cannot tell stories, that they are simply images that portray a certain moment in time. He dismisses any attempt of the image to convey a narrative, through text or awesome (I mean this in non “dude” like terms..) composites. Interestingly, he fails to mentions what Barthes calls Syntax as an attempt at image narrative or photo-journalistic systems of the “three-picture story.” Personally, I think photographs have thousands of stories to tell, these stories are not necessary the truth, they are not necessarily real, but they speak to us. Photographs are always rooted in text and rooted in the real and therefore human beings will always bring their active minds to an image and perceive some sense of the world, some form of account. I think what Swarkowski is more concerned with is photography’s failed attempts at story telling, its imitation of painting, it overbearing theatrical elements, which seem to embarrass him. Swarkowski seems to think documentary images are more “real” and acceptable as they are acknowledging their inability to tell a story, but embracing their ability to freeze a moment in time and transform it into a solitary representation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><center><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454441722_d535959200.jpg" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Edward Steichan, 'Acropolis at Athens.'</div></center><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Clement Greenberg, however, believes that images can tell a story, but in turn, fail as pictures. Greenberg’s article is harsh in its criticisms and brushes aside any photography that falls outside of his snobbish view of art. Greenberg’s privileging of painting and sculpture is clear as he seems to only discuss work that relates to it in some way, then takes pleasure in calling its attempt at measuring up as “disastrous” (4). He pokes fun at experimental photography claiming it is a reaction to the purely formal or abstract. His ideal of the successful photograph is clear, he wants photography to be art and simply art, not a story telling device. I imagine his views are not entirely but somewhat similar to Fried’s (obviously Fried’s view is in a different era) and that he desires absorptive, non-theatrical art. For example, he discusses Steichen’s ‘Acropolis at Athens’ as a failure due to the woman’s ruination of the picture by lifting her arms gayly, disrupting the possible “artiness” of the picture. (I am reminded of Fried’s discussion of a picture where the artist’s wife was engaging the subject and therefore disallowing absorption and the problems this caused). By gesturing as such, she creates a tension between herself and the stone bust, asking the viewer to compare the two, with her more successful as the living object. In other words, she creates a theatrical element; she is attempting to tell a story and therefore, the picture fails.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Greenberg continues in his harsh and almost dismissive tone. He informs the reader that photographer’s should be thankful we don’t have the same concerns of sculptors and painters (as “real” artists, ladies and gentlemen). He can’t resist criticizing even “one of the best photographers of our day” (4), Cartier-Bresson for being too esoteric in his conquests as a street photographer. He praises WeeGee’s daring yet belittles him as a tabloid photographer and calls him “demotic” (4). However, it is Greenberg’s belief that the demotic is more apt in photography, the tool of the eveyman. I’m not really a huge fan of this article as Greenberg discusses four photographers and vaguely pertains to some experimental techniques with a tone that, frankly is rather offensive to me as a photographer (and believe me, I know how to criticize and recognize the failings of my own medium) and seems to think he knows the medium inside out. I would be interested in reading more of his writing on photography, because at least from this article, he seems to consider himself quite the expert, yet doesn’t really offer much. He fails to acknowledge that he is accounting for a very small part of photography in his article and seems to look down on the medium as art’s annoying little sibling. Basically, Greenberg sees photography that is too theatrical in its story telling as failures as art. He privileges the silent, contemplative, absorptive image and basically suggests photographers stay away from anything more complicated than that, otherwise we will fail.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><center><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.icollector.com/images/20/3515/3515_0465_1_md.jpg" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Anna Gaskell, 'Untitled #59 (by proxy)'</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://opere.teknemedia.net/public/images/assets/__TKlot_11137_1_330x740___20090723103835.jpg" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Miles Coolidge, 'Safetyville'</div></center><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Charlotte Cotton brings a more contemporary view to this matter of narrative photography. She discusses how this type of photograph is now often called the “tableau” and that this type of work is not mimicking painting, but simply employing the same code of representation. She discusses the work of Jeff Wall and Phillip Lorca di Corcia and notes that this work should not be seen as an attempt to imitate cinema either, nor advertising, nor the novel, but simply as acknowledging these elements as points of reference that can enhance the images’ story telling ability. Cottons also discusses how tableau images, though often referencing, criticizing and paying homage to painting, can also be ambiguous, inviting the viewer to make up his or her own mind about the story. Some images depict subjects with their faces turned away, leading the viewer to grapple only with the surrounding interior and its objects to construe meaning. Other images play directly on fairy tales, legends, historical references or fantasy. Cotton outlines a variety of contemporary artists who use story telling in their images using techniques that differ significantly from Swarkowski’s description. These images are rigorously planned, produced and subtle in their story telling. The images prove that to tell a story, an image does not have to be overly dramatic or obvious, for example, Anna Gaskell’s ‘Untitled #59 (by proxy)’ tells the story of Geneva Jones, a nurse who murdered her patients in a simple yet very effective manner. Miles Cooldige's 'Safteyville', without including people or employing any theatrical elements at all points out the bizarreness of contemporary society. That a model building attempting to create the ultimate safe town was built sheds light on the paranoia and desire for utopia that exists in Western society. These images are examples of how far photography has come since Greenberg's and Swarkowski's time. Their texts were significant and accurate in the context they were written in and certainly the ability of an image to tell a story is still in question. However, the picture-as-story is widely employed in Contemporary art and is continuously proving its ability as narrative. I think the most important thing to remember is that a photograph is always only the point of view of the photographer. Thus, the photograph is their story and it is our job as viewers to interpret a photograph with this in mind.</div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-803644475674022362010-11-14T21:48:00.003-06:002010-11-15T00:01:02.521-06:00Hal Foster, An Archival Impulse/ Foster-Rice, Systems Everywhere.<center><img src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Diagram-2.jpg"></center><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">In ‘An Archival Impulse’, Foster is careful to distinguish that work he is discussing is less interested in “absolute origins” and more with “unfulfilled beginnings or incomplete projects, that might offer points of departure again.” (144) He also notes that this work has departed from mourning or criticizing the museum as a failed platform for artistic display, but rather suggests an alternative kind of ordering, “within the museum and without” (145). What is interesting about this kind of work is that it invites the spectator think about how art is made, why it is made in a certain, how it is popularized, etc. It asks us to consider the politics, control, construction and destruction of public archives, also. Instead of presenting a piece in a way that closes off further questioning, it asks questions. As Foster notes, it “ramifies like a weed or a rhizome” (145). He acknowledges the absurdity and paranoia associated with such work and how it can sometimes seem “tendentious, even preposterous” (145) to attempt to replicate the archive. He ask, is it obscene, to attempt to recuperate failed visions of society and art into an alternative kind of social relations, an attempt to reassemble a failed dream of utopia? I don’t think so. I think this kind of interrogation is necessary and has always been a practice I have admired. I think the shift from “excavation sites” towards “construction sites” is essential for artistic practice to evolve.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><center><img src="http://learningfrommiltonkeynes.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/artwork_images_139120_193860_berndandhilla-becher.jpg" /></center><center><br /></center>In his introduction to 'Systems Everywhere', Foster-Rice Points out the underlying complications of aligning photographers such as Lewis Baltz, Bernd and Hilla Becher and Robert Adams and the exhibition New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-altered Landscape to the Minimalist art movement. Foster-Rice argues that there are, in fact many unmentioned differences between the New Topographics aesthetic and the largely sculptural based Minimalism. Though distinctly separate in style and form, (3D, “in” space, as opposed to flattened on paper, denying interaction), what these works have in common is their “structural and strategic characteristics” (46).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This type of art’s main concern (Minimalism, Earthworks, Conceptualists, etc.) was to be more interactive with the world it resides within. Foster-Rice discusses that what was revealed by this method of thinking, was that notions of art were transforming and artists were aware of and challenging past and current systems. Consequently, the emphasis of object making had shifted to an interest in systematically made art. The materials became of lesser importance, whilst the concept, the system became key. The photographs from the Man-Altered Landscapes become something different in this sense, not simply a muted display of minimalist lines, repetitive images and shapes without purpose other than aesthetic, but rather a challenge of the mid-century Modernist aesthetic using a systematic approach.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/adamsr/adamsr_newworld7.jpg" /><br /><br />Instead of..<br /><br /><img src="http://www.stevey.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/ansel_adams.jpg" /><br /></center><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In fact, as Foster-Rice explains, this was one of the most pressing areas explored in this Systems approach, that of the human-altered landscape. Artists such as Tony Smith and Lewis Baltz began to criticize the malfunction of new structures of mass suburbanization and the expansion of roads into super highways. Despite Jenk’s overlooking or perhaps disinterest in this issue, those in the larger ‘New Topographics’ sphere were addressing the disastrous implications of these growths, as Foster-Rice notes, what Frederic Jameson called the “cultural logic of Capitalism.” To overlook this would be to deny an important section of art history. As Foster-Rice claims, this exhibition has more to do with Late-Capitalism, rather than a universal alteration of the landscape driven by human development. The images Foster-Rice discusses display various concerns about the irreversible effects of such developments on the natural landscape and the pathetic and dysfunctional attempts to control the resulting waste it produced. These images stand in contrast to those created by previous landscape “masters” (sorry, I really detest that word) who made images to promote the strength and beauty of America in all its infinite resourcefulness. As Foster-Rice notes, the advent of the atomic bomb and its looming possibilities shook such perceptions and shaped the ambivalent anxieties inherent in the photographs of the New Topographics. Foster-Rice argues that what became of central importance at that time, as pressed by Valie Export was to avoid separating the art object from lived experience and rather to see art “as an analogue for experience”, a notion in which photography played a central role.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Foster-Rice claims the New Topographics addressed these issues through three central systems-based strategies: an emphasis on serial images, procedure over aesthetic composition and the creation of images whose arrangement was emblematic of the system as a whole. The work of Adams and the Bechers exemplify the use of serial images, employing linear progression and grid systems. Foster-Rice notes the importance of this practice in focusing the audience’s attention on the project as a whole, rather then as individual photographs. Foster-Rice explains that the New Topographics dismissed Formalism as championed by Szarkowski and embraced a procedural method of creating photographs; in other words “process takes place in the conceptual domain” (64). This work did not depend on the whimsical, fleeting moment, but rather a rigorously planned formula. The work privileged arrangement over composition, attempting to approach the object as a whole, rather than focusing on specific parts, as, for example, a Winogrand portrait would. As skeptic as I am about any possibility of passivity of frame, these artists came as close as possible with this technique. Foster-Rice also discusses the ability of this work to present “Whole Systems” (66), reminiscent of Smith’s quote about the overwhelming lack of reference points in Late-Capitalist society, which was aided by the mode of presentation, which mocked this society, repetitive, lifeless, practically identical.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /><center><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n41zxlyLWm4/Svjdaym8hiI/AAAAAAAAAZs/66lj9BjgVt4/s576/new_topt_02.jpg" /></center><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><center>Example of Lewis Baltz display</center><br />Finally, Foster-Rice notes that this exhibition can be considered within George Baker’s “Expanded Field of Photography”, building on Krauss’s original essay. He notes that this work “clarifies and reconfigures the possibilities afforded by the opposition of “art” and “document” that tended to document much photographic discourse” (69). The Systems Artist inverted the notion of “not document,” “not art” and created what was both art and document.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Re-reading the Foster text and reading Foster-Rice’s text was really interesting for this assignment, as I have always bee interested in notion of the archive in art and also the New Topographics but struggled to grasp the driving forces behind this work. I think Foster’s text is of great importance as the archive is something that effects historical discourse more than many would consider and for artists to take on such a role is something I would be delighted to witness more of. Foster-Rice’s text achieved its goal of altering how the viewer considers this work, as considering the Systems approach actually explained this work to me more than I had been aware of before. I didn’t know anything about the General System Theory and I hadn’t connected up the ties to Late-Capitalism in this work, so I am grateful to have read this and it will certainly be useful in further studies of this work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><br /><center><img src="http://www.seanhillen.com/images/northern_sunsets_2_1000.jpg" /><br /><br />'Northerns Sunsets #2'</center><br />When I consider the Procedural Method of working and the Archive I thought of two examples immediately. Firstly, mostly in connection to the artist as Archivist, Irish artist Sean Hillen creates photomontages, which critically comment on the Northern Irish conflict (English occupation of Northern Ireland and the internal conflict between Republicans and Loyalists). Hillen grew up in Newry, which lies on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and therefore witnessed much of the conflict first hand. Hillen’s work creates an alternative archive from many of the photographs available in Ireland’s main archival centre, the National Archive. His work comprises of his own photographs, and found images. He employs lengthy, often humorous and satirical titles to enforce his opinion on the situation. Hillen’s later work critically comments on post “Celtic Tiger” (short economic boom, followed by a massive and messy crash) Ireland. I thought this work was relevant to mention in relation to the archives discussed by Foster. As Foster notes, the goal of this work is to “offer points of departure again,” which it certainly does.<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><center><img src="http://www.irelantis.com/gallery/theimages/TheQuietManCottage.._600.jpg" /><br /><br />'The Quiet Man Cottage in Meeting House Square, Temple Bar, Dublin'<br /><br /><img src="http://www.irelantis.com/gallery/theimages/horse_racing.jpg" /><br /><br />'Horse Racing Near the Ruins of Stephen's Green'<br /><br /></center></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As for Procedural Methods, I thought of the artist Roni Horn and her piece ‘You Are The Weather.’ Interestingly, Horn’s origins lay in Minimalism, but she eventually began making Conceptual based work. In Horn’s ‘You Are the Weather’, she photographed a young woman in Iceland (you can see a short video about the work, here: http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/horn/clip2.html#) standing in a body of water. Horn used the same vantage point in every single image and, similarly to the Bechers, the only difference in each image is a slight change of expression on the young woman’s face, as in the water towers photographed by the New Topographics couple. Perhaps one could argue, because Horn is photographing a human, rather than a lifeless water tower, that she had to have influenced the subject. What I am more interested in is the similarity of System of framing and presentation used, the notion of repetition, continuous framing, consistent printing, etc. How the images are displayed conveys an ever so subtle sense of emotional change that could only be achieved by employing this procedural system. When viewing the images in this manner, we begin to notice a slight stress in the models eyes, or an absence, or in some a relaxation. The work may not be as strictly precise as the Bechers, but, I think this work is really interesting to consider under the idea of Procedural methods of art making and systems as it shows how it can employed successfully outside of landscape based work.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.tate.org.uk/images/cms/12140w_masterc_youareweather.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/You-are-the-weather-1.jpg" /></center></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-10189359856207052162010-11-04T22:40:00.007-05:002010-11-06T20:58:24.695-05:00Photography's Expanded Field - George Baker.<center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/IMG.jpg?t=1289095023" /></span></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It seems that Baker's main claim is that photography is part of a continuously expanding field and what is essential, is a constant mapping and remapping of this process. He calls for a remodeling of a digram first employed by Krauss, instead of a return to old and dysfunctional theories of photography born out of Modernity and Post Modernity. He sees past theories as important but deems some editing, reshaping and reconsideration of such ways of thinking necessary. Baker's conclusion suggests photography's possibilities are infinite. He attempts to decipher past and current trends in photography in an effort to prove his claim that photography is not simply "stasis" or "non-stasis", nor "narrative" nor "non-narrative." He sees new photographic practice as now merging all four principles, thus expanding the field of photography, collaborating and integrating with other contemporary media, such as film, projection, etc. Baker claims photography becomes thought of as "outmoded technologically and displaced aesthetically." (122).</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xaPPSc8sfmI/TBtAPnr1CAI/AAAAAAAAAD0/HrQzVwReXtI/s1600/sander_3peasants.jpg" /><br /><br />August Sander </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Three Peasants</span></i></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Baker claims to understand photography's expanded field, we must consider the various oppositions in photography and how they have evolved over the years. Firstly, he discusses the tensions between Narrative and Stasis in photography, as seen in the work of August Sander. Photography has the power to ultimately freeze a moment in time, to capture what Barthes sees as the death of the moment. Simultaneously, the photograph is full of a whole new life, a life of social and scientific function, story telling, exploration, exploitation and confrontation. Baker sees photography's inherent "discursivity" (126) as an essential contradiction of its stillness and quietness. Baker sees contradictions too in the work of Sherman's Film Stills.</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://www.tate.org.uk/images/cms/14229w_shermanh.jpg" /><br /><br />Cindy Sherman,</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> 'Untitled Film Still'</span></i></center><center><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></center><center style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Here, in the work of Sherman and also of James Coleman, Baker begins to trace the over-lappng of cinema and photography as an expansion of the field. He sees these images has neither fully narrative nor fully static. Sherman's photographs are 'not-stasis' therefore, narrative and Coleman's work is 'not-narrative,' therefore, stasis. Here, a formula begins to emerge. Baker sees Modernist photography as suspended between theses terms and not far from Barthes' coinage of the terms Denotation and Connotation. He begins to formulate how various big players in photography, Sherman, Coleman and Wall fit into this theory. "If Sherman claims the "film still" and Coleman the "projected image," Jeff Wall's appropriation...of the light box for his image tableaux arrives as yet another major form invested at precisely that same moment that now seems to complete our expanded field" (130).</span></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mit/journals/content/octo/2005/octo.2005.-.issue-114/016228705774889574/production/pdfimages_v02/normal.img-010.jpg" /></span></center><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></center><center style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So, a pattern is beginning to emerge. However, Baker claims it is not enough to focus on the authors of such works, but rather we should be "tracing the life and potential transformation of a former medium's expanded field" (131). What we are dealing with is "new formal and cultural possibilities."</span></center><center style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></center><center style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mit/journals/content/octo/2005/octo.2005.-.issue-114/016228705774889574/production/pdfimages_v02/normal.img-012.jpg" /></span></center><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Baker illustrates this through another diagram. Baker claims the "triumvirate" of great postmodern photographers birthed a new type of photography, that of the film still, or the still-film, the Cinematic. He claims this results in a "mad multiplication of cultural codes" (132). Baker sees this type of work as playing on narrative and not-narrative. I think there are endless examples of this type of work. There has been a trend for photographers to engage with the "in-between moment," a moment that is of not so noticeable, (at least in mainstream cinema) in the sense of on screen film, but can be employed and explored beautifully when borrowed by photography. This type of work is disregards the before and after and grips the spectator in an anxious moment of uncertainty paired with stunning visual technique and attention to detail. For example, the work of Hannah Starkey is clearly employing a cinematic aesthetic. As written by David Campany in his introduction to 'The Cinematic,' - "Still photography—cinema's ghostly parent—was eclipsed by the medium of film, but also set free. The rise of cinema obliged photography to make a virtue of its own stillness." I think Campany sums up the rise of this type of image, one that is taking advantage of its own power of narrative/non-narrative and stasis/non-stasis (I can't help but think of Fried's Theatricality/Anti-Theatricality here, also).</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_xgqHN6BQY9k/S2l012excCI/AAAAAAAAWm0/XLkqLeDPki4/s800/hannah_starkey_march.jpg" /><br /><br />Hannah Starkey, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Untitled"</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_xgqHN6BQY9k/S2l0eCUPFSI/AAAAAAAAWmY/zVy7hYD386A/s800/200925644430.jpg" /><br /><br />Hannah Starkey, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Untitled"</span></i></center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Baker sees it as of great importance and strengthening his theory, that this type of work is </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">dependent </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">on cinema, similarly to how other work is dependent on video, in order to function. Baker discusses the importance of the "talking picture" also, or the fusion of narrative and stasis. Here, Baker is discussing the a variety of work, from the "painterly depictions of digital montage" (134), (Wall, Davenport) to the Hollywood Tableaux (Crewdson), to pairing of images with sounds, text, projection, video, (Gerard Byrne, Douglas Gordon), in what he would call "narrative caption." Baker does a very admirable job in explaining to us that photography, or I would go as far to say any medium, can no longer be specifically object or aesthetically bound. Photography is a part of various movements, "genres" and art works. A telling example of this is how the Museum of Contemporary </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Photography</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> just held a mainly video based exhibition, 'Mix Tapes and Mash Ups.' That the very name of that exhibition is borrowing terms from music and internet culture shows how widely spread photography is. I respect Baker's diagram, but I think Nancy Devonport who scribbled circles all over his diagram is the one who is really getting the point across best. Yes, we need maps, yes, documentation of a medium's evolution is very important, but we are moving at such a rapid rate, that it is almost impossible. It is our jobs as artists to look critically at these trends and incorporate them into our own practices. Why are we making large scale, cinematic prints? Why are we making work purely for the internet? What is causing these rifts? Mediums feed of one another and are inextricably linked. Baker makes a strong point when he states, "that this is a cultural as opposed to merely aesthetic field is something that certain recent attempts to recuperate object-bound notions of medium-specificity seem in potential danger of forgetting" (136).</span></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Texts that attempt to summarize photography in one diagram, a few buzz phrases or theory can often frustrate me for two reasons. Firstly, the author's bias always dominates, secondly, there is always picking and choosing. I was relieved to see that, although Baker did mention the usual suspects, he didn't go all Fried on me (Jeff Wall is like, sooo dreamy) but he was careful to not get stuck in this and moved onto the importance of the medium. I think this is a really interesting way to view photographic history. In fact, I like the idea of removing all names and simply focussing on trends and overlap in specific media practice, perhaps using the formula suggested by Manovich in his recent lecture, then perhaps we could begin to relate certain trends to cultural factors, political factors, etc. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Whilst reading this and thinking about overlap of mediums, stasis/non stasis, narrative, none narrative I was thinking of the photographer Ryan McGinley and how his work provides a good example of much of what Baker is discussing for various reasons:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><ol><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">McGinley's images provide an example of media crossover, as he is originally a graphic design artist who now makes use of video also. </span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">McGinley's images rely on a structure of non-stasis/non-narrative. They are what Fried would call "theatrical."</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> There is no real story or sequential narrative in McGinley's images, much like the cinematic images that have been sprouting up over the last decade or so. These photographs, much like the work of Sherman in the her time, chews up popular culture and spits it back out, beautifully. </span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">McGinley's systematic use of the internet to promote his work adds a whole other layer to photography's expanding field, a layer which is ignored in Baker's text. </span></li></ol><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I think his work provides an interesting and more contemporary example of photography's expanded field. But, as Monique said in her blog this week, maybe I'm just a big fan of this work and therefore am automatically placing it into the author's theory.<br /><br /></span><center><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://ryanmcginley.com/admin/recent_images/mcginley_eric_2004.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://ryanmcginley.com/admin/recent_images/RM_SilhouettedSky_FC_FS_30x45.4.jpg.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://ryanmcginley.com/admin/recent_images/RMShower_26x40.jpg.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://ryanmcginley.com/admin/recent_images/mcginley_running_fireworks_2007.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://ryanmcginley.com/admin/recent_images/mcginley_dakota_hair_2004.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://ryanmcginley.com/admin/recent_images/RMPeachGirlWater_FC_FS_13.2x20.jpg.jpg" /><br /></span><br /></center></div><div><br /></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-49194165521083379132010-10-30T15:07:00.021-05:002010-11-01T21:09:35.727-05:00Photography and as/network. Lolz! Teh internetz! OMGZ!<center><img src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Scan103040002.jpg"></center><div style="text-align: justify;">Flicker provides, is a case study of how contemporary photography has been deeply effected by practices of online social networking. For example, Murray mentions is the idea of ones "Flickr identity" which goes hand in hand with the sense of transience that characterizes online photo sharing. She discusses how a photographer can build a sense of his or her own style by adding to "a building block of a biographical or social narrative" (161). Online photography in the context of a regularly updated Flicker is not focussed on death, loss or preservation, but rather, the fleeting moment. A sense of permanent presentness is created in this online world and the addition of the "comment" function adds to the immediacy of this practice. A photographer can receive instant validation or criticism of his or her work, if that is what they desire. Murray seems to suggest that speed is one of the founding characteristics of the online photo sharing world. This reflects the ease of use provided by the digital camera or digital film scanner.</div><div><div><br /><center><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/5077728167_c26f82e4ef.jpg" /></center><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">From the group 'Polaroid Cats' on Flicker.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In addition to the new temporal speed of photography, Murray discusses the roots of online photography and its connection to past photographic methods. She mentions the ease offered to consumers by the Kodak brownie from the 1880's and traces this all the way up to the present day. Certainly, this type of photo sharing began its acceleration a long time ago. As radical as it may seems to some, this is not an entirely new practice. Murray sees the progression of the Vernacular or snap shot aesthetic into a new online world as a departure from Victorian notions of photography and preservation, or the cameras ties to death. In fact, Murray claims we have landed in a new category of photography called 'Ephemera.' Oxford English Dictionary defines this as: "One who or something which has a transitory existence." Certainly, flicker is designed to be transitory. As Murray mentions, as each new batch of photographs are uploaded, old ones fade into the background and become and archive. This is a good example of the loss of the "preciousness" of photographs in this context. I the past, photographs of the dead were kept like sacred objects in beautifully decorated books as a direct connection to the dead family member. Now, family photographs are regularly posted online and constantly transitioning into the future, making each moment temporary and focussed on the now.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Murray also discusses the fetishization inherent in certain Flicker groups in the form of preference of certain colors, styles and themes over another. If you can imagine it, there is a group for it on Flicker. For example, see the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/polaroidcats/">Polaroid Cats</a> group, two of my favourite things combined. This group strictly accepts real polaroids, explicitly stating "no poladroids" (incase you're unfamiliar, a polaroid is a digital photograph photoshopped to look like a polaroid and cropped into a frame of similar style to mock the aesthetic without having to actually use a polaroid camera) and only of cats. Murray also discusses in particular how Flicker has proven that theories of a "predicted loss of difference, mistakes, 'realness' in the photograph and filmic image that would come with the widespread use of digital image technologies" is in fact, not the case at all. Murray notes that many images have been in fact "fetishized for their low end look" (160). Murray is certainly correct about this. In response to the thousands of groups that favor a sleek, digital aesthetic, boasting the use of macro lenses and photoshop filters, etc (for example: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/slrmacrophotography/">see here</a>), many set up groups that celebrate the unpredictability of film, along with the grain, the dust and even what happens when, as Murray discusses, digital photography doesn't play by the rules (see picture below). I can think of so many examples of this for class as I am certainly guilty for having an attraction to a less sleek and clean image (I am definitely not disregarding this aesthetic though though, or aligning myself to any form of Flicker family). Take for <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/digitalfaun/pool/with/4961570702/">example</a> one of my favourite Flicker groups started by a friend of mine who tends to enjoy this aesthetic. Many images from this group illustrate Murray's point.</div><div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Screenshot2010-10-30at161732.png" /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">'Mark watching fireworks and the sometimes beautiful limitations of digital photography.' From the DigitalFaun Flicker Group.</div></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Murray quotes Manovich at the end of her article, "digital photography has not revolutionized photography...it has significantly altered our relationship to the practice of photography (when coupled with networking software)" (161). I agree exactly with this point. Photography is continuing along a long line of improving technology and practices and any panic about the loss of the real is rooted in incorrect notions of the photographic real. However, what is changing is our relationship to the image. A slower world of images bound up with the real, preservation and death has shifted to a more rapid world of constant interaction and transformation, depending of the presentness and newness of each image. Photographers can pull out of a huge pool of resources, viewing work from photographers from any area across the globe they desire, discussing work with those that in the past, would have been impossible. All images, wether shot on large format or a mobile phone, are viewed, criticized and discussed on an equal plane.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Moving onto Evan's text. Wow, what a seriously interesting and relevant piece. Reading this article makes me extremely excited to be apart of the generation he is discussing, but also extremely frustrated. Evans enthusiastically discusses the potentials the internet offers photographers, claiming if we want an audience, the internet is the place to be. He feels however, that photographers have not taken advantage of all the internet has to offer, "imagine Andy Warhol and the internet. (48) One replier argues, however, that the time for internet photography is simply not right. He claims that "there is very little at stake"(49) by posting work on line as the internet is a democratic space. This is a really interesting point. Anyone can be a photographer, once they have a digital camera and an internet connection. The can receive thousands of hits by falling into one of the Flicker categories discussed above, but where does the line between significant and meaningless fall? There are not established critics on the internet. However, photo critiquing via blogging is slowly becoming popular. I have my own blog, where I post work by others and discuss it, sometimes in relation to texts or photographs from the traditional photographic timeline. I highly enjoy engaging with work posted online and looking at it from a serious critical stand point. I don't think its wise to view work on the web as completely cut off from the tangible art world. Obviously my blog isn't really of any importance, more of an entertaining hobby, but think what could be possible if MOMA or the MOCP brought out a blog of this type? It would be really fascinating if these institutions, the arenas Evans sees the internet as perhaps competing with, surfed the web on sites such as Flicker and Tumblr for emerging talent and gave them a platform on a site with critical engagement from established critics. If I was John Szarkowski, people would pay a lot more attention to what I had to say about their work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Evans touches upon something that I have been thinking about for quite sometime and I'm so relieved someone finally wrote about it and pointed out the significance. Fried hails artists who make work "for the wall" as the new revolutionary masters. What he ignores completely, to my annoyance, is that people are now also making work for the <i>web</i>. As horrifying as these may seem to some, I find it incredible that a whole section of photography is emerging quietly below the surface of polished, exclusive institutions of the art gallery. Its an arena where the art dealer choke hold has no power. In this vein, I can completely understand why he sees the internet as "free." The days of needing to be accepted into a bourgeois gallery to be noticed are over (take for example my presentation topic, <a href="http://lovebryan.com/sandy/">Sandy Kim</a>, who now has has tangible work in the form of 500 books for sale and an exhibition under her belt, thanks to the internet). </div><br /><br /><center><img src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/702.jpg"><br /><br />vs<br /><br /><img src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/tumblr_l7ce6zfnI21qasrv2o1_500.jpg"></center><br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">However, it is important that Evans mentions that not all work is suited for the internet and vice versa. His example of Orzoco vs Crewdson was a good illustration. Crewdson's work is one hundred percent made for the wall. All its glorious detail and production value is dulled and murdered by the internet and its rather upsetting. However, as work like Orzoco's works adequately. Some work is suited for the internet, some is not. We are now in the age of the work of art in the age of digital reproduction. The same concerns apply, I don't see how this problem is any different to choosing wether to shoot with an 8x10 or an iPhone. Artists have the advantage of producing beautiful prints for the wall <i>and</i> work for the web. Why not do both? Why choose? I take advantage of both, big time. I make work for my own personal pleasure that I enjoy posting online and will probably form a book out of someday. I also make work where first and foremost I am considering how it will look printed and framed. Some of my work looks awful online, so I don't post it, some of my work looks awful printed, so I don't printed. I am an avid collector of photography books and the library is one of my favourite places to be. I would never give this up. I like to get up close to a print and inspect how the photographer chose to format their book, I like to feel the print on the page, I like to sit in the gallery and soak up the marvel of the exquisite print quality of an artist's work. However, I can also sit for hours and hours searching through flicker or tumblr as the author described and experience a completely different, but just as wonderful way of viewing art. I can see the power of the internet as a research tool, but this doesn't mean I push a side tangible art work. Why anyone would see this as a disadvantage, or feel they have to side with one school, baffles me. The internet obviously has its disadvantages, but if used correctly, it can empower and promote and artist wonderfully which can lead to exhibitions and commissions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">The last text was by Lev Manovich. Luckily I saw his lecture.. This bloke has a pretty legitimate pink watch which I'm going to assume is similar to batman's utility belt or that device in Men In Black that wipes your memory. He also has a cool accent, therefore he is obviously a genius. Seriously, though. Manovich has some very forward and practical ideas about the internet and its power to organize images in relation to history. His concepts seem simple but are incredibly complex, imagining putting them into practice gives you quite the headache. His text was just as intriguing as his lecture. Manovich raises many important questions for photography in the internet era. He claims we have moved from "media to social media" (319). He discusses how the user now largely adds content to the sphere, rather than consuming content created by a higher source. However, he notes the this is simply a system of recycling of original higher source media. To explain this, he discusses de Certeau's theory of everyday life and Strageties versus tactics. What has changed is that media/commodification now depends on the habits of consumers, which really depends on what is pushed on them by the media, so both parties feed off one another. Manovich applies this to the internet, via sites such as Facebook and Flickr. He also discusses how this type of media has led to new types of conversations, for example, he discuses YouTube and how one video may be responded to with another video. Allow me to give an example (Nothing to do with art..but amazing).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><center><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W8mHvK3EGRQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W8mHvK3EGRQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />And the response to this video:<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JynBEX_kg8?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JynBEX_kg8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></center><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">What is most interesting is his comparison of conversations held through modern art, such as Jasper Johns reacting to abstract expressionism, or Fried's attack on Minimalism in "Art and Object-hood" and how this is a continuation of such practices. He notes that obviously few of these conversations have the same theoretical groundings, but do aid the shaping of professionally based media, such as video games, film companies and musicians. Manovich asks a very important question. Is art after web 2.0 still possible? I was relieved to see that wrote, "on one level, this question is meaningless" (329). The internet provides many advantages and many disadvantages for artists. As Manovich mentions, artists now now have to compete with millions of other photographers posting online, as well as popular online culture (the avoidance of people "stumbling upon" their site by accident as Evan's commenter mentions). Simultaneously, online communities strengthen are and bring artists together in a way before unimaginable. What Manovich is more concerned with, is the dynamics of Web 2.0 itself, "its constant innovation, its energy and its unpredictability" (331).<br /><br />Note: Blogger seems to enjoy randomly deleting and reformatting my posts for kicks, whilst I'm not online, so, apologies for any broken links/images.</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></div></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-47181650357855938362010-10-16T00:07:00.009-05:002010-10-18T12:21:51.584-05:00The Digital (Ritchin, Ribalta and Dzenko).<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 714px; height: 355px;" alt="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/DigiDiagram.jpg?t=1287373813" src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/DigiDiagram.jpg?t=1287373813" /><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />This week's readings dealt with the highly contested subject of the digital image in photography. Each of the readings is rather different. Ritchin's view is the most extreme, eluding to cyborgs and a world where the supposed realism of the photograph is dissolved and replaced by something dangerous. Ribalta's is the most practical, arguing that the underlying reasons for the anxieties digital media has caused is intrinsically bound up with complex historical problems of photography's ontological make up. He also stresses the importance of the document, realism and critical institutions of photography. Finally, Dzenko's text is more concerned with how the image is perceived by the spectator and see this as the most important issue.</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_maCsbqAqZR4/TLu6ek2teFI/AAAAAAAAAHE/4lEb6HqYGOE/s1600/Kerry-Skarbakka-falls-dow-012.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 334px; height: 400px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_maCsbqAqZR4/TLu6ek2teFI/AAAAAAAAAHE/4lEb6HqYGOE/s400/Kerry-Skarbakka-falls-dow-012.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5529218001979406418" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Kerry Sharbakka -<span style="font-style: italic;"> 'The Struggle to Right Oneself.'</span><br /></span></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Lets begin with the most relaxed text, Dzenko's.. We'll save the Ritchin's, shall we say, <span style="font-style: italic;">theatrical</span> text, for last. Dzenko's text provides an antidote to Ritchin's writing. Keep calm, digital imaging will always remain rooted in traditional photography practices, he suggests. Dzenko writes "viewers continue to read digital photographs as representative of reality, a function images maintain despite the transition from analog to digital" (19). The main example he uses to discuss this point is the work of (previous Columbia student, who started this work in the Body, Space, Image class and, in fact, badly injured himself attempting to perform this live at the college..) is Kerry Skarbakka. Dzenko sees this work as proof that highly digitally manipulated images are still perceived as truth. As he notes, the work was reproduced on the '<a href="http://failblog.org/2008/02/28/ladder-fail/">Epic Fail</a>' blog, thus proving its believability to the wider public. As Dzenko claims, theoretical arguments about the loss of the real in digital "do not account for the social function of digital photographic images" (21), which is arguably the most important function of photography's wide range of capabilities.<br /><br />Dzenko also argues that digital images do not completely severe the indexical tie so many critics seem obsessed with. He informs us that Skarbakka was in fact present in front of the camera and therefore his body was imprinted on film before being digitally manipulated. He also tells us his works "resembles an analog photograph" (22). Is this supposed to be a comfort to us? What is more important in fact is how the image is perceived, or more so, believed. Whether it is digital or film is not really the matter at hand, but rather, how the image will be received by the spectator. That's where the power of the image lies (no pun..) The power of photography to successfully lie to the viewer has been active long before the digital era, take for example the following photograph composite of Abraham Lincoln’s head and the Southern politician John Calhoun’s body. Putting the date of this image into context, note that the first permanent photographic image was created in 1826 and the Eastman Dry Plate Company (later to become Eastman Kodak) was created in 1881 (see footnote). As Damien Sutton writes, "photography has always been dubitative...and this characteristic is not the province of the digital image alone" (21).<br /></div><br /><br /><a href="http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lincoln12-2.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 550px; height: 367px;" src="http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lincoln12-2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Ribalta seems to be thinking along similar lines. "Why do I think that there's not much gain in that post-photographic liberation? Why do I think that the post-photographic era is actually posing the same dilemmas that the photographic era used to pose?" (178). Ribalta points out the problems of calling Digital the "death" of photography. What does that really mean? If photography is dead, why is it more popular and accessible than ever? What is really at stake by thinking digitally, is the death of preconceived notions about photography's inherent realism. Ribalta claims that the real problem digital photography causes is a crisis of the real that has been bubbling underneath the surface of photography's history for years. He claims that this crisis "finds in Photoshop its last consequences" (180). Ribalta warns us that without realism, photography is irrelevant. What does this mean? If we cannot believe a photograph, it is powerless. This connects to the document in photography and its importance in historical discourse. Ribalta calls for a reinvention of the real in the contemporary art world. He discusses what Crimp called 'The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism' and how various artists such as Sekula, Rosler and Londier managed to acheive precisely this in their time period. Ribalta claims "the challenge today is...producing practices in which realism is reinvented" (181).<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img style="cursor: -moz-zoom-in;" alt="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzv159CnAk1qbugteo1_500.jpg" src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzv159CnAk1qbugteo1_500.jpg" height="678" width="483" /><br /><br />Jo Spence, <span style="font-style: italic;">'How do I Begin to Take Responsibility for my Body?'</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">How can this be achieved? Ribalta calls for two things<br /></div><ol style="text-align: justify;"><li>Molecular Realism - The overcoming of the opposition between documentary and fiction and reinventing documnetary methods based on the negotioation of the relationship between author and spectator. I cannot help but think of Azoulay's Civil Contract in this context.</li><li>Alternatives to the limitations of institutional criqtique confined to the museum. Ribalta says that we need to transcend art's "cultural confinment" (182). He hopes for artistic spaces that can promote production and circulation of images, alternative to the hegemonic conditions of the artistic public sphere. By this I assume he means large scale galleries.</li></ol><div style="text-align: justify;">I think what Ribalta is touching upon here is the need to break free of crippling Modernist systems that control the display and reception of art in high end public art spaces. It is as if Ribalta is trying to set up his own kind of Civil Contract, where the artist must strive to overcome the current difficulties photography's validity as a medium is faced with. He hopes young artists will continue to aggressively challenge the high level institutions in order to "pose the question concerning the role of images in a possible emerging post-liberal public sphere" (184). For example, Ribalta discusses the work of Jo Spence, who was an extremely important advocate of self-learning, self-education and displaying the validity of showing work in alternative spaces to museums, through her employment of therapeutic art.<br /><br />At the other end of the spectrum we find Ritchin. I've read this book before and I was equally as pertubed by Ritchin's sensationalism and ambigious warnings about how digital photography is part of a larger force destroy all we know and love. What irritates me most is that Ritchin has some brilliant points and really is a great writer, but he is so wrapped up in his enjoyment of warning the world of the dangers of this new era of photography that he can't come down to earth. Ritchin also makes many grandiose claims about the digital photograph which are just plain wrong and I find these statements greatly weaken his argument. It seems to me that what Ritchin fears runs much deeper than the photograph's capacity to be digitally manipulated. I see Ritchin's anxieties as rooted in the expansion and overlap of the globalized world and the Internet dominated era of the hyper real, of which photography is a factor, but not a very large one in comparison to the process of Globalization as a whole. When I read Ritchin's books, I can't help but think of the film <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BYSYE1zXUw">Blade Runner</a>, particularly when he discusses the loss of the real in family albums, I think of the scene where Rachel realises her memories are false and implanted in her head by conrtolling governing forces. As prevelent as this film is in its message about the the world we live in, I can't help but feel Ritchin takes his arguments to the brink of paranoia sometimes and I think that what he describes brings that movie to my mind illustrates that (not that this is neccessarily a bad thing.. I'm just as paranoid as Ritchin about this kind of stuff, but I also have faith that the human race is more intellegent than that..A select few, that is). I'm going to keep this short by summing up Ritchin's worst a most prevelent statements.<br /><br /></div><ul style="text-align: justify;"><li>Ritchin claims a digital photograph is indistinguishable so that the "original" loses its meaning. Wrong. As photopraphs get passed around the internet, printed out, resaved, re-edited, etc, they lose their original format and centex just as much as a mechanically reproduced image in a book does.</li><li>Ritchin claims the photographic act once required "the presence of a seer and the seen" and the "distillation and creation of aura". This is where I get rather annoyed. What does that even mean? The distillation and creation of aura? People have been manipulating images since photograpy's creation. Ritchin is pushing aside a huge portion of photographic history here.</li><li>In addition, Ritchin's metaphor of the horseless carriage doesn't really work for me. He discusses the rise of the automobile and how this has affected the planet in many detrimental ways, wheras the horse was much more effective and less envornmentally damaging. That's all very true, Fred, but we're not taking about cars here, we're talking about the digital image. Ritchin ignores that with widespead use of digital cameras, the use of film and the chemicals has been significantly reduced. The production of film and developing chemicals is an extremely damaging process (as an animal rights activist, I know that it goes as far as farm animals being fed certain types of food in order to produce certain quality gelatin for the film). Obviously film is still being widely used, as are such chemicals, but with the "everyday" person now using a digital camera instead of a film and a chemical process, that has to make a difference. Therefore, his comparison of the digital image to the modern automobile doesn't make any sense to me.</li><li>Ritchin's "God built the world in seven days.." analogies really make me want to throw his book out the window. Grandiose statements like that make me want to pull my hair out and personally I find that this type of writing does nothing but to weaken the argument at hand. Statments like this suggest to me that Ritchin's theories are rooted in outdated Modernist beliefs of the photograph's legitimacty as a truthful document.</li><li>Ritchin talks a great deal about how YouTube and the Macintosh has led us astray from what is real and has placed us in a struggle to discover what the truth is. I feel like Ritchin is a bit behind the times here. Ritchin sees the digital as a "revolution" (20). <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-IE">As Kevin Robins claims, “the question of technology… is not at all a technological question” (1991: 55). In my opinion, the distress Ritchin associates with digital photography has very little to do with the technical workings of the camera, but more with the technicalities of thinking. What Ritchin ignores is that the seemingly natural aura of analog photography is deeply rooted within Positivism, Euclidean geometry and Cartesian thinking.<span style=""> I would go into this, but we would be here all day. Ritchin claims this is the end of photography as a we know it. The word "end" is a very powerful word and I think he uses it poorly. Nothing is ending, only progressing.</span></span></li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">Personally, I feel the rise of the digital image is only a worrying prospect if your beliefs about photography are bound up with false notions of truth and evidence in connection to the camera. I still shoot film and for the most part what I shoot is "real." Digital technology has helped photographic practice to become more convenient for all its participants. I think if your main concern is whether an image is "real" or not, unless in specific contexts, you're missing the point.<br /><br />I'll leave you with some pictures to consider, from Photoshop Disasters.com.. People, forget the loss of the indexical, the death of photographic realism.. Allow me to show you the TRUE horror of digital imaging.. A horror so sick, so cruel, you may never sleep again.. This is something out of our hands. You have been warned:<br /></div></div></div><br /><img style="width: 520px; height: 324px;" alt="http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/uwmadison12-1.jpg" src="http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/uwmadison12-1.jpg" /><br /><br />Something..off..<br /><br /><br /><img alt="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/TEYenx73YeI/AAAAAAAAHRU/A5lXApBoy7U/hebloodyat.jpg" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/TEYenx73YeI/AAAAAAAAHRU/A5lXApBoy7U/hebloodyat.jpg" /><br /><br />Put your arm between your knees.. No not your <span style="font-style: italic;">huge </span>arm, your <span style="font-style: italic;">tiny </span>arm!<br /><br /><img alt="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S-sHn6zMsjI/AAAAAAAAG3E/Ap9aWPY4lB0/mccormickbloodywoods.jpg" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S-sHn6zMsjI/AAAAAAAAG3E/Ap9aWPY4lB0/mccormickbloodywoods.jpg" /><br /><br />Never did want that garage anyway..<br /><br /><img alt="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S8yyZu2oYjI/AAAAAAAAGpg/2acQKoG8GyI/jpbloodyg.jpg" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S8yyZu2oYjI/AAAAAAAAGpg/2acQKoG8GyI/jpbloodyg.jpg" /><br /><br />Anatomy!? Pah!<br /><br /><img alt="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S6qCtIi972I/AAAAAAAAGZg/k7DD3-RnXcQ/bledibloodylait.jpg" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S6qCtIi972I/AAAAAAAAGZg/k7DD3-RnXcQ/bledibloodylait.jpg" /><br /><br />I knew we shouldn't have settled down beside that nuclear waste disposal unit..<br /><br /><img style="cursor: -moz-zoom-in;" alt="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S1j40fcbkkI/AAAAAAAAF7I/Q1o3h2nCC78/vbloodyee.jpg" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S1j40fcbkkI/AAAAAAAAF7I/Q1o3h2nCC78/vbloodyee.jpg" height="678" width="506" /><br /><br />Mixing line work and photography is a difficult task graphically. It requires excellent judgement and carefully feathered masking to.. SCREW IT, JUST USE A CLIPPING PATH, ITS ONLY THE COVER!<br /><br /><img alt="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S0T2t-DzwRI/AAAAAAAAFv4/Md0-WmddV_8/burbloodyberry.jpg" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S0T2t-DzwRI/AAAAAAAAFv4/Md0-WmddV_8/burbloodyberry.jpg" /><br /><br />Lovely darlings, lovely, Emma can you awkwardly move your leg behind his leg so it looks as though it's been amputated? You can't? Don't worry darling we'll fix it later.<br /><br /><img alt="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/Sh8T5tzfCGI/AAAAAAAADx4/JbfrJLresJw/closer.jpg" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/Sh8T5tzfCGI/AAAAAAAADx4/JbfrJLresJw/closer.jpg" /><br /><br />You're right. LSD on a Sunday night before my first big magazine job really was a poor choice.<br /><br /><img alt="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/SfjMPGogHbI/AAAAAAAADkQ/27oO5kZMR4w/lizaminelli.jpg" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/SfjMPGogHbI/AAAAAAAADkQ/27oO5kZMR4w/lizaminelli.jpg" /><br /><br />Arguably this is a Photoshop Triumph (if you are Liza Minelli.) For everyone else it's a bit of a stretch.<br /><br /><br /><img alt="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/SeZT7AKnaZI/AAAAAAAADck/ZeDp6rPpTZM/burda.jpg" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/SeZT7AKnaZI/AAAAAAAADck/ZeDp6rPpTZM/burda.jpg" /><br /><br />Its called Vitamin D.. It isn't expensive.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/SZ8emsSpaII/AAAAAAAAC_o/L3gI6ps3t-Y/nordtrom.jpg" /><br /><br />AHHH!! GET HER AWAY FROM ME!<br /><br /><br /><img alt="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/SZSHEnVYjQI/AAAAAAAAC7E/WVMSU804tjQ/heartless.jpg" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/SZSHEnVYjQI/AAAAAAAAC7E/WVMSU804tjQ/heartless.jpg" /><br /><br />To be fair, this book <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> about hideous decapitated women with wigs put on top of the stumps, so maybe it isn't that much of a disaster.<br /><br /><br /><img alt="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/STXMT-jnXrI/AAAAAAAACRw/LIOcjgmYxkM/hcn.jpg" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/STXMT-jnXrI/AAAAAAAACRw/LIOcjgmYxkM/hcn.jpg" /><br /><br />Wait for it. You'll see it. And life will never be the same again.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />Abe Lincoln photograph and information:<br />http://listverse.com/2007/10/19/top-15-manipulated-photographs/<br /><br />Thanks to these guys for the hilarious PS disasters:<br /><br />http://photoshopfail.net/<br />http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/<br /></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-33055655819302803622010-10-07T20:49:00.009-05:002010-10-10T22:58:26.287-05:00Azoulay and Reinhardt.<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Diagram-1.jpg?t=1286769413"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 622px; height: 470px;" src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Diagram-1.jpg?t=1286769413" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Buttons"><span class=" on" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_JustifyFull" title=""><img src="http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif" alt="Justify Full" class="gl_align_full" border="0" /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><div style="text-align: center;"><a id="zoomedLink" href="javascript:void(0);" title="Click to zoom out." class="menuTrigger"> <br /></a><a id="zoomedLink" href="javascript:void(0);" title="Click to zoom out." class="menuTrigger"> </a></div><a id="zoomedLink" href="javascript:void(0);" title="Click to zoom out." class="menuTrigger"> </a><div style="text-align: justify;">Its my mission to keep this weeks entry short, so hopefully I'll be able to explain my thoughts well. Apologies for being a rambler lads. Our readings for this week were 'Testimony' by Ariella Azoulay and 'Picturing Violence: Aesthetics and the Anxiety of Critique' by Mark Renhardt. The first text is an overview of work by Gillian Laub in relation to Azoulay's Civil Contract, whereas Renhardt's text is a discussion of the various problems and possible solutions surrounding images of suffering.<br /></div><br />Azoulay begins by discussing Laub's photograph of a woman on a beach in Jaffa, Tel Aviv. If one is aware of the Israel-Palestinian divide, it is clear that this woman is an Arab, as she wades into the ocean fully clothed, amongst the others at the beach, who we assume are Jews, as they are in swimming attire. As Azoulay mentions, it is obvious after looking at Laub's work that her camera "is sensitive to objects and it frames its subjects relative to them" (97). Azoulay says that these objects are a form of theatricality and performativity "as a mode of routine human existence" (97). This in an interesting point which relates to previous readings of Fried, although of course Azoulay is discussing this act in relation to ongoing, daily life. She discusses a photograph of Azoulay's grandfather, taken <span style="font-style: italic;">en face</span>, which according to her, signifies theatricality. Would Fried agree? Interesting to ponder, but that's not for today's discussion. Azoulay claims the manner in which the spectator can get to know the photographed figure is mediated by the encounter between subject and photographer. She notes that what we find in Laub's photographs are in fact dense differences, rather than hierarchical dichotomies or centers versus margins. Laub is not interested in showing anthropological or ethnographic differences, nor singling out social distinctions. What Laub is interested in is displaying the moment, "when differences between human beings transcend the distinctions of class, identity or belonging" (99). She is interested in the differences that can in fact turn into a fatal distinction when in certain situations. Obviously in this context she is referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the widespread violence caused by these very differences.<br /><br />Azoulay also discusses Laub's frequent use of the word "survivor" and her attempt to frame it outside terms that deal with either the Holocaust or victims of sexual assault. She also mentions how text enriches Laub's pieces. Laub interviews each of her subjects. As Azoulay states "these things assist Laub in suspending the political context of the project she has undertaken, while drawing the spectator gaze the the difficult and complex existential reality of these injured people and the ways in which reality is described by them" (100). Interestingly, Azoulay informs us that Laub attempts to remain apolitical in all her work. Her work is not constructed to convey a symmetrical cycle of violence and revenge, nor a tale of universal suffering. She is not interested in representing a story of one side vs the other, either. However, it is difficult to separate ourselves from the connotations the objects in the photographs suggest. The importance of text comes into play here. Azoulay brings her own theory of the Civil Contract into the discussion when she explains that, "the language of the photographed women and men is that of civilians" who avoid "the language of the blood sucking fantasy of two sides" (101). Azoulay is interested particularly in a quote by one of the young men Laub photographed who claims "the party should make the sacrifices, not its citizens...releasing them from the obligation of pledging their blood to the state. Isn't this the most civil of claims?" (101). Obviously this exemplifies Azoulay's Civil Contract perfectly. Laub's work is a wonderful example of Azoulay's ideas and shows how through a collaboration of subject and photographer, a clear view of a situation and the opinions of those involved can be established.<br /><br />The author of the second reading, Mark Reinhardt, begins his text discussing the problem of aestheticization in photographs. He notes that when we get the feeling that a photograph is "off" (14) it is generally due to an imbalance of formal or "beautiful" content in relation to a situation of great pain, loss or atrotcity, thus raising uneasy questions about the moral intentions of the photographer. However, Reinhardt discusses how usage of this term is problematic. He claims it is invalid for description as it limits the critics argument . He claims the term raises anxieties which directly link to uncertainties about photography's validity as a form of representation itself. He begins with the example of the infamous Abu Ghraib photographs.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://laregledujeu.org/en/files/2010/06/Abu-Ghraib-tm.jpg" src="http://laregledujeu.org/en/files/2010/06/Abu-Ghraib-tm.jpg" /><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Detainee with staff sergeant Ivan Frederick II in Foreground.</span><br /></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Firstly, Reinhardt dicusses the camera's power as a tool to draw attention to a wrong whilst simultaneously prolonging the suffering we are observing. These photographs confirm this power. As we gaze upon this man with his head hooded, in the stance which immediately connotes christ's suffering, we feel a huge sense of rage, sorrow, injustice, etc. However, by gazing upon him, we are continuing his objectification and humiliation as a victim of torture and sadism. Reinhardt discusses the hesitation of American newspapers to show these pictures, not out of respect for those photographed and what they had been through, but rather, to comply with what is deemed "appropriate" viewing for its readers. He notes that when these photographs were shown, the nudity of the victims was censored, for reader discretion, but their faces wereleft fully visible. However, their was a strict ban on the photographing of, let alone showing, of pictures of American soldiers in any compromised state in this context. Reinhardt discusses the shocking reception of these photographs. These photographs were briefly shown and rapidly removed from public circulation (obviously they are still available online, but no new pictures or reports, which of course are in existence, have emerged). These photographs became symbols of everything that is wrong with the U.S invasion of Iraq, and naturally resulted in a plunge in the war's populaarity world wide. But what real change did they bring about? Obama recently defended his choice to keep the further 2,000 unreleased photographs, some of which to include photographs of rape, sexual abuse, child abuse and abuse of the mentally unstable, saying: "The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger" (UK Telegraph). Obama knows these images have the power to sway public opinion to breaking point and he is not willing to let this happen. Personally, I feel as horrifically damaging as these images are to those who were the victims of such acts, they need to be shown. Blur out the faces, censor the nudity, but show the actions, show the truth. These images have been hidden away as if their release was some kind of hiccup on the part of the U.S/Iraq war P.R campaign. With real time war action photography now highly restricted, these photographs are a hugely important record of how war effects its victims, the Iraqi victims, ironically and disturbingly produced by the torturers themselves. I remember visiting Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Berlin a few years ago, which is now a national memorial site. In the camp, there is a small photo gallery honouring its victims and explaining its history. I remember clearly one of the photographs displayed a Nazi looking towards the camera and smiling as a Jewish prisoner was being tortured in the background. The pure sick enjoyment in his eyes disturbed me deeply and the image was burned into my mind as proof of how people are capable of things that are unimaginable. It frustrates me how people visit these museums, swearing by the oath "Never Again" when the exact same thing is happening as I type this. How are the Abu Ghraib releases different from such photographs? Think of Lawrence Beitler's photograph, 'Lynching of Young Blacks'. (This photograph upsets me too much to be reproduced on here, so if you don't know this one, apologies) These are images of torture and to hide them away is to hide away the issue at hand.<br /><br />Obviously, the showing of these pictures raises many moral issues, as Sontag so brashly outlined in 'On Photography'. Reinhardt mentions Walter Benjamin's opinion from 'The Author as Producer' that photography has the power to make anything an object available for pleasurable consumption. He also discusses Sontag's belief that by aestheticizing a photograph, we are neutralising what is being shown. As for the photograph of Abu Ghraib, there is nothing beautiful, aesthetic or formal. All I see is raw, shocking truth. But what about other photographs? Take for example, James Nachtway's 'Sudan'.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/special/photo/inferno/sudan2.jpg" src="http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/special/photo/inferno/sudan2.jpg" /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">Reinhardt mentions the formal satisfactions of this photograph, how the composition draws outr notice, the contrast of lights, the interplay between the cloth and the starving man's body., the sharp diagnol lines. He asks, "are we supposed to be cheered by the triumph of artistry?" (24). He discusses the anxieties this raises as these qualities distract from the issue at hand and therefore seems wrong in some way. Personally, none of these things cross my mind when I see this photograph, I am transfixed on how disgusted and angry I feel in general that people are in this situation in the world. I struggle to understand how this could distract anyone from the tragedy in this photograph. However, perhaps this is down to the number of times I have viewed this photograph, only once or twice and also the context I am viewing it in, in its lesser quality state online. Obviously this is an issue and Reinhardt discusses the use of text to offset this as a possible solution. He cites Sekula, for example as someone who praises artists who "openly bracket their photographs with language" (24), such as Martha Rosler. He also mentions Benjamin's remark, "what we require of the photographer is the ability to give his picture a caption" (24).<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://s3.artknowledgenews.com/files2009a/Ruff_jpeg_ny02.jpg" src="http://s3.artknowledgenews.com/files2009a/Ruff_jpeg_ny02.jpg" /><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Reinhardt moves on to discuss Thomas Ruff's images of the World Trade Centre. This photograph is unnerving as Ruff has pixeletated the image, therefore we are forced to focus on its aesthetic qualities first, then we think about the victims. and the event itself. Reinhardt notes that this very quality is what invites critical engagement "as a kind of meta-critical reflection of the mass-mediated character of disaster.." (26). In other words, Ruff is pointing out that images of political disasters are highly controlled by the Government, as I already discussed above.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://basanostra.com/WEB/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/shimon_attie.jpg" src="http://basanostra.com/WEB/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/shimon_attie.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Shimon Attie's <span style="font-style: italic;">'The Writing on the Wall'.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">As Reinhardt mentions, he so far has given little discussion to beauty. He poses the question, "might beauty breed passivity?" and quotes Sontag in claiming "beauty tends to bleach out a moral response to what is shown" (29). He also asks does drawing a line from beautification to aesthetisization identify what makes images of suffering problematic? To discuss this he uses Shimon Attie's 'The Writing on the Wall'. Attie's documented projections are dual purposed Though their intention is to remind us of the lives that were stolen from those who inhabited the Scheunenvietel, the photographs of the projections are strikingly beautiful in form. Instead of becoming a distracting quality, Reinhardt claims "the beauty of the work shapes and intensifies" our invitation to look (30). However, he makes an important point. If Attie had brought this kind of aesthetic technique to pictures of those in the throws of suffering, they would invoke a very different response indeed. This leads me to wonder, is this kind of technique okay only if there is no people actually suffering within to photograph? Is aestheticization a technique destined only for Late Photography, in the context of suffering? Ruff's pieces of the Twin Towers are just as beautiful as Attie's pieces. Why is it that we can happily look at something beautiful that we know is tinged with death and suffering, such as Joel Meyerowitz' photography of Ground Zero, once it is void of people enduring the pain we know existed?<br /><br />This brings us the the topic of Acknowledgement. In 'On Photography', Sontag writes, "photographs do not explain; they aknowledge" (31). She claims this is not enough. Stanley Cavell, however, think this is the greatest thing we can do for a photograph. Cavell's theory of aknowledgement reminds me of Azoulay's Civil Contract and makes clear that Sontag's view, however valid, is not universally applicable to a large portion of Contemporary photography. Cavell notes that recognition of world issues can come only through aknowledgement and as Reinhardt mentions, "photographs fail morally and politcally when what they invite from a responsive viewer is something less than aknowledgement" (31). He sees this as tied to a picture's visual strategies. Cavell sees a picture such as Sudan as a failure of aknowledgement, as the intention is to display the subject as a human being but instead he is portrayed as an outcast. The photograph simply envokes feelings of outrage (as I mentioned) but nothing more. Its true, I felt this way, but by the time I'd moved onto this paragraph I was no longer thinking of that image. However I will argue against the claim that the viewer is not invited to consider his or her relationship to the subject. I did think of my own position in the world in comparision to the subject's and the various reasons for this. Obviously it didn't do the situation any good, but I would hardly say I saw the man as an outsider, I see him as fellow human being whom I so desperately wish I could help.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://hoodmuseum.dartmouth.edu/images/200617detail.jpg" src="http://hoodmuseum.dartmouth.edu/images/200617detail.jpg" /><br /><br /></div>Alfredo Jaar's 'The Eyes of Gutete Emerita', which is a piece that uses a radically different technique to that employed by Nachtway. In this piece, Jaar challenges the limitations of photography and representation. He displays what was <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> shown and ask the viewer to imagine what they would have seen. This is a work that employs text to strengthen is visual impact and at the same time ensures we do not equate the act of watching with the delivering of aid, as perhaps could be construed from Nachtway's piece. This is an interesting piece to discuss when considering the way we are shown images of suffering. Jaar draws attention to the way images of suffering are controlled and censored whilst also highlighting the strength text can add to a piece. Interestingly, he controls the spectator's vision of the piece, forcing them to spend a longer time with the installation then they would perhaps with a photograph on the wall. I'm sure the movement in the piece keeps the viewer anticipating what will happen next, also. Reinhardt wonders if Alan Sekula's observation that images cannot suceed without the agency of letter.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://dottycommies.com/images/holocaust_art/realThing000.jpg" src="http://dottycommies.com/images/holocaust_art/realThing000.jpg" /><br /><br />Alan Schechner - <span style="font-style: italic;">'It's The Real Thing - Self Portrait at Buchenwald.'</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thus, the final photograph Reinhardt discusses is 'It's The Real Thing - Self Portrait at Buchenwald' by Alan Schechner, is a purely visual piece. He notes that this image at first may apprear to be a crude trivialization, or a "failure to recognize the relative weight of two problems.." (36). However, given closer critical attention, Schechner is bravely stating his distance, as a Jew, from this situation. His gleaming can of Diet Coke comes to represent the era he lives in, despite his people's tragic history. Schechner is aknowledging his, well, aknowledegment of this period of history, but is admiting that as a viewer, no matter how hard he tries, he cannot relate. This bring us back to Sontag's argument and her championing of Jeff Wall's 'Dead Troops Talk' piece. Of course he can't relate, but the least he can do is aknowledge and furthermore, enter into a civil cotnract as described by Azoulay, a contract that aknowledges his existence as a citizen who should fulfil his duty to avoid such situations being thrust upon other citizens and non citizens alike in his time.<br /><br /></span> </div></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Was that shorter than usual? Probably not, I'm sorry. You can't ask me to discuss ethical issues and keep it short and sweet, its my favourite thing to rattle on about. All this discussion on ethical art, if you will, of all these images of suffering, how many of the photographers sell their work and donate the funds to those the photographed? How many use the money raised from their exhibtion to send aid to the victims they claim to care about? I recently attended an exhibition that was orginised to raise awareness and promote dontations, which was uplifting: This show was on in Dublin's main photography gallery (which is hilariously tiny compared to any gallery here, but still great)</span> and donated the funds to Women of Concern. I think this would also constitute as a good example for Azoulay's Civil Contract.<br /><br /></div> <span style="color: rgb(51, 153, 153); font-weight: bold;">Sources:</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html"><u>UK Telegraph.</u></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/"><u>Iraq Body Count.</u></a><br /></span></div></div></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-16350256345285365532010-10-02T01:03:00.021-05:002010-10-04T22:37:23.438-05:00Photography and/as Ethics, the Civil Contract and Political Discourse.<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/EthicsDiagram.jpg?t=1286209687"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 620px; height: 391px;" src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/EthicsDiagram.jpg?t=1286209687" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >This week we moved on from Fried (though you can never really move on from Fried, can you?) and started a new topic: Photography and/as ethics. To begin, we were to read Susan Sontag's 'Regarding the Pain of Others' and Ariella <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Azoulay's</span> 'The Civil Contract of Photography'. Both books differ significantly from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Fried's</span> writing, particularly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Azoulay's</span>. Sontag's text revisits her influential 'On Photography', revising her argument that the images of war and suffering were defunct due to an over saturation of images of horror. Sontag turns her point of view around completely and is characteristically straight forward in expressing this, "let the atrocious images haunt us. Even if they are only tokens, and cannot possibly encompass most of the reality to which they prefer" (115). Previously, Sontag criticised photographs such as Nick <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Ut's</span> photograph of the Napalm victims in Vietnam for simply showing unnecessary suffering, but Sontag has obviously changed her point of view. I wonder what convinced Sontag to change her tune. Perhaps, a factor in this is that the images Sontag was observing in 'On Photography' were of moments passed, done with, even if they were not that long ago. Opinions changed after Vietnam, war was seen through different eyes. For the first time violent images displaying the reality of war were illuminated through the televisions sets of Americans. Dead children staring out of the photo frame urged the American population to accept the truth. Artists addressed the situation, students protested and died for the cause. Everything changed. Not to say that war became any less of an American tradition, but a fraction of the horror was revealed. When the dust settled, Sontag looked back and with tired eyes and criticised these images. To the best </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >of my knowledge, 'Regarding The Pain of Others' was written in response to the photographs released from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Abu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Ghraib</span>. It seems to me that Sontag realised it is much easier to sit back, when time has passed and distance oneself from images of suffering and say "do I really need to see that?" It is as if the events of 9/11 and the disastrous mess America got itself into following this reignited something in Sontag that she had forgotten. Of <span style="font-style: italic;">course</span> we need to see these images. This is the only voice these victims have. The photograph, the trace of the event, the confirmation that this happened, it may be the only chance these people have be be placed in history and not forever silenced and forgotten, like so many before and after. I would like to note that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Azoulay's</span> text was written in 2008, whilst Sontag's was written in 2003. Why <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Azoulay</span> ignores Sontag's new text (at least in the amount we have read so far) is intriguing to me. She criticises Sontag's writing on war images but does not note that she has since revised her arguments. Despite this, it is obvious from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Azoulay's</span> gripping text that she knows what Sontag had forgotten and has never once lost sight of it.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >A word you will not find extensively in either of these articles is "art", "anti-theatricality" or "absorption". </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Unlike Fried, neither author's are interested the placement of photographs into modernist timeline, connecting work to painting and fine art. Neither author's are interested in theatricality vs anti-theatricality (although their are some connections), nor object-hood and absorption. What these authors are interested in is the photograph as a public space for debate, a tool for reporting the situation of a community or person, an incentive for social change and political discourse.</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">At the beginning of Sontag's book, she writes "I wrote, photographs shrivel sympathy. Is this true? I thought it was when I wrote it. I'm not so sure now" (105). Sontag notes that the argument that "modern life consists of a diet of horrors...to which we become gradually habituated" is a "founding idea of the critique of modernity" (107). However, Sontag points out the flaw in this kind of thinking. Firstly, it assumes that "everyone is a spectator. It suggests, perversely, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">unseriously</span>, that there is no real suffering in the world" (110). Secondly, this reaction only concerns two groups of people, cynics who have been lucky enough not to experience war and the war weary who are enduring being photographed. What Sontag considers is those this type of thinking excludes. Sontag also discusses the subject of the photograph (precisely what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Azoulay</span> accuses her of ignoring). She talks about victims and how they are interested in the "representation of their own sufferings" and how they want their suffering "to be seen as unique" (112). To support this, she discusses the exhibition by Paul Lowe, which displayed images of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Sarajevans</span> and Somalians, both suffering the impact of war. Sontag discusses how it was seen as "intolerable" to have two separate people's suffering displayed in one exhibition. How valid is this point? Obviously the reactions of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Sarajevans</span> was twinged with racism, so does this deal specifically with how the world want their suffering to be portrayed? Is Sontag suggesting that images of suffering are fighting for the attention of those who can aid the situation? Unfortunately, I think it is the sad truth that images of suffering must compete for attention, if pity, empathy or practical aid is the desired result.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img src="file:///C:/Users/Katie/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png" alt="" /><img style="cursor: -moz-zoom-in; width: 594px; height: 465px;" alt="http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/985640413apmrade_viet_2d11g-copy.jpg" src="http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/985640413apmrade_viet_2d11g-copy.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Nick <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Ut</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Napalm Girl'.</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;">Sontag moves on to discuss the responsibility of the viewer. She warns, "No one after a certain age has the right to this kind of innocence, of superficiality, to this degree of ignorance or amnesia (114). In other words, Sontag is suggesting that it is our responsibility to be aware of these images, of these histories and to a larger degree, to engage in the political. To be ignorant of this part of life is to silence its victims. Here, Sontag makes one of her, in my opinion, most relevant points: "Perhaps too much value is assigned to memory, not enough to thinking (115)". Things can get a bit confusing here. Sontag explains, remembering <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>an ethical act. By remembering we are honouring the past, grieving the damage done. However, I firmly believe (and I think this is what Sontag is saying) that to truly engage in past political wrongs is to ensure they do not repeat themselves. We need to think of the future more than we remember the past. When people think of world atrocities, the mind automatically jumps to the Holocaust. Obviously it is important, to say the least, to remember this event, but it is also important to think of the current events that are just as horrific, such as the inspiration of Sontag's book, a (what I would strongly consider) concentration camp run by Americans, or the blatant oppression <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Azoulay</span> is writing about, or apartheid in Africa. The list is endless. To overlook these events to remember the past is a woeful contradiction. I would also argue that even more powerful than thinking in this context, is action.<br /><br />Sontag follows with another important point, that news and photography about war is now disseminated does not mean it effects a person's sense of moral justice any less. Sontag also notes something that we often forget: a photograph is not an easy fix of conscience. A photograph "cannot repair our ignorance about the history and causes of such suffering it picks out and frames" (117). The basis of all suffering is ignorance, silence, denial. Nobody speaks out, nobody is saved. A photograph cannot cure this atrocity, but it can shed light on it. A photograph can provide a voice where there is nothing but deafening silence, a light when there is only darkness. I will discuss this further when I write about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Azoulay's</span> texts. Sontag moves on to discuss the action of looking at a photograph of suffering and what this implies. She describes that it has been seen as morally wrong to gaze upon the suffering of others, but only because of the <span style="font-style: italic;">context</span> of the viewing. I think this is a very valid point. Something about passing by an image of extreme pain or suffering in a gallery (if, perhaps, it is a class outing or group visit, where one cannot be "absorbed" (oh dear) in its message) seems disrespectful. But, as Sontag notes, "there is no way to guarantee reverential conditions in which to look at these pictures and be fully responsive to them" (120). Of course there isn't. There has been much written on this, in various areas of photography. Does this, however, mean we should give up on putting political (or artistic) messages out into the world, because we are afraid of them being misread? I would say, absolutely not. As <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Azoulay</span> will note in the next reading, the point of these types of images is to create a "virtual community" (22) a call for a group of unknown supporters. Sontag, however, argues that these images are susceptible to failure in both the context of a gallery and a book, as a book can be closed and the images forgotten. "The strong emotion will become a transient one" (121), she remarks.<br /><br />So, if there is possibility of failure in both the gallery and the photo book, what is the alternative? Sontag claims "a narrative seems likely to be more effective than an image" (122). Sontag believe a narrative, that requires more intimate time to complete, will have more of a lasting effect. I can completely understand what Sontag means by this. Books do stay with a person. However, a narrative is less accessible. Sadly, people are reading less and less, especially in the category of war. As Sontag previously mentioned, we are consumers and we are weary. I think what it takes is <span style="font-style: italic;">active</span> viewing, making it ones responsibility to be involved in the political, both through photography and literature. Otherwise, it is all too easy to ignore. She also mentions Walls 'Dead Troops Talk', as we have previously discussed, as an example of the perfect contemporary war photograph. As Sontag discusses, the troops ignore our gaze as we "can't understand, can't imagine" (125).<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img src="file:///C:/Users/Katie/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png" alt="" /><img style="cursor: -moz-zoom-in; width: 614px; height: 460px;" alt="http://simonsteachingblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/img_0825.jpg" src="http://simonsteachingblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/img_0825.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Anat</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Saragusti</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">'<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Hebron</span>, 1982'.</span><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />However, Ariella <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Azoulay</span> believes that successful images of suffering are looking for anything but sympathy or empathy, they are looking for recognition, validity, seeking justice, angrily confronting the world and stating their status as a victim of something utterly unacceptable. This is why I personally am not moved by Wall's photograph. It says nothing to me other than, war is mad, cruel, terrifying and wrong. Anyone with a brain in their head can deduce this. The photographs <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Azoulay</span> discusses, however, say so much more than Wall's piece ever could. Fried sees a picture as either theatrical, putting on a show for an audience, or anti <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">theatrcal</span>, avoiding the audience, or accepting the audience passively. Sontag sees images of suffering as devices to horrify, depress, or as invitations of empathy. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Azoulay</span>, however, sees things very differently. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Azoulay</span> sums up image fatigue as follows: "they simply stopped looking" (11). <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Azoulay</span> claims the photographed person is always demanding something, be it a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">politcal</span> demand or perhaps a small demand of recognition (which could be from photographer or subject). She notes that by photographing, we create a physical space and a contract between subject and ourselves. She discusses the "civil, political space we imagine" (12) as photographers and spectators. Its true, we create a target audience in our head, even if that audience is something or someone we do not know. We envision a space in which we imagine the photograph will be viewed and when viewing, we do the same, we imagine the context we are supposed to view it in. This is an important point as we discover, from the onset, the photograph is creating an imagined space.<br /><br />In relation to imagined space, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Azoulay</span> discusses the power of "planted images" (13). She discusses how images planted in a person's head, by a parent, television, stories, etc, shape a person's growth and personality. She gives the example of her childhood warnings, being warned that someone could follow her home (most likely referencing a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Palestinien</span>), that she was constantly in danger, that being independent was not safe, that all around her that weren't of her religion were out to get her. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Azoulay</span> discusses how images, <span style="font-style: italic;">real</span> images, helped her rid herself of these false ideals, these images of terror that controlled her young mind. She makes an intriguing point that real photographs are confused for <span style="font-style: italic;">planted</span> photographs. The planted image is something ingrained in our heads, something only the individual can understand, you have them, I have them, images fabricated that frightened us, warned us, (don't talk to strangers, don't walk home alone, etc) shaped our view of the world. But <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Azoulay</span> argues no one owns a <span style="font-style: italic;">real </span>photograph. She argues, the viewing of a real photograph cannot not simply be deciphered as an exchange between photographer and subject, </span><span style="font-size:85%;">(the spectrum from which Fried largely discusses work)</span><span style="font-size:85%;">. She sees the photograph a a civil contract which should invoke the viewer to actively engage and respond. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Azoulay</span> urges us to <span style="font-style: italic;">stop looking and to start watching</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Azoulay</span> privileges watching over looking as the act of looking relates to notions of time, space and movement, rather than simple of moment passed. She urges us to participate in civic skill, reconstructing the the cause and implications of the suffering, rather than exercises of aesthetic appreciation. In other words, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Fried's</span> method of unravelling what a photograph contains and even <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Sontags</span>, is what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Azoulay</span> would consider the wrong, or faulty method of reading a photograph. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Azoulay</span> calls for us to view ourselves as "civil spectators" (14), seeing our citizenship as a "tool of struggle" or "an obligations to others to struggle against injuries inflicted on those others, citizen and non citizen alike" (14). <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Azoulay</span> is urging us to be active, politically aware spectators and photographers in a world where disregarding the political image is a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">widley</span> accepted practice.<br /><br />The concept of citizenship is central to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">Azoulay's</span> thesis. She remarks that citizenship "gradually became the prism through which I began observing things" (15). What <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Azoulay</span> witnessed around her as she progressed in life forced her to think of citizenship in a new way. She realised that not everyone was being treated equal. Two factors were central to this realization, the first, being the Occupation of Palestine by the Israelites and the oppression, terror and suffering this caused her to witness and secondly, the oppression and abuse of women in society. She explains that both sections of society, women and Palestinians were repressed and silenced by the false statuses they were given. Women were seen as full citizens and the Palestinians as "stateless persons". If women are seen as full citizens, it is perceived there is no reason to complain of their problems. As for Palestinians, they are invisible, they do not have a voice, even a pretend one prescribed by the government. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">Azoulay</span> notes that atrocities towards women, such as rape, are not natural disasters and that the privilege of citizenship is not a natural place in the world. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">Azoulay</span> sees real problems with these false statuses in society. She also find problems with terms such as "occupation", "Green Line", or "Palestinian State". <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">Azoulay</span> explains that these buzz words, if you will, often heard on the news, only circumscribe one's field of visions. She notes that this kind of tunnel visioned observation adds to the testimony of what Barthes describes as proof that something "was there" (16). <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Azoulay</span> criticises this kind of observation as it implies that what was photographed was there and is still currently there. Therefore, the photograph is easier to take in as it is "less susceptible to becoming immoral". I think what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Azoulay</span> means here, is that focusing on repeated terms or the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">presentness</span>" of a photograph cuts off further thought, the thought about what happened before and after the event, where the person is now, if the person received justice or not, what is outside the frame, etc. Words become meaningless, just as pictures do, if uttered out of context too frequently. I can remember hearing the words "Gaza Strip" or "The Troubles" various times as a child and having no idea what they meant. Unexplained photographs, just like unexplained words, steer us away from any understanding of the issue at hand. They <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">sheild</span> us from the issue, convincing us it is something we are not concerned with. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Azoulay</span> sees the photograph as a political space and does not believe in the limitations of the document of simply "being there." This is something a critic such as Fried completely ignores in his writing. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">Azoulay</span> claims her writing of this book is an attempt to "enable the rethinking of the concept and practice of citizenship" (17). Personally, I find <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">Azoulay's</span> mission more compelling and relevant than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">Fried's</span> could ever be. I think what Fried touches on in his book is something extremely important. Theatricality and anti-theatrically is a very solid formula for viewing photographs. However, is this was infused with ideas such as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">Azoulays</span> or even Sontag's, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Fried's</span> words would be much more applicable and relevant. Where I struggle to understand <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">Fried's</span> words, I find applications for what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Azoulay</span> says everywhere (I notice I can make much more sense of the work of female authors, which is an interesting side topic, but that's a whole other discussion).<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Img/172082/0052130.jpg" src="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Img/172082/0052130.jpg" /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Southworth</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Hawes</span>,<span style="font-style: italic;"> 'The Branded Hand of Captain Jonathan Walker'.</span><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />"When the photographed persons address me... They cease to appear as stateless or as enemies" (17). With this sentence, Azoulay sums up the power of photography when both photographer, subject and spectator are engaged in civil contract. Take for example the photograph by Anat Saragusti. Azoulay notes that his action of holding up a broken lock, evidence of damage done to his business by Israeli paratroopers, is not a request for sympathy. Rather, his stance is a refusal to accept non citizen status thrust upon him by the state. Azoulay goes onto to describe exactly what is a civil contract to us. She uses the earliest example she can find, a picture of the branded hand of Captain Jonathan Walker, a man condemed as a "slave stealer" after attemtping to liberate a group of slaves. What is interesting about this section is Azoulay's discussion of the "virtual community." Azoulay notes that by releasing this photograph, Walker was attemping to ignite a civil contract. He was seeking out people who understood the injustice he was fighting against. These people did not belong to a particular segment of society or insitution. All that mattered is that they understood the civil contract, as it still exists today, the attempt to create a universal citizenship, an uninterupted voice that is free from the constraints of any dictatorship or sovereign (23). As Azoulay states, her book is foued on a "new ontological understanding of photography" (23), one which includes photographer, subject and spectator and the "unintentional effect of the encounter between all these" (23).<br /><br />Azoulay put this forward to us in her next paragraph or two:<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Citizenship is "a status, instituion, set of practices" (24).</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">We are all governed. Though some are given citizen stauts, some non-citizen. For example, Isreali Jews and Israeli Palestinians.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">However, whoever falls under the umbrella of the term governed is not afforded the luxury of equality of civil rights. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Israeli Palestinians are treated as second class citizens even though they are governed. Women are treated as second class citizens even though they are labeled as full citizens and governed.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Thus, the use of the camera allows for the creation of a politcal space or a common ground for "citizens and non citizens alike".</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Azoulay sees photography and citizenship as very similar. Both should be free of any soveregn power and should be "indifferent to the ties from kinship through class or nation - that seek to link part of the governed to one another and exclude others" (25).</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Azoulay also claims "photographs bear traces of a plurality of political relations".</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Azoulay want the civil contract of photography to create a "borderless citizenship" (26) and sees photographs produced by politically aware citizens as "traces of civic skill"</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:85%;">Azoulay continues on to give a short summary of each chapter of the book. She makes some significant claim here, for example, she discusses that "photographs do not speak for themselves. Alone, they do not decipher a thing." I can see many critics, perhaps Barthes disagreeing with this, but Azoulay has a point. We can look at a photograph and make as many subjective judegments as we want and these are indeed significant. However, the true, intended meaning of a photograph, cannot be understood without accompanying explaination, be it through text or discussion. This statment perhaps applies, or is more important to political or confrontational photographs then all images universally. Here we can compare Fried's work to Azoulays. Is her thesis only applicable to the seriousness of images of suffering or injustice? Is Fried's only applicable to "art" images. I don't think so. I think both theories cross over. I would love to know what Fried thinks of a photograph such as Anat Saragusti's picture of the man holding up his broken lock. How would Fried discuss this? Is it a theatrical gesture, asking something of the viewer in return? Or is he absorbed in his own outrage? What would Azoulay think of Fried's formula for image criticism? Would she push it aside as irelevent in comparison to pictures of real suffering (no subject has to pretend or pose in these, they too busy fighting for their lives). Obviously both authors are focussed on their particular field and this is why they have chosen to release a book about their findings. I think tis itneresting that both Sontag and Fried champion Wall's 'Dead Troops Talk' as the ultimate war photograph that seems to say it all about our generation. I disagree and I think Azoulay does too. Azoulay is interested in photographs that lay the bear bones of a situation out on the table for the viewer. This is the problem, this is what is going on and we need your help as a fellow citizen (or non-citizen) to fix this. The photographs Azoulay discusses are not looking for sympathy or pity, they are looking to add to a chain of events that will insigate action and real, tangible change.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-57969727165007045532010-09-25T23:37:00.022-05:002010-10-05T12:04:15.236-05:00Fried: Chapter Seven and Conclusion.<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Untitled-1.jpg?t=1285607909"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 607px; height: 454px;" src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Untitled-1.jpg?t=1285607909" alt="" border="0" /></a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >The chapter I chose for our group reading of Fried was number seven: Portraits by Thomas Struth, Rineke Dijkstra, Patrick Faigenbaum, Luc Delahaye, and Roland Fischer; Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parenno's film <span style="font-style: italic;">Zidane. </span>The main device of this chapter is to study how notions of anti-theatricality have evolved through the portraiture section of what Fried sees as a new regime of photography. Fried dissects the work of each artist and discusses how the work evokes notions of anti theatricality. The most interesting dimension of this chapter is the consideration Fried takes of the 'viewer' or 'audience' of the photograph and how the projected gaze or 'absorption' of the model depends on their awareness or 'unawareness (</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >'oubli-de-soil')</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > of its existence.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img style="width: 510px; height: 356px;" alt="http://www.aphotostudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ThomasStruth.TheHiroseFamilyHiroshima.jpg" src="http://www.aphotostudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ThomasStruth.TheHiroseFamilyHiroshima.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Thomas Struth, '<span style="font-style: italic;">The Hirose Family, Hirosima, 1987'.</span><br /></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/P/P77/P77750_9.jpg" src="http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/P/P77/P77750_9.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Thomas Struth, <span style="font-style: italic;">'The Smith Family, Fife, 1989'.</span><br /></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;">Fried begins by discussing the issue of absorption and theatricality. He uses the work of Struth to demonstrate this issue. Fried notes that in the 1700's, the general consensus was that painting was only acceptable as valid art if it depicted its subjects as wholly absorbed in activity, unaware and ignorant of any form of viewer or audience. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">He notes that the limitation of painting was an issue at this time, as it was thought that portraiture and theatricality went hand in hand, therefore one could not be depicted truly through this medium.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> To counter this, it became essential that the subject in no way suggest they are aware of being transformed into an object to be looked at. He uses the example of Van Loo's painting of Diderot to solidify this. Fried mentions that Diderot was unhappy with the depiction, as he was being engaged by the artist, rather than left to his own thoughts and therefore he appears 'aware' or theatrical. I find this quite the contradiction, as the painting reminds me of a candid snapshot, taken mid sentence, displaying the sitter 'off-guard' and therefore more natural, but clearly Diderot does not acknowledge this. This brings us to the contrast between painting and photography with regards to portraiture.<br /></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Louis-Michel_van_Loo_001.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Louis-Michel_van_Loo_001.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Louis Michel Van Loo, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Portrait of Denis Diderot, 1767'.<br /><br /></span></span><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >One of the most striking features of Struth's family portraits is that of familial resemblance. Fried notes the ability of photography to represent phenomena such as this so effortlessly is one of its strong points. He sees this as one of the main ontological differences between painting and photography. He uses Wittgenstein's quote about the absurdity of attempting to display resemblance in panting, as it could simply be perceived as a style or habit of the artists. Where as in photography, it is instantly accepted that the models are different people despite the similarities of their physical features. Fried discusses the work of Struth in relation to this matter, thus beginning the main discussion of the chapter. Struth photographs families whom are close friends of his. He allows the family to choose their positions and poses in the photograph and he makes a point to step aside from the camera when shooting, using a shutter release cable, in order to remove himself from the situation, as if the family is sitting in front of a mirror rather than a photographer. What is most important however, according to Fried, is that Struth avoids the theatrical at all costs. Fried also discusses various critical opinions of Struth's work, noting that it has always been received unenthusiastically. Critic Charles Wylie claims that 'awareness is the hallmark of these figures' (199) and that each family is a 'psychologically intense entity'. He feels that the families awareness of themselves and their natural and played out connectivity combines to create the force of the picture. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >He recommends we read each family member as a separate entity and also as connected to a larger group. Fried believes this is too much to ask of the viewer and discusses the opinion of Norman Byron, who sees it as more productive to decipher the positional pattern chosen by the family and what this connotes.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >In his usual manner, Fried discusses the photographs extensively. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >However, what is most important is Fried's discussion of what makes these photographs anti theatrical. Fried call these works a 'tour de force of anti theatrical art' (204). He sees an achievement in Struth's work of the re staging of could potentially be theatrical. By taking such care to ensure the subjects gaze is concentrated on the lens and they are wholly aware of themselves (it should be noted that Fried's exposure are up to one second long and he shoot around 40-50 sheets per sitting)</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Struth's subjects, despite staring out of the picture, are absorbed </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >in the activity of being photographed.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://pausetobegin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dijkstra_rineke_w01.jpg" src="http://pausetobegin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dijkstra_rineke_w01.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Rineke Dijkstra, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Beach Portraits'.</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><img alt="http://images.artnet.com/WebServices/picture.aspx?date=20011115&catalog=14842&gallery=110889&lot=00315&filetype=2" src="http://images.artnet.com/WebServices/picture.aspx?date=20011115&catalog=14842&gallery=110889&lot=00315&filetype=2" /><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Rineke Dijkstra, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Mothers'.</span><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Fried move on to discuss the work of Dijkstra. He notes that Dijkstra, unlike Struth, shoots strangers. However, her subjects are fully aware of th camera and are placed in a similar position to Struth's families. Fried points out that Dijkstra cites Diane Arbus as one of her main influences. Dijkstra notes that she is interested in what Abrus calls the "gap between intention and effect", in other words, Dijkstra is interested in what happens when neither her nor the subject is fully in control. For example, she is interested in what happens when she lets the model pose themselves and how they are unsure of what to do with their hands, etc. She is interested in the awkwardness of her subjects. This is particularly visible in her portraits of teenagers. However, where Arbus exploited this gap and displayed her subjects as freaks, Fried believes that Dijkstra's portraits de psychologicalize it. Arbus highlights a tragic side of society whilst Dijkstra draws attention to a natural and strangely beautiful part. Fried is interested in Dijkstra's photographs as they display something that painting could not, at least in Diderot's time. However, he notes the 'complimentary structure of awareness and unconsciousness' of the photographs are truly Diderotian in spirit and therefore wholly anti-theatrical. Fried takes this opportunity to enforce two further points. Firstly, he discusses Barthe's opinion that any photography that contains an outward gaze is founded on pose and theatricality. Fried feels the photographs he has discussed shatter this notion and leaves Barthe's opinion void. Secondly, he claims that the awareness of the camera displayed in both Struth and Dijkstra's work solidifies his opinion that, post-minimalism, it was necessary for art to acknowledge 'to-be-seeness' in the course of pursuing anti-theatrical aims. Therefore, separating </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >anti-theatricality from </span><span style="font-size:85%;">'to-be-seeneness' and establishing it 'on significantly new ground' (214). basically, what Fried is saying, that with the emergence of such work, anti-theatricality no longer meant avoiding gazing at the camera, hence why he is so interested.<br /></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2009/1/16/1232117112178/Patrick-Faigenbaum-Del-Dr-002.jpg" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2009/1/16/1232117112178/Patrick-Faigenbaum-Del-Dr-002.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Patrick Faigenbaum, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Del Drago Family, 1987'.</span><br /><br /><img alt="http://www.editionq.com/images/Img55.jpg" src="http://www.editionq.com/images/Img55.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Patrick Faigenbaum, from </span><span style="font-size:85%;">'<span style="font-style: italic;">Vies Pararlles'. </span><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Following this, Fried discusses the work of Patrick Faigenbaum. Firstly he discusses his work photographing aristocratic Italian families. The photographs are profoundly formal. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Faigenbaum arranges his models, taking care to connote the family dynamic and relation to their surroundings. He notes that he is fully satisfied with the portrait when 'I am able to leave my model to himself...as if he were at home without any witness' (215). Obviously this connects to notions of anti-theatricality. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Faigenbaum also actively tried to imitate a painterly style by touching up his photographs using a technique called chiaroscuro where the contrast between shadows and highlights is increased. He also prints his photographs on a matte finish paper. Fried notes all this allows the viewers gaze to 'sink into the surface rather than glide past it' (215). What Fried is more interested in, however, is </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Faigenbaum's series of busts of Roman emperors, '<span style="font-style: italic;">Vies Pararlles'. </span>Fried is interested in these images, as they represent a full invitation to, 'to-be-seenness' and display subjects engaging in full absorption, of course, as the subjects are representations of people lost in their own thoughts. Not only are they not really looking at us, they are not even real. Fried suggests that creating work that deals with anti-theatricality so intensely encouraged </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Faigenbaum </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >to turn towards an absorptive esthetic in his later work. Fried also notes obvious comparisons to Hiroshi Suigimoto's work on wax figures of Henry VIII's wives at Madame Tussaud's wax work museum in London.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0srziGQzT1qa0mf2o1_500.jpg" src="http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0srziGQzT1qa0mf2o1_500.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Hiroshi Suigimoto, (Wax Figures of Henty VIII's wives).</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Moving on, Fried discusses the work of Luc Delahaye. The body of work he is discussing is 'L'Autre', a set of portraits similar to Evan's 'Many Are Called', shot secretly on the Paris Metro between 1995-1997.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >What struck me first about these photographs was the almost eerie resemblance they share with </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Faigenbaum's busts or Suigimoto's wax figures. This particular body of work interests Fried, but also me very much so, as I am extremely interested in studying the effects of urban living on the human psyche and Delahaye's work, similar to Evans, is a fascinating example of this. Fried notes that this work is 'claustrophobic in its intensity' (222) as the photographs are shot at a much closer range than Evans'. Why does this work interest Fried? It is a contradiction. The subjects are painfully aware they are coming under the enforced gaze of the occupier in the seat facing them and therefore put up what Georg Simmel calls a 'psychic armour', (1903 The Metropolis and Mental Life). The subjects put on a farcical show, which is rather comedic when one thinks about it really, pretending they are alone in order to avoid any emotional connection to those surrounding them </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >(Simmel notes that if a city dweller engaged with every person encountered in such a situation in city life, the result would be a form of intellectual or emotional break down). However, Delahaye intrudes on this psychic armour with his camera and transforms this theatrical display into the anti-theatrical. In terms of the camera, none of the models are posing or acting, in direct contrast to the real life situation. I find this notion of how the introduction of the camera into a situation can transform such a process.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> Delahaye's portraits also connect back to Fried's previous discussion of the book Temple of Dawn, as the photographer notes 'more than anything, I wish to disappear' (222).<br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="display: block; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" id="formatbar_Buttons" ><span class="on" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Italic" title="Italic"><img src="http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif" alt="Italic" class="gl_italic" border="0" /></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><img style="width: 570px; height: 496px;" alt="http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/sullivan/Images/sullivan4-10-11.jpg" src="http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/sullivan/Images/sullivan4-10-11.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Luc Delahaye,<span style="font-style: italic;"> 'L'Autre'.</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><img alt="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/142114/120748.jpg" src="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/142114/120748.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Roland Fischer, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Nuns and Monks'.</span><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Fried continues on to discuss the work of Roland Fischer. Fischer is interested in seizing things in their 'leur etre-la', their 'being there'. His work comprises of large head shots of monks and nuns. Fried notes the work 'perfectly exemplifies' anti-theatricality and his new photographic regime, as the subjects photographed live a life that is supposedly free of anything but absorption in their faith. I would argue that, yes these photographs do exemplify Fried's opinions perfectly, but there is also a questionable element of theatricality in this work. Are subjects are playing out their 'holiness' for the camera? Or are they truly absorbed in their beliefs? For me, this is questionable and the photographs raise many other questions in my mind, but for Fried, the main significance is the element of anti-theatricality and absorption.</span><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VK1A0F79L.jpg" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VK1A0F79L.jpg" /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Finally, Fried discusses the film 'Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait' by Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parreno. This film focusses on Real Madrid footballer Zinedine Zidane. The movie was made with seventeen cameras focusing on the player during a match between Villareal and Real Madrid. The film glorifies Zidane as one of the centuries best football players, following his expulsion from the 2006 World Cup after head-butting an opposing team member. Fried describes the tantalizing visual and audio effect of the movie which has obviously enthralled him. He notes that the noise of the crowd in the background mixed with Zidane's statements appearing in the subtitles, hard breathing noises, music by the Scottish (amazing) band Mogwai, silence and close up motion shots, action shots of foot work, along with wide angle shots of the exciting football game makes for an intriguing visual experience. I can see why Fried is attracted to such a film for two reasons. Firstly, the directors cite Goya, Velazques and Andy Warhol as their inspirations, therefore connecting it to a tradition of modernist painting. Secondly, the point of the film is to display how truly absorbed Zidane is in his performance, but showing at the same time his hyper awareness of the crowd and the cameras. Fried believes this so much so that he claims one can only fully understanding the movie 'requires viewing it against the background of the issues traced in the present chapter and more broadly, this book' (228).</span><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><center><object height="385" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e1UwddoQii0?fs=1&hl=en_GB"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e1UwddoQii0?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="640"></embed></object></center><br /><br /></span></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There is a reason Fried chose these specific pieces to discuss in this chapter. Each work is an example of what Fried considers to be a 'new photographic regime'. He sees these works as coming to grips with the problems of portraiture that came to light in the 1700's. Anti-theatricality has evolved from a complete (supposed) unawareness of being</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> beheld, as in the work of Greze and Chandin to a hyper awareness and being absorbed in the very act of being observed. Freid sees this type of photography as a 'realm of to-be-seenness.. with a vengeance' (230). Fried sees this work as the anti-thesis of anti-theatricality, in its evolved state. For example, Fried notes that the very fact that Gordon and Parenno made a film dealing with Zidane's awareness and simultaneous absorption is an affirmation of his theories, that issues of theatricality and anti-theatricality are more important than ever. Fried notes that this new hyper awareness does not in anyway undermine the art. He is also fascinated by the various forms of absorption, involved, uninvolved, distracted, forgetful, etc. This chapter makes very clear <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> Fried believes photography matters as never before: the work being made solidifies his theories of anti-theatricality and absorption.</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion:<br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://avenuel.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/adrian-walker-jeff-wall.jpg" src="http://avenuel.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/adrian-walker-jeff-wall.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Jeff Wall, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Adrian Walker'.</span><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Fried begins his conclusion by making it clear that despite his claim that photography matters as art now as never before, he does not believe that art, pre 1970 is not as valid or important as art now. Fried, however, sees contemporary photography post 1970 as exemplifying his theories of anti-theatricality and absorption and there for claims photography matters as never before. He discusses questions of whether photography is art or not, by quoting Benn Michaels who notes photography, rather than painting raises fundamental questions about representation. He also discusses James Elkin's discussion of the photograph as an indexical object, therefore, a non art object. Michaels along with Fried, however, firmly believes that it is this very factor that makes photography such a powerful tool of contemporary art (336). Fried sees the issues of photography as overriding the issues of painting. For example, he discusses the problems of portraiture (Evans questionable portraits with the FSA, Arbus' demeaning photographs of 'freaks') and how the real issue at hand is a notion of theatricality and anti-theatricality and how it is employed. He sees a photographer such as Arbus as abusive of the technique, (abusing the gap between intention and effect) but a photographer who works similarly, such as Dijkstra, as employing anti-theatricality perfectly. Fried repeats many of his comments made about the work of Dijkstra, Struth, Bustamante and Wall and I will therefore not go back into detail as I would be wasting your time. Fried does however pay particular attention to Wall, comparing his photographic style to Manet, noting he moved towards an alternative revolutions of pictorial modernity (341). He notes that his photograph 'Adrian Walker' represents a shift in Wall's working method, his realization that such a revolution would be impossible and thus, a return to previous methods of absorption.</span></span></span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">However, this break, as Fried sees it also represents a shift in anti-theatricality. The pressure to represent subjects absorbed in activity was no longer tangible. Now, this type of representation is a choice, a technique, (most obviously employed by Wall), not a necessity. According to Fried, artists no longer try to come up with alternatives to theatricality, but simply embrace anti-theatricality. A good example of this is Struth's portraits of families. Fried also notes that all this progress is only important and relevant against a backdrop of Diderotian history. Fried goes on to mention a number of works in detail that owe their success to anit-theatricality, such as Struth's Pergamon Museum series, Gursky's motifs, Delahaye's metro portraits. Fried also discusses works that connect to notions of the experiential, indeterminacy and minimalism (Suigimoto's 'Seascapes', Struth's 'Paradise', Bustamante's 'Tableaux'). Fried begins to confuse me at this stage as my knowledge of such subjects is limited. I think he brings these themes into the conversation in order to display the connection his previous writings still has to current art. He goes on to discuss Barthes text 'Camera Lucida' as an anti-theatrical text and therefore representing 'a new imperative to come to grips with the issue of theatricality' (346). He mentions writers such as Wittgenstein, Lacan, Deleuze, Pippin and Hegel and ponders which authors offers the most valid theory on art. Again, I feel unequipped to comment as my reading experience with these authors is very limited. At this stage, I wonder is Fried digressing, or am I just out of my depth. The only point I could really understand out of this paragraph was his quote about photography being illuminated by ontological thought whilst also contributing to such thought.</span></span></span><br /></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></span></span></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><img alt="http://soi-x.com/articles/24wall_4_652.jpg" src="http://soi-x.com/articles/24wall_4_652.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Jeff Wall,<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">'After "Spring Snow", by Yukio Mishima, chapter 34, 2000-2005'.<br /><br /></span></span></span><img style="cursor: -moz-zoom-in; width: 647px; height: 504px;" alt="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Gustave_Courbet_014.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Gustave_Courbet_014.jpg" /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Gustave Courbet, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Wheat Sifters'.</span> </span></div></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></span></span></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Fried begins his final section with two quotes, one from the book 'The Sea of Fertility' and the other from Wittgenstein. Both quotes deal with notions of the world as eternal present and this is where things get rather philosophical indeed. Fried discusses the book, 'The Sea of Fertility' and its relation to Wall's 'After "Spring Snow", by Yukio Mishima, chapter 34, 2000-2005'. This photograph represents a scene from the book where Satako empties sand from her shoe in order to keep secret her forbidden meeting with her lover, Kiyoaki, as we all have read. Fried chooses to close with this photograph as he feels it perfectly exemplifies 'robustness of absorption as a pictorial trope' (350). He sees deep similarities of the photograph to Courbet's 'Wheat Sifters' and therefore sees Wall's picture as a perfect visualization of all he believes in. The photograph represents anti-theatricality and absorption and it has deep roots in modernist painting <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>writing. In relation to the book, Fried notes the character Honda's affinity for Buddhist beliefs in 'alaya consciousness', a </span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">consciousness that discards the past and focuses only on the present, seeing every moment except the very moment we are in as non-existent. Fried takes this opportunity to mention a quote by Jonathon Edwards discussing God's desire to maintain the world in the present. He notes that a critic, Jennifer Ashton sees similarity in what has been said to Fried's Art and Objecthood's critique of Minimalism. He notes that Wall's photograph and such theories of art as absorption and presentness over minimalism and also theories of 'alaya </span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">consciousness' are all interconnected and are 'hauntingly anti-theatrical' (352).</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">So what's Fried's point? I am very unsure and this frustrates me greatly. Chapter Seven made a lot of sense to me and I could see real connections to his arguments and contemporary art. I could understand how, yes, some works owe their success to anti-theatricality and this is largely left ignored. His examples were clear and illustrated his points rather successfully. However, when he began to philosophize and connect his writing to some sub rooted web of spiritual theory, that's when I lost interest in even attempting to decipher what he was trying to say. Fried has some really interesting things to say. His points are valid and very pertinent and essential to understanding a large portion of art. If he avoided going long winded and unnecessary paragraphs such as those we had to struggle through in his conclusion, I think his writing would appeal to a much wider audience.</span></span></span></span><br /></div></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-47126811301153285292010-09-17T09:40:00.028-05:002010-09-25T23:41:30.680-05:00Fried: Introduction and Chapter One.<div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Diagram.png?t=1284734687"><img style="text-align: center; margin: 0px auto 10px; width: 653px; display: block; height: 520px;" alt="" src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Diagram.png?t=1284734687" border="0" /></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >This weeks text for discussion is 'Why Photography Matters As Art As Never before' by Michael Fried. Though at first skeptical of Fried after reading 'Art and Objecthood' and to be frank, rather irritated by his some what elitist view of art, I found he made some interesting points in this later piece. He attempts to redeem himself slightly by revising some of his previous points and re arguing his thesis. However, I think he discredits a lot of art that doesn't fall into what he calls a 'single photographic regime' (20) and has a very tunnel visioned view of what makes photography 'art'.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >I'll begin explaining this by discussing Fried's introduction. He outlines his opinion of how photography became elevated into more of a 'serious art' position in the late 1970's/80's onwards. He notes that photography began to be printed at a larger scale, therefore complying to a Pictorialist tradition, thus pleasing Fried, and as we know, he simply loves observing a good old fashioned aesthetically pleasing picture made 'for the wall'. As examples of this type of new photographic 'regime' he mentions photographers such as Welling, Gursky, Struth, the Bechers, Demand, Dijkstra, Hofer and of course, Wall. He notes that he pays particular attention and indeed, he champions his work. This does not surprise me, nor does his anecdote of his shared views of art with Wall. After reading 'The Story of Art According to Jeff Wall' by Sven Lutticken last year, I realised that Wall is obsessed with placing photography into a Modernist tradition and crafting out his own version of history (overlooking anything that doesn't fit into this criteria'). As impressive as 'Mark of Indifference..' by Wall is as a history, it is certainly leaning towards a Modernist elitism and I personally would see him and Fried as two peas in a pod. I am not saying I don't admire Wall's work or his writing, but it is certainly a <span style="font-style: italic;">version</span> of history, similar to Fried's. I will also note that the artists Fried mentions are some of my favourites, their work is impressive and it really is a fascinating transition to see photographs printed at large scale. However, I do not believe in a 'single photographic regime' and this phrase infuriates me. Photography does not have to be at large scale, (mocking and competing with painting) to be impressive. In fact, simple snap shots printed at modest scale have impressed me just as much as a Wall light box piece. Fried notes that he appreciated pictures in this form also, but that do not impress on him as much as a large scale piece could.</span><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><img style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" src="file:///C:/Users/Katie/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png" alt="" /><img style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" src="file:///C:/Users/Katie/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png" alt="" /><img style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" src="file:///C:/Users/Katie/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png" alt="" /> <div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.diagonalthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/7pecha_sugimoto.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 617px; height: 462px;" src="http://www.diagonalthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/7pecha_sugimoto.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Hiroshi Sugimoto, '</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:85%;">U.A. Walker, New York, 1978'</span><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >So how does Fried approach this gargantuan subject? He splits his history into three beginnings. I found this an interesting approach as it fits into the discussion of Terry Smith's piece last week and his concept of 'an</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >tinomies'. Fried sees separate strands of this period of art working in tandem. Interestingly, he also mention that in this text he found himself seeing both sides of the argument (how thoughtful of him!) which he had not done before. He says he found himself 'judgmental/non judgmental, engaged/detached'.. etc (4). Again, this connects with the previous text of discussion. Fried splits the three beginnings into what I see as; the Cinematic, the Tableau and the Contre or story. Fried uses these three strands as a tool to discuss the work of various artists in connection to a single subject, whilst employing his own ideas. I will discuss the three strands in detail.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Firstly he discusses the work of Hiroshi Sugimoto, Cindy Sherman and Jeff Wall. The common thread in all these works is that they are discussing or representing cinema. Fried gives an anecdotal quote from Suigimoto, in which he explains how this work came to him almost as a vision. Freid questions this 'solitary brilliant intuition' (5) as he find it suspicious that Sherman and Wall were making work concerning the same subjects at the time. I agree this is a valid point, but find it humorous that Fried is so horrified of the thought of an artist working in solitude and not obsessing over placing himself firmly into a history of photography. The works of Wall and Sherman he compares this piece to is Sherman's famous 'Untitled Film Stills' and Wall's 'Movie Audience, 1979.' Fried chooses to discuss Sherman's work because in these photographs, the majority of the characters she plays are mute, passive characters. They dull their emotions (as she said she didn't 'ham it up' (7) as she wanted to play down the theatricality in order to bring into focus questions of the female role in such films. Fried pays attention to these photographs as they nicely exemplify his ideas of 'anti-theatricality'. He notes that he is not impressed by any of Sherman's later projects after her Art Forum series. Again, no surprise, I can't imagine maimed doll figures posed in sexual positions to raise questions about pornography would be Fried's cup of tea. I must say though, I was impressed to observe that Fried noted the contradictions in Sherman's work. It is both theatrical <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>anti-theatrical and Fried is surprisingly content with this, although as I mentioned above, the work strengthens his arguments nicely.</span><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://trolleyla.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/cindy-sherman-untitled-film-still-21-1978.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 540px; height: 430px;" src="http://trolleyla.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/cindy-sherman-untitled-film-still-21-1978.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Cindy Sherman, from <span style="font-style: italic;">'Untitled Film Stills'</span>.</span><br /></div><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Fried uses Wall's piece to discuss issues of theatricality and anti theatricality in cinema. He discusses Wall's view that cinema can not be Modernist art as it provides a form of escapism and absorption. He calls cinema 'a sonambulistic approach toward utopia.' In other words, the cinema has the ability to brainwash us into worshiping popular culture (Walter Benjamin's 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' comes to mind). Fried sees Wall's piece as the perfect example of cinema as anti-theatricality as there is nothing theatrical about sitting inside the 'machine' (13) that Fried call the movie theater and these photographs study the hypnotic state a cinematic experience puts us in. I agree with these points and find them rather interesting, however, what about film designed to awaken the senses and confront the public with real issues and problems, for example, Michael Moore's 'Bowling For Columbine'. What is hypnotising about a move like that? Fried claims that all three works bring to light issues of theatricality in art and the problems this causes. He urges us to view these works as separate but linked and to focus on the advantage of anti-theatricality.</span><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><img src="file:///C:/Users/Katie/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-9.png" alt="" /><img style="width: 604px; height: 406px;" alt="http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/roomguide/rm1_destroyed_room_lrg.jpg" src="http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/roomguide/rm1_destroyed_room_lrg.jpg" /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Jeff Wall, '<span style="font-style: italic;">The Destroyed Room'.</span></span><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Fried goes on to discuss The Tableau using again, Wall and also Thomas Ruff and Jean-Marc Baptiste as examples. He again mentions the 'new regime' (14) and reinforces the fact that these images were made to be 'hung on the wall and looked at like paintings' (14). He discusses Wall's piece 'Destroyed Room' in reference to how these works are viewed best in person, on the gallery wall, providing what Fried believes to be a true art experience. He notes that these images are lost when framed in books. This is a valid point, as certainly these photographs are rich in detail that is muted when these pictures are shrunk. I refreshing point made by Fried was that the power of these pictures depended on the viewers ability to 'respond not just intellectually but punctually' (16). This surprised me, as Fried usually favours art work that still impresses him even his it doesn't require this response from the viewer (anti-theatrical). He discusses the work of Ruff and notes that in 1981 his photographs were significantly smaller (22x18cm) but claims that, influenced by these large scale works, he increased his pictures to a handsome 210x165cm. This is an interesting point as it show there was a trend print larger scale during this period. He then discusses the work of Jean-Marc Bustamante and this is where things get really interesting.</span><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><img alt="http://www.artatswissre.com/data/art/32/Bustamante_Tableaux.jpg" src="http://www.artatswissre.com/data/art/32/Bustamante_Tableaux.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Bustamante, from '<span style="font-style: italic;">Tableaux'.</span></span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">The reason I found this section interesting is firstly, the discussion of the images is of paradoxes. Fried quotes the critic Criqui as what he sees as 'exactly right' about the work (19). Criqui notes that Bustamante's images do not want to invite the viewer to engage with them imaginatively. Bustamante reinforces this by stating that he wants the viewer to have a 'non-directive relationship' with the images. However, he then notes that he wants the viewer to be 'equally responsible for the work' and that he aims to make the viewer 'aware of the responsibility for what he/she is looking at. (20). So, he wants us to be engaged, yet disengaged. This connects with ideas discussed in the previous class about contradictions in Contemporaneity. The second thing I found interesting is that Bustamante notes that the reason he made his photographs large so that it would become art (22). I find it intriguing that he felt pressured to make his photographs large, again, to compete with painting and to fit into a modernist tradition of tableau in order to feel validated as an artist. I am interested in observing trends in standard photographic display size, as in terms of the Canon of photography. It seems larger scale preludes to 'serious art' whilst modest sized prints can be given an inferior status as they do not attempt to compete with painting. Though larger photographs will always receive more critical attention, I think one characteristic f the contemporary is a shift in how art is perceived as previously mentioned. Due to globalization and the Internet, a large painting style piece is no longer necessary. Finally, Fried makes a confusing statement. Despite is contempt for Minimalism, what he calls 'so called art', he compares Bustamante's pieces to such art work (23) and then titles it 'the most original and impressive in decades' (23). I suppose Freid finds it less intimidating if the techniques of Minimalism are muted and framed within photographic boundaries.</span><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n25/n126171.jpg" src="http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n25/n126171.jpg" /><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Following the Tableau, Fried moves on to the topic of the 'Contre'. He does so in order to discuss the connection of literature to imagery (I would assume, again, in order to connect photography to a serious and respected art tradition, the art of writing). The first text he discusses is 'Adelaide: Ou La Femme Morte D'Amour', meaning in English, the woman who died from love. In this book, Fried envisions two tableaus from the story. One, a picture of Adelaide's love interest wholly absorbed in his religious work, the other, an image of Adelaide's death following her loves refusal to look at her, as he was <span style="font-style: italic;">pretending</span> to be absorbed to avoid her gaze. So why in the world is he talking about a story from the 1600's? How is that going to have anything to do with the Contemporary? Fried discusses the trend in France in 1750 of absorptive paintings. For a work of art to be acceptable at this time, the subject (especially the women) we supposed to be completely engrossed in their actions, ignorant of the 'outside' or the audience. He notes that confrontational painting (such as Manet's 'Olympia') pointed out the folly of such theatricality, as paintings function was to be looked upon.</span><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"> <img style="cursor: -moz-zoom-in; width: 583px; height: 437px;" alt="http://toonstoonstoons.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/olympia.jpg" src="http://toonstoonstoons.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/olympia.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Manet, <span style="font-style: italic;">'Olympia'.</span></span><br /></div></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">He discusses issues of 'falseness vs truthfulness'</span>, <span style="font-size:85%;">and here he makes his point for discussing this story. He feels it is stories like 'Adelaide' that hold responsibility for dramatizing fiction, to pretend there is now audience, not painting. He feels that this story can paint a picture, so to speak, that we do not question, whilst if we to look at this story translated onto canvas, it would seem false. I think this is a fairly valid point that I would more or less agree with. However, I fail to see the problem with painting or photography as fiction that is meant to be real. I enjoy many works that are built this way and don't feel it is bound to one medium.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Fried moves on to discuss another book, 'Temple of Dawn' by Mishima from the early 70's. Fried is interested in this text because it concerns notions of Voyeurism, which he seems as similar to photographic trope. This is a rather odd story about elderly man, Honda spying on a young princess. The main issue of the story is the Protagonist's dilemma of wanting to look at the young woman without effecting or changing her world. He knows the only way this would happen is if he did not exist, which obviously, is impossible. Fried sees the secret invasion of the princess's world as similar to photography that captures it subjects in secret, or unaware. He notes that the moral question of the Protagonist's voyeurism is similar to those that arose in the late 70's in relation to practices of street photography. Honda's desire to be invisible, yet still capture the image relates directly to practices of candid photography. Many photographers want to capture 'natural' images, without their presence intruding on, or influencing the situation. Photographers are at an advantage in the Contemporary world. People are used to cameras. Photographing one another is a widespread social practice, camera are smaller, quieter and faster (at least in the commercial sense). However issues of personal privacy and surveillance are magnified. We are photographed and filmed in secret all throughout the day and the Internet poses a new threat to identity protection, therefore the moral question of candid photography becomes even more complicated. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">I think the moral dilemma of photographing a world in secret is one that resonates through all eras of photography.</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 699px; height: 381px;" alt="http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5431/rm8deadtroopslrgxe5.jpg" src="http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5431/rm8deadtroopslrgxe5.jpg" /><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Jeff Wall, 'Dead Troops Talk'.</span><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Finally, Fried discusses 'Regarding the Pain of Others' by Susan Sontag. In this book length essay, Sontag explains her view that documentary war photography unnecessary and suggests that art photography dealing with war is the only way we can be truly touched by such images. She sees Wall's 'Dead Troops Talk' as the ultimate image of war in a contemporary world. Sontag admires this image as none of the soldiers gaze out of the frame and therefore the image reminds us that 'we' (we being those who are fortunate enough to have never experienced war) have no idea what the people have been through and there is no point trying to, as it is truly unimaginable. Fried agrees with Sontag and enjoys this image as it is what he calls 'anti-theatrical'. He is interested in the 'to-be-looked-at-ness' of the image.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Fried concludes by claiming that the images that are currently, in his opinion, significant, are those such as 'Dead Troops Talk'. They are images which fall under a Diderotian thematic of absorption. Fried stays true to his view of 'anti-theatrical' images as those which are superior. He claims that once the concept of a world that would be contaminated simply by being beheld emerged, this esthetic found its home in photography. In other words, Fried sees photography as the perfect medium for his anti-theatrical theory and this is why he is so attracted to it. The essence of photography is to look at the world. However, photographs are more diverse than Fried would like to believe. Photography <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> confront, but Fried is not interested in this.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <span style="font-size:85%;">Fried could have easily called this book, 'The Reason I love Photography Suddenly Is Because It Started To Remind Me Of The Paintings I Like.'</span></span> <span style="font-size:85%;">Fried champions anti-theatrical painting and therefore, anti-theatrical photography. Photography matters, but not because of the trend of larger scale printing, photography mattered long before that occurred. Contemporary photography has a power that does not require a huge print to get its point across. People are enlightened by photographs they see on their computer screens and in books everyday. Of course, photography deserves the respect of being shown in its full capacity in a gallery space (or wherever it is intended to be shown), but I think Fried is missing out on the bigger picture (excuse the pun) if large scale prints and anti-theatrical stand points are the only reason he see photography as valid.<br /><br />I won't crucify Fried too much though, as firstly, this type of photography <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> amazing. I remember the first time I saw a Wall piece in all its large, illuminated glory and I really was gobsmacked. Secondly, this book was written in</span> <span style="font-size:85%;">2008</span>, <span style="font-size:85%;">but I think its extremely important to note.. Fried is 71 years of age. (Now I feel bad, as if I was bullying my Grandad.. dammit.) Contemporary photography is made by young artists, connected to a young world of emerging trends and practices. I doubt Fried sits at home on his Mac browsing through Flickr and Tumblr to see what the youngest photographers are coming up with. Fried writes about what he sees mostly in the mainstream and in this context, I appreciate his view and think this is a valid and useful text.</span><br /></div></div></div><img src="file:///C:/Users/Katie/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-8.png" alt="" /></div>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7430030231526993785.post-1859833829213400282010-09-09T20:27:00.041-05:002010-09-19T18:58:03.800-05:00Considering Contemporaneity<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >When asked to define the terms Modernity and Post Modernity for a class about two years ago, my knowledge of how time is typically divided was rather limited. Like most, I assumed the word 'Modern' meant anything new, anything edgy, anything futuristic. Certainly these are valid definitions, but of course the term has complex histories of which I was not yet aware. As for Post Modernity, the term <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">faile</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >d to resonate. 'What does that even mean?' I thought. Little did I know that studying these terms would force me to see the unfolding of history and how it works in tandem with art practice in a completely different light. When immersed in this way of seeing, I found myself fascinated, intrigued, confused, overwhelm</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >ed and slightly depressed. Studying the failure of modernity and consequent hopelessness of post modernity didn't exactly put a spring in my step. It did, however, allow me to see the world, especially in relation to photographic practice and its connections to other forces in the world in a way I had never previously considered.</span><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="left"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">As mentioned in the previous class, it is true that for quite some time, many scholarly articles, books and institutions seemed to conclude that photography went mute after the Berlin Wall came down, leaving only ghostly traces of Cindy Sherman's monochrome figure lurking with an uncertainty in her eye. I do no think this is anything to do with a decline in photographic practice at the time. Rather, I believe Post Modernism came to a rapid and dramatic close during this period of time. As the Berlin wall fell and t</span><span style="font-size:85%;">he Co</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">ld</span> War concluded, a rather uneasy and frightening time for many climaxed and along with this went Post Modernity. What the world of art was left with was the option to grasp something completely and utterly new. An era cleansed of war, at least temporarily, allowed artists to consider other facets of life that weren't overshadowed by the possibility of a Nuclear bomb bringing everything to a devastating close. With Modernity and Post Modernity secreting into the silence of the past, we are left with no other option but to throw ourselves into the present, or what Terry Smith has coined as 'Contemporaneity'.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The word 'Contemporary' is a rather ambiguous for a number of reasons. Firstly, it cannot be tied down to any one era, as what was contemporary in the 1800's, for example, is no longer so, however, we use the same word to describe what is currently contemporary. Secondly, contemporary has come to override a number of other terms, giving it multiple uses. 'Modern Art', once a term used to described anything new is now described as 'Contemporary Art', '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Avant</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Garde</span>' is not a term regularly employed in galleries cur</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">rently</span> either, again being surpassed by the term contemporary. Contemporaneity is more a set of conditions and a reaction to these conditions, all of which are current and active in our world. 'The Contemporary' is not a time period or era, or even a certain style of art. Rather, the contemporary associates itself with issues of time, space and mood. We are currently living and experiencing the contemporary. It is something new, something ground breaking and its happening all around us. Studying what defines Contemporary Photography and how it works in conjunction to our current time period, which, for now we will call Contemporary is something that to me, is an obvious advantage. Why any young artist wouldn't want to immerse themselves in their own time and learn more about its workings worries me. Studying the contemporary is obviously beneficial to any artist who wants to be successful in this time period. Of course, an in depth knowledge its predecessors, Modernity and Post Modernity is an essential part of this too. I think as young artists it is our duty to educate ourselves of these periods in art history as well as involving ourselves in what Terry Smith calls a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">tim</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;">e that is 'pregnant with the present.'</span><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />How can we separate these terms?<br /></span></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Diagram1.jpg?t=1284350993"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 731px; height: 514px;" src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Diagram1.jpg?t=1284350993" alt="" border="0" /></a></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="left"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Naturally, it is useful to study contemporary thought on well, the contemporary. Reading the texts we were allocated for this assignment provided some useful insights on what it means for an art work to be considered contemporary, as well as the forces that make up the contemporary world along with notions of the artist existing in 'Contemporaneity'. I want to begin by discussing the text by Alexander <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Alberro</span> from the pivotal 2009 October <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Questionare</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Alberro's</span> response is a fresh look at a relatively new set of conditions which currently feed the mind of the contemporary artist. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Alberro</span> places a emphasis on the emergence of Globalization and highlights it as a key term in understanding how the contemporary world functions. He discusses Globalization in its many forms, such as large scale international exhibitions, global integration and global themes in art works. Personally, I think this is the fundamental characteristic of Contemporary art and deserves all the attention it gets. It blows my mind to think of how easily life and art intersect and move around the world at a rate that was never before conceivable. For example, a friend of mine recently took a portrait of his brother and uploaded this to Flicker. This portrait is now an album cover of a band that is extremely popular in Japan. To think that the face of a boy from a small, insignificant town in Ireland stands as art half way across the globe now is funny, but what's even funnier is that this is now in now way shocking or surprising.</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">In addition to Globalization, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Alberro</span> emphasizes the importance of new technologies and the effect of these technologies on contemporary art. One of his most interesting points is that the image has know come to reign over the object. Perhaps I'm biased as a photographer, but I would concur that art is no longer dominant as a tangible object in a gallery, but rather a readily accessible set of pixels available at the touch of a button on your home computer. The possibilities provided and the implications of this is astounding for young artists. This ties into <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Alberro's</span> point about the reinvention of communication and time that is bound up in the revolution of the World Wide Web.</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Interestingly, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Alberro</span> also touches on the current trend of contemporary artists to create a fictional reality for their work, almost as a rejection of the overwhelming hyper-reality of contemporaneity. I find this to be one of the most interesting themes on contemporary art and am interested in how it has become accepted and normalised to reject and in some cases mock reality in favour of a creation of a new one. Other artists create situations almost mimicking reality but injecting their own fictionalized stories as in the work of William <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Kentridge</span> or the Atlas group (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Walid</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Raad</span>). Of course, this isn't a new practice, as artists have worked this way since practically the beginning of photography. However, the ability of digital technology or new media to render this work believable like never before is something that allows contemporary art to stand apart from the art of the modern or post modern era. Also, the pool of resources now available is a huge advantage for anyone who wishes to work this way. One of my favourite artists who works in this respect is Nikki S .Lee, who spends her days taking on the persona of other people from different cultures.</span> <span style="font-size:85%;">(I should note that Lee began this work in 1997, so the clothes, social groups, snap shot aesthetic, etc, are slightly out of date already and more suited to the nineties, but Lee is dealing with contemporary themes such as Smith's 'Passage Between Cultures' and Globalization, themes that were only emerging during the time of this project and could easily be updated to fit into contemporary culture if she updated the social groups and perhaps used a cheap digital camera).</span><br /></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_139001_379786_nikkis-lee.jpg" src="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_139001_379786_nikkis-lee.jpg" /><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;">From Nikki S. Lee's <span style="font-style: italic;">'Projects'.</span><br /></span></div><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Alberro</span> mentions a shift from the cognitive to the affective, where contemporary artists place emphasis on the experience of an art work being more important than understanding an art work. This is a valid point. I think its interesting to observe that much of contemporary art relies on a certain shock factor due to an overpopulation of photographers, many with similar influences. However, I do not think it is wise to disregard the need to 'understand art' for creator or spectator. After the shock of a tabooed subject matter has been explored, what is left for the artist to work with? One's practice must have more resonance than this. Certainly, there has been a shift in the way the spectator engages with the art work and to ignore this is to ignore one of the largest embodiments of contemporaneity.<br /></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Alberro</span> discusses many of the factors that allow contemporary art to come into existence, but what about a practical survey of what defines contemporary art and exemplifies its failing and successes? The text by Terry Smith attempts to outline this. Smith divides the contemporary into two sections, the 'old modern in new clothes' and 'Passages Between Cultures'. Both terms seem rather ambiguous. Smith claims the contemporary is the new modern because it takes itself to be the 'high cultural style of the time' (688). Of course, this is an obvious observation and doesn't really tell me much about the time we live in other than that it is full of new and emerging technologies and artistic practices that consider themselves superior to their predecessors. This could generally apply to any era. He continues on to criticise museums such as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">MOMA</span> for its 'confused <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">gesturings</span>' (688) when trying to grasp contemporary art and slates <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">DIA</span>:Beacon for abusing its 'Old Master elegance' status in housing the large scale '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Cremaster</span>' exhibition in 2003. Smith seems frustrated by the strand of contemporary art that is grasping to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">allign</span> itself with a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">continuting</span> modernist timeline and call for a new strategy.<br /><br />When discussing the other strand, 'Passage Between Cultures' he uses <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Shirin</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Neshat's</span> 2001 video 'Passage' and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Ayanah</span> Moor's 2004 wall installation 'Never.Ignorarant.Gettin' Goals.Accomplished. as examples. Both art works deal with issues of gender, racial and cultural identity and alienation in the global world. Smith questions if its art works such as these, works that deal with being in the world, are what identify art as contemporary. He also notes that these types of art works dominated the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Documenta</span> 11 exhibition and caused tension and division in trying to accommodate each area of the globalized world's differing view points. This is why he calls this strand of art work a Passage Between Cultures, as exhibitions such as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Documenta</span> 11 are an exchange of cultural practices and ideologies, some of which, of course, clash. He notes that such conflicts demonstrate the 'limits out of which the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">postcolonial</span>, post cold war, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">postideological</span>, transnational, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">deterritorialized</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">diasporic</span>, global world has been written' (693-694). Again, Smith has contempt for such large scale exhibitions that seem to try cover too much ground.<br /><br />Smith details the events of both exhibitions extensively and does not shy away from pointing out the failures of both. Smith calls one a "tiring juggernaut" and the other and "swarming attack of vehicles". He sees <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">DIA</span>: Beacon as too assuming of contemporary art as the highest cultural style and too over reaching in its large scale exhibition. He sees <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Documenta</span> 11 as an overload of ideas and a clash of personal ideologies of modernity vs contemporaneity.<br /><br />Thus, Smith comes to an interesting and valid conclusion: neither exhibitions addresses the 'changes in actual artistic practices that have, for arguably three decades now, marked out more and more artistic production as distinctively contemporary - as opposed to that which continues to be made in modernist, or even postmodern modes' (695). Smith proposes an alternative plan to construct the frame work of a large scale exhibition of contemporary art. He sees the answer as neither a middle path between the two exhibitions discussed or an opposing models. Rather, Smith believe we should recognize the 'energy of their profound contention' and see all elements that make up the contemporary world as '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">antinomies</span>'. I think what Smith is saying is that the contemporary era cannot be summarized in one large exhibition. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">DIA</span>:Beacon and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Documenta</span> 11 made the same mistakes as Family of Man did in 1955 by attempting to summarise the whole world, which really is impossible, confusing and irritating.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">In the second part of Smith's article, he defines a more practical <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">appraoch</span> to defining the contemporary. Smith believe that true contemporary artists are 'committed to an art that turn on long term, exemplary projects that...display the working of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">globality</span> and locality, and that imagine ways of living ethically within them' (698). He characterises contemporary art as that which considers questions of 'time, place, mediation and mood' (700), or what he sees today as '(alter)<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">temporality</span>, (dis)location, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">tranformivity</span>, within the hyper real and the altercation of affect/<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">effectivity</span>' (700). To Smith, this is 'Contemporaneity'. As useful as comparing large scale exhibitions can be, I find this response much more engaging and practical to me as a young artist attempting to define contemporary art. I understand Smith's definition of Contemporaneity on a realistic level and can see how it fits into his proposal as it provides practical answers of how to see the world as what he calls '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">antinomies</span>'. Smith also discusses a sense of 'connectedness' (703) and the notion of the 'human web' (704). I think this is important as it is impossible to ignore the expanding interweave of artistic practice through platform such as the Internet. These are the elements which directly effect our practice as young artists today. He notes that classic conceptions of modernity and post modernity cannot stretch to 'carry this degree of spin out' (706), a term I find very fitting for contemporaneity. We are spinning out, not quite sure where we are going and where we are to end up, but its ever so enjoyable. Finally, I found Smith's notion of a 'permanent seeing of after math' post cold war as intriguing. He claims we are in 'Ground Zero everywhere'. It is not that we are free of history but we are in a time of a new era, unsure of its direction, with only the past as a guide. We are coming to terms with the aftermath of modernity and post modernity but we are not defined by it. As a reaction to this 'universal condition' we respond with 'creative coping' (707).<br /></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Following this, I read the text by Noam <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Leshem</span> and Lauren A. Wright. This text gives an overview of two recently published and important books that deal with issues surrounding contemporaneity. The books are <span style="font-style: italic;">Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before</span> by Michael Fried and <span style="font-style: italic;">The Civil Contact of Photography</span> by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Arella</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Azoulay</span>. The text was useful as it is a small and accessible comparison of two opposing views of contemporary art, a refreshing read after tackling Smith's twenty six page discussion. Both texts deals with the aesthetic experience of viewing a photograph and how this effects the viewer and how the spectator should react to certain types of contemporary art. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">Fried's</span> view is that the most important type of photography currently is that which is of large scale and allows the viewer to act as the passive voyeur, comfortably surveying a photograph and coming to ones own conclusions. He champions Jeff Wall in this respect, as many critics do and discusses the work of other large scale artists such as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Gursky</span>, Dijkstra, Demand, etc. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">Freid</span> frames this type of art work withing the work of great painter's such as Manet. The authors note that Fried is keen to frame this work within his 'modernist project' (115) is one I am in agreement with. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">Fried's</span> focusing on the aesthetic reminds me of Wall's view in 'Marks Of Indifference'. The historical context and complex subject matters of the photographs are ignored and the visual value of the piece and the spectator's experience is placed above artistic intent. For example, Fried sees Dijkstra's project on young women at the beach as a photograph lacking theatricality and simply characterised by a 'to-be-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">seenness</span>.' I think Dijkstra had a lot more in mind than creating a pretty picture. Fried compares Dijkstra's photographs to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">Arbus</span>', but prefers the former as they are 'nicer to look at' (116) and therefore do not raise an ethical issues. This quote conveys the weakness of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Fried's</span> argument. Fried wants a photograph that is nice to look at and doesn't make him feel uncomfortable. He is afraid to be confronted by photography and therefore champions a passive photograph that he can control over a confrontational photograph. Thus, he reduces the work of a great photographer such as Dijkstra to a pretty picture, when in fact she is dealing with complex issues of adolescence and femininity in a globalized world. Fried is clinging to a grand narrative, modernist viewpoint where art should not attempt to confront the viewer, but only please the eye and to my delight, both authors criticize this.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="left"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://previous.aeroplastics.net/2004_pretty_world/Dijkstra_Dubrovnik_16-7-96.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 480px; height: 625px;" src="http://previous.aeroplastics.net/2004_pretty_world/Dijkstra_Dubrovnik_16-7-96.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a></span></p><p style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;">From <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">Rineke</span> Dijkstra's<span style="font-style: italic;"> 'Beach Portraits'</span>.<br /></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;">In sharp contrast, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Azoulay</span> places great emphasis on a connection between the viewer and photograph and criticises the 'passive beholder'. (117) <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Azoulay's</span> work deals with images of Palestinian women and men and how their image has been constructed by the media. She contests Sontag's point that the viewer has been over saturated by images of war and strives to confront the public with a powerful image of her people, questioning and conversing with the viewer, forcing them to contemplate the position the subject is in, or has been put in. The author's claim Azoulay's photographs have an 'unwritten yet clearly identifiable contract between its participants.' Azoulay's photography is an attempt to force the viewer into response and personally, I find this type of photography powerful in its message and moving in its confrontation. However, what Fried seems to ignore is that even in this situation, the spectator is still in control. As Azoulay notes, 'without a willing labour of spectatorship, the photograph is left as a flawed statement.. an impaired attempt to convey a sense of urgency' (117). Azoulay's argument is not perfect either, as she fails to mention the risk of overexposure to the image despite disagreeing with Sontag. She also fails to urge her readers to respond more actively to photography such as this.<br /><br />Fried and Azoulay's take both arguments to the extreme. Fried argues the right of the viewer to passively survey a photograph and emphasizes the importance of an aesthetically pleasing piece whilst Azoulay urges the need for politcally engaged and confrontational photography that attempts to force the spectator to react. Both arguments are important as the highlight two views on contemporary art. There will always be spectators, such as Fried who prefer to dictate their own viewing, refusing to be overcome by a photograph. This poses a threat to many political artists such as Azoulay and the message they are trying to convey. However, such a strong view such as Azoulays, that art such be politcally engaged and awaken the viewer leaves the spectator with little choice and undermines practices of documentary photographer or photographer's who deal with themes outside of the political. I feel that Freid's argument harks back to a modernist tradition as previously discussed, whilst Azoulay's is reminiscint of the post modern era as she is questioning the 'norm' of war photography and media representations and many post modern artists in that era before. However, both books are dealing with contemporary art and give a useful overview of two views from an established viewpoint.<br /><br />As different as the three articles are, what they all provide is information on how to understand the contemporary or Contemporaneity. Alberro's text provides a brief overview of some of the socio-political conditions which allow contemporary art to come into existence, such as globalization, an important concept. Smith's text provides an extensive comparision of various exhibitions attemtping to deal with the contemporary and outlines their failings. He provides an interesting alternative which contains mainy of the characteristics of contemporary art which I found to be the most interesting part of his article. Finally, Leesham and Wright's text magnifies the views of two authors discussing two different views of contemporary art. Comparing three articles that focus on such different areas is difficult, but gives a wide spread view of the many different facets that make up contemporary art.<br /><br />Defining the era we live in, perhaps the era of Contemporaneity or pinpointing what makes contemporary art what it is, is difficult to discuss extensivley in a blog entry. However, I have been left with some interesting points to ponder over and consider in realtion to contemporary art, I personally think these are the most important points we are left with:</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: center;"><a href="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Digram2.jpg?t=1284351084"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 711px; height: 545px;" src="http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb390/katiegoneill/Digram2.jpg?t=1284351084" alt="" border="0" /></a></p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;">And yes, I realize this was a very long entry and it probably bored you to tears. I'll get better at this, I promise. I'll finish by saying, I love living and experiencing 'the contemporary' and so should you because its our time as artists and it won't last forever. Its ours, so why not nourish it? Whatever 'it' is. I love seeing new barriers being broken down and the camera being used to smash through even more taboos than ever. And of course, seeing old themes being revived and encoporated into a new time.<br /></span></p>Katie O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03915088550741706653noreply@blogger.com0