In, Around, and Afterthoughts (on documentary photography) by Martha Rosler
Allan Sekula: Photography Between Discourse and Document (from Allan Sekula's project: "Fish Story") by Benjamin H.D. Buchloh
Prepare a two page critical synopsis addressing the work by Robert Knight (My Boat is So Small) on exhibition at Gallery Kayafas (450 Harrison Ave.) opening reception on: Friday, November 7th. This synopsis/review of Robert Knight's work must be turned in next class in printed format (note: this will not be a posting and only complete printed format will be accepted).
Also, Professor Myren's work (The View from Home) will be featured in the gallery at this time and it is strongly encouraged to attend the opening reception to show your support.
Gallery Kayafas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Between Discourse and Document/ Buchloh
“the third major aspect of sekula's work, in which his departure from the governing usages of photographic imagery in artistic practices of the sixties and seventies becomes evident, could be called a semiological difference. Other than deploying a singular photographic model continously - a stategy which seems to have become the precondition for artistic practice to function as enterprise.
Sekula has always attempted to juxtapose the most complex and contradictory range of photographic conventions. rather than reducing the photograph to a mere indexical record operating in manifest analogy to the ready-made or to a purely denotative device of simplified structures and actions, as in the photogrphic records of conceptual artists”
in this passage i feel like Buchloh is trying to say how Sekula isnt looking to follow traditional photographic methods, but trying to create a new style or medium that could possibly open new ways to view his subjects, in a light that the audience would have previously never seen before, when presented differently. he is trying to take the comforting methods of traditional still photography, and combining them with the newer, more contemporary presentation (i believe the example provided was slideshow format?). by doing so, is he trying to attract the attention of those who appeal to more classic phototographic style, and those who are more interested in modern ideology?
later it also states ""the third major aspect of sekula's work, in which his depature from the governing usages of photographic imagery in artistic practices of the sixties and seventies becomes evident, could be called a semiological difference. tahter than deploying a sungular photographic model continously - a stategy which seems to have become the precondition for artistic practice to function as enterprise."
after reading this i still stick with my (potentially very wrong) understanding of this reading. buchloh states that sekula is trying to escape the traditional guidelines as to what a "good" photograph would be, and to maybe give his subjects a different context through this alternative shooting method. maybe he is using a seperate kind of symbolism that was unexpected and in turn more successful by breaking the preconditions of the past?
(this was a difficult read for me, and im not sure if my understanding was accurate or not. i also hope that it makes some amount of sense. )
Martha Rosler --
What exactly is documentary photography? “Documentary is a little like horror movies, putting a face on fear and transforming threat into fantasy, into imagery. One can handle imagery by leaving it behind. (It is them, not us.)” (pg. 306) I think this quote describes best what a lot of people feel about documentary photography. The enjoy being a voyeur to a situation they are not really privy to, after all is impolite or even dangerous to stare in person.
In it’s beginnings, documentary was more like police record keepings and surveillance. But it has transformed into an almost more fantastical presentation of imagery. It’s become more about art rather than about documenting. The images now almost overshadow what the pictures are trying to say about a social situation or group.
One has to start question, Are the images we seeing even real? “Documentary testifies, finally, to the bravery or (dare we name it?) the manipulativeness and savvy of the photographer, who entered a situation of physical danger, social restrictedness, human decay, or combinations of these and saved us the trouble. (pg. 308) The manipulativeness and savvy of the photographer is right. Some documentary photography is now no different than war photography were bodies were moved to make a better-composed shot. The photographer will place or dress their subjects in a certain way (i.e. Edward S. Curtis, pg 310). The word documentary has almost become an inappropriate title for the genre. It’s basically no different than any aesthetically pleasing image hoping to be sold to galleries and museums.
--
Buchloh –
I find it interesting how this reading kind of contradicted the first reading. Emphasis on the first reading seemed to be placed on the monetary value and possible gallery positioning of an image. This reading however places documentary photography (in the traditional sense) at the base of the hierarchical system of artistic genres. I enjoy how Sekula’s way of presentation defied the previous idea of what was “the norm.” People at the time saw Pop Art as the only legitimate art. Amateurish photographs replaced technical excellence. Sekula’s introduction of informational text with his breathtaking images really made people start to question what was “art.”
One shouldn’t be surprised with this. Art is subjective. Time passes. Mediums change. People change. Sekula knew this and was able to exploit it greatly.
Post a Comment