Greetings Citizens.I have been reading a book called Illuminations, Women Writing on Photography from the 1850's to the Present, edited by Liz Heron and Val Williams. Over the last few nights I've been reading an article by Jan Zita Grover entitled Dykes in Context: Some Problems in Minority Representation. In it were the usual comparisons of male generated images of lesbians and those made by lesbian women. But there was more to the article than that. In particular, I found the discussion of formal elements being over-stated in academia with little emphasis on the context of the imagery of significant importance at the expense of giving little thought to the representation an images presents to us as viewers. How a photographer can create images as a sign or as an argument and how little that can be discussed in an art class critic. I'm afraid I agree with her. I have seen (and heard) far too many instructors of photography ignore the importance of what the image (and photographer) are saying while spending far too much time talking about line, shape, form, etc.. Now don't get me wrong, I feel very strongly that craft is an important element in the making of a good image. But I feel that the content is equally, if not more, important. And this is where I feel it is important for the photographer to make images of things that are important to him/her. And I don't think the reasons need to be earth-shattering. I mean look at my most recent bodies of work... anti-graffiti and scrap metal. Not the kind of subject matter that will change the publics' consciousness. But enough to keep me engaged. I have my reasons for photographing this work... you'll have to buy me Thai food to hear my reasons... and I won't go into it here. The point is that I have an active interest in my subject. Another important point made by Ms. Grover is how images made by a subculture (and I think here you can add just about anyone anymore) is viewed differently within the subculture than the mainstream culture. To me this is an important thing to keep in mind during a critique. Important for the viewer to hear what the images are representing to the audience... and to know who that audience is. You will certainly get different responses if you show your work to your friends than if you show the same work to strangers. I just think this is important to keep in the back of your mind. Okay, I'm getting a little carried away and the topic is beyond the scope of my daily rants so I'll leave it at that. Post a comment and we'll discuss it more, if you wish.
posted by pinholeman @ 8:11 PM
4 Comments:
i always hated how you had to feign so much objectivity in critiques, when art is such a subjective thing...
i think it's important to hear how people talk about your work... what they see, what they feel. the photographer should be very quiet and listen to those words and make some sense from it all.
(I wrote this before your most recent comment.)
Hmm. During my grad school studies about 1% was spent on craft/formal elements and 99% was spent on the 'meaning' of the images. Maybe it just depends on who your teacher is or where you went to school.
As for my opinion of the balance of craft vs. meaning, I leave it up to my students to photograph what they please, sure that should be a given. I encourage them to photograph that which interests them. But as it is in an english class, I find it hard to read something someone has written if it is riddled with misspellings and gramatical errors. Why expect any less in an art class.
So then why not teach the student the tools and then let them spend the rest of their life using those tools to 'speak' through their images?
I think I have seen a loss of appreciation for the craft of imagemaking and too much time is spent on the theory behind an image (SPE has plenty of examples). Often times an image never moves beyond that of a promotional of the photographer. A photo becomes something that simply says "LOOK AT ME - LOOK AT ME - LOOK AT ME". This type of art in my opinion is very shallow. I think you may agree.
I think art should include more then just one person. (I think this may be a place where you and I and perhaps Shasta disagree).
But I want to make myself clear, and this is where I think you and I do agree. If the art doesn't mean anything for the artist first, then the art is misdirected. First and foremost it must be something to the artist where they are deeply connected to it. Only then should it move beyond the audience of one and have any real substance.
I don't know if I am making sense. I guess this post is in response to some things I have heard you and others say lately. I guess I hear you saying something like "It doesn't matter beyond the artist". I disagree.
I will end and allow a chance for response.
Jon, I still firmly believe that the artist is the primal motivator of the art. It is his/her vision that is being manifested in the work. And while an artist may consider directing woork towards an audience, I don't think they necessarily need to be doing that. Take for example all the work done by artists working in obscurity. There a tons of 'outsider' artists who create(d) work because of some internal need. It only becomes 'discovered' afterwards and is respected for what it is... one person's extraordinary vision. Look at Atget... he died in obscurity. In fact, the day before he died it is perported that he stood on the balcony of his home and yelled to the world (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I'm dying and no one cares."
Post a Comment
<< Home