urban ku # 154 ~ winter light and lights # 4
Friday, December 14, 2007 at 08:30AM 
Early evening snowfall • click to embiggenOne of the first things to note about the subject of yesterday's 'assignment' is to point out that the essay is written by Christopher Bedford, an art historian, art critic and the Curatorial Assistant in the Department of Contemporary Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. He is not a photographer, although, in his curatorial capacity he certainly has more than a passing acquaintance with the goings on in the world of Fine Art photography.
This is important to know simply because it is relevant to understanding the perspective from which he approaches the subject of photography. Suffice it to say that Bedford comes from a very academic milieu. His primary concern re: photography seems to be to raise the bar relative to photographic criticism, that is, to the art and craft of writing about photography (and photographs) with an eye towards understanding and, therefore, appreciating it more completely. IMO, a very noble and long overdue pursuit.
Now, pertinent to that idea, I have made my opinion known that I think that the medium of photography, Fine Art Division, has been 'hijacked' by what I would label a lunatic fringe of academia. I must qualify that label by stating that, by, no means, do I think that all of art-academia is operating in the 'lunatic fringe'.
By 'hijacked' I mean that the prevailing notion of what is Art in the medium of photography has been laden with a lot of purely arcane and obtuse academic baggage and, further, that that baggage is designed and constructed primarily to serve the academic Art world. A world which is well along into the realm of becoming a modern-day 'guild' and, like the Renaissance guilds of old, their primary purpose seems to be to to protect the interests of its members - in this case, academic interests, aka academic tenure.
That said, I do like to hang around the fringes of the 'guild' because every once in awhile, if you are able to translate their writings into simple English, they actually have something to say that is of interest to non-academians. IMO, the essay by Bedford is one such piece of work.
I like the fact that Bedford (and others that he mentions) are "... keen to establish photography’s currency as a more determined, intention-laden industry than is commonly presumed." He points out that the "credibility of so-called “traditional” or documentary photographers in the context of art criticism" is undermined by the current prevailing attitude in the academic and curatorial world because "the essentialist, “observe and record” model of photography" is believed by most in that world to be "too ineffable, and too intuitive to qualify as an intelligent and intelligible conceptual strategy according to the imperatives of the contemporary art world, where a premium is placed on conceptual sophistication ... such work is assumed to be 'weak in intentionality.'"
The work is considered to be 'weak in intentionality' because (Bedford has made the admission that he and his fellow art historian, art critic, curatorial brethren don't know s--t about the manner in which photographers work) "... the nuances of the photographic process are poorly understood in the art critical community—the present author included—and this shortfall radically limits the discourse."
In other words, Bedford is saying that the methodology we, the essentialist, “observe and record” photographers, employ as common practice - in his words, "the most prosaic aspects of conventional photography (... the ebb and flow of intentionality through the process from choice of film or digital back through to print type and size) - needs to be "re-theorized" in order to understand how "these factors shape the image, direct the viewer’s attention, and contribute to the production of meaning: in effect, to remake the technical and conceptual discourse around traditional photography within art criticism."
Holy Shit!!! I'm stunned. This is a monumental shift from how the 'lunatic fringe' has thought about photography. They actually want to know about the 'mundane and pragmatic' technical choices that photographer makes in making a picture because, surprise surprise (to the academic world), those choices effect how an observer reacts and relates to a picture. He actually admits that this ontology should rank right up there with authorship and concept. Authorship and concept having been raised (in the academic art world) to a level of fetish, nearly to the exclusion of all other considerations surrounding a photograph.
However, the fly-in-the-ointment that is really going to f--k them up in their quest to elevate their understanding of the process is the fact that most photographers (of all stripes), after some time spent learning the craft, tend to (when they are picturing) 'forget' what they have learned and apply it 'intuitively'. Which is not to say that using it intuitively is not an 'intelligent and intelligible conceptual strategy'. It's just to say that something which done 'intuitively' is very difficult for the 'lunatic fringe' to latch onto, obsess about, and then analyze to death - an exercise that is part and parcel of their ontology.
Addendum: If you have been thinking of attending an Adobe Photoshop or Nikon camera seminar / workshop, I suggest that you make your reservation now. There is certain to be a horde of anxious and eager art historians, art critics and art museum curators queuing up to get in.
Reader Comments (7)
Thank you for translating, I'se thinks now I'se some kind of a picture-image-taker-maker
I agree with your analysis but not necessarily the addendum - I didn't see this as a call to arms for critics to go learn photography. I felt that he is more implying that the onus is on the photographers to do the educating.
I also read into, from a later passage, that the reason that some of today's conceptual photographers (he mentions Wall and Demand) have done well because they've explained their process in a way critics understand.
The point you make about photography becoming instinctive should then lead to a greater sense of thought - if one needs to spend less time on the mechanics, more time is available to contemplate content, meaning, concept etc.
"If you have been thinking of attending an Adobe Photoshop or Nikon camera seminar / workshop, I suggest that you make your reservation now."
I'm thinking no - assuming you're correct in your suspicions about the herd of likely 'student' candidates. The mere thought that the bulk of the class might be of such an ilk is enough to make the class itself seem positively abhorrent.
But, as Dennis Miller would say, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Heh Prof, being a dumb-assed "essentialist," I don't get the reference at the beginning of the article, which he mentions again later:
I realize it's more or less peripheral to the point of the article, but inquiring minds need to know - what's he talking about?
of a photograph that was seen in a moment in the photographer's mind. He wants to be the one to "remake the technical and conceptual discourse around traditional photography within art criticism." Time will tell whether he succeeds, or whether it's more hot air. I find it telling that the name of the site the article appeared on is words without pictures.Otherwise, an interesting read. But I can't help but feel that Bedford has some kind of personal interest in being the one to extend to
I think your analysis is, to quote a favorite movie, dead-on balls-accurate. Despite my previous snide remark, I agree that the article has a fresh suggestion and even a certain welcome humility about it. As essentially an academic myself, I simply find it amusing that both are expressed in over-the-top language, which represents the main thing standing in the way of (some) art critics coming to a better understanding of photography: ability to communicate.
For more substantive and readable thinking along the lines of what Bedford seems to be calling for, I recommend Robert Adams, John Sarkowski, and the interviews with photographers by John Paul Caponigro.
Kent,
In case no one more knowledgeable happens along to elighten us both, I'm guessing that "medium specificity" is the idea that work in some art medium (e.g. photography) should concentrate on things that medium does best. Or at least, discussion of the art should pay special attention to the way the choice of medium constrained and enabled the result. Assuming I've got that right, the concept makes sense to me in general, but it's fatal to apply it too restrictively or exclusively. I don't see any point in limiting photography to what someone thinks it does best. I suppose passé means that art critics now freely accept that photography can adapt ideas or methods from painting, collage, etc.
Steve,
Thanks for your explanation. The more I read it, the more I come to see that he's refering to artist's use of medium specificity, not the critics who are writing about their output. Here's a fine example of academic speak meant to exclude the great unwashed. Why doesn't he simply say that due to the cross pollination of the arts, no one really works in their own medium without influences from a vast array of others? I guess medium specificity is a much tighter - and exclusionary - way of putting it.