civilized ku # 13 - the morning-after hangover
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 08:20AM 
He, Aaron and I spent over 3 hours perusing the 41 Wall photographs. The photographs were very engaging and engrossing. They engendered much discussion, rumination and postulation - my apologies to Robert and Aaron for discussing, ruminating and postulating my way through the last quarter of the exhibition with a lovely and engaging lady from Dublin, Ireland (the wife isn't reading this, is she?).
After the Wall thing, we drifted down to the permanent photography exhibition space where there was an extensive exhibition of photography from masters past and present. Assuming one has paid attention to the history of the medium and its movements and periods, it was more of a nostalgic trip down memory lane, with a few surprises thrown in, than anything else.
It was the end of this exhbit, which we breezed through in relatively short order, that Robert stated simply that "sometimes there's just too much." Now, there certainly was an element of how-much-fried-chicken-can-you-eat? to his utterance, but his point was that a certain numbness can set in in the face of so much'good' photography. This from a guy who does own a computer but, other than an ocassional visit to this blog and few photo exhibits now and again, he spends about as much time on the web looking for photography blogs/websites as I do skinning ardvarks.
His point was well taken and has stayed with me like an irritating bee in my bonnet. Upon some reflection I know why. The few surprises which I encountered on my photo trip down memory lane came from the work of a few modern 'masters' and virtually every one of those 'masters' was making not taking photographs. I was definitely captivated by much of the 'fictive' reality effect that the photographers were creating and presenting, much in the vein, albeit a minor one, being mined by Wall.
This has left me a bit shaken, photography-wise - Is it enough to 'just' be taking pictures rather than making pictures? I now have a firmer grip on the difference between an 'artist-who-uses-photography' and a 'photographer-who-is-an-artist'. I am beginning to feel that there are very few of one and too many of the other.
I am also beginning to understand the Art-Worldist notion that there actually is a modern-day 'photo ghetto' out there. One which consists primarily of the work of those who take rather than make pictures - and have no doubt about it, the 'ghetto' includes, in the opinion of the the Art-Worldists, some of the most recent Szarkowski-era'heavyweight' picture takers in the medium.
Perhaps this is the true import of Wall's methodology and his photography (which is almost an aside). Now that the world is awash with excellent picture takers, the time has come for picture makers to move to the fore.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Ana wrote: "...One of the things that I've realized has been cooking in the back of my head this past semester has been developing a sense of my own agency as a photographer. This is very much a revelation for me, coming as I did from the nature photography genre, which generally speaking doesn't tend to have that sense of agency."
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Tom Connor wrote: "This distinction between "making" & "taking" is useful to think about, but it can become confusing. Do you mean the photograph must be created from scratch, as a painter creates a painting from a bare canvas? Or that it must be generated from the needs/visions/obsessions of the photographer -- perhaps as they can be found in the world? Because, while the 1st is very much in favor with curators & art buyers right now (Crewsden, Wall et al) it can often, be empty & pedantic in my opinion(see my review of Wall's MOMA show here. Whereas work drawn from the rich serendipity of real life can often be deeply personal. I would hate to think that in order to "make", as opposed to "take" images, artists need to absent themselves from the endlesss, wondrous flow of life."
Reader Comments (12)
I have to say it's been really interesting hearing your stream of consciousness as you work out this new territory for yourself. One of the things that I've realized has been cooking in the back of my head this past semester has been developing a sense of my own agency as a photographer. This is very much a revelation for me, coming as I did from the nature photography genre, which generally speaking doesn't tend to have that sense of agency.
Ana,
Sense of agency? Same thing as mode of operation?
Hey Jim,
Without speaking for Ana, I think she means a personal and heightened 'state of exerting power or influence' over both the referent and the connoted in her photography.
I know that the desire to do just that is what I am becoming aware of in myself. I am no longer certain that 'finding' or 'taking' photographs satisfies my need for complete self-expression.
Wow, a definition of "agency" doesn't define THAT.
No wonder I have trouble decoding all of the high fallutten words.
Wow, Mark, you used "referent" and "connoted" in a sentence!
Well, I wouldn't have put it quite that way, but I do mean realizing in a concrete and personal way that I, the photographer, have power. I find it interesting, because of course I've always known in an abstract sense that photographers have power --I've admired a lot of photographs that are either in-studio or set up or manipulated or obviously created in some way. But "knowing" that about other people's work turns out to be different from realizing that I, too, can exercise that power, which I'd simply never had a sense of before.
Okay I give up, and he cries "uncle".
Mark, Ana, WOULD YOU GUYS CUT IT OUT! I thought I had my photography all figured out! Now you're messin around stirrin things up again. Takin or makin? What's a poor slob to do?!
Oh, BTW Mark, your civilized ku #13 is a cool MoMA view. I'm partial to architectural subjects.
Ana,
I feel I am on a similar path. Previously, my approach to photography was that it was all about the referent and I was simply there to dutifully document whatever that may be. I find myself now thinking that it really is "all about me."
Exactly how this mini-paradigm shift will work itself out in my photography is yet unknown, but I'm looking forward to it.
Have you seen a change in the work you're producing since your newly developed sense of agency has grown?
Tom --you may laugh, but I think the reflecting box photos I'm doing now are the immediate manifestation of this awareness. I'd been doing a lot of rummaging and rearranging in my own mind about where I was, what motivates me to photograph in the first place, why the hell I was out there, etc.. At the same time I was taking a sculpture class where I was physically building things. And then suddenly I realized, "I like to photograph my windows. I have this long-standing love affair with my windows; I've been photographing them for literally years and by golly, there is absolutely no reason I couldn't take them with me!"
In some ways it's rather a silly exercise, but at the same time I feel like it's kind of a breakthrough for me to realize that I can actually bring something into the world with me. I don't know if this is "real" work, or if it will grow into real work, or if it's just what I have to pass through to get to the real work, or what, but right now it seems like a very natural progression and a necessary thing for me to do.
Ana- Actually, I did chuckle. Although, not because I think your reflecting box idea is silly but because it's evidence of true creativity expressed in such a simple and well, cheap way. There is some interesting work there.
It's obvious you have a fertile mind and I think that whatever medium you choose you will and already are producing "real" work.
This distinction between "making" & "taking" is useful to think about, but it can become confusing. Do you mean the photograph must be created from scratch, as a painter creates a painting from a bare canvas? Or that it must be generated from the needs/visions/obsessions of the photographer -- perhaps as they can be found in the world? Because, while the 1st is very much in favor with curators & art buyers right now (Crewsden, Wall et al) it can often, be empty & pedantic in my opinion(see <A HREF="http://timconnor.blogspot.com/2007/03/wall-wars.html">my review of Wall's MOMA show here.</A> Whereas work drawn from the rich serendipity of real life can often be deeply personal. I would hate to think that in order to "make", as opposed to "take" images, artists need to absent themselves from the endlesss, wondrous flow of life.