urban ku # 38 - Q&A

Eric Fredine, in answer to my question - Is it possible in the Art world for a photographer to be 'invisible' and let the photograph 'speak' for itself? - wrote; "Yes. There seem to be many of them in fact ... I don't see it as an either/or proposition."

Eric also mentioned an example of a photographer - Alec Soth who lets his photographs of the 'contingient features of the actual world' speak for themselves. Eric gets no argument from me on either point - there are many photographers who let their photographs speak for themselves and Alec Soth is certainly one of the many.

I also don't see it as an either/or proposition, but I do think that Jeff Wall has raised the bar or, at the very least, validated a big change in the photography game. Here's how -

Eric Fredine, Alec Soth, myself, and 'many' others are adept at 'seeing' and at translating that 'seeing' into a vision which produces pictures which both illustrate and illuminate, BUT...that vision is almost entirely dependent upon the 'contingient features of the actual world'. In a sense, they also rely heavily on that age-old photography bug-a-boo - making (by means of the machine) 'copies' of 'contingient features of the actual world'.

Now, don't misunderstand. They deliberately and intuitively use all the 'apparatus' of the medium - mechanical, cultural, intellectual, et al - to great effect and affect. Wall, on the other hand, uses the same 'apparatus' but he is not constrained by the 'contingient features of the actual world'.

Instead of skillfully and artistically 'capturing' (or copying) found 'pro-filmic moments', Wall adds (and most probably, subtracts)/creates 'contingient features of the actual world' to his cinematically constructed photographs as he see fit in order to strengthen and convey meaning. His MO is much more like that of a - I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this - painter. Wall uses Bits and Pieces of the 'contingient features of the actual world' and assembles them on his photographic 'canvas'.

In an Art world where a single - not part of a 'defining' body of work - photograph, un-tethered from or anchored by words, is considered to be without intrinsic meaning or narrative, Wall is free to create one-off photographs in which meaning is more direct. Many critics have pointed out that his photographs can be appreciated and 'understood' by a large audience even though they are not versed in (or even aware of) the arcane Art history and theory that underlies them.

IMO, Wall has validated and given momentum to a new photographic genre - an emergence also acccelerated by the digital domain. Label it something like, The Cinemtaic Photograph, or, The Narrative Photograph - a genre in which photographers 'make' as much as they 'take' picture-wise.

I intend to explore this terrain but, unlike Wall, my self-referential nod will be to the history of photography not painting. At least that way I'll be able to live with myself in the morning.

Featured Comment Ana wrote; "Hmm... new? Can we say "Rejlander?"

publisher's response: Ana - yes, as I have mentioned recently, there really is nothing new under the sun. There is probably a list as long as my arm (but not much longer) of photogs who have worked this approach as opposed to 'the many' mentioned by E. Fredine. However, very few have pursued it with the 'artistic rigor and craft' of Jeff Wall and only the most recent have had the tools of the digital domain at their disposal.

Comments

[Ana]

Hmm... new? Can we say "Rejlander"? =)