| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2009 06:21:30 AM · #1 |
This is a thread about photography, art and 'scoring'. If you want to play, open this link in a new window, then read on.
Our local gallery has a well-regarded annual photography competition open to all Australian resident photographers. Last year the winner was a quite controversial silver gelatin print that is unfixed. For non-film photographers, that means it will gradually darken until it is entirely black. In other words, the original print of the image you will see reproduced at the above link will soon be no longer visible. Ever again. The print, by the way, is very small ... about 14 x 10cm (roughly 6" x 4"), and is mounted frameless on a rectangle of aluminium. Fixed on the wall it was no larger than the adjacent standard-sized gallery wall plaque identifying the work. The subject of the image is a paper cone covered with braille text.
The choice was highly controversial, appearing as it did among a substantial field of conventional large framed prints including several from nationally-known photographers.
In the linked document, you will find a slide show of three images. The first is our Arts Centre manager Brad, and the second is the print in question, called 'Mind Field' by artist Anthony Mravicic. (The third image is the previous year's winner, which happens to be by a once-active DPC'er; my niece Kelly ...  roadrunner).
The linked document quotes the competition adjudicator, a respected conservator from a prestigious national gallery, as follows: Adjudicator Rose Peel described the work as 'a transient image that questions our understanding of what a photograph is and what it is for; the work is about seeing and not seeing, about touch and not touching'.
Seeing we are so often debating what is 'good' and 'bad' photography, and how we should 'score' them, I though some here might like to consider this remarkable work and express an opinion.
P.S. An amusing footnote is that it is an acquisitive prize; so in exchange for the $3000 first prize, our gallery now owns a print that will fairly soon vanish. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 07:15:26 AM · #2 |
| art finally truly imitating life - ephemeral. Perfect. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 08:04:39 AM · #3 |
I can't read the article because my work computer is agressive with foreign websites, however:
I don't think it's redefining the boundaries of photography as much as making a mockery of the award. Would that photo have won if it had been fixed so it would last? I doubt it. Which makes it an award for the idea rather than the image itself. What will they do next year, award the prize to a photographer who 'thought' about doing a photo but didn't even produce anything? Sounds a bit like the UK's Turner Prize to me, where the winner is chosen to get the most publicity for the gallery/museum.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 08:39:39 AM · #4 |
It's physically going to fade to black...vanish?
Performance Art and Photography all in one. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 09:17:32 AM · #5 |
| I think its a fantastically clever piece... It defies all our senses AND its own medium. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 09:19:10 AM · #6 |
| I kind of agree with Mikeee on this -- it's a bit pomo precious. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 09:26:10 AM · #7 |
| I'm generally wary of sensationalism and the overly construed profound(huh?)...but do find this photo and its fate sets things in motion, in my head at least. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 10:09:16 AM · #8 |
Reading the article, one has this thought: The first accompanying image shows, in the background, a photographer working for the gallery recording this winning image for posterity. It is. of course, perfectly normal for galleries and museums to photograph their acquisitions for such purposes as catalogues, publicity, etc (indeed, this used to be a significant source of income for me in the early 70's), but in this case that *does* raise certain obvious questions, doesn't it?
I haven't had time to think it through, but I'd be inclined, at first blush, to think along the lines that if the image-as-presented, the "transient work", is indeed worthy of the prize — and if it *is* so, its transience must be an integral part of its worth (i.e. the conceptual layering is definitive in this case — then the gallery, from a moral perspective, ought not be recording and disseminating the image in any way that "fixes" it at any stage of its "development".
In other words, there's a bit of hypocrisy in action here...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-03-09 10:10:26.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 11:27:25 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In other words, there's a bit of hypocrisy in action here...
R. |
I would say they are simply documenting the event which is valid. Why not? A slice of time.
As far as the work is concerned I'm wondering if the concept, it's presentation the fact that it's finite carry more weight than the actual image itself?
Viewing it on my computer, the image doesn't really sway me in terms of impact but the fact that it will fade along with it's given subject matter, lends the work some intrigue.
In other words...the jury's still out.
Message edited by author 2009-03-09 13:25:01. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 12:07:02 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In other words, there's a bit of hypocrisy in action here...
R. |
I would say they are simply documenting the event which is valid. Why not? A slice of time.
As far as the work is concerned I'm wondering if the concept, it's presentation the fact that it's finite carry more weight than the actual image itself?
Viewing it on my computer, the image doesn't really sway me, in terms of impact but the fact that it will fade given the subject matter, lends it some intrigue.
In other words...the jury's still out. |
I'm inclined to agree that the work has "value" in a conceptual sense. I'm just ruminating on something that has struck me before, that the "documentation" of transient works of art seems to me to be a little bit oxymoronic, as it were. I don't think it's a big deal, actually, it's just that when I'm thinking on the same plane that the original was conceptualized upon, it all seems a tad skewed :-)
R.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 12:09:38 PM · #11 |
A couple of things strike me about this.
Most art that gets considered 'modern' art is more about the process than the end result. This seems quite similar. The piece of art is bigger than just 'what it looks like' I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Secondly, this happens to all photographs anyway. It is one of the most transitory art forms. Light destroys photographs faster than any other form of art (for example, the National Portrait Gallery in London will only show photographs in their collection for short periods of time, because of the aging effects of having them on display). In some ways accelerating that effect by not fixing makes for an interesting statement on that.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 12:18:45 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Which makes it an award for the idea rather than the image itself. |
wow i just spent a long time writing an extensive reply to this. then i hit the preview button and it was gone.
how damned appropriate.
listen, art has been vanishing for a long time. ever heard of sand mandalas?
the debate over whether art is about image or idea was fought a century ago, and idea won. images have no impact without ideas. ideas, however, need only the images that the perceiving mind creates.
the idea that this image fades as you look at it is just one of the ideas of this piece. look how beautifully that idea works with its other ideas: the braille that cannot be touched, the braille folded into a 3-d shape that renders it useless, only to be restored to 2-D in a way that renders it even more useless.
imagine a blind person who found that cone. imagine him trying to feel the message on that cone, with some of it folded away, without knowing where to begin. I imagine it would be very much like someone trying to understand a work of art. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 12:19:52 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Most art that gets considered 'modern' art is more about the process than the end result. This seems quite similar. The piece of art is bigger than just 'what it looks like' I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. |
In principle I agree with you here, but I'm not sure "most" is the right word here; certainly there's a significant component of modern art that's conceptual in nature (more about the process than the result, if there even *is* a result), but there's a lot happening that's more conventional as well.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Secondly, this happens to all photographs anyway. It is one of the most transitory art forms. Light destroys photographs faster than any other form of art (for example, the National Portrait Gallery in London will only show photographs in their collection for short periods of time, because of the aging effects of having them on display). In some ways accelerating that effect by not fixing makes for an interesting statement on that. |
Yes, that's a thought that had occurred to me as well; color photographs, especially, have a limited display life. Properly processed B/W images have extremely long life, but this depends on all sorts of factors, including the composition of the paper and the way the images are stored/displayed. In any case, it's hard not to see this piece as being, at one level, "about" the transience of the medium itself.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 12:22:11 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
look how beautifully that idea works with its other ideas: the braille that cannot be touched, the braille folded into a 3-d shape that renders it useless, only to be restored to 2-D in a way that renders it even more useless.
imagine a blind person who found that cone. imagine him trying to feel the message on that cone, with some of it folded away, without knowing where to begin. I imagine it would be very much like someone trying to understand a work of art. |
Absolutely! That's where I was going next in my reply to Gordon, but I decided to put it in another post as it really has nothing to do with his points. And lo and behold, Posthumous beats me to it. Only a dead man can execute an anticipatory Yanko, right? Jejejeâ„¢.
R.
ETA: I was typing these replies in a non-refreshed page, so I hadn't seen Don's comments until I posted the first of this pair :-)
Message edited by author 2009-03-09 12:23:15.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 12:23:34 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm just ruminating on something that has struck me before, that the "documentation" of transient works of art seems to me to be a little bit oxymoronic, as it were. |
I think that paradox is part of what the artist is going for. an artist making transient art is having a laugh at museums in general, just like Duchamp did with his urinal. the picture we see of that cone is NOT the artwork itself, nor are any of the other attempts at documentation of transient art. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 01:13:01 PM · #16 |
Sometime in the late sixties, a friend of mine buried a role of film to see what it would look like if exposed to soil and elements over time. Both the idea and the physical result were rejected by each and every respectable institution responsible for the arts (Montreal, Que., Canada). Some images were eventually published in a small alternative arts magazine.
Why was this work rejected? While, as far as I know, the specific idea and application were new at the time, the concept of a) examining the effect of anything other than light on film had been done, and b) involving time beyond the instant of exposure required by conventional methods, i.e. in camera, had been done as well.
The period, of course, was an enlightened one -probably more so than the present- and chances that the piece was rejected simply because it was a little outlandish and unconventional, I believe, are quite slim.
Museums and (some) galleries, unfortunately or not, can't show everything good and noteworthy. They have fixed funds and limited available space. Their responsibility is to exhibit the most salient of work which is either their stated specialty or that which illuminates the development and direction of the course.
This would indicate that priority should be given to inventions, i.e. first known examples of a process, to the masters, i.e. to artists who combined a number of such processes and who used them as well or better than the inventors. If there is still space and money, curators may wish to also show what became of these beginnings, to provide, for example, characteristic works of a healthy period.
Some museums focus on cultural relevance, which is fine until, of course, we consider the present. When we set out to evaluate contemporary art, the trees are less distinguishable from the wood, since, in order to know what we're doing, we must also be able to tell an invention from the start of a craze, to tell the masters from the diluters and good art without salient qualities (like so much work preoccupied with a visual aesthetic) from those artists who specialized in a complete presentation of life in their period...
I'm beginning to sprawl here...
Given the task, would I show the piece? I'd be proud to. Would I award it solitary prominence? Njet. What should be interesting is to know what competing entries there were and if there could have been some potential for a unique context.
Message edited by author 2009-03-09 15:05:34. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 03:36:26 PM · #17 |
The history of the camera goes back centuries before the first photograph.
The first photographs were not permanent. Today's photographs last longer, but are still not permanent.
The gallery's choice was more obviously not-permanent this year than last.
I do not see how this pushes the boundaries of photography--instead, it tests our preconceived ideas of what a gallery should be doing as far as its responsibilities to its community.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 03:59:18 PM · #18 |
| Ce n'est pas un pipe. Primarily an idea. Reminds me of the yak butter sculptures, or sand paintings, or outrageous weddings, designed for the Rilkean "only once." Souvenirs, documentation (including photographs) really do miss the point. - Sometimes I think that museums, like zoos, are a testimony to the impoverishment of our present moment. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 04:08:27 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I do not see how this pushes the boundaries of photography--instead, it tests our preconceived ideas of what a gallery should be doing as far as its responsibilities to its community. |
That's a good point! There is, after all, nothing especially remarkable about the photograph itself, either technically or as an image, so what boundary is being tested? Certainly not a photographic one...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 04:12:40 PM · #20 |
What are the boundaries of photography? And how does a photographer push them?
Objectivity is impossible.
Truth is relative.
Every photograph is at best a misrepresentation.
A photograph is not primarily about the light, it's about a fleeting instant of time.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 04:12:55 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Ce n'est pas un pipe. |
As long as we're on *that* topic, LOL...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 04:22:11 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I do not see how this pushes the boundaries of photography--instead, it tests our preconceived ideas of what a gallery should be doing as far as its responsibilities to its community. |
That's a good point! There is, after all, nothing especially remarkable about the photograph itself, either technically or as an image, so what boundary is being tested? Certainly not a photographic one...
R. |
The first objective of any entity is to stay alive, so the gallery is trying to stay alive & in business any way it can, I guess. If it wanted to push some boundaries it would have to award prizes to photographs that haven't been taken yet. Or something.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 04:24:15 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
What are the boundaries of photography? And how does a photographer push them?
Objectivity is impossible.
Truth is relative.
Every photograph is at best a misrepresentation.
A photograph is not primarily about the light, it's about a fleeting instant of time. |
Exactly, photography is an art and as with any art, there are no boundaries. Unless you mean the limitations placed on photographers due to the fact that they have to use equipment instead of a paint brush, even so though, I believe there are ways around that. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 04:32:51 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by JEason:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
What are the boundaries of photography? And how does a photographer push them?
Objectivity is impossible.
Truth is relative.
Every photograph is at best a misrepresentation.
A photograph is not primarily about the light, it's about a fleeting instant of time. |
Exactly, photography is an art and as with any art, there are no boundaries. Unless you mean the limitations placed on photographers due to the fact that they have to use equipment instead of a paint brush, even so though, I believe there are ways around that. |
Not everone considers photography to be an art form.
Some photographers are dominated by the camera & lens. For them, photography has a boundary created by the traditional use of the equipment.
Some photographers are dominated by the subject of the photograph. These are the categories we use to sort photographs--Street, Landscape, Animal, Still Life, & Portrait photography. For them, photography has a set of boundaries created by their chosen subject.
These are 2 boundaries of photography I can think of right now. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 05:03:22 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by JEason:
Exactly, photography is an art and as with any art, there are no boundaries. Unless you mean the limitations placed on photographers due to the fact that they have to use equipment instead of a paint brush, even so though, I believe there are ways around that. |
I suppose that I like the idea that what we perceive as the boundaries of photography are shifting.
It reminds me of the whole digital manipulation debate using modern technology to make art of your photography. In the silver gelatin print example that  ubique has raised the artist is using old technology to bring a modern perspective to the exhibition.
I wonder if one day we see something like a tilt-shift time lapse photography displayed in a traditional exhibition.
To me it̢۪s refreshing to see the boundaries pushed or blurred to the extent that we can question our own attitude of what should be in a photography exhibition.
|
|
