Re: Re: More than 2¢ worth - much more
Judy Thanks for your insights into 'tampering' with photographs, and your history of a particular kind of writing about art - it was really interesting. You reminded me of my introduction to semiotics some 26 years ago - one of the most challenging periods of my life, but also one of the most productive learning times too. Thanks again Judy. Catherine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Re: More than 2¢ worth - much more > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Christina Z. Anderson wrote: > > >.... and even though tampering > > with photographs has been done since photography began, that does not make > > the concept any less important to teach to students. > > It's easy to lose sight of the fact that "tampering" is a very elastic > concept. Writing a few years ago about "Violating the Medium" (as the term > went in the days of Weston, Kirstein, et al) after exhaustive study of the > topic (that is, I was exhausted) I surmised that "tampering" was anything > not done to make the photo more "realistic." To "improve" contrast, color, > definition, grain, etc., using conventional post-camera "controls," was > expected. The same or similar to be "poetic" or "creative" was "violating > the medium." > > BUT.... > > > I continually feel frustrated when slugging through art history writings > (try > > Rosalind Krauss, for one) which use the word "trope" and "slippage" and > > "elide" and "hegemony" and blah blah blah--or artist statements that I read > > over and over and don't understand what the hell the artist is trying to say. > > Chris, here I think you elide two topics-- style & vocabulary. > > There was a style of writing popular in the '80s and early '90s, > influenced by, in fact imitating, semiotics, which was the rage (blame the > French -- where was Rumsfeld when we needed him?)... Even the course > descriptions in the ICP catalog were written in that jargon (quite > delicious actually, I wish I'd kept them). > > Donald Kuspit, Rosalind Krauss and Robert Pincus-Witten may have been the > champions (I clocked one 264 word Kuspit sentence in an old Artforum, of > which no more than 3 consecutive words made sense). But, as with most fads > in art, it eventually wore out and lo and behold, every one of them could > write a coherent sentence & often did. Kuspit, for instance, writes now > just like a regular person (that he's usually wrong is beside the point). > > But there's also specialized vocabulary that can be used badly (as can any > vocabulary), but used well enhances expression and concision. What would > you say for instance when you mean "trope" but "trope"? The closest my > (old) dictionary comes is "figure of speech," but that's lame. For > instance, when a T-shirt says, as Frank Rich recently wrote in the Times, > a propos of "voters of faith," that "all they got for their support of > Republicans in the previous election year was a lousy Bush Cheney > T-shirt," he's using a familiar format (I have about 6 variations, > beginning with "My mommy and daddy went to Florida but all I got was this > lousy T-shirt") best described as "trope." (Tropes are RAMPANT on > T-shirts, which feed off each other 24/7, and as I comment re a > particularly obscene one, which I will not quote for fear of folks > fainting at their monitors, finding a new one is like finding a new form > of clay tablet in Mesopotamia.) > > But your comments made me get out an old book -- "Artspeak" by Robert > Atkins [Abbeville,1990] which bills itself as A Guide to Contemporary > Ideas, Movements and Buzzwords. Flipping through now, I'm annoyed because > there is no contents or index entry for "buzz words," despite claim of the > cover, but was fascinated to find that about half of the "schools" and > artists are vanished (& not a moment too soon, mostly). I didn't buy the > book, it was sent to me, & MUCH more interesting now than then. But if > "hegemony" is used badly doesn't mean it's a bad word. (NPR does the > BBC at night, and -- do you know Brits pronounce it hedge-EH-mennee? Where > do they GET these ideas?) > > The artists' statements you complain about are probably just bad writing. > (When I was editing an artists' publication, and tried to nudge something > totally incoherent toward the light, the artist complained that I was > cramping her style, and if I were an artist I'd "understand" what she > meant. (The word for this is "narcissism.") > > Anyway, you can't expect every word in any specialty to be familiar. Art > words can be extremely useful in expressing abstractions or intangibles. > And, frankly, I'd expect they'd be just your meat... In fact I'd expect > you to compile and define them with good and bad examples. (And if not > you, who?) > > > But that doesn't make the message or the artwork any less valuable, merely > > frustrating to the uninitiated. > > So write the guide -- might count as "research." (Try "oneiric" heh heh!) > As noted, once semiotic-speak was passe, many of them (even Jeremy Gilbert > Rolfe) wrote English. > > cheers, > > Judy >
|