Re: First define "post-modern" photography, dammit
Self-absorbed artwork which mocks its subject and celebrates its own iconoclastic cleverness is often labelled postmodernist. I don't know how it is defined curatorially - probably anything considered too late for the MOMA. One of the attractions of photography (after its obvious appeal to anyone who can't draw) is that it is inherently grounded, which makes wanksterism pretty hard to disguise. For example you can't really create postmodernist documentary photography unless you pull a stunt like paying some actors to pose as real people, and then it becomes another category of photography which says nothing unless it deceives us. Conversely, using the conventions and techniques of fashion photography to portray the victims of some terrible inhumanity can't help but engage us with the subject, even if we are conscious of the artifice (punctum et studium). We should be glad about this characteristic of photography as a counter to the pernicious effects of the PM movement. One of the consequences of mocking everything is to create a vacuum, into which are drawn all sorts of fanatical secular missionaries and other crackpots, some of whom we see grabbing the headlines. Photography, with its ability to record and convey the disinfecting power of sunlight, can help in outing them and exposing their pranks. On the other hand photography lends itself to the deconstructionist function that is PM's only real accomplishment. Muybridge may have been the first PM artist. To offer a (diffident) answer to your question, perhaps Jerry Burchfield's lumen prints can be called PM alt. As I understand it he sets botanical specimens on the deck of his boat under the sun for hours interacting with expired monochrome paper to produce unexpected colours and shapes. He seems to catch digital pictures of them, so I wonder if the effect is transitory. Also there is the Saul Bolanos coffee picture technique, which produces drinkable images. Surely that's PM. Don Sweet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:46 AM Subject: Re: First define "post-modern" photography, dammit > FINALLY some conversation about Bob's question. Good to see. > > If you compare Eggleston to Weston, for instance, you can see very much so > the postmodern aesthetic at work. And, from what I understand, the umbrella > term "postmodern" doesn't mean that they have to have anything in common. > > Hmmm....I wonder if Weston's toilet could be considered "postmodern", or his > nude in gas mask.. > > I agree Jeff Wall is boring. > > I think a lot of the postmodernists threw beauty out with the bathwater > which is my big complaint. > > Oh, there is one guy I love nowadays--Steven Smith. He does a sort of New > Topographics but it is beautiful--construction sites, large format BW, > vacant and existential, a bit of humor, but really beautifully composed > work. > > Sherry Levine is my epitome of YUKKKKKK. I mean, her idea may be great but > that is it! Well, if that is my standard then I should take Prince off my > list. Oh heck, see, if there are no absolutes in pm thought, then I can > have these two conflicting opinions at once, so there. > > I love Richard Hamilton--he did postmodern works in the 50's. > > Oh, there is one guy I love nowadays--Steven Smith. He does a sort of New > Topographics but it is beautiful--construction sites, large format BW, > vacant and existential, a bit of humor, but really beautifully composed > work. They grow on you. Jeff Wall doesn't grow on me. > > I personally love Eggleston and Christenberry, but I think they are a lot > harder to "get" than others. But so was Shore when he first started showing > his work. > > A more interesting question, to me, is, who would you put on your list as > postmodern and alt? > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com> > To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:35 PM > Subject: First define "post-modern" photography, dammit > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Christina Z. Anderson wrote: > > > >> I can't pick my top five but I will give you some ideas. Cindy Sherman, > >> Richard Prince, Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Candida Hofer, New Topographics, > >> I love Robert Frank, William Eggleston, Christenberry, Stephen Shore. > >> Also Nan Goldin, I love Gursky's work, Mike and Doug Starn, Loretta Lux, > >> Simen Johan, Malerie Marder, a bunch of the women out of Yale, it goes > >> on, but this is a start. > >> Chris > > > > I agree with Chris about many (tho NOT all) of these photographers... tho > > I cannot stop myself from saying that I lack words to say how dumb dumb > > dumb R. Prince... but that's not why I'm writing, which is to wonder why > > Robert Frank, William Eggleston, William (?) Christenberry and even > > Stephen Shore are considered Post-Modern. > > > > I see Robert Frank as a classic photographer, closer to Walker Evans than > > Richard (ugh!) Prince. The only thing "post-modern" I can find about Wm > > Eggleston is that he did it in color, shocking to some -- until Szarkowski > > made color photography kosher, so to speak. > > > > But then I'm still waiting for someone to define post-modern photography, > > unless that's done chronologically-- "Post-modern" being anything after > > such and such a date. Otherwise... what for instance would Robert Frank > > have in common with, say, Cindy Sherman? (whom I do in fact see as > > "post-modern," one of the first perhaps). > > > > Then, tho I find Loretta Lux delightful, I could just as well put her with > > some of the English ladies of the 19th century who played those kinds of > > games with figures. > > > > etc. > > > > Oh and PS: I may be too stupid to continue living, but I do not think I > > have ever in my 199 years on this earth seen a more pointless over > > belabored photograph than the productions of Jeff Wall. They manage > > however to be so inane while being so humongously produced that the "pony > > effect" cuts in.... By "pony effect" I mean the story with the punch line > > "with all that xxxxxxxx there must be a pony in there somewhere." > > > > Judy > > >
|