Re: Defining "post-modernism" -- WAS--- First define "post-modern"photography, dammit
>of "PM for Dummies" assignment. Wonder why there isn't a book called this?
Well there is a "Teach Yourself Postmodernism" which isn't bad, but the
book I recommend to all concerned in this thread is 'Postmodernism for
Beginners' by Richard Appignanesi and Chris Garratt, Icon Books,
Cambridge, 1995
ISBN 1-874166-21-8
Chris Garratt will be better known to some as "Biff".
Regards,
Peter
Peter Marshall - Photographer, Writer: NUJ
petermarshall@cix.co.uk +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
Re:PHOTO http://re-photo.co.uk
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......
Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
Good morning!!
Bob asked a good question, and seeing as not much posting on alt stuff
is happening as of late, so what if we muck up the airwaves with a
non-alt topic? But I will try and bring it back to alt at the end of
this epistle.
You all have given me an idea to assign a class--a sort of "PM for
Dummies" assignment. Wonder why there isn't a book called this?
I had to read my share of Pomo thought in grad school--paid my dues :)
Bob asked who are the top 5 postmodern photographers? That is a hard
question to answer, because there are MANY good ones, not because
postmodernism is hard to define. I bet if we all sat in a room with a
huge number of photographs we could easily pick out the PM ones from
the modernist ones.
For instance, I just juried a show in Casper WY and there was not a PM
photograph in the whole room. And there were some beautiful photographs.
The wrong attitude to take about PM is to think it is the ONLY way and
all modernist photographs are old fashioned, or that modernism is the
only way and all PM photographs suck.
I might suggest some (operative word SOME) simple hallmarks of
postmodern thought to add to the original query, knowing that when
truth and absolutes are up for grabs in PM thought, then it only
follows that so is PM:
1. Pictures can no longer be looked at as neutral--they exist in a
cultural context and as such should be viewed that way. This is the
political nature of pictures, which can carry hidden agendas. For
instance, lynching postcards that were handcolored and sent to Aunt
Mabel through the mail--check out Without Sanctuary. Postmodernism
attempt to decode the hidden cultural assumptions behind images like
these. Do I like it when PMers continually revise history? Not all the
time do I agree with their conclusions. Is it good to look at the
content behind the content? Yes.
2. Pictures can no longer be looked at as truth/be trusted. This to
me is a no-brainer. Even Dorothea Lange's migrant mother was
doctored, for goodness' sake! See
www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/ A whole group of
photographers began constructing realities instead of shooting what's
"out there", and I like this trend (think Crewdson, Philip Lorca
diCorcia, Gursky, etc.) However, it seems we are moving toward the
New Docugraphics in picture making that is less constructed and more
truthful. I am happy about that because that is my area so maybe I'll
be "discovered" heheheheh. See
http://artnewsonline.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2003
3. No absolute meaning or universal essence to be got at exists--each
culture has its own and those essences are shifting and changing. Do I
agree with this? Not all. I think they throw the baby out with the
bathwater (crass example--death is universal but I suppose attitudes
toward it are not).
4. The world isn't on this major trajectory to getting any better. I
certainly agree. Sounds like Jack F. does, too. But it ain't just
America going down the tubes.
5. The artist is not some great creative visionary (witness Levine
and Prince). I certainly agree. We are nothing but common laborers.
6. There are no distinct, sacrosanct categories of art and
culture--hence multimedia, appropriation, anything goes. I love this.
See my postmodernist work at
http://czaphotography.com/show.php?what=gallery&which=3 and guess
what, it is alt.
And as far as PM-alters for you: how about a lot of the photographers
in the revival of alt late 70's early 80's? How about Judy Seigel and
Carmen from this list, James Fee, a bunch of people in the Antiquarian
Avant Garde book (gorgeous) and James' Book of Alternative
Photographic Processes (new edition coming soon)? How about Adam Fuss
and his daguerreotype Vulva series? I saw them at the Corcoran and
they are gorgeous, actually.
I see Pomo in commercial photography, too--abject beauty, soiled
beauty. Heck, Irving Penn did this decades ago. Marilyn Minter's work
is gorgeous, IMHO, and she's signed on to do some fashion photography
in that vein.
There are some who are saying we're now post-postmodern....but THAT'S
another can of worms!
I'll stop here
Chris
|