U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Defining "post-modernism" -- WAS--- First define "post-modern"pho

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