For September 13th

The overarching theme of all of these articles is what really defines the period of art making that we find ourselves in at this particular moment, seeing as the term “Contemporary Art” seems to leave even the most indifferent person unsatisfied, and what this period means for photography, specifically.  No longer are there distinctive groups of artist writing manifestos and following certain mediums and stylistics structures.  Gone are the days of an overarching art movement.  To me, what we are left with now is a conglomeration of both old and new techniques, styles and thoughts. 

             But I get ahead of myself. 

            The first article I read was the review written by Noam Leshem and Lauren A. Wright.  They reviewed both Michael Fried’s book Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before and Ariella Azoulay’s book The Civil Contract of Photography. 

First I tried to identify the questions behind these book reviews, which are:

1.     What does it mean to look at a photograph?

2.     What is our role as spectators and how are we to perform it?

According to Michael Fried, the key to understanding photography now lies in the beginning of Modern painting with Manet’s famous portrait Olympia.  Here, the subject of the painting faces the viewer straight on, which would normally fall under Fried’s category of Theatricality, which is art that calls attention to itself directly to the viewer making it easier to be taken in by the piece, but this painting does not because of the flatness of its dimensionality.  In other words, because of its’ lack of illusion of three dimensional space, Olympia’s attention to the viewer actually distances the viewer from the painting, making it fall under Fried’s other category, Absorbtion, which allows the viewer to examine the details within a work because the piece is self-containing and thus ignores the existence of the viewer.  

            He goes onto say that this is the same tactic being used by photographers today, and that it creates a mental distance between the viewer and image where the viewer can “absorb” details and experience the aesthetics of the photograph.  One of his main examples was the combined photographs of Jeff Wall.  According to Fried, the highly complex amount of detail in Wall’s photographs does not allow any viewer to identify with the image as a whole, but does leave room for other types of mental engagement.  And, I guess as far as aesthetics go, this is a pretty interesting analysis of the viewing of a photograph, but leaves one feeling a little less than involved in the viewing process.

            While the writers of the article have a strained agreement with Fried’s beliefs, they write that his argument of viewing as an aesthetic experience only falls apart when it comes to politically charged, violent or other ethic questioning photographs, and I would have to agree.  According to the writers, and also my brain, to claim that all photographs have to do is be viewed and require nothing else, means to take away the voice of the millions of people it could possibly and usually does portray.

            And ok, maybe I over exaggerated there, but it seems to me that a photograph like this one from Todd Maisel just has more to do with a horrible and emotional REACTION rather than aesthetics.  

At this point the writers introduce Azoulay’s book.  In it, Azoulay claims that a photograph should be considered as a “civil space” where there is a contract between the viewer and the image, in which the viewer is called into action.  This “call to action” places a responsibility on the viewer to recognize the need in others and to try and fulfill that need.   I believe it’s these types of photographs that actually stick with us from day to day.  I can pretty much guarantee you that the works of art you continue to remember are not the ones that were visually pleasing, but the ones that hit you in the emotional gut, and to me, that makes art much more powerful than it might otherwise have been.

The second article I read was Alexander Alberro’s response to the question of “What defines this period of “Contemporary Art” and what is the cause of it?  Basically, Alberro begins by marking the “Contemporary” as a period, as one might mark the Modern as a period.  He then goes on to talk about how he believes that artists are working with and in response to:  globalization, new technology, the recontextualizing of the Avant-Garde, philosophical aesthetics and the consequences of these listed items.  Overall, these responses have come to loosely define his Contemporary period. 

For me, one of the more interesting parts of the article was the bit on globalization.  Having grown up in a world connected, I have not spent much time thinking about the results, both negative and positive, of this globalization at all, much less in the art world.  One of the more dominant outcomes of the globalization of the art world is the development of large, temporary art exhibitions (fairs, biennials, etc.).  These exhibitions are considered to be either the breeding ground of institutionalized and commoditized art sales or a place for the “enlightened debates” on the art and culture of today.  Really though, the identity of these exhibitions lies in both definitions. 

The last article I read was Contemporary Art and Contemporaneity by Terry Smith.  Here again we are looking at what defines Contemporary art.  On the surface, Smith writes that Contemporary Art expands, challenges and responds to the thoughts and ideas of Modern Art.  However, he does stop there.  Smith goes on to explain that Contemporary Art avoids definition because there are several definitions that are individually true, but once together they are all contradictory.  However, he notes that there does seem to be four main themes with which artists work:

1.     Time

2.     Place

3.     Mediation

4.     Mood

He then goes onto say that these themes might better be named in such a way to call attention to the strangeness occurring in our lives and thus coming forth in art practices and pieces.  For instance:

1.     Altertemporatlity

2.     Dislocation

3.     Transformativity within the hyperreal

4.     Altercation of affect/effectivity

For Smith though, what lies at the heart of Contemporaneity are multeity, altertemporality and inequity.  These are what makes an overarching term impossible to manage because beyond these terms there is nothing else, for these are not the symptoms of the times, they are the times. Here are some examples of works that Smith uses to illustrate his point on these three terms.

Mark Lombardi, "World Finance Corporation and Associates"

Mary Kelly, "Mea Culpa"

Félix González-Torres, "Portrait of Ross"

                        So my question then is does Smith believe that there ever will be a definitive term for our contemporary art period?  I really do not think that he believes that their will be, but I think that it is ridiculous to believe that something can be defined before it has had a chance to become history.  To try and define something as complex as art as it begins to exist seems to be a bit absurd.  I believe that this art period will be defined, just in its’ own time.