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.
No comments:
Post a Comment