Is Photography Over?

In response to the incredibly broad question, "Is Photography Over?", titling the symposium organized by SFMOMA, I will begin by questioning the definitions of "photography" and "over", which most panel members questioned as well. The question can relate to a number of interpretations. The photograph is understood by the majority to be a still, visual representation of a part of that which exists / existed that is used for a number of reasons. A photograph is primarily used for functional, utilitarian purposes. The photograph recognized by the art world is an incredibly small minority within the larger phenomena.

What needs to be recognized, which Phillip-Lorca diCorcia addresses, is how the photograph effects the emotions of the consumer based on the idea that it is the most accurate visual representation of reality. While photography does not, and has never, held a 100% indexical trace to reality and has always been prone to manipulation, to the consumer, it does have that indexical trace. When the photograph is in accompaniment with the general consumer's memory of the person or event documented in the image, the photograph becomes entirely indexical because manipulation is irrelevant. If the photograph is only being used to better remember something, there is no need to manipulate. In this sense, photography is not over but will always be around. One will always want an object of representation in connection with their own memory. Even an art photographer will want a photograph of their baby to remember how cute it was before turning into a teenager. For the utilitarian and functional purposes of photography, this question is similar to "Are Automobiles Over?" (or as Peter Galassi compares it to plumbing or language). While technology will change what it looks like, the purpose will always remain.

Here is a photograph that I took to remember when my good friend climbed up this structure for no logical reason. My impulse to take this photograph was based on my reaction to this, slightly out of the ordinary event that was humorous to the three of us here, and that we may want to have a visual to our memory of it. This could be a composite image of something that never actually happened. The viewer does not know, but because I intend for the primary viewers of this image to be myself, the climber, and the girl watching, the question of indexicality is no longer relevant. The photograph is serving its function as a document of reality that I will hopefully still have in years to come. 

Even though the question is incredibly broad, being that it is in an art institution, I am going to assume that we are talking about the photograph as an art medium. Regarding functionality, art photography is to general consumer photography just as sculpture is to general consumer architecture. Lets observe:

sculpture

consumer architecture

art photograph

consumer photograph

The vast differences seen here between a Richard Serra sculpture and an ordinary, general consumer model home go far beyond the differences between the Phillip-Lorca diCorcia image of the mailman and the general consumer mailman image. DiCorcia's photograph is of course significantly different than a general consumer image of the mailman. While the sculpture is still a constructed object, the vast differences between the general consumer use of a constructed object, has resulted in the sculpture taking on the term sculpture and not a form of architecture. While they are still slightly related they are incredibly different.

Philip-Lorca diCorcia's photograph is incredibly different from the general consumer photograph, but there are still too many similarities. The fact that they are both considered photographs makes them too similar. I will agree with Charlotte Cotton when she states that "photography is what it used to be - that's what's wrong with it". While art photography has laid a solid foundation, it is time to go further. Photography is not over but has just tested the waters and is ready to jump right in. Will it still continue to keep the term "photography", not necessarily, but does that even matter? Maybe it will be called something like imagery? or visual art?

is this photography?

is this photography?

is this photography?

does it matter?

We are now being faced with a question of medium specificity. I will have to agree with much of what was stated by Walead Beshty, George Baker, and Trevor Paglen. Institutional art is moving into a post-medium age, which can, in some ways, be linked to the rapid technological advances taking place within contemporary culture. Around the 23 minute mark on day 1 part 2 of the symposium, Beshty begins to describe the "medium" and that in posing arguments about the ontological identity creates a divide constructed by primarily historians and critics, not practitioners, within art. Beshty refers to this idea as an "institutional wound". Joel Snyder asks his graduate class if they are photographers or artists. It is not one or the other, it is both. It has always been both. We are just now starting to realize it.

The rendering of light through technological devices is advancing closer and closer to how the human eye renders. It is entirely possible that in the near future we will have the technology to make a photograph on an iphone that renders light in the same way it was originally seen. Craft, alone, is no longer interesting because it is so accessible. What is beneficial now is that because of this accessibility  the idea of the artist is now being presented in a much more fitting way. It is now necessary to determine if the medium is most fitting to the subject or message being presented within the art. We have never seen a culture where craft and the multiplicity of images is so easily accessible. I believe that this may be one of the most exciting times in history to be an artist and an even better time to be working with photographic images.

Can a photograph tell a story?

In the review of the four books, A Vision of Paris by Eugene Atget, A Life of Photography by Edward Steichen, The World Through My Eyes by Andreas Feininger, and Photographs by Cartier-Bresson, Clement Greenberg writes that the art of photography has only been successful if it tells a story leaving the pictorial aspects as secondary. Greenberg starts by referring to Atget as the "complete photographer". Atget was interested in the identity of the subject in which he photographed. Greenberg states that any "pictorialism" within Atget's work was came as a result from his interest in capturing the identity of the subject.

Greenberg continues by addressing the work of Edward Steichen, specifically one photograph towards the end of the book in which a woman's arms are raised from behind a large stone. In Greenberg's description and criticism of the work, I was confused. Here Greenberg is describing the photograph as having a story of "life verses trimmed and carved stone" yet goes on to write that because of this story it "cancels out artiness". Is this "artiness", that Greenberg refers to, a positive or negative term? Is this "artiness" referring to the image as having any artistic value or referring to a purely formal / abstract composition (which Greenberg discusses in the following paragraph)?

In the next portion, Greenberg discusses Andreas Feininger. It is in this section that Greenberg states that photography has the advantage of the speed, in which to represent realism, over painting. Where painting can achieve realism as, if not more, accurately than photography, the photographer has the advantage of being able to experiment with much more ideas and aesthetics from the quick process of making a photograph.

John Szarkowski has very different ideas as to what photography, as an art medium, is. He addresses this in five different points:

The Thing Itself
Szarkowski addresses that once a subject is photographed, it is transformed from reality to the intent of the photographer. In taking the picture, the photographer is keeping the final result in mind. The subject and the photograph itself are entirely different. Szarkowski states that the problem lies in the general publics notions of photography representing the truth. This idea is saying that what we may have overlooked in the everyday, the camera has captured the generally unseen, only for us (the viewers) to see the image,  and reminisce on the actuality of the situation which we missed the first time around. This is an illusion of realism.

The Detail
In this section, Szarkowski very literally argues that photography cannot tell a story. He refers photography as being a medium that symbolizes, not tells, the truth. If a symbol is an abstract form relying on human interpretation to give it significance, then this statement is in partial opposition of Greenberg's statement, "the purely formal or abstract is a threat to the art of photography." It is not a complete opposition in that the symbolization is generally not a pure abstraction. Traditional photographs generally use identifiable objects, people, and environments to be displayed within the frame. Because of this general notion, the photograph is not a pure abstraction because there are identifiable symbols and icons (as in a representation that is universally recognized as opposed to culturally) that comprise the image. If an image is then made up of icons and symbols that can be easily understood then the photograph, as the overall symbol, is abstract but not to a point of dismissal.

The Frame
Szarkowski describes the actual framing of an image as transforming it from what the actuality of the situation was. He refers to choosing two people within a large crowd. When photographed in a single frame, even if those two people don't know each other, the viewer sees a previously unseen relationship between the two, even if that relationship was nonexistent to begin with.

Time
Szarkowski draws attention to the fact that photography only displays short slivers of time.

Vantage Point
In this section, Szarkowski states that photographs give the viewer an idea or sense of the scene but "withhold[s] its narrative meaning". He does not write a whole lot about the vantage point while it seems as though there is a great deal that can be said about it. By photographing from a specific point, giving a specific perspective, even if the photograph was to display a narrative, it would be in the eye of the photographer. The narrative would be a first-person story not to the truth of what is being shown, but only to the truth as the photographer sees it.

This idea of "vantage point" can be considered in relation to Ariella Azoulay's recent article in Aperture about the work of Aim Deuelle Luski. Luski makes cameras while trying to remove the "vantage point". The artist does this by creating ways of making an exposure while leaving much up to chance. By creating cameras with multiple apertures to expose the film at the same time, the result is one not entirely of the photographers choice while not entirely by chance. The photographer still chooses when and where to expose but does not have control over the composition of the frame. Azoulay describes this vantage point as being the photographers "ownership" over the image. The work of Luski is attempting to break that ownership. If this attempt is successful then any sort of narrative that may be represented in the photograph is no longer held in a first person perspective, but more so in a third person perspective.

Week 11: Systems

In the essay "Systems Everywhere" the work of the New Topographics photographers is examined according to the systems theory, which puts the importance or meaning of something on the relation of multiple parts as opposed to each individual part holding its own. The first two systems we are presented with are the natural ecological system and the "broken system" of the human-altered landscape. The natural ecological system is structured around a recycling process: plants that intake oxygen and generate carbon-dioxide help feed the plants which intake carbon-dioxide and generate oxygen. We are presented with Robert Smithson's view of the "broken system" of the human altered landscape, which is addressing that man has not followed the natural system and is creating without regarding what will happen to the waste. This broken system is significantly enhanced by the industrial age and consumerism of a capitalist nation. The first example we see in the New Topographics, holding these ideas of systems in regard, is Robert Adams' Mobile Homes, Jefferson County, Colorado, 1973. The New Topographics photographers are looking at the systems of a human-altered landscape.

We then move onto the aesthetic of the images. In comparison with more traditional landscape photographers such as Ansel Adams, the New Topographics systematic aesthetic does not direct attention to each individual photograph but to the work as a whole. At first, one could regard this approach similar to Michael Fried's ideas about theatricality, but because unlike Ansel Adams' highly pictorial images of places most people were not familiar with at the time, the New Topographics look at what the mass majority was familiar with. Because of this we could relate the systematic aesthetic approach of the New Topographics photographs back to Hegel and his theories of true infinite.

I have made this graph that I think may be a visual representations of one of the systems involved in this work. As we can see, the photos are made using the landscape, the photos are presented to the viewer, who lives in the human altered landscape. I think that this can be related to Hegel's true infinite in that the viewers are connected in infinite ways to each other and the environment. These connections can be observed through the systematic aesthetics of the New Topographics.

Week 10: Photography's Expanded Field

In this essay, George Baker presents us with an idea that photography has expanded beyond its modernist idea of the photographic object. Baker is claiming that photography is becoming a much more expanded medium similar to the idea of sculpture as an expanded medium, primarily written about in Rosalind Krauss' "Sculpture in the Expanded Field".  Baker starts his claim by addressing that while modernist photography strived to be an art of pure visual stasis, it failed to ever do so. While the modernist photograph attempted to provide a narrative it would never be able to do that based on the stasis nature of the object. Baker goes on to claim that if modernist photography is not stasis and not narrative, then there must be not only an inverted form, which would connect narrative and stasis, but there also must be forms that connect both narrative and not narrative, stasis and not stasis.

Baker uses Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills as an example of an art being stasis and not stasis simultaneously. This is found through Sherman using the photograph to display a stasis moment taken from a narrative, more specifically: a film. It is stasis in that it is addressing a stopped moment, while not stasis in that the stopped moment is from a film which is an art of almost pure narrativity.

We are then to look at the other side of the graph which would be an art that is both narrative and not narrative. The work of James Coleman, which are projections of stills taken from films, are seen as fitting to this claim. Narrative in that these are images taken from a film, but not narrative in that we are not watching a film but are watching a single image taken from it.

At the top of the graph, being an art of both narrative and stasis is the work of Jeff Wall. His work is stasis in that through the use of the lightbox, Wall is drawing attention to the photograph as being a physical art object, similar to that of a painting. While Wall is drawing attention to the physicality of the art object, the content within the image are mostly narratives. We can find the content as being narrative in that there is, most often, some sort of situation that seems to be paused. It is usually very easy to see that there is a story or an event that has the illusion of taking place as the photograph is being taken.

While Bakers ideas of the expanded fields of contemporary photography seem to be accurate, I start to question where Paul Graham's A Shimmer of Possibility falls into.

Pittsburgh (Man Cutting Grass), 2004, from A Shimmer of Possibility

Graham's first edition (published 2007) is comprised of 12 individually bound chapters. In each of these chapters we see a sequencing of images which, because of the similarities in visual aesthetic, are viewed as the passing of time of one event. In an interview with Aperture magazine, Graham addresses that he often examines the very nature of photography, "End of an Age alternates between sharp and blurry photos, so that considers focus; American Night has very light and dark pictures, so that deals with light intensity-aperture; and shimmer uses stuttering single frames, so that reflects upon time frozen or flowing through the camera shutter."

Page Spreads from "Texas" chapter of A Shimmer of Possibility

One can see the idea of the photograph as multiple images as opposed to only one image of a certain scenario, but there is something else going on here. From viewing the "Texas" chapter of the book, it appears as though Graham is following two people, one of which carrying two cases of Pepsi. It appears as though Graham followed them home, photographing them along the way, while also becoming distracted by other surroundings along the way. Between the 2nd and 3rd spreads, this idea of becoming distracted seems to be the case. In the 2nd spread the two appear to be walking uphill on a old sidewalk, the 3rd appears to be a view looking downhill on what appears to be the same sidewalk. The two continue to walk past a graveyard. Apparently there was not too many distractions here except for the graveyard, which appears to be in focus in one of the images. Then finally the two continue into a neighborhood, where at one point Graham seems to position the camera facing away from the road but into someone's yard where we see two children playing. The two carrying the groceries continue on until Graham stops and the two continue off into the distance. 

How can we interpret this body of work according to the claims of George Baker? I do not think that this work would fall into the category of in between narrative and not narrative, just as I do not believe it would fall into the category of in between stasis and not stasis. This work is both stasis and narrative, but may even be more than that. Is it possible that this body of work can be found in the center of Bakers graph?

Using the "Texas" chapter as an example, here are reasons why I believe this work may be able to fit in between all four categories-

Narrative - There is a sequence of images displaying what appears to be an progression of time over an event (the two people with groceries walking) through visual motifs, i.e., lighting, surroundings, subjects. 

Not Narrative - While we are seeing an event take place over time, we are not certain of the event. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of narrative begins with "An account of a series of events, facts, ect.". This is not a narrative because we do not have all of the facts. We assume these people have just gone grocery shopping and are now walking home, but we never see them leave the grocery store and we never see them go into a home.

Stasis - These are still, photographic images. If Graham was solely interested in the event happening over the period of time, he would have used a video camera. There is a reason that these are still images in sequential order as opposed to a seamless succession of the event. 

Not Stasis - There is a sequence of images we are watching, similar to that of a film. One can flip through the book and watch these images in a forward or backward sequence, so the element of motion is present. 

George Baker's theories about the expanded fields of contemporary photography and his Klein group graph were published in October in Fall 2005 and Paul Graham's A Shimmer of Possibility was not published until October 2007. I would be very interested to see if this work has modified or verified Baker's theories.

Week 9

Response to Lev Manovich reading:

Lev Manovich brings up some interesting ideas in this essay on new media in regards to the internet. Manovich first gives the idea of contemporary digital social media as being considered "Web 2.0". His idea of "Web 2.0" Manovich writes that what we are now seeing, because of web 2.0, is a much larger amount of people accessing content that is made by non professionals. He also describes web 2.0 in showing the statistics of people using social networking software.

What I found most interesting about this article was when Manovich described the shifts happening in human tactics and corporate strategies. He gives a really good example describing the two. Strategy would be a government designing a city plan and giving the streets different names, while tactics would be each individual human finding shortcuts in those streets, or finding the route that works best for them. Strategy is clothing designers making clothes for people to wear, while tactics is the human choosing how to mix and match those clothes. Manovich uses this idea and argues that tactics are now shaping strategy. Massive corporations such as Google and Facebook only exist because of the tactics of people and are only continuing to survive based on what the consumer wants. If the consumer wants what the massive corporation cannot provide, it is much easier and faster to receive that want from another source.

While this idea trend started happening in digital culture, we are now seeing it in a physical sense as well. Manovich addresses popular sneaker companies allowing the consumer to customize the sneaker they are buying. He also addresses that there are now markets for what used to be youth subcultures. 

He continues by writing about conversations through media and concludes his essay asking a pretty open-ended question: "Is Art after Web 2.0 Still Possible?" He quickly addresses that with all the money invested in the market of contemporary art, it is unlikely that it will ever collapse. I suppose I would have to agree with Manovich in that I really do not think that modernist art will ever be destroyed by any sort of technology. Something that I have been wanting to further research is the relationship between modern art and mass media culture. I hope to believe that modernist art is one of its own entity. Something that is outside of any sort of corporate controlled economy flow. I hope to believe that while looking for the source any industry, trend, technology, the source always ends up being a money hungry mega corporation, modernist art is at the opposite end of the spectrum. I think a question to ask is not "is art possible after web 2.0?" but "how will web 2.0 influence art?"

Response to Jason Evans reading:

In the reading done by Jason Evans, I was initially a bit surprised in his statement "I am underwhelmed by photography's presence online and the lack of innovative explorations of the new medium." He begins to back up his statement by addressing his creation of websites like TheDailyNice.com and a newer TheNewScent.com. He wrote about how it is only through the use of the internet that he is able to make the work that he wants to while reaching a newer and larger audiences. It is all very affordable also, he refers to the idea that he does not have to make any coffee table books. 

Evans continues by addressing how photographers today were brought up or educated in a way that makes the photograph more than the image but an object itself. "The prospect of all of those uncalibrated monitors is going to be a turn-off for any photographer who has labored with specific tools and palettes to produce particular effects." I dont necessarily think that what Evans is saying here is that all of photography should no longer be focused on the object, only the image, but that he is saying that one would expect there to be more focus on projects only about the image by now. 

We are very slowly starting to see web based art projects, many of which seem to be nothing more than experimentation into unknown territory. This internet and digital culture, in general, is foreign to us. We have entered into an age where physical attributes of an object are now a variable that an artist can choose or not choose to use. One reason to this slow process is because this seems to be one of the largest culture shifts since, quite possibly, the industrial revolution. Maybe we just expect things to happen much more quickly and easily now, the internet is certainly providing "quick-and-easiness" for everything else. What are we supposed to do here? Create websites that have no utilitarian function? Create odd or abstract gif images? Create online galleries? What does this mean? What is the purpose of presenting an art online as opposed to in the physical world? How can we use this new communication tool, this networking tool, this "thing" that only uses sight and sound? This is an incredibly exciting time. So much uncharted territory.

Response to Susan Murray reading:

The article written by Susan Murray is primarily focused on the website, Flickr, and how that has influenced amateur digital photography. I think that her main concern in what Flickr is doing to modern photographers is that it is making it much more difficult to distinguish the hobbyist, the serious-amateur, and the professional. She states "the amateur and professional become virtually indistinguishable in their interaction in the comments section". I don't understand why this idea of what Flickr is doing with amateur photography is really that relevant. Why are we concerned with the indistinguishability between amateur and professional on an amateur photo sharing site? Its a general assumption that anyone can upload a photo to Flickr in less than 10 seconds. Anything that is that easy has very little to no credibility. My question is why are professionals even concerned with Flickr at all? 

Week 7

Response to Ritchin

Ritchin does not necessarily oppose the digital, he is only suggesting that it is different. The change into digital is changing what a photograph actually is. One of Ritchin's observations is that with digital media, the sequencing of the media is lost. "In digital media...no two people will necessarily read the same words in a book, listen to the same music, or experience a film or photo essay in the same sequence." I don't exactly understand what he is talking about here. Is he making predictions of the future here, or is he talking about the present? If he is talking about the present, this is nothing but an opinion, that he backs with no evidence, that does not seem valid. Reading is still sequential whether it is on a page or a book, films are still watched from start to finish, and photo essays are still just as easy to skip around on a webpage as pages in a book. I can only agree with his statement about CDs and iPods. 

Later on in the chapter, Ritchin addresses a previous media change, radio to television, and what that looked like in the beginning. He is saying that photography is still in the beginning stages of the digital conversion and that mostly digital technology is not doing much more than mimicking analog technology. 

Response to Ribalta,

From what I understood of Ribalta's writings is that the photograph used to be used as a way of depicting reality. Through the "digital revolution" it is stepping further and further away from being realistic. When the photograph used to be a representation of reality, now it can only be an idea of a representation of reality. Photography is not to be considered as documentary or fictional, but is to be found somewhere in between. 

Response to Dzenko

Dzenko is taking the same idea that was presented earlier in the Ritchin reading in describing how digital photography, presently, is still being used very similarly to analog photography. Artists are still using this perception of a photograph as an index to their advantage. While a photograph may not necessarily be depicting a real event, it still has a general implication of realism. Though it will probably happen some day, photographs still maintain a general realistic quality. Dzenko describes the work of Starbakka, Even though Starbakka is using multiple images and composing one, because of the scale and perception of the objects within the frame, the photo appears as though it is real. We see a bit of an opposite aesthetic in Ben Gest's work, which intentionally plays with the perspective of the composited image.

It seems that after all of this reading, the main issue is photography and its relation to realism. I guess I don't really understand why this is even being addressed at all. The notion of photography portraying that which is real, has been in question for long before digital came into question. I found a quote by Garry Winogrand, "putting four edges around a collection of information or facts transforms it." (http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/12/theory-garry-winogrand-differing.html) Now that digital manipulation is an option in photography, I think that the medium has a lot more potential now. Photography never depicted the absolute truth, digital has just made the medium less deceiving. 

Week 6 Responses

Azoulay Response-

To begin Azouay's writings about Gillian Laub's photographs, Azoulay describes two works Laub had made prior to the Testimony series. Through referencing these two images, Azoulay addresses Laubs use of objects and accessories as visual motifs which allow the spectator to better identify the subject within the image. Azoulay suggests that through Laub's photographing subjects at the beach, which is generally a place where the subject is stripped from most accessories of identification, there are still visual signs that imply certain characteristics about the subject such as "social, cultural, or economic class".

Azoulay uses these examples to better give a better understanding to her thoughts on Testimony. In this series, often there are images of pairs of seemingly similar subjects. Although these subjects seem similar at first, the spectator then starts to notice the visual motifs that implies that the two subjects are incredibly separate. The separation is through one having seen the reality of death. 

Azoulay continues to describe the notion of citizenship once more. In doing so, she describes that in any image containing the Israeli Jews, every object is filled with politics and that nothing is neutral. Azoulay is using this idea to parallel the images of the Testimony series. The labeling of a reoccurring theme of "friend and foe" that Azoulay pointed out along with the notion that one can only see these "sides" as fantasy, was a very unique interpretation of the images which seem to present this idea in an incredibly subtle way. 

With this body of work, and many others, I start to question if the artist has some sort of agenda or objective. Are we, as viewers, meant to understand the truth of the matter within the image? When Azoulay is describing Loub's image of her grandfather and his gold accessories, are we supposed to use those to understand a sort of truth who he is? With the images of the pairs, are we supposed to understand who these people are? Is the understanding of some sort of personal identification of the subject necessary, or, like the gold chain as the accessory of the old man, are we meant to view the subjects and their individuality as visual accessories to an overall concept to the work?

Response to Reinhardt-

In the first section of Reinhardt's essay, the main idea that is being addressed is the first section, is that of the effects of pictures containing human suffering through dissemination. Reinhardt describes the effects on opposite ends of the spectrum. He begins by writing that because of the American media and government, representations of the individual suffering of war are often unseen or not accurate. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the dissemination of pictures of containing vivid representations of suffering, the dignity of the subject or the group or culture affiliated with, suffers injury. 

It is a complex problem. Through the attempts of the government and the American media to keep images of torture from being presented to the public, the ones that do filter through receive a great deal of attention resulting in the humiliation of the detainees and the detainers. The widespread images, specifically the image of the detainee at Abu Ghraib, fulfills the initial intent in taking the picture (the humiliation of prisoner) while, paradoxically, makes the pubic aware of the inhumane actions done by American soldiers. 

In the second section of the essay, Reinhardt further elaborates on the question and concern of aestheticization. The section went back to philosophies by Jerome Stolnitz who described the "aesthetic attitude" as "we pay attention to a thing simply for the way it looks or sounds or feels" and of Marcia Muelder Eaton who wrote "delight in what resides intrinsically in something is a mark of the aesthetic generally". It is in this section the Reinhardt is questioning the relationship between visual aesthetic and the subject within the frame. He addresses the question that if images containing subjects experiencing human suffering, are created primarily for pleasure, then the photography as a tool for social justice would be completely ineffective. 

James Nachtwey and his images of Sudan are brought to attention in questioning if the visual aesthetic of his images conflict with the explicit content. With this in mind, I start to question Luc Delahaye's images. Do Delahaye's images have the same aesthetic concern as the images of Nachtwey?

Luc Delahaye Dead Taliban Fighter

In bringing up the events of September 11, 2001, Reinhardt addresses images relating to the incident by both Joel Meyerowitz and Thomas Ruff. Where Joel Meyerowitz was granted access to Ground Zero, Thomas Ruff simply appropriated imagery of the Associated Press. While Meyerowitz's images provoke "retinal excitement" and address the events specifically, Ruff's work is not exactly addressing the specific event as he is addressing the response to the event by the public.

Joel Meyerowitz North Tower and Woolworth Building

Thomas Ruff jpeg ny01

Reinhardt moves on to discuss the concern of beauty within images of suffering. From what I understood of Danto's theories, the response that one has differs, depending on if they are part of the situation of suffering, or viewing it in a different time and place. It might be considered acceptable, in viewing human suffering, to accept that the viewer is already outside of the situation, therefore can observe it to a much greater extent than if they were in the situation, in which case there would be larger concerns to address than the beauty of it. 

Shimone Attie Steinstrasse 22 (Berlin)

The works of Shimon Attie come into consideration. Here we see a great example of art that addresses a massive situation of human suffering, but because of the aesthetic of it, in that it does not portray violent and explicit images, it can be seen as beautiful. These works are not saying that the holocaust was beautiful by any means, but they are more looking at the larger idea that is death. The more literal and explicit the image is, the more prone it is to the questioning of the acceptance of beauty.

Alfredo Jaar The Eyes of Gutete

In the final section of Reinhardt's essay, he contrasts Nachtwey's Sudan and Alfredo Jaar's The Eyes of Gutete Emerita. In this portion Reinhardt suggests that acknowledgement towards the subject of suffering is all that the work can do. If the work aims at anything but acknowledgement, it will fail. In Sudan, we are looking at images of human suffering and that is all. There is nothing to think about with this work. Nachtwey is presenting these subjects in a way to where we are forced to view reality. Because of this, the work does not succeed. In Jaar's work, while he is still addressing subjects of suffering he asks the viewer to look beyond that. He asks the viewer to look at that which we most often cannot see. It is this notion of not being able to see that Jaar is addressing. It is because of this, that his work is successful.