Chapter 1:
I find it very interesting how Fried has started this book - talking about cinema and theatricality. Right away, I was slightly confused as to what Fried’s definitions of theatricality and anti-theatricality is. I am under the impression that he is referring to what was discussed in class last week about art that is theatrical as needing the observer in order to exist. So with that understanding here’s my response.
In this first section Fried describes Sugimoto’s Movie Theaters (I am very interested to see what Fried has to say about the Seascapes), Sherman’s Untitled Film Stills, and Wall’s Movie Audience. In a very literal sense, Fried is taking three separate groups of photographs all with a similar idea: the movies. While reading this I could not help but continually try and find parallels to contemporary photography in a larger context as opposed to just these three bodies of work that are presented, mostly because thats what I think he is going to allude to anyways. I am trying to figure out exactly what Fried is getting at by starting this book with photographs about the movies. I think that what Fried is addressing that while movies are entirely theatrical, photography has very similar attributes yet avoids being completely theatrical. It has a very similar feel to movies being that photography has a much more believable visual aesthetic. This visual aesthetic, most often, is not achieved through painting. Because of this visual aesthetic I think that Fried might be addressing how the photography viewer can “lose themselves” within the photograph.
I think that this is something that is presented in Wall’s Movie Audience once I read that Wall would hang them very high. I think that this is imperative to the work and gives a completely different view of it. With the work being hung above the viewer’s heads, he is making it nearly impossible for the viewer to get lost within the image. Although the images are still backlit, drawing the viewer in.
Fried begins the third beginning by referring to a text from 1755 titled Adelaide. In the conclusion of the story (the portion that Fried focuses on), Adelaide returns to her former lover, Marquis, in a church and shows herself to him yet he notices but chooses to look down. In his refusal to acknowledge her, she is then so destroyed, she falls unconscious and dies.
As far as I could understand, the significance of this paragraph is that it, due to the large amount of imagery within it, draws the reader into fully being interested in the story to where the reader forgets about himself and enters this imaginary world. I think that Fried is addressing how all of these small elements of imagery can add up to create a tableau. Could this be in any way relating to Wall’s idea of “the machine” which refers to one “losing themselves” within the cinema (or in this case text) to obtain pleasure and happiness. It seems as though there is something to be said about that but I can’t quite figure it out.
The second text that Fried refers to is Mishima’s The Temple of Dawn. Fried uses this text as a great visual reference to this idea of two separate worlds coming together, the voyeur’s world and his observation on the world of the other’s who is being seen but is unaware of being seen. Fried describes how being seen by no one and being unaware of being seen are similar yet different.
I found this to be incredibly interesting and may have thought way too much about it. Again I tried to parallel this to contemporary photography, which maybe was unnecessary. In comparison to the contemporary photograph, it is seen as a window to a separate world than that of the viewer’s. The viewer can observe this world but cannot become a part of it, similar to Honda’s situation in the story. Again paralleling the story, the viewer loves the image because of its mystery and that it is a view into an unknown world and the viewer wants and strives to know this world, but that cannot happen because if the viewer was to know it, it would then lose all ambiguity and become much less interesting and intriguing. I’m referring to the section that refers to Honda’s love of the unknown but desire of perception which will then lead to what is known, thus killing his love.
Again with these separate “worlds”, the separate world that the viewer is observing through the photograph, whether staged or not, is still a part of their own physical world, only at a different time in a different environment. Fried describes the Diderotian tableau as “the use of motifs and structures to establish the ontological illusion that the beholder does not exist”. Within the texts, the separate worlds of Adelaide and Marquis, and Honda and Ying Chan, both exist and are happening simultaneously. Stepping back a bit, the separate worlds between reader and text is that they are happening simultaneously as the reader is reading yet the reader’s world physically exists, but the world of the fictional text never existed but was created and only exists in the minds of the creator and the readers. When it comes to photography, the viewer’s world is observing a seemingly separate world, but physically both worlds are part of the same world. The only thing that separates them is time. I am wondering if this element of physicality and time, or being part of the same world yet presented in a way that is fictional, is going to be discussed later in the book.
Actually after rereading that, I wonder if I am even making any sense at all. Or if its even relevant to anything. I attempted to make a diagram trying to give a better understanding of what I’m trying to talk about but it might only make everything more confusing:
(i cannot upload photos for some reason so here is a link:
diagram
also if anyone knows how to upload photos on here i would love to hear, i included 2 other pictures on that flickr showing the problems thats going on here)
Anyways, in this 1st chapter, I think that what Fried is addressing is the illusion of theatricality within contemporary photography through its visual motifs yet it is anti-theatrical through its unique separation from the viewer. Is this why Fried has chosen to draw attention to Bustamonte’s Tableaux, and its “paradoxical combination of invasion and abandonment”? Or is Fried mostly observing Bustamonte because of his way of making the photographs anti-theatrical. Bustamonte would achieve this by making the photograph around noon when no shadows are present, resulting in an incredibly flat image and therefore distances the viewer from the work making the photograph anti-theatrical.
Walead Beshty:
I had a choice to go to the Walead Beshty lecture or go to a barbque. Frankly, I should have chosen the barbque. I was very disappointed in the lecture. I was familiar with his work prior to him speaking but I never really knew what it was all about. After going to the lecture, I realized all of his work is just about contemporary art and photographic practice. That has all been done before, these are not new ideas. Baldessarri used the exact same idea in his photo titled "Wrong", breaking the rules of modern day photographic practices. It seemed like Beshty was focused on creating images "breaking the rules of photography" by not using a camera. But even that is not even "breaking the rules", a lot of photographers don't use cameras in contemporary photography. A lot of artists use an outside source or 3rd party to create the work (as in his FedEx boxes where the FedEx employees would make the work in a physical sense). Check out the work of William Lamson, hes also using outside sources to make the markings on the work. Beshty's work is has so much potential to be interesting, but its not the sort of "anti-contemporary photography" work that he made it out to be.
And what was all that about the placement of his work? I may have missed something but it seemed as though he was contradicting himself. First, at the show in Brussels he purposefully hung the work so that it hung slightly off of the wall. He said that he did this because he didn't like how particular people get when hanging work and the idea that it needs to be "exactly center". About 10 minutes later, hes talking about his work in the Eisenman Building and how he positioned the work in a very precise way. So one day he wants to break this placement rule and the next day he wants to take it to the extreme in the opposite direction?
Don't get me wrong, I love the guy's work, the glass boxes and floor was amazing. In its visual aesthetic it is incredibly original and unique, but the ideas behind the work are just so stale. Someone please show me how I may have misinterpreted this, so that I can appreciate more than just the visual aesthetic of his work!
...and how about that ego of his?
No comments:
Post a Comment