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.