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.
No comments:
Post a Comment