Week 5: Photography and/as Ethics

Response to Susan Sontag’s Regarding the Pain of Others

In Susan Sontag’s essays from On Photography, she argues that it is only because of images that a war, or any other kind of social injustice, becomes “real”. Her second argument is that images of social injustice have very little impact on the viewer due to the hyper-saturation of these types of images in news media, resulting in the viewer to feel a callous. 

Although her views have changed from that which she wrote in the 1970’s, it appears as though she still argues that imagery of social injustice still does not achieve the goal in which it, seemingly, sets out to achieve. Sontag is now arguing that imagery of social injustice in modern society is seen more as an entertainment to the one who craves extraordinary situations due to, what seems like, the averageness and plainness of one’s daily routine. Sontag is implying that television is using real situations and transforming them into entertainment for the mature and civilized. 

While she has addressed the extreme abundance of imagery depicting war and suffering in the various types of news mediums, i.e. television, computers, phones, she did not address the entertainment industry. It is incredibly common to take current events or extraordinary situations and produce them into high-budget Hollywood films. In addition to her argument that the news is taking real life events and transforming them to be subtle entertainment for western culture, the film industry is doing the same except more obviously (being that movies are most often made for the sole purpose of entertainment). I believe that through films containing fictional story lines within non-fictional current events, the viewer is being entertained and calloused to real social injustices. By providing an entertaining illusion of the viewer becoming a part of the situation within the film, it creates real situations to seem much less extraordinary, therefore less impacting. 

Chapter 10: "Good" Verses "Bad" Objecthood: James Welling, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Jeff Wall

In this chapter, Fried explains his ideas of what is "good" objecthood and "bad" objecthood and contrasts the two using Bernd and Hilla Becher's Typologies as his primary example. Personally, I found that while this chapter was incredibly interesting, it was also extremely complex and very difficult at times to fully comprehend exactly what Fried was describing. Here is my attempt at summarizing and unpacking these ideas.

The chapter begins with Fried addressing a Polaroid by James Welling titled Lock, which is a black and white photograph that comprises a worn, wooden plank leaning against a door suggesting that it is being used as a lock. Fried is using this work as an example to address that only the art of photography has the ability to be minimalist but in a "real as opposed to abstract literalness". Fried uses the example that Welling's work "comes out the other side of minimalism or literalism into the world of real and not "generic" objects. Fried proposes that Lock may be a "real world analogue" to John McCracken's planks which lean against the walls of the gallery they are exhibited in.

Work of John McCracken

Fried suggests that the work of McCracken is a form of "bad or "spurious" objecthood and the work of Welling is a form of "good" or "genuine" objecthood. While Fried explains that the dark tonality of Lock brings attention to the physical aspects of the object (the plank), the major concern that is separating these two works is that Lock is a depiction of the object (the plank) being with its surroundings (the door), whereas McCracken's work is made of the created objects (the planks) being in its surroundings (the physical world) making it theatrical (and we all know how Fried feels about theatrical work).

After explaining his introductory example of what is "good" and "bad" objecthood, Fried discusses the formal, historical and philosophical significance of the work of Bernd and Hilla Becher. 

There is a large chunk of this chapter that is about the history of the Becher's work, but I am going to summarize it in one sentence. The Becher's Typologies are black and white photographs of industrial structures, composed in a dead-pan style, and are arranged as grids to draw attention to the similarities and differences of structures that were built solely with their function, not form, in mind. 

Bernd and Hilla Becher, Water Towers, 1967-83

It came as no surprise that the Typologies caught the attention of Michael Fried once I understood that the Bechers most often referred to the subjects within their photographs as "objects". Fried uses an interview with the Bechers and Jean-Francois Chevrier, James Lingwood, and Thomas Struth to discover three key points to understanding the work. 

The first is that by the Bechers continually referring to the subjects as objects within their writings and interviews about the work, Fried questions the relation of the work to "minimalist/literalist" objecthood which then leads to questioning the relation to the notion of "good" and "bad" objecthood. This also suggests that they are not necessarily interested in the actual industrial structures, but that they are using them metaphorically. The second key point is that the Bechers draw attention to the fact that because the objects were photographed from a higher perspective, one can see where the object connects with the ground. After this explanation in the interview, Chevrier brings up the question of minimalism, which then supports Fried's interpretation about the work. Because these photographs display a very small amount of surroundings around the object, it again is not directly addressing the site-specific context but is addressing the surrounding world in general. The third key point, is that when Bernd implies that it is not about experiencing their work, but instead more of a comparative way of seeing the work.

What Fried is pointing out in these three points is that this work is not only about industrial structures anymore, but is minimal in the same way that Welling's Lock is minimal. The work now shows the object in question (the industrial structure) and its surroundings (the land it is attached to) thereby including it in the realm of "good" or "genuine" objecthood. What is fascinating is that because of this interview, it is clear that the artists are well aware of what is happening in their work. 

At this point in the chapter, Fried presents some incredibly complex philosophies that the work of the Bechers can be related to. The first philosophy he points out is by Hegel from Science of Logic, (1812-16), and Encyclopedia of Logic, (1817, 1821, and 1830). Hegel's philosophies describe his notions of "genuine" or "true" infinite as opposed to "spurious" or "bad" infinite. To put it in the most simple terms, Hegel's ideology of what "genuine" or "true" infinite is the notion the the object in question is infinitely in relation, and thereby eligible to contrast,  everything that is directly connected to it, along with what is connected to those others, along with what is connected to those, ect. Here is a diagram:

"Genuine" or "True" infinite

In opposition to that idea, "spurious" or "bad" infinite would be the idea that the object in question is infinitely separate from everything that it is not and not directly related to. Here is another diagram:

"Spurious" or "Bad" Infinite

In using this theory, Fried is saying that the Typologies of Bernd and Hilla Becher are presenting objects (the industrial structures) in a "genuine" infinite by showing the objects in connection to their immediate surroundings (the connection to the land) and a connection to something that is not direct (the other industrial structures within the grid it is presented in).

The other philosophy that Fried addresses is by Wittgenstein and describes the object in two forms: the object is either seen with space and time or seen in space and time. The object being seen with space and time is an example of "genuine" or "good" infinite and an example of "good" objecthood. Going back to the introductory example, a photograph shows the wooden plank with it's original space and time. In opposition, the object being seen in space and time is an example of "spurious" or "bad" infinite and an example of "bad" objecthood. The installation of created wooden planks is in the present space and time.

To end the chapter, Fried makes one more comparison which is similar to that of the beginning. The final comparison is Jeff Wall's Concrete Ball and Tony Smith's Die.

Jeff Wall, Concrete Ball, 2003

Tony Smith, Die, 1962 / 1968

Fried suggests that Jeff Wall is directly addressing this specific work in his lightbox transparency. Fried describes how there is the ball which would be seen as the opposite of a cube, the ball is filled with concrete which would be the opposite of hollow, and the object is with its original space and time as opposed to being in the present space and time. Fried suggests that what Concrete Ball is doing is the same thing that the Typologies are doing. Fried explains that Tony Smith's, Die, is "a work of almost pure theatricality" and a gestalt, which according to Robert Morris, means that "once all the information is established about [the art work], it is exhausted". 

After reading this chapter, I feel as though I have a much more clear understanding of what Fried is talking about when he describes art as being theatrical or anti-theatrical. I agree with a great majority of his claims. The one problem I am still having with his theories is that he is still referring to forms of art as being "good" or "bad". I completely agree about what he implies that minimalist art is doing, but who is to say that it is bad or in some way inferior to minimalism within photography which he implies is good. It seems as though these are two completely separate forms of minimalism. I still think that certain forms of art can have much more depth in comparison to others but I don't feel as though one is better than the other except in a personal preference, in which case is not necessary to share. Personal preference seems to be irrelevant to everyone except for the person themself. 

Chapter 1 and Walead Beshty

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?

1st blog post

In the Questionnaire on "The Contemporary", the question at hand is, in some regard, what is contemporary art? Hal Foster, who is posing the question, is inquiring if it is only merely institutional or if it is a result of a neoliberal economy. Alberro responds by addressing that, since the Cold War, neoliberalism has become dominant over our culture. Because of this, it has directly affected the fine arts.

One of the most interesting statements I found in Terry Smith's reading was his idea that contemporary art is simply "the old modern in new clothes". This, to me, seems about right. Modernism took place for more than 100 years, all during that period were sub-movements of art including dadaism, surrealism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, ect. If this is the "old modern in new clothes" then that would imply that the art being made today is reflections of past works but with a new twist on it.
Looking at Smith's idea of contemporary art simply being "passages between cultures", he simply referred to it as, "[work] that seems to have nothing that is contemporary about it, yet it persists. He explains that "irony is irrelevant but anachronism is relevant". I suppose that this style of making work would have to involve some sort of socio-poltical cause.

In the reviews of Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before by Michael Fried and The Civil Contract of Photography by Ariella Azoulay they were seen as two very different books with two very different views on photography as art. On the one side, Fried's book looks at photography in much more of a "contemporary as new modern" style. He addresses that the most successful photographs are the ones that draw the viewer in while at the same time keeping the viewer removed from the actual image, almost as a 3rd person point of view. This takes the same technique used by Manet in his painting Olympia, in which there is the nude figure directly addressing the viewer, while at the same time, painted in a way that is drawing attention to the actual painting itself.
On Azoulay's side, this book is viewing photography as what seemed like a much more "contemporary as the passage between cultures". This is addressing that photography has the power to do much more than just hang on a wall, but that through very realistic, photojournalistic images can influence the viewer to act in a much more social justice sort of way.
I can slightly understand how Fried's way of thinking can fit within the context of modern to post-modern to contemporary, being that he is saying that the photographs need to have an aesthetic that fits within the realm of that timeline, where as I cannot understand at all how Azoulay's thinking can fit in at all.

blogs made

hopeefully this works.