On Appropriated and Found Photography

<p >John Kelly’s recent post about the death of Larry Sultan helped stir up some thoughts that had been rattling around in my head in regard to what is termed “found” and “appropriated” photography.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I came to photography somewhat later in life (around 50…I’m 55 now), and as my college studies centered around Journalism and English Literature, I do not have a strong grounding in contemporary, or “recent contemporary”, photographic theories and schools of thought. (This is a not so subtle way of asking for a pass on anything that seems outdated, simplistic, or uninformed in what follows.) Most of my reading has been general historical surveys (Beaumont Newhall, for example) with occasional forays into biographies and even uncharted territory …the latter sometimes introduced to me via posts in this forum. Larry Sultan is a good example of that.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Before discussing Sultan (in particular his collaboration with Mandel on “Evidence”) and “found” photography, I first wanted to consider “appropriated” photography and its wealthiest practitioner, Richard Prince.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In terms of appropriated photography, Prince is probably best known for his re-photographing of the cowboys in Marlboro ads. One of them sold for, I believe, $1 million at an auction in 2005. As disagreeable as I might find a particular artistic approach or theory to be (and appropriated photography probably heads that list for me), I at least try to understand the aesthetic rationale behind it. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >A brief survey of some of the material I found on appropriation:</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >From: http://tags.library.upenn.edu/project/8207</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“Appropriation art is an important post-modern movement that was most active during the 1980's and 1990's. It has philosophical antecedents in the work of cultural theorists like Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. It is a movement that is critical of modern consumer society and the media and advertising-saturated environment which is a major component of that society. <strong>It calls into question originality, the romantic notion of the author, and related social institutions like the gallery and the museum</strong>.”</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >From: <a href="http://www.mediaartnet.org/works/after-walker-evans/">http://www.mediaartnet.org/works/after-walker-evans/</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“Sherrie Levine After Walker Evans» was the title of a 1981 exhibition shown in New York at the newly opened Metro Pictures Gallery. On display was a series of famous Walker Evans photographs which Levine photographed directly from an exhibition catalogue…Levine’s gesture of reproduction lets itself be interpreted in a variety of ways: it represents a gesture of appropriation and at the same time dismisses every creative act. By exhibiting the rephotographed Evans photographs in an art gallery, she quotes the museum-related status of photography, which since the 1970s enthroned documentary and scientific photography as well, and in doing so makes this process visible. In the end, she also makes current the themes of Evans’ photography (one can establish a reference to the effects of Reagan’s politics on the lower classes of society). Unlike with Richard Prince, whose rephotographs of advertising imagery divert one’s gaze towards everyday ‹visual culture› and reevaluates it, <strong>Levine reflects the mechanism of the art system, built around expressions such as authorship and originality, and questions this</strong>.” </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >From: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/05/43902</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“<strong>By appropriating these images, Levine can be said to be raising questions about class, identity, the political uses of imagery, the nature of creativity, and the ways in which context affects the viewing of photographs</strong>. The Estate of Walker Evans saw it as copyright infringement, and essentially acquired and confiscated Levine's works to prevent any further sale of them.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Calling into question and decentralizing authorship and originality, making the photographic process visible, criticizing a consumer society and an advertising saturated environment… I hate to sound like some kind of stereotypical right wing politician, railing against academia, ivory towers, and artistic elitism, but I can’t help but feel that these explanations of appropriated photography are a classic case of “the emperor has no clothes”. Appropriated photography strikes me as a bad inside joke among aesthetes and an appalling waste of money for the individual or institution who shells out money to purchase or display it. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As far as “found” photography goes -- specifically “Evidence” by Sultan and Mandel – I find it fascinating, and although I am glad they culled through and pulled this series of photos together, I can’t help but feel that my sense of appreciation would be much greater had they taken the photos themselves. Again, I’m glad they pulled them together. It was their eyes, their sensibility, that chose the photos, and that arranged them in a particular sequence. However, is this not akin to those who “create new songs” by mashing up pieces of different songs? Are they a step down from those who took their own photos? Equal to? In the instance of “Evidence”, those taking the original photographs were most likely doing them from a clinical and documentary standpoint, not an artistic one. Nor were the original photos likely taken by a single individual. So, although any one photo might be engaging and provocative on its own, they were not taken with an artistic or political agenda in mind, and they were not compiled as a work of art. Sultan and Mandel did that. But where does this place Sultan and Mandel? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Something to consider, a point made by Daniel Shea in an ahorn magazine discussion of “Evidence”:</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.ahornmagazine.com/review_shea_evidence2.html">http://www.ahornmagazine.com/review_shea_evidence2.html</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“And yet, almost strictly due to the sequencing, the pictures take on a cryptically ethereal feel. If you spend a few seconds with each image outside of the immediate context, you can realistically see the scenes as normal activity, industrial or otherwise. Again, the cropping, use of flash, and the foreign objects hint at a deeper psychology that decentralizes each element in the photograph into the equivocal whole.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >From the NY Times article on Sultan’s recent death:</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/arts/14sultan.html</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“Using stills from home movies along with lush, colored-saturated pictures he took of his parents, the resulting book, “Pictures From Home,” was a deeply personal document but one that continued Mr. Sultan’s lifelong mission of <strong>exploring photography’s fictions</strong>.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here again, a vague and dubious (I will not disguise my prejudice) academic rationale: “exploring photography’s fictions”. We can argue whether or not this is a term Sultan himself would have used (I haven’t read enough about him to know), but it is likely a reasonable echo of what certain elements in the “art world” might posit about his work.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Regardless, I can at least appreciate and give credit to Sultan and Mandel for “Evidence”. I feel the compilation is intriguing and thought provoking. It resonates with more than just “exploring photography’s fictions”, or as a political reflection of the 1970’s. There is more to it than that. I cannot say the same for Prince or Levine. You copied someone else’s photo, you’re making a statement about….whatever. I find nothing intriguing, I find nothing that resonates other than a dry, academic/philosophic meta-statement about photography. Big whoop. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Is there more to appropriated work than I give it credit for? Do you find value in it? Is “Evidence” of more value (subjectively or objectively) than “Cowboys” or “After Walker Evans”? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have to go now. I’m working on rephotographing the most popular, highly polished, heavily photoshopped and dodged and burned seascapes, desertscapes, and fantasy subtropical pastoral scenes that I can find on Photo.net. I intend to exhibit it here in Chicago under the title: “Visual Diabetes: The Death of Photographic Discernment In 21^st Century America”. Surely one of them, at least, is bound to earn me $1 million at Christie’s.</p>

<p > </p>

<p>This appropriation and recontexting and repurposing isn't just for academics -- people have repurposed videos and music to create vid collages, generally of a sexual nature. Some of the examples I know best <a href="http://scriptorium.infotrope.net/vids/">are here</a>. They're pretty much under most scholars' radar except perhaps Henry Jenkins. They haven't rephotographed; they have edited visual material to associate it with erotic contexts perhaps only implicit in the originals (most of the ones I know anything about are done by gay women in technical professions).</p>

<p>The fun thing to do would be a stack of re-contexts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em> "We can argue whether or not this is a term Sultan himself would have used "</em><br>

fwiw, he might have. The odds are high. Certainly his peers did. The San Francisco Art Institute wallowed in that kind of chatter for decades. However, they did have a lot of fun.<br>

<em>"I find nothing intriguing, I find nothing that resonates other than a dry, academic/philosophic meta-statement about photography. Big whoop."</em><br>

Yes.</p>

<p><strong>Steve Gubin typed: "</strong> This is a not so subtle way of asking for a pass on anything that seems outdated, simplistic, or uninformed in what follows."</p>

<p> Duly noted.</p>

<p><strong>SG - "</strong> I hate to sound like some kind of stereotypical right wing politician, railing against academia, ivory towers, and artistic elitism, but I can’t help but feel that these explanations of appropriated photography are a classic case of “the emperor has no clothes”. Appropriated photography strikes me as a bad inside joke among aesthetes and an appalling waste of money for the individual or institution who shells out money to purchase or display it."</p>

<p> That's exacly what you sound like, and you're certainly entitled to your outlook. The idea that there's a conspiracy among art elites, academia, ivory towers, and aesthetes duping buyers, museum acquisitions boards, dept directors and others, that everyone that is either a conspirator or victim, is, to use your own words, outdated, simplistic, and uninformed. To use mine, tinfoil hat country.</p>

<p> Appropriation has been going on for centuries. It's practiced in every human endeavor, including art. It's not just a Pomo thing. It never was.</p>

<p> I couldn't help but notice Steve was a little more overt on this very topic in 2007.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00MrL0</p>

<p> This is so 1992. A lot of modernist art, music and literature stemmed from appropriation of 3rd world images, motifs, themes etc. during the days of endocolonialism. It's been going on for a long time before that, and it's been done by a lot of people. Years ago, the courts upheld the right of <em>transformative</em> usage. </p>

<p>If you think it low, or despicable, help yourself. It's now a long-established way of making art. I'm sure your retro-grouch outlook will play well in Chicago art circles. BTW, a lot of the gallery owners I know in Chicago <em>will </em> have their assistants Google your name. Some may not feel so flattered by your characterizations.</p>

<p><strong>SG - "</strong> Is there more to appropriated work than I give it credit for?"</p>

<p> Since you give little, if any, credit, don't you think it's likely? Your mind has been closed on this subject at least since 2007. Why would anyone join you in a game of "Knock-knock"?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ideas about "appropriation" aren't restricted to "<strong>artist</strong>" vs "<strong>conspiracy</strong>."</p>

<p>"<strong>Fool</strong>," in victim, idiot, joke, or clown senses, is another possibility.</p>

<p>At San Francisco Art Institute (re Sultan), and among San Francisco Bay Area artists generally, there is a long tradition of <strong>humor</strong> and <strong>practical jokes.</strong> I ain't a-sayin "Evidence" was, but I wouldn't reject the possibility, knowing the culture, time and place.</p>

<p>A fun example of <strong>San Francisco</strong> <strong>Bay Area</strong> <strong>regional practical joke art</strong>, promoted as "real" during that period, is Clayton Bailey's work: <a href="http://www.claytonbailey.com/museum.htm">http://www.claytonbailey.com/museum.htm</a> The county sheriff's department actually investigated him as fraudster (re: the famous "<strong>Pteradungus</strong>") . Similarly, arguably, Christo relished the confusion, legal actions, and conflicting representations of his <strong>Running Fence</strong> project <a href="http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/rf.shtml">http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/rf.shtml</a> Humor was also the hallmark of Gilhooly and Arneson: <a href="http://www.davidgilhooly.com/">http://www.davidgilhooly.com/</a> <a href="http://www.verisimilitudo.com/arneson/">http://www.verisimilitudo.com/arneson/</a> (including a bitter humor tribute to San Francisco's Mayor Moscone, killed by Dan White, along with Harvey Milk).</p>

<p>Unfortunately, Bailey's work seems to have lost the taste of fraud, and Christo's seems to have lost it's chuckle potential (humor aside, Running Fence was incredibly beautiful.</p>

<p>Oddly, "appropriation" seems mostly to get treated with ponderous seriousness. It's not necessary to respect it or hate it...we can laugh at it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p >Speaking of serious, quite a strong response from Luis. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here I thought I was being open and honest about my prejudice, and quite willing to keep an open mind about arguments to the contrary. But -- unbeknownst to me -- my mind has been closed since at least 2007. Who knew?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“…there's a conspiracy among art elites, academia, ivory towers, and aesthetes…”</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“Conspiracy” is your word and interpretation, Luis, not mine. To go back to the “emperor has no clothes” analogy that I used: there was no conspiracy among the citizens who viewed the naked emperor. It was the power of accepted authority that convinced them that there must be beautiful clothes there and that they should express their appreciation of them. Their neighbors were doing so, weren’t they? It’s about trends…power of suggestion…not conspiracy. What ever happened to all those pet rocks that people were buying years ago? (Did I give the impression that I am arrogant, that I am above following the herd on occasion? Far from it.) </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“A lot of modernist art, music and literature stemmed from appropriation of 3rd world images, motifs, themes etc” </p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Apparently I did not make clear what I meant by “appropriation in photography”. I am not talking about appropriating images, motifs, and themes. I am not talking about montages or mash-ups. I am not talking about art (in general), music, or literature. When I speak of “appropriation” in the context of this thread, I am talking -- only -- about taking a photograph of another photograph and putting it before the public as a work of art. I had thought that citing the examples of Prince and Levine would have made that evident. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >“I'm sure your retro-grouch outlook will play well in Chicago art circles. BTW, a lot of the gallery owners I know in Chicago will have their assistants Google your name. Some may not feel so flattered by your characterizations.”</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >You know gallery owners in Chicago!? My name will be googled by their assistants? Will I be reported? Should I be frightened? (Then again, who knows? There might be a certain “against the grain” trendiness in exhibiting the work of a retro-grouch reactionary. Curmudgeons have a long and honorable history in the world of art and literature.) </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Honestly, Luis. Why…so…serious? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Speaking of serious and its antidote…</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Ideas about "appropriation" aren't restricted to "artist" vs "conspiracy."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"Fool," in victim, idiot, joke, or clown senses, is another possibility.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At San Francisco Art Institute (re Sultan), and among San Francisco Bay Area artists generally, there is a long tradition of humor and practical jokes. I ain't a-sayin "Evidence" was, but I wouldn't reject the possibility, knowing the culture, time and place.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Oddly, "appropriation" seems mostly to get treated with ponderous seriousness. It's not necessary to respect it or hate it...we can laugh at it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >True. In 2001 Michael Mandiberg put an interesting and humorous twist on Sherri Levine’s work by appropriating her appropriations. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/05/43902">http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/05/43902</a></p>

<p ></p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Artist or criminal? Witty or guilty? The latest work of Net art by Michael Mandiberg forces viewers to confront issues of originality -- and the complex issues surrounding digitally appropriating and distributing images. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Mandiberg, at an alternative art space in Manhattan, revealed on Friday a project that features his scanned reproductions of photographs taken by the respected artist Sherrie Levine. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The catch: Levine's originals, shot in the late 1970s, are head-on photos of black-and-white documentary photographs of Depression-era Alabama sharecroppers, which were shot in 1936 by the legendary Walker Evans. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Mandiberg posted his photos on two websites he created: AfterSherrieLevine.com and AfterWalkerEvans.com. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >"In part, my sites are a one-liner art prank," said Mandiberg, who gained widespread media attention for an earlier Net art performance piece in which he sold off his personal belongings online, "yet they negotiate the art world's esotericism with the possibility of a wider audience afforded by the Net." </p>

<p > </p>

<p >His casting of his sites as educational resources may qualify him as using the images legally. Yet, he hopes that "Sherrie Levine gets really pissed. That would be funny, wouldn't it?" </p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Steve</strong>, where's your sense of humor?</p>

<p>How could you miss the <strong>satire in</strong> <strong>Luis's ridicule</strong> of "Chicago art circles" ?</p>

<p>Jeez....do you <em>really</em> think he threatened you with a <strong>Google-maddened gallery mob</strong>, avenging your deficient <em>flattery</em>? </p>

<p><em>"...a lot of the gallery owners I know in Chicago will have their assistants Google your name. Some may not feel so flattered by your characterizations."</em> <strong>- Luis G</strong></p>

<p><strong>Steve -</strong> I did say you had every right to your viewpoint. It's a popular one. Your attitude did turn me off, and I did not hide my feelings, just as you did not hide yours. I saw little difference between your 2007 post on the subject and this one. Your mind really does not seem "open" on the subject to me. Not even a little bit.</p>

<p>It's a conspiracy if there's an inside joke being perpetrated on others, involving reputations, careers and large amounts of money. As far as I can see, that implies a mass collective fraud (or worse, delusion). Every kernel of accepted authority in the art world is being constantly shot-peened by arguments from those who disagree, specially wags, though admittedly there's toadies and those that think one can defraud or con their way up.</p>

<p><strong>SG - </strong> "Did I give the impression that I am arrogant, that I am above following the herd on occasion? Far from it."</p>

<p>I did get that impression. Show me an honest doubt regarding your apparently entrenched position.</p>

<p>Beginning artists breathe rare air. At the higher levels, the air is <em>very thin, as it is with every human endeavor (Physics, Math, medicine, Bowling, etc) </em> Few people understand Prince of Levine now, and it's been two decades. Don't kid yourself. How many people out there do you think really "get" what <em>you</em> do? How would you react to someone accusing you of the same things you've said about people that do appropriations?</p>

<p>[before some idiot suggests it, no, I'm not an appropriation artist]</p>

<p>I know you addressed appropriation in photography. I discussed the idea in general as well, to lend perspective. It wasn't born out of whole cloth with Prince, Levine, Sherman, etc. not even in photography. Photographers in the late 1800's traded components of images, and entire images routinely, and signed them.</p>

<p><strong>SG - "</strong> My name will be googled by their assistants? Will I be reported? Should I be frightened? (Then again, who knows? "</p>

<p>Sarcasm aside, believe it or not, it's one of the realities of the Web. Use your real name, and any HR dept in the world, anyone you do business with, friends and enemies, dates, let alone those seek gallery representation from, is likely to Google your name. The sad tales resulting from many of these searches are legion on the web. People aren't nearly as delicate, diplomatic or careful about what they say on-line (Except for Clive and the inscrutable Ian Rance) and there is no specificity of audience. You never know who's going to read it or when. If you read other parts of this site, you'd have read countless posts by people who understand this saying "<strong>Google is Forever.</strong> " That is basically what I was saying. It's a paradigm shift in the sense of a virtual provenance that hangs forever behind you. I was only trying to be helpful.</p>

<p>I have nothing nice left to say about John, so I won't say anything.</p>

<h2><br /></h2>

<h2><br /></h2>

<h2><br /></h2>

<p><em>"[before some idiot suggests it, no, I'm not an appropriation artist]"</em> - <strong>Luis G</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Let's think about photo-academics for a moment.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, thanks. Seriously. </p>

<p>Since arrogance is something I dislike in others, I suppose it saddens me that someone else would see it in me. Not much I can do about that when it centers around the expression of an honestly held opinion. </p>

<p>Back to the subject (and I will hold all sarcasm in abeyance) of appropriation as I've outlined it here: a closed mind would be one that rejects arguments in the face of evidence. Many points have been made in this thread but I haven't seen one that convincingly addresses the question of Prince's (or Levine's) artistic value vis a vis their photographs of other people's photographs. What I found is what I related earlier -- intellectual theorizing on photography and authorship. Although I look for the intellectual in art, I like it accompanied by a little heart and soul. I do not find that in Prince (again, his photography of another person's photography...for what it's worth, I rather like his "Nurses" series of paintings, but that's not what I'm questioning in this thread). I have no doubt that there are those who would find my appreciation of Callahan or Ishimoto (another Chicago connection) baffling. </p>

<p>How many people <em>get</em> what I do? Precious few. Point taken.</p>

<p>I do understand what you say regarding the permanence of what one posts on the Web. But the day that I have to be in fear of having expressed opinions in aesthetic and philosophical discussions of Photography is the day I may just as well curl up into a fetal position and die. If I had threatened violence, spoken slander, or made racial or religious slurs that might be another story. I appreciate your helpfulness (and I will take you at face value on that), but I suppose I will just have to take my chances when it comes to expressing an opinion on art. Quite frankly, "from your mouth to God's ear" that a gallery owner should even take enough notice of my work to have an assistant google me!</p>

<p>I do enjoy these sorts of discussions...particularly when my view is challenged (believe it or not), broadened, or when I am exposed to something new. I will not belabor "appropriation" any longer, but I may look into it further on my own. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Steve, I don't know that I "get what you do"</strong> but I'm interested in it, attracted to a lot of it, mildly irritated by aspects of it. I enjoy certain unique aspects of your craft (or style), as well. That's all positive, including "irritated." </p>

<p>Do you print? If not, why not?</p>

<p>I think a couple of things are going on here. One, fashions in academic writing, viewed over the last 40 years, show that there's a lag between what's happening in what I call International Bohemian Circles and what's accepted as influential in most universities. When I was in my early 20s, that had reached Frank O'Hara, but not quite Ted Berrigan (even some of the NYC poets a couple of years older didn't think Berrigan was doing anything unusual, worth paying attention to, etc. and were being quite catty about both him and Ron Padgett). Now it's Ted Berrigan and maybe Charles Bernstein, but I suspect there are many places where Charles Bernstein isn't taken seriously, or even known (I wouldn't be surprised if people at the school where I got my MA would have heard of him and I knew a professor where I taught who considered herself up on the poets who didn't know who he was).</p>

<p>Most of what happens is that people who are doing the most conventional work are the ones who time passes by, but not always, and if doing experimental work becomes the convention, the we see things like the kids getting very excited by Stevie Smith and Helen Adam. </p>

<p>Visual art of the sort in galleries and museums is a bit different because its audience generally is much richer and much smaller, so there's more tendency to be influenced by what is acceptable by one's peers (more, not exclusively) and more money to throw at things because of tax write offs regarding museum donations, more emphasis on pedigree (which art college did the artist attend, which at least one article on art collecting was trying to sell as important), and an investment in eliteness since often taste is the cultural capital with which people negotiate their social spaces. But that's not all it is. Can't ignore those factors, but they don't explain everything.</p>

<p>Appropriations are also fairly common across the general public -- the people who put together bulletin boards or refrigerator front displays of their favorite art prints or photographs, the people who take popular t.v. shows or videos and re-edit them to make their own vids.</p>

<p>What re-appropriation can do is change the context (and thus prove that context is a part of art) so that we've removing the historical frame in some cases, or the purpose in others.</p>

<p>One argument against this comes from pure art theory -- that context is irrelevant in looking at a piece of art -- that it will work or not work independently of the name, historical associations with name or subject. If one is strictly evaluating art without preconceptions or set or subject being part of the consideration, it should not matter in evaluating art whether something like what I've posted a link below is a photograph or a piece of graphic art created in some other way. That information is part of the context of the piece, not its visual reality.</p>

<p>If Breeze Designer and POVray tell me that <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=947447&l=0f1c9ecf5f&id=1530998076"> this </a> came from a camera, was this really a camera? If I take a picture of it, does it become a real photograph. What is a symbolic camera?</p>

<p>Pure art theory would say that the impact of the picture mattered more than any information about the picture or even contained in the picture. The picture's impact would come from our pleasure in seeing its shapes, color, internal rhythms of tone, shape, variations. It would be better or worse depending on how skillfully those elements worked with each other.</p>

<p>I don't think most of us see pictures that way -- we see them as photographs, drawings, computer graphics, paintings, various forms of relief work, then sculptures. So, with the repurposing, we're doing something to the original set of the work, but it's not out of line with what happens naturally -- a work of art is first new, then acquires a history, is more or less rare of its kind, new viewers find ironies in the work that may or may not have escaped the original patron, which may or may not have been consciously intended by the painter. The work cracks slightly and is either left as is or restored (an art historian I know on Facebook suggest that restorations rarely are convincing after the period in which they were done).</p>

<p>The idea that art is something that should escape context, should be pure and for its own sakes, is not really a traditional view of art. </p>

<p>So, regardless of what a thing looks like, it's embedded in its circumstances which changes over time. The repurposing can be playing with that element of art.</p>

<p>Does that make this more comprehensible?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Steve - "</strong> What I found is what I related earlier -- intellectual theorizing on photography and authorship. Although I look for the intellectual in art, I like it accompanied by a little heart and soul."</p>

<p> It <em>was and is </em> primarily about challenging prevalent ideas. Furthermore, there were other ideas involved that are mentioned less often. One was the Baudrillardian notion of the simulacrum, and that we are living in a simulation (something some physicists would agree with, btw) , one in which existing imagery <em>is part of, if not the landscape, and thus the equivalent of a natural resource for artists. </em> A 2nd-order thing. There were political implications also. In the case of Prince, he was, among other things, using an ad from a major corporation. It may not mean much to many nowadays, and few understood it when it happened, but it was an open blow against that empire. In Prince's case, he used a small section of the ad, so it could be argued that his rephotographing was a transformative act (and, of course, lots of collagists had used pictures from ads before, as had Rauschenberg with his combines, and in his paintings, etc. Levine got a lot closer to the heart of the art world. It was a daring act, and the outcome was severe, as you know. She quickly learned how to stay on the right side of the legal definition of "transformative". Even with the Evans pics, she did alter the cropping, but not much.</p>

<p> Not many people know that Levine is a commercial printer. That was her day job until a few years ago. Some of her art ideas came from the day job.</p>

<p> Other ideas, besides the ones that we hear all the time are: What does originality mean? Until the digital age, every picture in a book was rephotographed, often several times. Pivotal to this is the recent questioning of history, and whether it has "ended" in the conventional sense. Lots to think about. But the visual aspects of this imagery are a vehicle for ideas, something akin to Stieglitz's Equivalents, though about theory.</p>

<p><strong>SG - </strong> "How many people <em>get</em> what I do? Precious few. Point taken."</p>

<p>If you think about it, you (Steve) have some similar things going on in your work. It may not be appropriative, but it is conceptual, and your method makes chance, the life of the street and strangers into unwitting collaborators. It's actually participatory. I am a little amazed that someone working in such a close vein isn't more sympathetic, but, hey, that's just me. I think if you look further into it, you may find a kindred spirit.</p>

<p> [ I protect myself from Googleitis by using a fake name.]</p>

<p> Steve, thank you for replying. I really miss the numbing Chicago winters, the cold and the silence of trudging through deep snow... quiet walks in Evanston and prowling Mexican restaurants around 18th in Pilsen. I love Chicago in winter, though that bronze-colored mid-afternoon fall light is stunning.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>John Kelly </p>

<p>Steve, I don't know that I "get what you do" but I'm interested in it, attracted to a lot of it, mildly irritated by aspects of it. I enjoy certain unique aspects of your craft (or style), as well. That's all positive, including "irritated."</p>

<p>Do you print? If not, why not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ironic. I worked in the printing industry for over 20 years and know precious little about printing my own photographs. I use MPIX or Nations Photo Lab...occasionally printing on my own printer. Probably not the type of printing you are talking about. I feel printing is a missing element in what I want to achieve in terms of my photography. I far prefer physical prints on walls, in my hands, as opposed to looking at pixels on a screen. But what do you mean by do I print? I don't expect you to write me a treatise on methods, but I'm curious if you're referring to ink jet (somehow I doubt that), dye sublimation, or? Read of a place, very pricey, that can do platinum prints from digital files? That intrigues me. Lack of knowledge and -- hopefully only for a short while longer -- money holds me back. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rebecca Brown</p>

<p>Most of what happens is that people who are doing the most conventional work are the ones who time passes by, but not always, and if doing experimental work becomes the convention, the we see things like the kids getting very excited by Stevie Smith and Helen Adam.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excited by Smith and Adam because their poems work within a more traditional framework than the "convention" of experimental work? (I find Stevie Smith's "Bag Snatching in Dublin" a little gem, btw) When I was in college I rather admired Richard Wilbur for his utilization of traditional forms in a sea of freer verse. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, regardless of what a thing looks like, it's embedded in its circumstances which changes over time. The repurposing can be playing with that element of art.</p>

<p>Does that make this more comprehensible?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By causing me to come at the concept from a different angle, yes. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Luis G </p>

<p>One was the Baudrillardian notion of the simulacrum, and that we are living in a simulation (something some physicists would agree with, btw) , one in which existing imagery is part of, if not the landscape, and thus the equivalent of a natural resource for artists. A 2nd-order thing. There were political implications also. In the case of Prince, he was, among other things, using an ad from a major corporation. It may not mean much to many nowadays, and few understood it when it happened, but it was an open blow against that empire. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Viewing existing imagery as part of the landscape or even as the landscape itself. Interesting. So, in that sense, the work of Prince could be seen as roughly equivalent to Ansel Adams? One photographs a portion of a Marlboro ad, the other a portion of the Grand Tetons? With the work of Prince carrying the additional resonance of political overtones in co-opting and, in effect, deconstructing the advertising work of a major corporation? I can't help but have a soft spot in my heart for any artist who strikes blows against a corporate empire. I'm not being cute here. It's disconcerting to view the world through a Baudrillardian lens, but it does put a different spin on Prince.</p>

<p>The "end of history" and all of that...scary, fascinating, a lot to think about, yes.</p>

<p>Chicago is wonderful. I find my photography has become much richer, deeper here. Or maybe I only sense the potential of that. Regardless, something resonates differently for me here than it did in San Diego. Higher latitude, more dramatic seasonal changes, even the light is different. In winter the starkness and uniformity of snow isolates and clarifies. I wonder if that bleeds over into one's photography? I have wandered through Evanston, though not Pilsen. I must seek out those Mexican restaurants. </p>

</p>

<p><strong>Steve - "....</strong> it does put a different spin on Prince."</p>

<p><strong> </strong> Glad to be of help, Steve. The notion that we live in a simulation becomes clear if you spend a week camping or in a cabin in the wilderness then return*. The Ocean of Images we are surrounded by is fair game for creative people. The copyrighting of everything, including buildings, etc. is like a further privatization (therefore commodification) of the world.<br>

____________________________<br>

DISCLAIMER: Off-topic message to Steve about Chicago follows.</p>

<p>Steve: I'm living presently across the country from where you used to live, in Florida, land of the Lotus eaters. In Chicago, the emphatic phases of the year and their shifts divide life in chapters (as opposed to dry and rainy/hurricane season). I find my sense of mortality and renewal is heightened in a good way. One of the many things I love about snow is how it alters the landscape from day to day, softening the edges in a sensuous, voluptuous way, filling-in the light, making air currents visible, sometimes hour to hour. With its silence, absorbency of one's steps, combined with numbness, it is a very meditative and head-clearing thing.</p>

<p> It's a walking city, specially since they privatized the parking meters, a place where the melting pot never really melted, making for a fascinating mosaic of different cultures and 'hoods. I love taking the El trains. The Metras are too neat and sanitized, the El is like being in Stieglitz's <em>Steerage</em> . Fantastic faces at rush hour. I trust you are making use of the many arts-oriented facilities there. I love the Cultural Center as a venue for showing art and as an architectural space. The lobby is a fantastic place to write and think. Did you know that the Columbia Museum of Contemporary Photography (as many others do) has a community outreach program where you can go and they will bring out original, world-class prints upon request (via the web in their case) for you to see in person? One time I had them bring out their collection of Nicholas Nixon's series of the sisters, all laid out in sequence, for me and a friend. Stunning in person. All these outreach programs want to reach a maximum audience, so always be sure to bring at least one friend.</p>

<p> As to the Pilsen restaurants, let me give you a humble but illuminating start. A place beloved by artists. Take the CTA El Pink line to 18th street. Emerge from the station onto 18th. Cross the street, bear right for 30-50 ft, and there sits the unimposing <em>Carnitas De Huruapan. </em> That means "Meats from Huruapan". You see, in Mexico, there's no "Mexican" food. Only food from <em>somewhere, a specific place.</em> In this case, it's Huruapan. It's a one-item menu, with a variety of sides. One orders by the pound. The place is spartan, but completely authentic. Nearby, a few blocks away, is the outstanding, but usually near-empty Mexican Museum (Google the address).</p>

<p> Two cafes that are artists' hangouts there are the Pilsen Cafe, on 18th (the other way from <em>Carnitas</em> ) and Cafe Jumping Bean (on 2110 S. Halsted), both very different and each outstanding in its own way. The cup of chili at Jumping Bean in winter is a revelation. People will regularly talk with each other at the Pilsen cafe.</p>

<p> Pilsen, BTW, is brimming with art and artists. You should make a round of the many galleries there. They have openings/artwalks on fridays, if memory serves, with a heavy emphasis on grass-root artists. Wonderful, laid back people too.</p>

<p> Before this winter passes you by, you may want to make it to Chinatown (check dates) for the Chinese New Year Festival (great food there too), a great thing to experience and also the Chicago Car Show which is looking more nostalgic as time passes. The Morton Arboretum in Winter is also extraordinary.</p>

<p> Walk the length of Lincoln park in winter, south to north. Imagine a lonely teen-ager exploring its light and retreats with his camera... it's where Edward Weston cut his teeth on photography. Walk to the north end, to the Conservatory to warm back up. Steer clear of the ponds in winter. The Geese really will go after you en masse if they suspect you have food (or are holding a bag of any kind).</p>

<p>* Before you die or leave Chicago, treat yourself and go camping in Devil's Lake Park, near Baraboo WI.</p>

<p>Steve-<br>

I think- as the length of your post so readily illustrates- that you are trying to put a logical spin on art, but it only exists in moments- the rest is flying by the seat of your pants. I don't think you are giving enough credit to the artists either- those ivory towers and critics and the "system" is just who the artists themselves are attempting to persuade to their point of view. Also, keep in mind, sometimes the things that sell, that make artists money and possibly a reputation along the way- are the things that VIEWERS like. People don't buy things they don't want- even when they are filthy rich. </p>