'The Detective' by Sophie Calle

A lot of people here write very negatively about 'postmodern'

photography - or rather, about a caricature identified as being

over-theorized, elitist, arid, immoral, technically incompetent, etc.

I thought it might be helpful to consider a positive example of

'postmodern' photography, or at least one that I really like: Sophie

Calle's 'essay' 'The Detective'. The best link I've found on this is

http://hosting.zkm.de/ctrlspace/e/works/10, but if anyone finds a

better one, please post it.

 

This is unabashedly conceptual and reflexive. It's a unique

performance that only has an audience retrospectively, and the photos

included are not in any way asthetically interesting in themselves.

 

What Calle did was to hire a private detective to follow her on a

specific day (using her mother as an intermediary). The detective

photographed her, and took notes on her movements. Calle published

these photos and notes together with her own comments on and photos of

her activities that day, which were shaped by the knowledge that

someone was following her. Furthermore, she asked a friend to follow

her too, and take photos of anyone else who looked as if they were

following her, so her essay also includes photos taken surreptitiously

of the detective himself.

 

Calle says, "I want to show 'him' the streets, the places I love. I

want 'him' to be with me as I go through the Luxembourg [gardens],

where I played as a child and where I received my first kiss in the

spring of 1968. I keep my eyes lowered. I am afraid to see 'him'."

 

The detective, of course, remains completely oblivious of all these

associations: his report says only that 'the subject ... crosses the

Jardin du Luxembourg'.

 

Calle goes on, after having figured out who the detective is, "Now I

trust him. I'm not afraid of losing him anymore. I've become a part of

the life of X, private detective. I structured his day, Thursday,

April 16, in much the same way that he has influenced mine."

 

There photographs included with the detective's report actually seem a

little suspiciously artful, in the sense that Calle always appears

obscured or blurred or too far away in them: there is only one in

which it might be possible to identify her unambiguously.

 

There is a further layer to this, in that the novelist Paul Auster

presents a 'fictionalised' version of Calle and her various

experiments in his novel 'Leviathan', the text of which Calle then

uses as an introduction to the printed version of her work, annotated

by her in red felt-tip.

 

So - I LOVE all this. It maks my head reel every time I go through the

various layers of it. What do you think?

 

Please can we try to debate - and disagree - civilly and

intelligently, and not respond to crass provocations of any sort.

Jonathan wrote<p>

 

<i>Please can we try to debate - ...</i><p>

 

I'm not quite sure what debate you're wanting.<p>

Peter wrote<p>

 

<i>Jonathan - is simply suggesting that the idea of an artist as subject and central character in her own work is a definite and layered enough 'work' so as to suggest a new paradigm.</i><p>

 

Shades of Cindy Sherman meets the double agent:) I understand. I just don't see a debate as I see it more as a journalistic recording of performing art then photographic art.<p>

 

The simple of my thought is, "Okay." "This is what she's doing." "Cool."<p>

 

I'm a lot more accepting then people give me credit for:)<p>

I haven't looked at the work but it sounds like fun. I'm glad that there are those (Calle et al) out there who think in this way. It's a refreshing change from the hyperseriousness of 'fine art'.

While it is per se interesting, I'm not interested in conceptual photography as it takes away the sole concept of the medium: to make sense out of what is already there.

<i>the sole concept of the medium: to make sense out of what is already there.</i><p>

 

When did this become the "sole concept"? Almost from day one, many photographers have shaped their photos rather than simply photographed what was there. Most portraits are "conceptual" in the same sense - the photographer creates the environment and creates the photograph. <p>

 

John Clarence Laughlin stated that what was interesting about photography was (and I'm paraphrasing here as I don't have the book in front of me) not photographing the object itself, but photographing something beyond the object. I find this to be a useful way of looking at photography - perhaps the opposite of the "snapshot aesthetic" that Maria proposes. It allows a lot more exploration than sticking to one interpretation of photography.<p>

 

 

FWIW, I saw some prints last week by Cirenaica Moreira and was stunned. I was almost compelled to spend a month's pay on a print. Like Sherman, she inserts herself in every image, but she creates a very different result than Sherman. Her work can be seen <a href="http://www.thefrasergallery.com/artists/Cirenaica-Moreira.html">here.</a>

I would add that the Auster connection is very interesting. Auster, in his New York Trilogy, uses a character named Paul Auster. He also writes in circles in the book, using the character writing as a way of both analying and revealing. Sort of a post-modernist way of writing, when you look closely at it.

Roger Scruton, in his excellent essay 'Photography and Representation' concluded that what makes photography a uniqe medium is the fact that it is essentially 'a mechanical process' and as such it cannot be representational (unlike painting or other representational arts)-- photography has no intention to represent something else. It's an old argument and I happen to agree with Scruton and don't see a better way that would differentiate photography from painting, for example.

I don't know if this link is better, but it is another photo from that series.

<p>

<a href="http://www.dareonline.org/artwork/calle/calle3.html">http://www.dareonline.org/artwork/calle/calle3.html</a>

Scruton is, quite simply, wrong. As soon as one learns darkroom technique or the equivalent in Photoshop, photography goes beyond being simply a "mechanical process" and becomes something more than that. That's the simplest refutation - there is plenty more that just doesn't play in his representation. It's not surprising that he sees photography that way since he comes from the "traditionalist" art perspective, rather than the perspective of people who think art has changed in the last hundred years. And it completely fails to comprehend "conceptual" photography.

Scruton wasn't talking about post production -- he was talking about content not being pre-conceived or intentional and mechanically created. My friend just send me an e-mail which may answer your argument: when you pick up your 4x5 snapshots from a one-hour lab and show it to the people who unaware you're a photographer, will they call you DA Photographer with this unmistakable admiration reserved for artists. I bet not. But when you enlarge these snapshots to 11x14 dye transfer prints and put it on the wall the reaction is quiet different -- you're the Photographer then.

 

But I don't want to steal Jonathan's thread.

photography is definitely conceptual<br>

and can be initiated any time<br>

pre, the moment, or post<br>

the final piece of work<br>

occurs<br>

when the print is finished<br>

maria, do you consider <a href="http://www.uelsmann.net/">Jerry Uelsmann</a> to be a photographer?

Jon--

 

I enjoyed reading your description of this project (and hearing your obvious delight) more than I have enjoyed any posts on here for a long time. I was able to find maddeningly few samples of the work online.

 

There have been two instances in film that come to mind; in both cases, there was an original film (Apocolypse Now and Fitzcaraldo), then documentaries about the making of each. (Hearts of Darkness I remember; the other I don't.) Both documentaries were sufficiently striking that they had documentaries made about them as well!

 

How many more layers could there be before the original film is lost completely? And if each layer is of sufficient quality, what are the consequences when the original film (or thought or photographer) is lost completely in the layers?

 

Thanks for the notion.

<i>Scruton wasn't talking about post production </i><p>

 

There's no way to separate post-production from anything else. A photograph is a print (or printed page or screen shot etc etc), not a process.

Ok, Jeff.

well, that was ez

Note the consistency of the concept of mutual awareness when you visit the "ctrl [space]" website: your IP address is posted in the upper right corner (unless you happen to have a method for disguising this).

 

I'd say that at worst her conceptual work is cleverly executed if not entirely original.

 

Less clever is being dismissive merely for the sake of trying to preserve one's own facade of creativity when confronted by those who exercise their concepts rather than dissecting them from safe distances.

Jeff: "Scruton is, quite simply, wrong..........he comes from the

"traditionalist" art perspective........"

 

He certainly is wrong about this, as he is about pretty much

everything else he pontificates on. Having said that, while

Scruton can come across as "traditionalist", he's actually a

chillingly radical Euro right winger.

 

Coming back to Calle, her work around hotel rooms is more

interesting than that referenced here. It also raises interesting

issues regarding privacy.

Boris -

 

I'm pretty sure you're aware of where I stand on people like Scruton - maybe I should not have chosen an intentionally polite way of referencing him.

 

Maybe it calls for a new topic, but it would be interesting to see how the Cuban photographer I mentioned above is perceived, in light of Calle's work.

I don't understand why people get so caught up in what writers on photography/art have to say. I can understand why it can be interesting but, I just find that their words pale in comparison to the photographs of the artists themselves.

At the risk of digression from Jonathan's thread...

 

Jeff, while I'm glad you gave the reference for Cirenaica Moreira - I looked at every photo on the site - I have mixed feelings about that sort of thing.

 

By "that sort of thing" I mean nude self portraits by female photographers.

 

On the one hand some of it is wonderfully expressive, evocative and interpretive.

 

On the other, much of it is merely self indulgent, even manipulative.

 

Either way it is seldom viewed or critiqued without bias. I notice a disturbing amount of fawning praise for for women who display nude self portraits on photo.net and other websites. Without delving too deeply into my psycho/sociological interpretation, I suspect that many male viewers imagine that they have some sort of relationship - any sort of relationship - with the woman through her self portraits. In some cases the comments are overtly sexual, even when not vulgar. In other cases the praise is simply effusive as tho' the viewer were taking great pains to avoid any hint of the sexual while at the same time hoping to engage the photographer in further discourse. It has the feel of a chat room, albeit a more sophisticated one.

 

Men who engage in nude self portraiture, on the other hand, are more likely to be questioned for their motives. Rather than critiquing the quality of the photography some will insinuate or state outright that the photographer is merely an exhibitionist or flasher.

 

Perhaps men *are* less capable of self examination through their photography. Perhaps women are simply better at it.

 

But I believe that in many cases, male viewers of nude self portraiture by female photographers are strongly influenced by the imagination, if only subconsciously, of a relationship of some sort. I have an idea for testing this theory and hope to try it soon.

Well to be honest, my favorites were the one with the needle through her forehead and the pillow in the face. The pillow one was what I would have bought, had the price been about 80% lower. I also liked the blood on the leg and foot shot. The nudes were not so interesting...Violence over sex, I guess...

Oops, it just occurred to me that I didn't actually respond to your question, Jeff. I was so busy pontificating about my psycho/socio hypotheses that I got carried away.

 

I'm partial to "Consume preferably before 30 years from manufacture". The concept is simultaneously humorous and bleak; what seems to be a celebration of youth juxtaposed against an indictment of how women are often regarded as undesirable if not outright liabilities at just about the time when they've reached maturity. (Can I say "ripened" without being accused of vulgar sexism?)

Sam: 'I don't understand why people get so caught up in what writers on photography/art have to say. I can understand why it can be interesting but, I just find that their words pale in comparison to the photographs of the artists themselves'.

 

I get 'caught up' because good writers like Szarkowski - and many of the commentators in the Phaidon 55 series, for example - provide me with information and ideas that help me to see the photographs in a new, richer and deeper way. To get 'caught up' in the writing is to be simultaneously 'caught up' in the images. But Calle is 'writing about' her photos quite differently, of course.

 

One of the reasons I'd say this is 'postmodern' is that it is 'deconstructing' a set of assumptions surrounding a particular use of photography that has nothing to do art: i.e. surveillance photography, and its status as evidence (of what? Calle asks. What does it actually tell you?). The photos have obviously been chosen to embody certain cliched ideas about surveillance images (telephoto, grain, obscured) rather than provide specific information: the high-falutin' way of putting this is that they are about the 'discourse' - the language, the visual grammar - of surveillance. Many other postmodern photographers similarly 'deconstruct' the ways in which photogrphy is used in everyday life: in snapshots (to construct an idea of the ideal family, for example), in advertising, and so on. So, far from being stuck in their little art world, many of them are trying to engage with things that really shape our lives. It could be argued that it's actually those working in the traditional 'fine art' field who are out of touch and self-indulgent, pursuing a sterile, abstract ideal of beauty. (though I wouldn't go that far myself)

 

Now I'm off to look at Jeff's link.