'The Detective' by Sophie Calle

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by jon w., Jul 28, 2004.

  1. 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.
     
  2. Jonathan wrote
    Please can we try to debate - ...
    I'm not quite sure what debate you're wanting.
     
  3. Peter wrote
    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.
    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.
    The simple of my thought is, "Okay." "This is what she's doing." "Cool."
    I'm a lot more accepting then people give me credit for:)
     
  4. 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'.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    the sole concept of the medium: to make sense out of what is already there.
    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.
    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.
    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 here.
     
  7. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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>
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    Scruton wasn't talking about post production
    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.
     
  14. Ok, Jeff.
     
  15. well, that was ez
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. 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.
     
  21. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    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...
     
  22. 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?)
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. Maria: I like to think of what I do as 'conceptual documentary' - to make sense of what is 'already there' by proposing a different way of thinking about it.
     
  25. The documentary on Herzog is 'Burden of Dreams' (though I have never been able to track down a copy). I have a lecture on representations of colonialism comparing Herzog with Apocalypse Now and other films about Americans in Vietnam, which may eventually make it into a book about historical films and novels. But that's another story ...
     
  26. I also like Szarkowski and the 55 series because they are generally talking about individual artists and their place in the art world. It's the ones that describe photography itself that I find of little use...unless you're arguing (sorry, 'discussing') it on a forum. Out there in the real world, when I'm with my camera, I never think of Susan Sontag :)
     
  27. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    Sontag aside...I suggest reading what Laughlin had to say about photography. Laughlin was both a photographer and a writer (I think he made his living at writing while he was alive and photography after he died) and his writing is fascinating. His correspondence with Man Ray, in particular, is worth reading. What he says about photography, in general, is far more interesting than what critics write. Many interesting quotes can be found in Haunter of Ruins, certainly the best printed book of his photographs. Definitely worth seeking out.
     
  28. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    After a fair amount of searching, I found a quote of Laughlin's about "mechanical" that was in the back of my mind somewhere. A pure antidote to Scruton:
    I learned that the camera is a machine only used mechanically, that it could be made to respond to the special vision of a particular imagination.
     
  29. Jeff you kind of illustrated my point in that they provide good quote-fodder for forums. I agree that quite a bit of it is interesting but for me it just doesn't compare to a body of work by a photographer that I admire. I guess I'm just not as good with the written word as I am with the photograph. Now that I think of it 99% of my books have pictures in them :)
     
  30. I wonder how I will make a living after I die. My mother is forever haranguing me to come up with a fall back career. She doesn't think that as a corpse my good looks will carry me.
     
  31. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    Sam, I don't think Laughlin wrote much without his photos, other than letters to friends like Ray. Most of the time, it appears that he was explaining his own view of his photos, but by generalizing it, he removed the ego piece. More than anything else, he always looked to break down the barriers to photography as a simple-minded pursuit of reality.

    But I like words as much as photography, so maybe that's my thing.
     
  32. I appreciate what you're saying Jeff. I guess with Laughlin it's different because he was a photographer first and foremost. I think I should probably check his writing out before I pass judgement on him.
     
  33. Ward - funny, but even more obscure than me when I am trying to outwit Mr. Gardner by being intentionally baffling.
     
  34. I quite often refer to writers on photography when I am EDITING my work, and trying to think about why or how one of my images might be better than another. I also try to articulate clearly a coherent set of themes and goals in words, and then assess / exclude / include individual images according to how far they measure up to those goals. But then I am basically a writer who photographs, and not vice versa.

    In Calle's case, it's not so much that the words dominate the image (since both are potentially equally banal): rather, the concept dominates both. It is the concept that MAKES the images interesting, and that fact is in itself fascinating. It would actually be distracting - and besides the point - if the photos were exquisitely composed zone-system shots, since the point is to analyze how photography is USED in everyday situations.
     
  35. Doh. Ward was referring to Jeff's intriguing statement: "I think he made his living at writing while he was alive and photography after he died".
     
  36. Jonathan, first Calle is not a photographer in this work. She is
    simply editing work made by others. But I'm not sure your point. It
    seems you are fascinated by the idea only.

    I think an idea in and of itself is not much. It is the excecution
    that is important. But I see nothing but a concept. The picture in
    the link you provided is uninteresting. Certainly without your
    description I would not take any notice of it.

    I am trying to think of something positive to say, but I cannot.
    Calle seems to believe her presence is enough to make an interesting
    work. She is happy that someone is following her, but why shouldn't
    she. She planned it. Except for insights into Calle's ego, there is
    nothing here.

    I have seen work she actually did. She posed as a room maid to
    photography the belonging of the guests at a hotel. Not very
    developed work, Not particularly original. It reminded me of second-
    year photo students who photograph peoples wallets to somehow show
    who they are. Calle just likes to sneak around.

    People say aesthetics is about art. But what do they mean. Because
    aesthetics was concidered a lower form of philosophy it was left to
    people who could not think clearly and so it has been link to so many
    different fields that it is become synonymous with existance.
    Aesthetics properly deals with the senses, not the intellect (that is
    the meaning of aesthetics). Calle's work is not aesthetic. It creates
    no aesthetic response.

    What her work is founded on is a concept. Unfortunately, I find this
    the most barren type of work. Concepts are abstract in that they do
    not need to be based on reality. And I don't mean materialism.
    Mythologies are based on reality and that is why they are so
    powerful. They affect us on an unconscious level. Calle is all in the
    head and not in the heart. Her work is dead. It is an expression of
    her ego only.

    The clearest example I can give of the difference between a work
    created by intellect and inspiration is a film by Wim Wenders.
    Compare the movie "Wings of Desire" with its remake "City of Angles."
    It is the difference between poetry and prose. Poetry expresses what
    can't be expressed with the head, prose just states ideas.

    Calle likes prose, but it is only about her and cannot get beyond her
    "clever" idea.

    Sorry to make you another "downer." I panned "On Photography" in
    another post. At one time in my life I might have enjoyed the
    itellectual games of postmodernism, but not now. Who was it who won
    the Turner prize for an "installation" called "Lights Going On and
    Off"? What do you think of that work?
     
  37. Calle seems to believe her presence is enough to make an interesting work.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Does she? Then why did she go through all of the trouble of setting up this complex situation? It's a fascinating idea and experiment. I expect it's probably also unique, although I'm not familiar enough with the art world to say for sure. Do you also need eye-popping visuals to go along with it?
     
  38. Calle seems to believe her presence is enough to make an interesting
    work.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Does she? Then why did she go through all of the trouble of setting
    up this complex situation? It's a fascinating idea and experiment. I
    expect it's probably also unique, although I'm not familiar enough
    with the art world to say for sure. Do you also need eye-popping
    visuals to go along with it?


    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    And a complex work all about her.

    I assume because the forum is titled 'Philosophy of Photography" that
    the work we are discussing is primarily photographic.
     
  39. I assume because the forum is titled 'Philosophy of Photography" that the work we are discussing is primarily photographic.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    It's true that the title of the forum does say 'photography' in it and it's also true that this work by Calle is photographic, but does that mean that each photograph must be an eye-popper? I suppose in nature photography that this is expected but then there's not much more to a nature shot than 'this is nature, isn't it grand'. I guess I'm not one of those who demands that each and every photograph MUST stand on it's own, I believe that a photo can be part of much larger work or idea. I find the whole idea for her project to fascinating in itself and the few photos I've seen from it do reinforce the interest.
     
  40. Sam, where did I say that the images must be "eye poppers"? Why are
    you bringing up nature photography? It seems you are implying what my
    personal views are in your response, but I have not made any comments
    about "eye-popping" photos nor nature photography. If you would like
    to discuss my comments, confine your remarks to them.

    The word I used was "uninteresting." It creates no interest in me to
    take notice of it. I also do not like uniteresting writing, music,
    dance, theater, or movies. I find them boring. A work that bores its
    audience does not have much to recommend itself.

    In response to your last post, I do expect images to be significant
    in a photographic work. What point does an image have if it is
    insignificant? If it cannot stand up on its own merit, it does not
    need to be shown - after all, it has no merit.

    We will have to disagree about how interesting her ideas are.
     
  41. Will. Just a thought. "Horses for courses."
    Will wrote
    The word I used was "uninteresting." It creates no interest in me to take notice of it. I also do not like uniteresting writing, music, dance, theater, or movies. I find them boring.
    The way you pose your above, where you say, "I also do not like uninteresting writing,...", it seems wide sweeping and inclusive to the point of applying this thought of "uninteresting" towards everybody seeing things your way as to what's uninteresting.
    I like geography, world history and politics. My wife basically could care less; doesn't mean she's unaware. Who's more valid as to the question of seeing the interesting or uninteresting nature of the subject matter or are both views equal in their consideration as to the question of what's interesting Vs uninteresting in historical geopolitical politics?
    The point of the above, how far sweeping is the validity of one person's view; noted or otherwise, in regard to what is to be considered interesting or uninteresting?
     
  42. Thomas, every response I have seen in the philosophy forum seems to
    be individual views. I have seen nothing based on any kind of
    objective proof.

    I entirely agree that "uninteresting" is a subjective comment.
    Jonathan's post was looking for what we thought about a particular
    work by a particular artist. This suggests he wanted what we thought
    about it. That was my answer.

    Now, how valid an individual view is is up to the person responding
    to it. They must judge what was said and the source. Since I have
    been here a short time, there is not much to say about the source.
    But that does not invadildate my comments. It points to the fact
    there is not universal acceptance of this work, and, I hope, a few
    reasons to why not. Just because I don't like the work, does not make
    me wrong (nor right). But unless someone can come up with
    quantitative measurements for an art work, subjective opinions are
    all we have.
     
  43. Will wrote
    This suggests he wanted what we thought about it. That was my answer.
    Which is a good thing.
    Just because I don't like the work, does not make me wrong (nor right).
    It can:) If one doesn't understand the context of the image and apply the context to the content, then the opinion can rightfully be challenged.
    But unless someone can come up with quantitative measurements for an art work, subjective opinions are all we have.
    And it's a damn shame too:)
    I think if you were to explore your standards with those on this forum, your quantifying measurements, for the most part would agree. Why? Commonality of culture or similar value judgement experiences and training.
    My comment revolved around your comment as it seems to be used as a universal comment. The comment being; "If I find something uninteresting, then everybody should find the same things uninteresting." I'm sure it was just a confusion of reading and understanding what you wrote.
     
  44. A clarification.

    My quotes were not intended to reflect a quote by you Will but were intended as a generalization of what it was that you were trying to get across in your comments about what you found uninteresting in whatever discipline.
     
  45. I do expect images to be significant in a photographic work. What point does an image have if it is insignificant? If it cannot stand up on its own merit, it does not need to be shown - after all, it has no merit.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    When building a house does every board need to support the weight of the family that will live in it? Does the house need to be constructed entirely of ornate finials in order for it to be worthy?

    My comment about 'eye-poppers' and 'nature photography' were not in reference to your tastes in particular Will, but I have found (through a few years now of these forums) that when I encounter the 'every photo must stand on their own' attitude, that the authors usually like graphic photography. Nature photography represents one of the extremes where the graphics/color/light take center stage.

    I do accept that others do not find this particular case to be interesting and take that into account when I read your comments. I do find it quite interesting, even without seeing much of the work. I like the creativity of ideas as they provide a wonderful break from the tedium of looking at photos.
     
  46. Sam asked, "When building a house does every board need to support
    the weight of the family that will live in it? Does the house need to
    be constructed entirely of ornate finials in order for it to be
    worthy?"

    No, but then you are oversimplifying the complexity of architecture.
    Having "significance" or "merit" would not imply the part would need
    to be structural nor ornate. Many walls in a house are not load
    baring nor ornimental. But a wall will have a significant impact on
    the structure. The placement of the walls are significant as they
    determine the floor plan and so impact the spacial qualities of the
    structure. Replacing the door to the bathroom with a wall would have
    no merit. Just putting in a wall because it is a wall would make no
    sense. You would want all parts to add to the total structure. Even
    the electrical system is important. You would not want to live in a
    house with a 5amp system and only two outlets.

    The execution of a work is important. If it is badly executed it will
    be weak. I don't like living in badly designed houses nor am I
    interested in poorly made art. The architect's or artist's intentions
    are not enough.
     
  47. No, but then you are oversimplifying the complexity of architecture.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    Actually I'm doing the opposite! I'm supporting the idea that a house is composed of many elements that put together provides a home. A single board is not expected to do this on it's own so why should a single image have to stand on it's own, as is often stated? I agree that a house composed of poor material is a bit dicey but this is not what we were discussing. I've always argued that the idea of an image having to 'stand on it's own merit' is limiting. It implies that each photo must tell the whole story, which is too simplistic for the work that Calle (and others) have produced.

    BTW, these postings are so far apart in time that I'm not sure we're even discussing the same thing anymore...and I'm too lazy to reread the thread :) So my apologies if I've gone off track.
     
  48. "I've always argued that the idea of an image having to 'stand on
    it's own merit' is limiting. It implies that each photo must tell the
    whole story, which is too simplistic for the work that Calle (and
    others) have produced. "

    An image to stand on its oun merit does not imply it needs to
    encompass the whole work. But the image should add to the work. To
    add a piece of wood to a house that does nothing to the structure or
    ornimentation does not make any sense. Likewise, a weak image in a
    body of work does not add to the body - I find it will actually
    detract from it.

    I prefer a body of work to be made up of interesting images. Using
    images that have no value in themselves is not going to add up to
    anything. At that point, the only thing you can do is try to convince
    the audience that somehow the photographs are important, but that is
    just skilled retoric (and the king will still have no new clothes).
    Which means, the photographs can be eliminated and the whole thing
    can be written down since it is simply an idea.

    Now if you find the concept interesting. That is fine. The images are
    just illustrations of a point, like a graph or chart. I don't find
    information very satisfying.

    Calle's work just says something about Calle. I can't identify with
    Calle's view of this experiment she invented. It is too contrived.
    The images don't interest me. I feel short changed and simply want to
    say, "so what?"
     
  49. Calle's work just says something about Calle.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the intro 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."

    So, yes, it is about Calle as you'd expect from the 'experiment'. Once again I suppose it just comes down to the fact that you don't like this type of art, in your own words you find it the most barren type of art....although you do say 'unfortunately' so I presume you realize that you are missing out on something :)
     
  50. i think the only subject here to be debated or discussed in specifically postmodern photography or pre/postcataclysmic photography (9/11) is the DISAPPEARANCE of the photography,the subject,the pose,the naturality,the artificiality,the calculatorics of black and white or light and dark,the monstre sacral of classical photography where a subject,neck whipped up,stares down the revolveristic lens of a man under a hood.is this not set in pace by particulary three women:cindy sherman,diane arbus,nan goldin,and then further developed by human and robotoid developments such as psp,you tube,snuff movies,wooster group,dara birnbaum,whose (un)bewillst purposes were realized in strange,disturbing,peopleless,even in crowds peopleless,satanic,technically omitted,wrong,overesthetisised pictures of....NOTHING.the representationisms and antropomorfisms and antropocentrisms are being virally emanated into spores of the nondecipherable and not ment to be deciphered plaques of the nothingness of the universe.
    00T01X-122927684.jpg
     

Share This Page