What is post-modern photography

[beeman458]

Thomas wrote<p>

 

<i>When you tear down all that is before you have to have something ready upon which to build the future on...but then if you take postmodern to it's ultimate conclusion, it is also anti-future.</i><p>

 

This Winter, when the bug season has gone to sleep for another Winter, I have been making notes of what I'd like to create in regard to a "Conservative's" view, expressed in Postmodern photographic style. The images, in my mind, will be shocking, will be societally challenging and hopefully will create a backlash of controversy. Why? I will be doing what you suggest in your above, I will be representing, image wise, what I see to be the logical conclusion or the future direction if you will, of today's avant garde think.

[sam_richardson]

From everything that's been said in the links, provided by many people, postmodernism can't be defined because it's not a single entity. I noticed that the above discussion, although very interesting, tended towards reductionism which does not seem to work in this case. To me it appears to be more of a free-for-all possibly brought on by the availability of mass communication from television. Artists and critics were quick to jump on the possibilities of an instant audience (as they always are) and as a result more voices were heard outside of the normal routes. At the same time we saw the dramatic rise of the youth culture and the natural rebelliousness that goes along with it. Let's face it, when we're young we revel in new ideas and the freedom that comes along with them. This just accelerated the rise of individuality and individual critique. The academics have been struggling to catch up ever since.

[jkantor]

"so, postmodern is anti-everything then."

 

Where on earth did you get that? PM questions everything, but isn't anti-anything.

 

"When you tear down all that is before you have to have something ready upon which to build the future on...but then if you take postmodern to it's ultimate conclusion, it is also anti-future"

 

The first part of that is Rorty's view. But, PM doesn't tear anything down; it just "problematizes" it (by calling into question the metaphysical basis for absolutes).

 

"you can't just be against something, you have to be "for" something. And being "for against" doesn't cut it."

 

You're falling into the trap that everything is either/or (a binary opposition). Problematizing that opposition is what PM primarily does. (For photography, like the Hands/Face series, Sherman, and Warhol do, as I mentioned above.)

 

You also have to split the poliitics off from the critique - something which the Marxists (Jameson and Eagleton) can't do. For PM, politics have to come after the critique precisely because a PM theorist recognizes that the results of any critique depend as much on the method and perspective chosen as on the subject. (For late Modernism, think relativity theory; for Postmodernism, think quantum theory - a very big influence.) That doesn't imply that there are no absolutes (or that there are) - just that we can only see a limited perspective at any one time, i.e., the "answer" is contingent on how the analysis is performed. Therefore, we also have to recognize that our politics also have to be contingent (that's not the same as Rorty's relativism and certainly not anarchy).

[Landrum Kelly]

"You also have to split the politics off from the critique. . . ."

 

Perhaps that can be done, John, if one is interested only in a socially disembodied aesthetics. Since I believe that social context can be very helpful and important, I would not want to do that, even if or when it might be possible.

 

It seems that you want to throw off one of the better things about postmodern thought, which is its propensity to offer social criticism, whether in art or in art and literary theory--or philosophy proper, for that matter.

 

A socially and politically uncritical postmodernism: hmmm. . . . Sounds boring. It also has nothing to do with the currents of postmodern aesthetics and criticism which I do find appealing, in spite of my difficulties with the entire tradition.

 

Ultimately, a politically uncritical postmodernism is probably an oxymoron.

[thomas_sullivan]

its the same old arguement dressed up differently.........Aristotle vs Plato........PM buys into Plato, I dont.

[jkantor]

Thomas, you need to read Plato's Pharmacy by Derrida. Here's a guide:

 

http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/english/courses/60a/handouts/pharmacy.html

 

And Lannie, all philosophy offers the opportunity for social criticism - but that is different from an agenda (as the Marxists have), and PM is different from the other modes in going further in questioning its own assumptions - in recognizing that it is always (and already) a product of a social perspective.

 

PM criticism doesn't claim in any way to be objective (which would also mean apolitical). That's the point of recognizing the contingency of its methods. (Rember Quantum theory as a metaphor and influence.) So in some ways, politics also comes before. You pick the critical method and perspective that will allow you to examine the issues you feel important at the time. For example, I might want to concentrate solely on the way the Hands/Face series calls into question the entire concept of the (revealed) subject in portraiture - and to bring that into sync with a thread on the Street & Documentary forum - in order to critique the way that photojournalism effaces its interpretative role in documenting social issues. The politics also comes after because I'd use the results of that critique to perhaps question (or perhaps amplify) the overt message of a certain body of work.

 

The term PostModernism (and Poststructuralism) has been coopted by a lot of (less rigorous) current writers for their own agendas - particularly in the Anglo-American schools.

[Landrum Kelly]

"Postmodernism is different from the other modes in going further in questioning its own assumptions."

 

I doubt that, John. Shoddy analysis is always lacking in sufficient critical awareness and self-consciousness. The kinds of attributes that you attribute to schools I would attribute to particular analysts (critics, philosophers, whatever), not of schools nor even of epochs.

 

You seem to be quite taken with this propensity to label and generalize beyond the bounds of the defensible, in my humble opinion. I think that that kind of approach allows one to avoid argumentation while continuing to spout the verbiage and jargon of a particular school.

 

I am reminded of Habermas and company calling the Frankfurt school "critical theory," as if they had some kind of monopoly on that kind of activity. General claims made about the virtues of this or that school always send up a red flag for me, or at least a caution flag, as when the Marxists talk so knowingly about "class consciousness," as if pre-Marxian analysts were somehow blind to the reality of oppression.

 

Interesting that Marx and company keep coming up in our exchanges, and ironic as well, considering that neither of us is a Marxist. I remember going back to grad school in Spanish literature in my mid-fifties and making the mistake of saying something negative about Marx. The professor's eyes narrowed ominously and she never took me seriously again.

 

I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you of any kind of nonsense or muddleheadedness on these issues. I guess that I simply don't see postmodernism as being so clearly delineated from other schools. That is why I analogized it earlier to adolescents who think that their generation invented or discovered sex. The better attributes of postmodernism have always been around with the better thinkers, I think, as have the worst. Yes, there are some new trends and tendencies in the school, but it is not even one school, and I think that it is an extremely amorphous body of writings that does not hang together all that well.

 

If the term dropped off the face of the earth today, I don't think that we would miss it or any of the insights that some of its proponents have admittedly offered. I'm not trying to bait you or sound contentious in any of this. I am fairly widely read in this tradition, and I even enjoy reading in this tradition. I simply don't like to read about this tradition. A poor analogy (but the best I can think of) is the fact that I enjoy reading many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, but I hate to read what the Christians have to say, for the most part.

[jkantor]

Actually I consider myself a "post-Marxist" (which opens up an entirely different can of worms).

 

We are both discussing this obliquely because of the general nature of this forum, but you've got the background to read the primary works. You've read Eagleton. He's a good introduction. I take it you've read Jameson. He's not. Read Of Grammatology or Writing and Difference and peruse Glas, also A Thousand Plateaus, any of Foucault's works (if you haven't already), something of Baudrillard's, and Zizek's introduction to Lacan. These are not just a rehash of Mcluhan. They are a fundamental rethinking of the western philosophical tradition.

[Landrum Kelly]

John, I learned over thirty years ago to trust only original sources. I read Lacan, but haven't read much about Lacan. I've been reading Foucault now for close to fifteen years. I haven't read Glas. I do read--in the orginal language when I can. I still do better when someone offers a premiss or an argument rather than a generalization about a school. Specifics I can evaluate. Evaluating entire traditions or even an entire body of work is much harder. For example, in the rationalist-idealist traditions (which are hardly mutually exclusive), I like Kant's Categorical Imperative but ask why he felt compelled to defend a categorical imperative of retribution in _Metaphysik der Sitten_. Why not a Categorical Imperative of forgiveness if one is going to claim to improve upon the Golden Rule? I hate the trotting out of credentials in lieu of offering an argument. I'm still deconstructing Deconstruction, but prefer to evaluate a specific claim, such as Foucault's claim that there is no such thing as homosexuality, just homosexual acts. That sort of criticism I can do. Broad sweeping generalizations give me no purchase. I move on when confronted with too much of that, or, preferably, return to the original source. The best authors typically do not label themselves. Academics in search of tenure do things like that. My own dissertation, by the way, was a critical analysis of Rawls, defended in 1978. Reading Derrida and Lacan I would recommend to anyone who hasn't tried it. I appreciate your own recommendations, and now I really do have to go. Thanks for posting.

[beeman458]

And I find it very reveiling that when I read up on the subject of Postmodern photographic philosophy, written by those that are in the industry if you will, none of these notables write about any of the philisophy that's being discussed in the above conversation.

 

Hmmmmm!

 

This point should be illuminating as to the applicability of the above philosophical conversation and it's relevancy to Postmodern photographic think.

[._._z]

As you have shown, repeatedly, you have such a tenuous, specious, superficial grasp of the

concepts, artists and writers that you could not possibly know whether or not "none of

those notables" (none of whom, notably, you fail to name) did or did not do anything.

[beeman458]

Z, I have named the authors of the essays that I've taken the quotes from and provided links to supporting documentation; Clement Greenberg, Jeff Wall, Gillian Wearing and Jennifer Blessing, to relist a few names.

 

Would you care to post quotes from essays that you've read where the author explains the philosophy of Postmodern photographic think in terms such as what John and Lannie suggest?

 

What's your explanation of Postmodern photographic philosophy and what do you base this on?

 

None of the many authors of the essays I've read, write in similar terms which Lannie or John speak of. Not a one.

 

I've listed several authors, the names of their essays, posted links where I could as well as posted quotes of theirs to support their, not my, position. I'd love to see a list of what you have to offer where the authors speak in similar terms such as Lannie or John suggest.

[Landrum Kelly]

Thomas, John has posted a link to a Professor Irvine at Georgetown University which can help, if you're serious about the connection--and it is real, although tenuous at times. As in so many things, the link between theory and practice is not always obvious, but it is definitely there. It will still be up to you to find it, and that will require some reading. Beyond that, I don't know what to say. This isn't a remedial social theory site.

[beeman458]

Lannie wrote<p>

 

<i>This isn't a remedial social theory site.</i><p>

 

Nor is it an advance Postmodern philosophy study site either.<p>

 

No, one doesn't need to study and become familar with Postmodern critical think as Postmodern critical think has nothing to do with Postmodern photographic think. And the original question posed has nothing to do with Postmodernism because it had to do with Postmodern photography. A huge gaping difference.

 

I went to the link John suggested. Let's see what those in the photographic end of Postmodernism have to say not those that aren't producing Postmodern photographic image. You know, the ones who actually make the pictures which are displayed in museums.<p>

 

Do you have any links, to those within the business of making Postmodern photographic images and what they have to say about their Postmodern photographic artistic efforts? I'll look forward to seeing these links that have to do with Postmodern photogaphic think by those in the business of making Postmodern photographs. Why? Because they are the ones who know what they're thinking:)

[Landrum Kelly]

Thomas, post-modern photography and criticism of post-modern photography are admittedly two different things. In the same way that those who write novels are not typically those who are writing literary criticism, those who are taking photographs are not always or typically serious critics of photography. But are there some who do both? I presume so, but, no, I have no reading list. (I would be the wrong person to ask, in any case, since I am certainly no specialist in aesthetics.)

 

You, however, go much further than ask for the names of those doing post-modern photography. You seeem to be saying that post-modern photography and criticism of post-modern photography have no link, and this I find to be incomprehensible. If the people doing post-modern photography have no sense that they are doing that, then in what sense are they part of the post-modern tradition, which assumes some critical and reflexive thinking as part of the creative process? (I assume that part of that thinking takes the form of social criticism through their photography.)

 

I could ask the same question with regard to any creative process, not just photography. Philosophy is different in that philosophy by its nature IS criticism, and to be a philosopher is to engage in criticism of other ideas while setting forth one's own ideas. This is so whether the philosophy in question is metaphysics, ethics, or aesthetics--and surely photography in all of its forms is fair game for all kinds of philosophical criticism about aesthetics.

 

Yes, the thread is about post-modern photography, but the forum is about the philosophy of photography. Since my field is ethics as well as social and political philosophy, I have to refer you to those whose specialty in philosophy is aesthetics. I don't have the list you want, but I would not assume a priori that nobody out there is doing both photography and criticism of photography on a fairly sophisticated level. I can only refer you to those in philosophy who have tried to tie aesthetics to social theory--such as Derrida, Lacan, Jameson, Eagleton, etc. Whether they have been successful is a good point.

 

Was this a valid and useful exchange on this thread in this forum? I think so, but I have to agree with Brian when he asked exactly what post-modern photography really is. No totally satisfying definition has been set forth, and so the concept of post-modernism in general has been called into question--and that is where I entered the conversation. I still find the idea vague and amorphous even in theory, much less in practice.

 

All that I can say by way of defending my own entry into the conversation is that the forum is about the philosophy of photography, not something that I know much about, but something that I came here to learn.

[._._z]

Just because you made a brief list does not mean that you know what you're talkig about,

Thomas. Indeed, your posts show that you do not. Again: you have such a tenuous,

specious, superficial grasp of the concepts, artists and writers that you could not possibly

know whether or not "none of those notables" (none of whom, notably, you fail to name)

did or did not do anything.

[beeman458]

Lannie wrote<p>

 

First things first, thank you for your most reason'd approach:)<p>

 

<i>You, however, go much further than ask for the names of those doing post-modern photography. You seeem to be saying that post-modern photography and criticism of post-modern photography have no link, and this I find to be incomprehensible.</i><p>

 

That would be resonable as that's not what I'm saying. I've not discussed the act of criticizing Postmodern photographic efforts. What I was trying to discuss was the question; What is Postmodern Photography. What I've been trying to say is that Postmodern photography might have elements of Postmodern think in the philosophy, but that's only because you have Postmodernist creating Postmodern photography but there the similarities end.<p>

 

Postmodern photography is the continuation of Photographic Modernism to it's next step. Photography was nothing more then a recording medium. It recorded that what was before it and nothing more, Atget. HCB added dynamics to the process with the critical moment and gave photography life. Photojournalist commandeered photography to capture a given moment to make the statement; "I was here and here's the image to prove it."<p>

 

Postmodern photography decided to move photography into the future by adding content or thought to the image to communicate ideas. Postmodern photographer's are using photography as an artist might use a canvas, to get their message out. Serrano's "Piss Christ" was intended to bring attention to the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. As opposed to taking a pretty picture of a symbol of Christ sitting on an alter. And here's another pretty picture of "-----".<p>

 

<i>If the people doing post-modern photography have no sense that they are doing that,</i><p>

 

I'm not quite sure of your above as I'm sure they're very aware of what they're doing. Well I sure hope they are:)<p>

 

<i>...then in what sense are they part of the post-modern tradition, which assumes some critical and reflexive thinking as part of the creative process?</i><p>

 

Your above is where the confusion comes in as they're efforts have nothing to do with Postmoderism per se. If there's elements there, so be it but the Post in this case, means after the fact as in Post (after) Modernism.<p>

 

<i>(I assume that part of that thinking takes the form of social criticism through their photography.)</i><p>

 

And you'd be correct. But trying to understand the creation process, has nothing to do with Postmodern philosophy. Maybe I jumped ahead a few chapters and missed the connection but nothing in my essay readings says that the social issues have to do with a dissatisfaction with Modernism. Just that they're unhappy with things the way they are (protestors) or they feel like beating up on a stablized idea.<p>

 

<i>I could ask the same question with regard to any creative process, not just photography. Philosophy is different in that philosophy by its nature IS criticism, and to be a philosopher is to engage in criticism of other ideas while setting forth one's own ideas. This is so whether the philosophy in question is metaphysics, ethics, or aesthetics--and surely photography in all of its forms is fair game for all kinds of philosophical criticism about aesthetics.</i><p>

 

I'll have to stumble on your above and agree, hoping for little fallout in doing so:)<p>

 

<i>Yes, the thread is about post-modern photography, but the forum is about the philosophy of photography. Since my field is ethics as well as social and political philosophy, I have to refer you to those whose specialty in philosophy is aesthetics. I don't have the list you want, but I would not assume a priori that nobody out there is doing both photography and criticism of photography on a fairly sophisticated level. I can only refer you to those in philosophy who have tried to tie aesthetics to social theory--such as Derrida, Lacan, Jameson, Eagleton, etc. Whether they have been successful is a good point.</i><p>

 

From what you and John have written, I'm better off leaving Derrida to you guys who have a better handle on these sorts of things. Myself, I'm a photographer and artist, much to some's disagreement:)<p>

 

<i>Was this a valid and useful exchange on this thread in this forum? I think so, but I have to agree with Brian when he asked exactly what post-modern photography really is. No totally satisfying definition has been set forth, and so the concept of post-modernism in general has been called into question--and that is where I entered the conversation. I still find the idea vague and amorphous even in theory, much less in practice.</i><p>

 

I've tried to lend clarity to the issue but many of my posts have disappeared. The answer fell on me like a ton of bricks when I was reading an essay that dealt with deconstructing the sacred. Now it's clear as a bell (I'm greatful) and because of that, I was about to create my first full fledge Postmodern image which was the intent of my eight month quest, to understand this enigma and be able to create within the confines of this most enigmatic think:<p>

 

Now I have a series of shots, notes of which I've written down, so as to pursue the ideas further this Winter, after the bug season is over. I posted quotes from some of the essays that I've read to help lend clarity by those who are directly involved in contemporary Postmodern photographic artistic efforts.<p>

 

<i>All that I can say by way of defending my own entry into the conversation is that the forum is about the philosophy of photography, not something that I know much about, but something that I came here to learn.</i><p>

 

All I can do is share what I've read, quote what they have to say and let you decide what works for you:) Thank you again for your most reason'd response:)<p>

 

 

[Landrum Kelly]

Thank you, Thomas. I understand your position better now. As for academe and photography, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." I'd rather be a photographer than an academic critic of photography, but the sad fact is that I'm not really qualified to be either.

[beeman458]

According to many who post here, I'm not qualified to be either a photographer or an artist:)

 

Wishing you the best.

[._._z]

Photography doesn't necessarily pay all the bills, Lannie. Many who do also teach.

[sam_richardson]

I find myself in agreement with Thomas Gardner in regards to preferring the explanation of postmodern photography from those who produce post modern photography, rather than philosophers or critics. I may not agree with his conclusions but I feel it's better to get it from the horse's mouth. As interesting as the exchange between Lannie and John was it only seemed to muddle the question further, although admittedly I don't have the background or necessary brain functions to fully understand what they were talking about.

[jkantor]

So e-mail Cindy Sherman.

 

Let's continue that distinction between artists, critics, and philosopohers. Most artists still subscribe to the idea of a personal vision (rather than an explicit philosophy) and therefore most just create works. Few try to explain or justify their work in a rigorous manner. Traditional critics usually attempt to group artists and their works in some way in order to make value judgements and create taxonomies and histories of the art form, the artists, and works. (That has a lot to do with the positioning of art as a product to be consumed by our capitalist society.) Philosophers look at all this and much more and try to explore what this says about the way we perceive the world and find and make meaning in it. Each has their own agenda.

 

Photography has been the poor cousin in each of these areas for a number of reasons - not the least of which is its comparative youth. (Interestingly, there is a large body of work on film theory, much of it Marxist and Feminist.)

 

You are not going to find many artists who will take the time (or even can) explain the rationale behind their works. The majority of the critics who are writing about Postmodern photography not only have an agenda which is entirely rooted in modernism (because so is the role of the traditional critic), but have also come to the term through secondary and tertiary sources and so have a rather watered-down view of it. (That's a particular problem for the Anglo American critics, since much of the original theories about postmodernism have their roots in continental philosophy and aesthetics. I suspect there are a lot more interesting perspectives on photography being written in French and German today.)

 

But at another level you're asking for the exact antithesis of what Postmodernism is - a selfconscious re-evaluation of modernism. If postmodernism could be summed up as a certain set of techniques or subject matter or style - it wouldn't be postmodern. (At best it would be antimodern or neomodern or something similar.)

 

Postmodern art uses (has to use) modernist techniques - but in a selfconscous manner (as the examples I've mentioned before). The problem you should notice is that a work can't be self-conscious - only the artist or viewer can. So Postmodernism is a much a perspective as it is a technique.

[jeffrey moore]

Since his name has popped up in this thread numerous times, for those who may be interested, there is an essay titled, "How Richard Rorty Found Religion," by Jason Boffetti in the May issue of "First Things." It can be found online here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0405/articles/boffetti.html

[matthewkane]

Wow this thread is still going strong... I hope it doesn't get deleted because it has a wealth of great information contained in it.

 

John K- I was just wondering if you could explain to me how one can be a post-marxist republican? If this is what you are please help me in understanding this phenomenon. How is it possible to believe in dialectical materialism and marxs capitalist critiques and side with the staunchly imperialist/capitalist gop party?

Not being a smart ass I'm just wondering how you can explain this.

Thanks

 

Lannie (if you're still around)- I'm sure you are familiar with Guy Debord. Author of Society of the Spectacle? France 1968 and the situationists. How influential do you think they were to postmodernism? Also in relation to postmodernist art?

I think they played a role myself.

Just curious what you might have to say about this!

Thanks

[jkantor]

First, Post-Marxism: Fundamentally, Marxists believe that their critiques actually can put themselves outside capitalist ideology (and therefore lead to obvious social agendas). What I would describe as Post-Marxism doesn't. It recognizes that Marxist critique is just one tool among many (such as deconstruction or Lacanian psychoanalytic theory) and provides only a contingent perspective on ideology.

 

Second, Politics: We live in a capitalist world and Marxism is the best method of critique available of capitalism per se. Capitalism/Humanism (which go hand-in-hand) have many negative effects on the individual - but also many positive ones. As an ideology, we can never escape it fully, but we can become more aware of both its influences and the choices it provides. As I said before, the politics comes after the critique. Politics is what you decide to do with the awareness you've gained.

 

I'm Republican because I think the world is a dangerous place and that most Democrats are naive pacifists. (I like Lieberman though.) I also think that, while the Democratic social programs are highly desirable (something I'm very aware of since I have no full-time job, no health insurance, and no savings), I don't think they know how to make best use of the free-market system to implement those programs. I would rather vote Republican and try to influence their social agenda than vote Democrat and hope for a mature foreign policy.