'The Detective' by Sophie Calle

[jon w.]

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.

[jon w.]

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 ...

[sam_richardson]

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 :)

[Spearhead]

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 <i>Haunter of Ruins</i>, certainly the best printed book of his photographs. Definitely worth seeking out.

[Spearhead]

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:<p>

 

<i>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.</i>

[sam_richardson]

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 :)

[ward]

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.

[Spearhead]

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.

[sam_richardson]

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.

[jon w.]

Ward - funny, but even more obscure than me when I am trying to outwit Mr. Gardner by being intentionally baffling.

[jon w.]

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.

[jon w.]

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".

[will_legge]

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?

[sam_richardson]

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?

[will_legge]

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.

[sam_richardson]

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.

[will_legge]

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.

[beeman458]

Will. Just a thought. "Horses for courses."<p>

 

Will wrote<p>

 

<i>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.</i><p>

 

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.<p>

 

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?<p>

 

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?<p>

[will_legge]

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.

[beeman458]

Will wrote<p>

 

<i>This suggests he wanted what we thought about it. That was my answer.</i><p>

 

Which is a good thing.<p>

 

<i>Just because I don't like the work, does not make me wrong (nor right).</i><p>

 

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.<p>

 

<i>But unless someone can come up with quantitative measurements for an art work, subjective opinions are all we have.</i><p>

 

And it's a damn shame too:)<p>

 

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.<p>

 

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.<p>

[beeman458]

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.

[sam_richardson]

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.

[will_legge]

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.

[sam_richardson]

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.

[will_legge]

"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?"