How can photography be thought as a Postmodern medium?

[ellis_vener_photography]

In that NYT link that Thmas posted, Michael Kimmelman says it much better than I

apparently am able to.

 

Irony is often used to emotionally distance oneself from a subject. In portrait photoraphy

so is blandness. Arbus' photographs does a lot of work to define the "otherness" of her

subjects,

making you the viewer sensitive to your otherness and strangeness as well.

 

Most portraiture works the other way, to

make the viewer feel an unearned familiarity and empathy with the subject of the

photograph,allowing the viewer to project "a

likeness" of self on the person in the photograph. That is something that for me (and I use

this technique most of the time in my

commercial work) draws a veil over how unique we actually are from one another. this is

what meant by "emotional distancing" - -seeing yourelf reflected there and not the other

person. In this I agree with the late Richard Avedon that photographs, especially of other

people, are "fictions".

 

Kevin ,

 

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain myself better and also fro not taking

offense - but also remeber that this is not a private dialog between Kevin and Ellis and

that I often frame my responses to that larger audience, manuyy of whom may not know

who August Sander was or what is actually meant by the word "irony" .

[kevinconroyfarrell]

OK, Ellis, well I notice for my part that I wrote Sandler instead of Sander, the truth being I

have really only glanced through Sander's work after reading about him in Susan Sontag's

book.

 

So, care to go into specifics about what kinds of things are done by a commercial

portraitist to achieve that unearned empathy? Then, what does Arbus do to establish

otherness? I am talking in both instances about choices made by the photographer in the

way he chooses to shoot the scene and the subject.

[vatovec]

Arbus photographed "mercelessly" without glamour or artifice she photographed truth, often with on camera flash and on medium or large format, so every flaw would be revealed.

 

The viewer sees this flawed image and he cannot relate to the subject - he DON`t WANT to relate to her subjects (...poor boy, I`m no freak,...).

 

And that constitutes otherness. Her subjects are all the same, it is she that is the freak, we all are freaks.

[kevinconroyfarrell]

Good, David.

 

Ellis and Thomas, Well, I did match the wrong title with the wrong picture. Still, use of the

word "patriotic" jumps out at me as being suspect in the caption of what I now realize is

the correct

photograph, as does the mention of other subjects' race and handicaps. Then the caption

for the Brenda Frazer portrait in 1967 seems odd. The

caption is

something like, Brenda Frazer, Miss Debutante 1938, at home. There is an incongruity

between the caption, which refers to an event some twenty-five years earlier, and what is

depicted in front of us. The title seems to want to draw our attention to loss, while

presenting itself as mere record of fact. This is why I think it is ironic.

[beeman458]

I think the irony is the connection of the word "patriotic" with the "image" of the person. :)

[kevinconroyfarrell]

I see it that way, Thomas. The word "patriotic" is too subjective for use in a literal description.

It is too politically charged. And the word "patriotic" is often used ironically. None of which

proves she is being ironic, but I think they are plausible clues. I think there is at least the

possibility of irony in the captions.

[beeman458]

"None of which proves she is being ironic,..."

 

You would have to admit by using that particular term, attached to that particular image, even if unintentional is ironic in-of-itself.

 

Would you want that image leading any of your "patriotic" charges? :)

[beeman458]

Maybe we can throw "sarcasm" into the hopper in the place of "irony.

 

Would that work? Can Postmodern, well known for "thumb-in-the-eye-itist, realistically be characterized accurately as being found somewhere deep in the realm of the wonderful world of "sarcasm?" :)

 

Dictionary.com: Sarcasm:

 

1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

 

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark...

[beeman458]

Only posting definition for illustrative purposes.

[kevinconroyfarrell]

I am starting to realize what Ellis meant when he said Arbus was doing something similar to

the census/survey photography of August Sander. Is it possible she was doing something

satyrical in the

vein of Sander in order to comment on contemporary American problems?

[beeman458]

"Is it possible she was doing something satyrical in the vein of Sander in order to comment on contemporary American problems?"

 

One needs to look back to both WeeGee (her all time fav) and Lisette Model, her mentor in order to understand her background. One needs to understand her state-of-mind (mentally depressed/suicidal) to understand her last images. One needs to look back at her tumultuous life with her husband as a well respected stylist.

 

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa110600a.htm

[beeman458]

"How can photography be thought as a Postmodern medium?"

 

And on the other hand, we have the converse question:

 

Why can't photography be thought as a Postmodern medium?

 

And then there's other questions.

 

Why are all these people worrying about that what isn't important?

 

Who's asking all these questions and how are these questions relevant to those who actually go out and make the exposures?

 

Is the finger on the shutter release supposed to care one iota about what a professor thinks in a study somewhere far removed from the artistic photographic intellectual process?

 

Is it the photographic artist's worry to care what other's think, before they trip the shutter?

 

Isn't it really all about biasing a view, before the mind goes forth to conquor light?

 

Do educators really want people thinking for themselves?

 

Do educators really want independent thought?

 

Isn't it really a question of the photographer being taught by educators (must get a grade) how to think so photographs will toe the party line for their degree?

 

Is the final step in the education department of life, revolting against all that you've been taught?

 

Make the professor happy, revolt and you'll get noticed?

 

Where's the decent? Where's the distrust of authority? Where's the finger in the "Eye-of-the-Man? What happened to the 60's; ("Hell no, we won't go.") Have the hippies of the past become the status quo (power) of the present and don't even know the heats been turned up?

 

(Asked with all due respect)

[beeman458]

Mod, where's the edit button:)

 

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

 

"...how to think so photographers will toe the party line for their degree?"

 

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

 

Where's the desent?

 

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

 

Spelling Vs Usage.

 

Doh!

[john_sidlo]

<p>Me, trying to grok "postmodernism" by reading about it in "Wikipedia", a postmodern encyclopedia"</p><br/>

<img src=http://www.johnsidlo.com/images/PostModernWikiJohnDSC17041.jpg />

[jason j]

Dear Natalia, talk to your professor. I am a professor who teaches social theory for a living, including postmodernism. A great deal has been written in this forum, much of it useful and much of it useless. I will not say which is which, which is both, or which is neither. However, please hear this -- you (and many others apparently) are trying to write about postmodernism from a modernist perspective, which is possible but difficult.

 

For example, from some postmodernist perspectives the artist's intentions may not matter -- what matters more is the audience's interpretations. Likewise, it doesn't matter if Arbus was trying to be ironic. What matters is how her photographs and their titles are seen as ironic, satirical, sarcastic, etc...

 

Also beware of confusing the analytical perspective (postmodernism) with the thing being analyzed (photography). Yes, photographers can consciously set out to make post-modern photographs that embody the philosophy of post-modernism or they can simply make evocative pics, into which people read post-modernism.

 

Thus, what should matter most to your professor is how well you can use post-modernism to help you understand the world. For instance a post-modern analysis of power (as described by Foucault) helped me deal with my boss. Otherwise, all this talk about post-modernism is just mental masturbation. Of course, your professor may just want you to tell him what he thinks. Some professors are assholes. You may also want to ask a friend to proofread your paper (I give that advice to native English speakers too). What you do is up to you. Good Luck.

[beeman458]

"A great deal has been written in this forum, much of it useful and much of it useless."

 

Based upon who's biased view? :) LOL

[beeman458]

Professor, do you even realize how gilded (subjective) the biased lily has become? :) LOL

 

One has to only read Andre Breton to understand. Poor poor Dali as he wasn't down enough, the commercial rat:) Like a "gang-sta, he had to be taken out. And poor ol Diego Rivera, the party didn't like his leanings and it caused him angst. Haaaaaa! :) But he joined the church in the end. :) Looks like they lost that one. :)

 

Does anybody even read this stuff with the intent of understanding it? Oh my, the politics of it allllll. As the Dadaists dragged left, Stieglitz plodded straight ahead but had room for 291 and nobody noticed the schism and the Bauhaus continued on..... :)

 

"Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain!" "The Beat Goes On" Sonny and Cher

 

Thank you Frank Lloyd Wright.:)

 

LOL Oh myiiiiii! :)

[jason j]

Thomas, this is my informed opinion. You obviously have your own. Yes, I realize that many people are gilding lilies, which is why I also teach classical and modernist perspectives (that should be good for another laugh). By the way, do you get paid for each reference to a cultural icon? This was a pretty popular game at the University of Chicago, but I was never very good at it. You seem to be a winner.

 

When was Natalia's paper due?

[beeman458]

"You seem to be a winner."

 

No icons, just historical facts (read what these notables have to write on their matters) and the what's what with the who's who in artistic history and the well developed confusion (idol worship?) which has developed between Postmodern photographic arts and the rest of Postmodern arts as they're two completely different animals which sprang, at different times in artistic history, from the same water source, art, yet of different wells of artistic evolution. Art has a Darwinistic tree just as everything else does. As a suggestion, have your class make an artistic evolutionary tree. Have your students pick a four or five hundred year time frame and let them research and create an evolutionary tree for that time period.

 

By-the-by, what is it we're all taught?; how those who've run out of argument and how they're prophetically expected to comport themselves? :)

 

You guys (professors) should be experts by now on bias and making sure it's dealt with in a transparent fashion. I'm wary of those who claim objectivity when clearly they dance with a subjective partner.

 

Breton wrote, (subjective at best because it was his think which he wrote of,) and the rest of the art world picked up on his dance, became his dance partner and now projects his words as if they're fact. Wow! :) Reporting on what Breton wrote, fact, reporting on what Breton had to write, subjective as to write Breton's thoughts as fact is to gild the lily of bias.... "Andre Breton wrote....." :) So what! Just because the neighbor's dog speaks to you, doesn't mean you have to do what he says.

 

The Dadaists become disenchanted and therein ends reality? Someone becomes disenchanted with Modernism and yet they still drive a car? At least the Amish are honest about their disenchantment and they stated such long "before" the Dadaists:) To paraphrase a country song: The Amish were Postmodern before it was cool to be Postmodern. :)

 

Step back in photographic historical time, check out Stieglitz and what he was doing at the end of the century and what the rest of the art world was doing. Make note of the direction Stieglitz & Co. (photographic art) was moving, straight ahead, (Modernism?) and make note of what the rest of the art world was doing Pre W.W.I; making a Progressive Humanist turn to the Left as Post W.W.I it became vogue to cruise Mexico City and do the Commie (Stalin) dance. No Iconic rhetoric, just the facts. "Smack that kid for noticing the King ain't got no clothes." :)

 

It's so nice to be out of the clutches of intellectual cultural centers. :) I couldn't imagine making a return run. (note lack of smiley face)

[kevinconroyfarrell]

Jason Jimerson, How did reading Foucault help you deal with your boss?

[jason j]

Sorry if my previous reply was snide, but I found the LOL's insulting. Don't really like being laughed at.

 

Many post-modernists explicitly disavow objectivity and emphasize subjectivity. If you think ojectivity is great, fine.

 

By the way, I was taught to make trees that trace the evolution of ideas by Donald N. Levine, see his book Visions of the Sociological Tradition if you want to see the trees. my students learn smaller versions of these trees (shrubs?).

 

Hi Kevin, good question. Different paradigms emphasize different aspects of power. To oversimplify: Classical paradigms focus on how authority conveys power; Modernist paradigms focus on how objectivity and reason convey power. Post-modernists focus on the absurdity and arbitrariness of power.

 

Let me give you a concrete example. From a modernist perspective the facts should speak for themselves. To many post-modernists, what matters is how people speak about facts. James Holstein in a Social Forces paper compares two women resisting involuntary committment. In one case, a woman is committed because as a mentally ill woman she will be at risk from predatory men. In the other case, a woman remains free because as a woman she is not considered as dangerous to others. Same fact, being a woman, is cited to make opposing arguments, albeit in relation to other facts.

 

Anyway, what Focault helped me realize is that I was trying to reason with folks who could and would reinterpret whatever facts that I gave them in ways that would support their arguments against me. Instead of fighting facts with facts, I had to understand where they were coming from. I had to understand their subjective logic in order to meet them halfway or at least submit an honorable surrender.

 

Sorry for such a long answer. Hope you find this relevant.

[beeman458]

"Don't really like being laughed at."

 

That usually happens when one takes themselves too seriously.

[beeman458]

"Modernist paradigms focus on how objectivity and reason convey power."

 

Isn't that a bit overarching in definition? It seems you're painting all Modernists with a broad brush. I'm a Modernist. I see everybody as a Modernist as you can't have a well developed society without Modernistic ideals. I also see Modernists understanding the need for a softer more gentle ideal, one of harmony as opposed to brute forced control; a balance if you will. The day of the Robber Barrons is long past, fortunately; thank-you Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt.

 

"Post-modernists focus on the absurdity and arbitrariness of power."

 

Isn't it more a revolt from within the protective comfort one derives from the benefits of Modernism. Since the lions, tigers and bears have been controlled, one can safely speak out about how brave they are? "I'll conquer the mountain!", with O2, support team, radio, rescue copters at the ready and sherpa safely by my side. :) Or maybe, it's a free wheeling life style but be sure to keep the phone, with 911 on speed dial, close at hand. :)

 

"Let me give you a concrete example. From a modernist perspective the facts should speak for themselves. To many post-modernists, what matters is how people speak about facts.""

 

"I hate war, so let's talk about it, but if you break into my house, I'll call the cops and let them forcibly remove you as opposed to getting my hands dirty."

 

Hmmmmmm!

 

My laughter is because of the transparency of it all and the mental games played as if this is all enigmatic and worthy of intellectual debate/conversation. You guys (intellectual elitists) don't realize it, but the dumbest on the streets actually understand this stuff and see it as just a bunch of brainiacs asking a bunch of rhetorical questions where the answers are already known.

 

In keeping with the spirit of the OP's question, I'd like her to answer the converse question: Any ideas why ph isn't a postmodern medium.

 

By-the-by, Modernists never died, never went away, never climbed into a cave or otherwise and Modernism has continued in all it's self-serving glory. Modernism? It became vogue to talk of Modernism as if it had died and been usurped by Postmodernism when the reality of the issue, Postmodern just became a parallel art form exerting it's Modernistic power over the subjugated, (fallen from favor) art form.

 

Another thought, traditional art (non-photographic) was postmodern before it was cool to be postmodern. I think maybe some folks are amazed for the sake of amazement cause it sounds good.

 

History is a terrible thing to waste. :)

 

Do dah, do dah. We're all just idiots at the bottom of the pile, singing the do dah day. :)

[king_wong]

With all these overweighted academic jargons, you might want to relax and read a comfortable book like John Dewey's "Art as Experience". All too often critical theory and its targeted discipline are lum together like blind dates. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.

 

Given that there are people who do work theoretically, these are more often critics than artists. For you to write a paper using other people's career-building coined terms is to put yourself into their tracks, and deny yourself of your own observation. Everyone claims that they understand the times and invented a few words to seal it. We ought to know that these are all intellectual rhetorics, useless and taken out of context.

 

What is important is to write a paper that you will understand a year later. I would look at the 3 artists' works and write about the experience of looking at them. You don't need to have a particular aim when looking at them, just your honesty. Look at them a few times. All this, of course, might not work for your high-minded professor, which is sad.

 

Don't be too concern about correct english, I understand them.

[kevinconroyfarrell]

Jason, Very interesting answer. In my answer to Natalia I had emphasized the postmodern

skepticism about myth, kind of a Roland Barthes approach.