The failure of postmodernist appropriation?

[cyanatic]

In "Criticizing Photography", Terry Barrett cites Solomon-Godeau's discussion

of the rationale behind the work of two feminist photographers in 1985.

 

"Feminist theory in 1985 is embodied in the work of two female photographers:

Silvia Kolbowski and Vikky Alexander. Both deal directly with images of women

in the fashion industry. Both appropriate fashion imagery in mass circulation

sources to subvert them."

 

Having never seen the work of either woman, I have no opinion on the

social or artistic significance of their efforts. (If anything, I would be

predisposed to be sympathetic toward any photographer who utilizes imagery to

effect positive change by calling attention to limiting stereotypes.) I am,

however, familiar with the work of other photographers, known and unknown, who

utilize the postmodernist technique of image appropriation for the purpose of

effecting change, or to criticize the modernist aesthetic. In reading about

these feminist efforts to subvert traditional fashion imagery, it struck me

that, on the whole, photographic efforts to effect cognitive, societal, or

aesthetic change on a large scale seem to have so far proven a failure.

 

Look, for example, at three different works of appropriation:

 

1.)Barbara Kruger http://www.habalukke.ch/zeitung/titel1/stupid.jpg

 

2.)Carrie Mae Weems

http://asuartmuseum.asu.edu/collectorschoice/weems.jpg

 

3.) Jim Stone

http://www.museumofnewmexico.org/mfa/ideaphotographic/images/thumbs/stone2.jpg

 

I do not know the original sources of the Kruger or Weems photographs,

but Stone's is a minor reworking of Paul Strand's ?A Blind Woman?. I may

appreciate and agree with the points being made by Kruger and Weems (Stone's

point is a bit ambiguous to me, unless it is intended as an ironic statement on

contemporary ?political correctness?), but outside the rarefied atmosphere of

art galleries and photographic academia, what impact has any of these, or any

similar, works had upon society at large? Although my argument is largely

anecdotal and subjective, I think it's safe to say that the audience most

likely to view any of these works is the one least likely to require changing.

Consumerism, corporate manipulation of values through advertising, sexism,

racism...none of these things have been recently slowed down, altered, or

exposed because of an appropriated (or original, for that matter) photograph

hanging in an art gallery, or held aloft at a political rally.

 

In the past, certainly, there were photographs which had a discernible

impact upon societal perceptions of war, poverty, and working conditions. The

images of Brady, Sullivan, Riis, Hine, Evans, Lange, et al, come to mind. But

in contemporary times, I can offer no example of a comparable photographic

impact (appropriated or original) upon social issues or perceptions. (I do not

include the flap over government art funding created by Mapplethorpe and

Serrano.) I'm not suggesting that such work is pointless or should not be

done, but, in a time when there is an overwhelming glut of imagery and

information of all types available, I do doubt the ability of such imagery to

have much of an impact.

 

Any thoughts on the ability of contemporary photography, appropriated

or otherwise, to have a societal impact?

[william-porter]

Photos can certainly have an impact on society. The impact of many photos is accidental, in the sense that the photographer just happens to take a shot that subsequently becomes influential. It's far more difficult to decide "I'm going to be a feminist photographer and improve the lot of women with my photography." No, I take that back. It's easy to make that decision. It's just hard to have the impact. You don't make an impact just because you want to. But that's not surprising. It's hard for anybody in any field to change society. No news there.

 

I think the photographers in National Geographic have an impact on public awareness of environmental, ecological, wildlife and other issues. But they have that impact somewhat indirectly. National Geographic is, after all, a magazine that interests people who aren't tree huggers -- it's just a great read. A magazine called, say, Black and White, dealing with race relations through photos, is not likely to have the same readership, therefore not likely to have the same impact.

 

A single photo can change a single person's life -- as can a single piece of music, a single poem, a single painting or film. But if you want to change a lot of people's lives, it helps if you can reach a lot of people. Ms Kruger, Ms Weems and Mr Stone are never going to reach a lot of people with photos like the ones you linked to. I'm not dissing their photos. Artists like this go out of their way NOT to have mass appeal.

[jtk]

I doubt Americans today can be influenced by individual photos because they often see stills. We're no longer a reading (which means thinking) population, thanks to TV and intentional disinformation. Life Magazine is gone, and only a minority reads anything in print anymore, anyway. We're dumbed down too far to be influenced by , we are simply told what to think.

 

Film became more important while a few still thought. Perhaps the coverage Lt Calley's railroading and the coverup of higher officers had impact. Wasn't a big impact because we see echos today of the same sort of phenomena.

 

I think America saw big impact by footage of Bull Conner's unthinking, violent racism (Mitchell 16mm) and the later footage of HUAC protestors being blown off stairs in San Francisco (possibly also Mitchell).

 

I doubt the famous Vietnam photos had any impact because the heart of the resistance was already there in 1963...it wasn't a matter of photos.

 

The strongest images from Iraq, other than the prison abuses, seem to me to have been those of vehicles ventillated by thousands of pellets.

I think few of us really grasp what was going on in the 9/11 images.

[jtk]

..that got garbled. "we don't often see stills" and "dumbed down too far to be "influenced." We're simply told what to think." etc etc

[sitemistic]

I think it's hard to make an impact with photography, or any medium, anymore because

the rush of photographs, films and the written word leave no time for any of these to

make an impression on us. I've read very powerful non-fiction books this year that, in a

less media rich time, I really believe would have brought about significant change. But who

has time to dwell on that kind of thing when in a couple of weeks there will be another

equally as compelling.

<P>We are awash with images, many powerful photos that would have made the cover of

Life or Look when they existed, but they are litterly buried in minutes by a new flood of

equally compelling images and we have no time to comtemplate their meaning before we

are confronted with the new ones.

<p>The other issue that dilutes the power of images or words to influence is the problem

of "spin" in our culture. Even if an image or book makes a strong point about culture or

government, the original words or photo will be instantly buried under a hail of noise

carefully crafted to dilute the original message.

<p>No, I don't think it really possible anymore to produce photos or written words or art

that will have significant impact on society.

[JDMvW]

Video is perhaps more compelling these days than still photography, but I think that the photography still has some power to move. We've just seen War by Ken Burns, and although there was a lot of motion picture, there were still many still photographs used effectively. Famine victim photographs are still effective, even in still form. I think the work of pioneers like Riis and Hines still have impact even today. The little girl standing at the huge piece of machinery.

 

All this has nothing to do, of course, with "the postmodernist technique of image appropriation for the purpose of effecting change, or to criticize the modernist aesthetic". The techniques themselves were appropriated by the post-Modernists, who IMHO continue to do precisely what many have done all along, but with a convoluted and pretentious terminology. Self awareness is good, but carried to an extreme it becomes self-abuse, and is about as productive.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"The failure of postmodernist appropriation?"

 

really none of the examples you cite are doing anything more (or less than what some collage artists have done for decades if not centuries: taking existing messages and adding new information to make a new point.

 

John Heartsfield for example: http://tinyurl.com/2dw3d2

[ellis_vener_photography]

Heartfield died for his troubles<div></div>

[maris_rusis]

Appropriation as subversion? Looks more like homage to superior creativity! Remember, it is not too many years ago that photography students could earn (postmodern) credit points for their photojournalism course by staying home, drinking beer, and photographing the nightly news on television with their new Nikons.

 

Appropriation is postmodernism's strongest signal that it has failed as a well-spring of new vision.

[saskphotog]

I believe images (even still images) can and will always have the ability to sway large numbers of people. My first thought was the efforts of the military to control the imagery that came out of the Gulf, especially the uproar over those images of flag draped coffins in the airplanes.

 

The American military thinks images have power.

[des adams]

Do you think there is a difference now than in the past? Now, at least in Britain and America, there's heavy censorship by big biz, government. This site itself is censored, although I believe they call it something else ... moderation. Now there is a word to conjure with.

 

Indeed what news you might say? Well there is always those pretty and handsome anchor people. Quite recently I heard in a section of the BBC news called "news in brief", or something like that, that the body of a murdered and tortured American soldier had been found in a river in Iraq. The "news in brief" is always accompanied by a sort of disco beat.

 

But when was it otherwise with censorship? It's simply a fact, sometimes a little more sometimes a little less. Here's a little snap from Franny Goya esq. who did a whole series on the Peninsular war circa 1820 or something. If my link works it shows Goya's take.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Goya-Guerra_%2834%29.jpg/800px-Goya-Guerra_%2834%29.jpg

 

http://www.torturamuseum.com/instruments.html

 

 

The garrotte.

 

Goya has it, the torture site simply appeals to our vague curiosity and other more sinister tendencies ... so I know you'll all be flocking there.

 

I have little doubt myself that if a referendum was held in Britain or America on capital punishment the vote would go to the string them up dudes. That's simply because people are dumbed down by the system and not encouraged to use their imagination. Just as it ever was. I speak of Britain since that's where I was "born" apparently.

 

But someone sure is getting their message across. See I read to-day on the BBC, itself full of propaganda, that in a recent poll many people in Britain have decided not to have children because they fear the future. 70% of them questioned cited the reason of terrorist threats. Now compare that with something else I read recently, namely ... "since 9/11 there have been around 100000 murders in America, that's a World Trade center approximately every 2 months". Most murders being committed with guns, which are as everyone is perfectly aware, sold simply for someone to make a profit. Right now 3 million Americans are locked up in the can. Most of them are there because of their crime of being poor and uneducated and without hope..

 

Do you see? If Shakespeare's and Goya's perceptions take time to filter through then why would Postmodern Appropriations suddenly get shifted to the fore of the publicity machine?

 

Art takes time because it is concerned, amongst other things, with the eternal ... and as you might say, eternity is a waste of time. But what else is there?

[jtk]

"The American military thinks images have power."

 

1) The military didn't fear those photos, the president's masters did.

 

2) America doesn't give a damn about the deaths of soldiers, it's got Halo 3 and Paris Hilton.

 

America knows intellectually or by osmosis it's powerless against the mysterious forces that are inexorably leading it to undesired changes. Did you know, for example, that the evangelical movement that is said to rule the roost stopped being focused on the Gospels in this generation, is now focused on pentacostal mysteries which, according to the BIG LEADERS cannot be read and understood by the common man?

 

Hagee, Stone, Robertson, Bush.

 

How are you going to depict that photographically? You aren't.

________________

 

"But what else is there?" The written word. The Internet.

 

Joe Hill said "Organize!" Which means moveon.org.

[des adams]

John I pretty much said what I wanted to say on this and I'm unable to share your pessimism on photographs. There is as you say the internet, Joe Hill, politics, and organized religion. I rather see these things as a bit like shouting at the TV. It's topical but I think what endures is art which with all of it's faults is the only worthy contender and since the original question seemed to detect failure in a branch of it I wanted to point out that even the influence of acknowledged masters takes time, does not translate instantly, in fact gets largely ignored altogether. But art knows that, dealing as it does with the absurd.

 

Paris Hilton and Halo 3 made me laugh.

[saskphotog]

How about an image like the one here. Now THAT could change the world!

 

http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.com/2007/09/virgin-mary-image-found-in-lemon.html

[jtk]

Al, at some level I sometimes agree with you, but levels and times keep shifting.

 

Right now, I wouldn't advocate buying green bananas, longterm philosophically. On the other hand, the cockroaches don't seem worried.

 

"Art" when it occurs, which is almost never, is literally magical. Further, its good to piss into the ocean photographically, as every little bit helps. One will not have much to show for the effort, of course, and one must expect occasional blowback :-)

 

Having listened to BBC's plummy tones daily for the past several years, that it's a pathetic ruin seems obvious, propped up as it is by a few reporters and seemingly-human talking heads* (unrelated to America's gorgeous androids). The best thing about BBC (online) are the feeds from the former colonies.

 

*that they're actually British humans does seem dubious, as even the non-Pakistanis seem to have good teeth.

[des adams]

Larry. thanks for the link. I instantly went out and bought 8 kilos of lemons and am even now slicing. So far have only discovered seeds, or pips, but that's revelation for you. I can't remember the exact quote but Cathrine Blake said words to the effect that her husband William Blake was always busy talking to angels.

 

John, "Art" when it occurs, which is almost never, is literally magical". Sounds absolutely right to me. As for the BBC did you see that one of the bosses had to resign because he apparently said something about the Queen E2 getting into a huff with the photographer Anne Leibovitz. Leibovitz had reportedly said to the Queen that the snap might look better without the tiara. This says something I'm sure. "Talking heads" ... they're glove puppets, occasionally you can even see the strings. Still in fairness some of them do give a nod towards the possibility of baldness. Reality tv.

 

There's this .. as far as I recall Tolstoy got in a personal way into politics in his later life, you know became involved, which lead to personal problems and I wouldn't know if this bought about any positive results for the world. His books though have the old rough magic.

[sobeystudio]

The only image I can think of that has effected many, maybe was a still from video ( I don't

remember) was the image of Bill Clinton hugging Monica Lewinski at a rally. Whatever the

nature of the event, it created some stir, even if it was not initially of any importance.

[jtk]

Al, As a kid I lived in Newfoundland in 1958-59. The young Queen visited and the Newfies were rapturous. She really was a beauty. In any case, the most common car in Newfoundland was probably the Huff. Huffs really did exist.

 

The Queen did not drive off in a Huff, rather in a real Rolls, top down.

 

That's a vintage Newfoundland joke, hope you enjoy it.

 

(Huffs were absurd, stunted Morris Minor-sized 4-bangers whose bodywork was cartoon Rolls...unfortunately "going off in a Huff" doesn't work as well today, since I can't Google a picture)

[des adams]

John, as you guessed I've always loved Newfoundland jokes, and indeed Huffs.

 

"She really was a beauty". It's true, but as a mere toddler Princes Margret featured more in what I later learned to refer to when dragged screaming into polite circles as my pre-adolescent stirrings. I shall attempt at some point to make a postmodernist appropriation of this.

[jtk]

Al, what a coincidence! Martin Sobey also spoke of "stirrings."

 

I do understand his excitement about the President's chubby pal.

 

The Princess's characteristics escaped me somehow. What, um, "features" do you speak of? It appeared that Monica had more than enough of some of them.

 

The young Elizabeth rode out in plain red-uniformed attire to inspect the Queen's Own Hussars (or whoever), they astride huge chargers, at the end of every Canadian movie. As I recall. Breathtaking.

[des adams]

John, no not "features" but featurED.

 

 

"The young Elizabeth rode out in plain red-uniformed attire to inspect the Queen's Own Hussars (or whoever), they astride huge chargers, at the end of every Canadian movie. As I recall. Breathtaking".

 

 

Maybe on film ... visiting London once I stumbled upon the Queens birthday parade ... "The Trooping of the Colour". Some of it was I suppose in a way rather menacing but some of it I thought looked quite tatty ... bit like amateur dramatics, people draped in old curtains playing Romans. I have a snap of some retired guards officers marching and wearing their "uniform" of business suits and bowler hats. So you can guess who they're guarding really! In fact I think they're probably from the Ministry of Funny Walks.

<center><img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4139626-lg.jpg></center>

[dg1]

The once popular slogan "Been There, Done That" is symptomatic of a conspiracy to bring planned obsolesence to the life experience itself by disposing of such experience through the minimizing slander it contains.A disdaining denial of the lasting importance of anything. Scarfing down our moments like hungry dogs, and moving on. As our societal memories grow shorter, we're conned into questioning whether even recent experience happened at all. Were we hypnotized, did we dream it, was it propaganda? Photographs might serve as memory, but who believes photographs anymore in the age of photoshop? How can one have societal impact in a video clip/sound bite world? It's saturated. It's not appropriation, it's assimilation. Everything gets assimilated into the media blender now.. what would it take to "make an impact"? I'm suspect of any art that sets out to "effect change". Subversion perhaps..in an environment full of political and corporate thugs, I think one's chances are better underground. We've run out of shock, it's been co-opted ..we've been dumbed down but also numbed down. Perhaps suicide bombers are just frustrated performance artists. Maybe photos or "art" that tries to have societal impact is just another form of terrorism.

[jtk]

Dean,

 

Nice rant, with the exceptin of "scarfing...hungry dogs" metaphor. That mistakenly implies passion and proactivity. I wish most of us really were hungry (a few of us are, however rabid).

 

Better: "Like teflon frying pans, moments wash off us leaving nothing sticking.

[dg1]

Thankyou John, I agree with you.. and thanks for the teflon, I think it'll stick.

[kevin_schoedel]

"Perhaps suicide bombers are just frustrated performance artists."

<p>

If I could find a way to sell front-row seats to postmodernists, <i>everyone</i> would win.