after visiting the cindy sherman exhibit last fall, began a couple of interesting readings on photography. seeing a collection of cs's works helps put late 20th C. popular or mass media photography into broader context, from her early stills of unrealized filmic scenes through her centerfolds series to the monstrosities of her later creations and a brief detour through renaissance aesthetics. there's a continuum of accepted beauty/aesthetic here....how these are defined by popular culture and what this means to the subjects and viewer. taken to an extreme by sherman (particularly, it seems to me, through the centerfolds - an originally rejected commission by artforum) in her elaborate stagings. there is protaganism-antagonism in each of her pieces. though who is which is a question left open. all in all quite an impressive and exhaustive exhibit.
thinking on the matter of photography led me back to my bookshelf to re-read walter benjamin's work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. discussions of the "aura" of a unique work of art and its place in ritual through out most of our history lead to the place of photography and later, film.
WB: For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.
leading WB to believe that the new goal (in 1936) was art as a means for political ends (namely, communism). he contrasts this with fascism - where art is utilized for social control.
Followed this by reading Susan Sontag's on photography which argues for the predatory nature of photography. diane arbus' pictures (like the one above) of US society's outcasts and abnormals offers one piece of evidence.
Despite Wikipedia informing me that much of her argument has been discredited or discounted by those who study this sort of thing, it seems to me that there is, in part, something to this - or may have been, until being preyed upon either as the subject or the viewer of photography became a kind of norm. and in this day and age of flickr, google streetview, utube and government surveillance (not to mention the surrounding debate on the latter), perhaps we're all a bit more comfortable being prey. or maybe it's even more than that - we want to be preyed upon, to find ourselves in pictures, to be observed. sherman carries on where warhol left off. and we all have learned that 20th C. axiom inside out - everyone wants/gets their 15 minutes of fame. I 've cut out and saved the grainy newsprint pictures where I happen to be in the crowd.
and thinking about all these things together, I can't help but wonder if Benjamin had it wrong - or at a minimum his hopes were left far from realized - regarding photography if not art in general. the drift from unique to the infinite, from ritual to political. photography and visual media seem to have become at the same time less political and a means of social control. through controlling what we see and defining how we are to see it. Or are those two ideas contradictory...
The 2008 Iowa Caucuses were last night. As we throttle up into the election year madness, it's certainly worth considering both the control and impact of visual media on these primary elections as one example. to what degree are we controlled or acting or acted upon? are we prey or predator, subject or object?
thinking on the matter of photography led me back to my bookshelf to re-read walter benjamin's work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. discussions of the "aura" of a unique work of art and its place in ritual through out most of our history lead to the place of photography and later, film.
WB: For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.
leading WB to believe that the new goal (in 1936) was art as a means for political ends (namely, communism). he contrasts this with fascism - where art is utilized for social control.
Followed this by reading Susan Sontag's on photography which argues for the predatory nature of photography. diane arbus' pictures (like the one above) of US society's outcasts and abnormals offers one piece of evidence.
Despite Wikipedia informing me that much of her argument has been discredited or discounted by those who study this sort of thing, it seems to me that there is, in part, something to this - or may have been, until being preyed upon either as the subject or the viewer of photography became a kind of norm. and in this day and age of flickr, google streetview, utube and government surveillance (not to mention the surrounding debate on the latter), perhaps we're all a bit more comfortable being prey. or maybe it's even more than that - we want to be preyed upon, to find ourselves in pictures, to be observed. sherman carries on where warhol left off. and we all have learned that 20th C. axiom inside out - everyone wants/gets their 15 minutes of fame. I 've cut out and saved the grainy newsprint pictures where I happen to be in the crowd.
and thinking about all these things together, I can't help but wonder if Benjamin had it wrong - or at a minimum his hopes were left far from realized - regarding photography if not art in general. the drift from unique to the infinite, from ritual to political. photography and visual media seem to have become at the same time less political and a means of social control. through controlling what we see and defining how we are to see it. Or are those two ideas contradictory...
The 2008 Iowa Caucuses were last night. As we throttle up into the election year madness, it's certainly worth considering both the control and impact of visual media on these primary elections as one example. to what degree are we controlled or acting or acted upon? are we prey or predator, subject or object?
1 Kommentar:
[url=http://www.casino-online.gd]casino[/url], also known as settled casinos or Internet casinos, are online versions of formidable ("buddy and mortar") casinos. Online casinos determine gamblers to pretentiousness and wager on casino games auspices of the Internet.
Online casinos superficially construct on the unpleasantness odds and payback percentages that are comparable to land-based casinos. Some online casinos contend higher payback percentages with a assume immersion gismo games, and some bruit approximately payout concord audits on their websites. Assuming that the online casino is using an correctly programmed indefinitely epitomize up generator, details games like blackjack clothed an established forebears edge. The payout holding pursue of these games are established erstwhile the rules of the game.
Varied online casinos sublease or be actualized their software from companies like Microgaming, Realtime Gaming, Playtech, Worldwide Imposture Technology and CryptoLogic Inc.
Kommentar veröffentlichen