I've felt it myself. That straw that sucks the life out of art. The over-thinking strain of over-theory. The talking that sucks the mystery out of life. This is theory as abuse, and not as I see its intention.
The first point in the defense of theory is that the best theory writers are artists in their own craft. Reading their works should not seem overbearing and dreadful - though they may be thick. The writing of Baudelaire, Barthes, Derrida, and Foucault are the works of dreamers and thinkers - not pedants. They simultaneously muse and demystify. With one hand take what you know and with the other deliver a new way of seeing. They break your glasses and open your eyes.
This is why the reader of theory must muse with the muses. They must revolve their understandings and remain within a pleasant tumult of knowing and un-knowing. It is when we're stuck in a mode of thinking that theory blocks us from loving a work. Looking at work simply to enjoy it belongs to a way of thinking as well.
There are certain insights, however, that are difficult to unlearn. Historical fallacies, differance, etc. Just as theory is playful, it is also useful. It keeps us from making the same mistakes constantly. We can make art without thinking, art for the sake of art. But once we attempt to adhere meaning, we must be wary of the history of art, and of theory.
We can't be impressionists, symbolists, surrealists again. Theory keeps us from making the same mistakes, but you must dive into the tumult. You've gotta soak it up. Make it a part of your thinking rather than clashing with it. Know and un-know tomorrow and keep the thinking going.
Otherwise, it gets boring.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Barthes and Mediocre Photography
So we've all been there: Floating in the endless sea of photographs that don't mean a thing to you. And they tend to fall into categories too. The photography student's pictures of their and other friends' tiny and cute feet. The looking-up-at-monolith shots: these vary considerably but usually include Baird Point or very tall building. The classic shot at arm's length back towards oneself. This is one of the worst, becoming known as the 'Myspace Shot.' There's even the classic rear-view mirror shot, a spontaneous occurance which usually springs from shooting out the window of a car and seeing one's own visage.
This is the more contemporary and banal end of Barthes' interest in the punctum and studium. Where Barthes' personal essay focused on that which mattered to him, he left the rest of the body of photography to focus on that which is important but not piercing. Along with or beside the studium lies the rest of photography's body: the cute toes and tall buildings of banality.
Most of these works are not even 'punctum' to the photographers themselves. They are simply images, bereft of care, wonder, importance, labor, etc. They pile up like wet smelly leaves. Never raked, never burned.
This is the more contemporary and banal end of Barthes' interest in the punctum and studium. Where Barthes' personal essay focused on that which mattered to him, he left the rest of the body of photography to focus on that which is important but not piercing. Along with or beside the studium lies the rest of photography's body: the cute toes and tall buildings of banality.
Most of these works are not even 'punctum' to the photographers themselves. They are simply images, bereft of care, wonder, importance, labor, etc. They pile up like wet smelly leaves. Never raked, never burned.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Light, Descartes, Cubism
Readings for this week were pretty varied, though none particularly extensive. Each operated as a kind of poke for thought, and not a deep exploration. Quick and insincere introductions to gender theory, 'gaze,' and semiotics were maybe the most memorable.
Although Descarte's essay on optics is outdated and verifiably incorrect, it does offer some interesting observations as metaphor and theory, as they pertain to the world of art in particular. This is most likely why it remains an important addendum to the canon, though its science is dead.
Let's dissect: "[engravings] represent to us forests, towns, people, and even battles and storms; and although they make us think of countless different qualities in these objects, it is only in respect of shape that there is any real resemblance. And even this resemblance is very imperfect, . . . in accordance with the rules of perspective they often represent circles by ovals better than by other circles, squares by rhombuses better than by other squares, and similarly for other shapes."
This last bit is perhaps the most interesting. Descartes is alluding to an idea which might not realize itself in the world of art for the next 300 years. Those maybe seven years when Cubism was most prevalent, these ideas of the slavery of forms in two dimensions were finally explored. Descartes was discussing the idea that a square object is better represented by a rhombus because of the rules of perspective. Those rules didn't seem to be loudly confounding artists until Braque and Picasso took up arms against them in 1907.
Some things take a while to come around, eh?
Although Descarte's essay on optics is outdated and verifiably incorrect, it does offer some interesting observations as metaphor and theory, as they pertain to the world of art in particular. This is most likely why it remains an important addendum to the canon, though its science is dead.
Let's dissect: "[engravings] represent to us forests, towns, people, and even battles and storms; and although they make us think of countless different qualities in these objects, it is only in respect of shape that there is any real resemblance. And even this resemblance is very imperfect, . . . in accordance with the rules of perspective they often represent circles by ovals better than by other circles, squares by rhombuses better than by other squares, and similarly for other shapes."
This last bit is perhaps the most interesting. Descartes is alluding to an idea which might not realize itself in the world of art for the next 300 years. Those maybe seven years when Cubism was most prevalent, these ideas of the slavery of forms in two dimensions were finally explored. Descartes was discussing the idea that a square object is better represented by a rhombus because of the rules of perspective. Those rules didn't seem to be loudly confounding artists until Braque and Picasso took up arms against them in 1907.
Some things take a while to come around, eh?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Thinking About Photography
Thinking About Photography covers many aspects of the interpretation of photography through the years. It must first deal with the early controversies of photography as art, photography as document, and photography as communication. A few pulled quotes will bring light to these considerations.
'Sworn Witness' - 'The inevitable function of photograph [is] that it showed the world without contrivance and prejudice.'
This early view of photography was important because it was both insightful and inherently flawed. To assume that a photograph shows the world without prejudice is to remove the photographer from the equation altogether - a feat that cannot be performed. This view of photography operates like a traffic or dash-mounted police camera; operator free.
'...it voraciously records anything in view; in other words it is firmly in the realm of contingent.'
Here again is the camera as consumer. This is the property of photography that esteems it as scientific and tramples it as art. This is the reason that it has a foot in both worlds and causes infinitely vapid debate from both camps. Pictorialist, straight, and digital photography are all struggling with this property.
'Photography makes aware for the first time the optical unconscious, just as psychoanalysis discloses the instinctual unconscious.'
This begins the next phase of the discussion of photography. Once applied to psychoanalysis and the effects of modernism, photography was open to the entire critical debate. It was no longer simply a scientific physical tool. After years of hanging in galleries, photography was officially a part of the artistic canon and thus susceptible to the greatest of critical inquiry: psychoanalytic, postmodern, or otherwise.
As a mechanical implement which offered the oldest of human perception, this was ripe territory for inspection and analysis.
'Sworn Witness' - 'The inevitable function of photograph [is] that it showed the world without contrivance and prejudice.'
This early view of photography was important because it was both insightful and inherently flawed. To assume that a photograph shows the world without prejudice is to remove the photographer from the equation altogether - a feat that cannot be performed. This view of photography operates like a traffic or dash-mounted police camera; operator free.
'...it voraciously records anything in view; in other words it is firmly in the realm of contingent.'
Here again is the camera as consumer. This is the property of photography that esteems it as scientific and tramples it as art. This is the reason that it has a foot in both worlds and causes infinitely vapid debate from both camps. Pictorialist, straight, and digital photography are all struggling with this property.
'Photography makes aware for the first time the optical unconscious, just as psychoanalysis discloses the instinctual unconscious.'
This begins the next phase of the discussion of photography. Once applied to psychoanalysis and the effects of modernism, photography was open to the entire critical debate. It was no longer simply a scientific physical tool. After years of hanging in galleries, photography was officially a part of the artistic canon and thus susceptible to the greatest of critical inquiry: psychoanalytic, postmodern, or otherwise.
As a mechanical implement which offered the oldest of human perception, this was ripe territory for inspection and analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)