Aperture?

[roteague]

I always teeter on buying Aperture each quarter but it always just misses the spot. To each there own.

I agree as well. I don't expect the magazine to only have portfolio's or artists that interest me, but I do expect to sometimes see something that does. I like color landscapes - you know, Jack Dykinga, Joe Cornish, John Fielder, Tom Till, Ken Duncan type of images. But, too often these type of magazines dismiss this as "colorful calendar art", a sentiment I have heard on APUG as well.

 

[bjorke]

bjorke, we are talking about photography that is supposed to be "art," not photojournalism taken out of context.

You and Helenb are talking about photography as a communication medium, Jim and other like him and me who find no value in magazines like Aperture and Spot are talking of the photograph as an art object.

I worried when typing my original late-night post that people would be unable to see over that speedbump. In fact I see absolutely no distinction. All photography operates via similar mechanisms to other photography; all photography is a representation based on optical tracing. As such it is an art of collection and redaction, rather than intention (painting and sculpture, on the other hand, are all intention -- nothing appears unless the painter sets a brush to it). This is true for news photography or art photography, the differences are mostly the intents of the audience not the basic mechanisms and methods of the photographer.

I'd like you to explain how art is not communication, btw. Even the most abstract and decorative pieces are an attempt to communicate feelings and thoughts (in this way, even abstract art can be considered representational, if perhaps only representing the state of mind of the artist). You assert that your perception is somehow different, that you are talking about some other photography. Please, define this! Photo as "art object" what the heck is that?

Here are some other works that require considerable external knowledge, presented usually in essay form, before the viewer can get a grip on them. I will avoid images normally associated with photojournalism.

"Meaning" is not some formal quality like "red" that can be simply applied to an image, rather it comes from an enmeshing and collision of the image, the intent of the artist, and the knowledge/state of mind of the viewer. No image can function without interpretation by the viewer, and all viewers are different.

To assume that an image should be "naturally" understood in a completely self-contained manner, to be somehow universally archetypal, is to aim not high but to aim low, to whatever lowest common denominator your own potentially-limited experiences can already manage, and which you expect to share with your audience, who can absorb these images in a smooth, pre-chewed form. In other words, to confirm and conform to standardized stereotypical imagery (and ideas).

Such sentiments often turn "exotoxic" -- hostile to ideas that go beyond the simple ones. Such sentiments have already been expressed in this thread, and have historically eventually found natural expression in events like those in my previous example photo.

 

[Helen B]

Bjorke: "I'd like you to explain how art is not communication, btw. Even the most abstract and decorative pieces are an attempt to communicate feelings and thoughts (in this way, even abstract art can be considered representational, if perhaps only representing the state of mind of the artist). You assert that your perception is somehow different, that you are talking about some other photography. Please, define this! Photo as "art object" what the heck is that?"

I was wondering the same thing. Jorge appears to have a narrower definition of communication than I do, and the fact that a piece of art communicates something does not imply that the viewer was looking for 'hidden meanings'. As the Edgar Degas quote that Jorge uses as his signature says "Art is not what you see, but what you make others see."

Bjorke again: "To assume that an image should be "naturally" understood in a completely self-contained manner, to be somehow universally archetypal, is to aim not high but to aim low, to whatever lowest common denominator your own potentially-limited experiences can already manage, and which you expect to share with your audience, who can absorb these images in a smooth, pre-chewed form. In other words, to confirm and conform to standardized stereotypical imagery (and ideas)."

If we see a poem written in a language that we don't understand we wouldn't say that it was a meaningless poem, nor would we demand that all meaningful verbal communication should be in our language. We would realise that we would have to know that language to appreciate the poem, or find a translation to give us an idea of what the poem is about. When we see an image that we don't understand (whatever that means in terms of an image), do we make the same allowance?

Best,
Helen

 

[Sparky]

If we see a poem written in a language that we don't understand we wouldn't say that it was a meaningless poem, nor would we demand that all meaningful verbal communication should be in our language.

Well, perhaps Jorge would (ha ha) - anyway - I've always thought this quote was particularly germaine to the topic (and now, to this discussion);

The purpose of art is to tell you something that you already knew - but didn't know that you knew

- William S. Burroughs

And that's putting it in just about as "down-to-earth" a fashion as you can.

 

[Jorge]

Well, perhaps Jorge would (ha ha)

You dont know me a****** so I suggest you keep your jokes to yourself.

 

[Sparky]

Yes, I do. I know you. I know you to be the person you've shown yourself to be. I have nothing against you. But I think that, based on past behaviour - that you deserve to be joked around with a little bit (see the witkin thread). If you have any kind of confidence in, or respect for, yourself - this should not bother you.

macht's gut.

 

[Sparky]

by the way...

what is a******??

 

[Jorge]

Yes, I do. I know you. I know you to be the person you've shown yourself to be. I have nothing against you. But I think that, based on past behaviour - that you deserve to be joked around with a little bit (see the witkin thread). If you have any kind of confidence in, or respect for, yourself - this should not bother you.

macht's gut.

And who died and made you god to decide who deserves to be joked around with? I dont give a shit if you have something against me or not, personally I dont like you, I know you are nobody I want to have anything to do with and this is why I dont adress you in any way. So stay away from me *******, cause I dont find your "jokes" funny.

 

[Bob F.]

"deserve to be joked around with a little bit" ?

Odd phrase to use. Odd opinion to hold. I'm not going to have a dig because I am trying to be nice these days, but I do feel obliged to point out that if someone takes offence to a joke you make that is aimed at them, the normal polite reaction is to apologise, explain that no offence was intended and move on: not add to the offence by making absurd "you deserve it" comments which will only lead to inevitable consequences...

Bob.

[edit] Ah, I see my "inevitable concequences" occured while I was typing...

 

[Tom Duffy]

I subscribed to Aperture in the early '90's. I had gone through a 10 year hiatus from photography and got back into into it in the late 80's when my kids were born. (all fathers photograph). I subscribscribed to most things photographic for a while.

While lots in Aperture was good, thought provoking and interesting in a non mainstream way, that changed from my perspective very rapidly over the course of a few issues. Andres Serrano with "Piss Christ", another picture of someone in a Cardinal's outfit scourging a naked woman really offended me. They followed on in the next issue with pictures of anatomically correct medical dummies leaking fluids from the usual and some unusual places.
I decided then and there that Aperture was equating "sensational" with "good art". I cancelled my subscription and never looked back.

 

[Alex Hawley]

For Bjorke

Hey Bjorke - can you post some pictures that are any more offensive and in bad taste than the ones you've been putting in this thread. What're you trying to prove dude? I mean those pictures really reak. Did you just have to do that?

 

[Jim Chinn]

Bjorke,

I notice that all the examples you posted that require "considerable knowledge to get a grip on them" are not contemporary. The most recent, the Warhol probably dates from the mid 60s, from a movement that went out of style 20 years ago. Guernica by Picasso is from 1938. I don't think a viewer around that time needed an essay to "get a grip" on what Picasso was saying.


In the context of the time the examples were made, the viewer probably had a pretty concrete understanding of what the artist wanted to communicate without having to be told.

Your understanding of the work, unless you saw them with no prior information, has been filtered through what others have told you to think. Of course when dealing with historical works, far removed from the artist, the word of the scholar or critic is all we can go by.

In other words, your examples all stood on their own in there time. So why
does so much of today's art need so much propping up by words so the viewer can get the correct message? I suppose one reason is people like me might look at photographs of GI Joe dioramas and not take it very seriously unless someone writes an essay and tells me just how damn brilliant the work is and I must be some kind of idiot to not see the greatness of the work.

Great art needs no words to move a person. Poor art can't hack it on its own. No matter how much you try to hide its banality with words, it is still bad art.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Great art needs no words to move a person. Poor art can't hack it on its own. No matter how much you try to hide its banality with words, it is still bad art.

Bingo Jim. Never looked at Aperature myself. After reading this thread, I never intend to. Sounds like a bunch of "wannabe starving" types still stuck in the 1960s. What point is there to that?

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

If you know Lize Sarfati's work, you can't judge her on that portrait serie. The russian work is really impressive. She had a beautifull, sensitive approach on a difficult subject, in a difficult country.
So, wait and see. I guess, this is just the begining of a US serie. Give her a chance. She deserves it.
The WW2 pictures were, for me, very interesting. I looked at the magazine few days ago and they still haunt me. It's not just toys, sorry. It's a very delicate approach about a trauma, an obsession.
Looking through the past, questing for memory is one of the mainstream of photography.
Aperture isn't perfect but has the merit to show more interesting photographs than many more magazines.

The fact that you react is...good.

The interest is what is in the picture. It's not the process; It's not the size of the negative that make the point. It's the end : the picture.

Some magazines do just focus on the technique and tend to forget that even a platinium print can be boring. Sunsets by thousands make me go to sleep, even with an 8x10 or 16x20 camera.

This is the subject that speaks first. Aperture does that sometime, certainly more than others.

 

[bjorke]

I notice that all the examples you posted that require "considerable knowledge to get a grip on them" are not contemporary. The most recent, the Warhol probably dates from the mid 60s, from a movement that went out of style 20 years ago. Guernica by Picasso is from 1938. I don't think a viewer around that time needed an essay to "get a grip" on what Picasso was saying.

Remember, these were chosen in response to Jorge's comment about a much newer photograph (made public in 2004) and a purported distinction between "art" and "communication." So I chose works that few here would challenge as deserving of the label "art." And each has a considerable backstory that is not present there in the picture alone — not only the obvious mythic texts like the ascension (a mystery to most of my Jewish family, who need such art explained to them) and Goya's Saturn, but also the subtle references across genres such as Warhol's appropriation of the religious dyptich form, or the war between Spain and France that apparently informed Saturn, or the Hundred Years war unheroically commemorated by Rodin, or Robert Adams remorseful intent in What We Bought. For some small audience, these works probably stood on their own, but all of them required either advance education or further explanation.

An important distinction wrt text is that in a good example the text doesn't tell you what the art is — there would be no need for the art — but simply gives your mind enough of a framework to appreciate the issues found in that art, which you can then interpret for yourself. All photos are ambiguous. Few exist that don't benefit from a short or long mental nudge for interpretation, whether they be Salgado's miners, Charis on the beach, Lucybell Crater's car, or Kertesz's little cloud.

"Great art needs no words to move a person." Well then by that very definition and Alex H's response, we have ample evidence that the Abu Ghraib photo, one of a sustained series that were clearly the most influential images of 2004, is Great Art. So much anxiety from a few colored pixels! And conversely the Rembrandt, which is just confusing if you don't know the (verbal) story of the Ascension (albeit a virtuoso bit of painting technique), is merely being propped-up by text, just like the Kertesz.

 

[Sparky]

And who died and made you god to decide who deserves to be joked around with? I dont give a shit if you have something against me or not, personally I dont like you, I know you are nobody I want to have anything to do with and this is why I dont adress you in any way. So stay away from me *******, cause I dont find your "jokes" funny.

Nobody died and made me god. You really shouldn't take it that way. But you need to understand that if you're so openly attacking people the way that you do that you leave yourself open to critique. You can hate me/dislike me/ignore me if you want. But please have the decency and integrity to live by the rules you preach. For the record, I do not hate you. I don't dislike you. It's just that I don't understand you. I don't understand where your aggression and vitriol comes from. It disturbs me that you crusade the way you do I suppose. If someone makes narrow-minded comments I will retort. You can depend on it. Sorry to have upset you. But please... consider what I'm trying to say.

 

[Sparky]

"deserve to be joked around with a little bit" ?
Odd phrase to use. Odd opinion to hold. I'm not going to have a dig because I am trying to be nice these days, but I do feel obliged to point out that if someone takes offence to a joke you make that is aimed at them, the normal polite reaction is to apologise, explain that no offence was intended and move on: not add to the offence by making absurd "you deserve it" comments which will only lead to inevitable consequences...

Bob.
[edit] Ah, I see my "inevitable concequences" occured while I was typing...

Don't worry bob. It was in reference to something else. Just a dig. I'M ALSO trying to avoid arguments myself these days - so I'm going to just shut up now.

 

[Jorge]

Nobody died and made me god. You really shouldn't take it that way. But you need to understand that if you're so openly attacking people the way that you do that you leave yourself open to critique. You can hate me/dislike me/ignore me if you want. But please have the decency and integrity to live by the rules you preach. For the record, I do not hate you. I don't dislike you. It's just that I don't understand you. I don't understand where your aggression and vitriol comes from. It disturbs me that you crusade the way you do I suppose. If someone makes narrow-minded comments I will retort. You can depend on it. Sorry to have upset you. But please... consider what I'm trying to say.

I dont give a rat's ass what you have to say, I dont give a shit if you understand me nor do I care what disturbs you or not. I could not care less what you think is narrow minded, and as you can see I too retort when I see stupid comments. I told you, you stay away from me and all is fine, I certainly have no time to waste with a clown like you.

 

[jovo]

If we see a poem written in a language that we don't understand we wouldn't say that it was a meaningless poem, nor would we demand that all meaningful verbal communication should be in our language. We would realise that we would have to know that language to appreciate the poem, or find a translation to give us an idea of what the poem is about. When we see an image that we don't understand (whatever that means in terms of an image), do we make the same allowance?

Best,
Helen

..a very valid point and one aspect of the crux of the problem. How reasonable is it for an artist to expect an audience to learn his private language? In contemporary 'serious' music, there is a miniscule audience which continues to dwindle largely because of the assumption by the composer that he need not respect their sensibilities; no imperative to be accessible in the least. Unlike a poem in a 'foreign' language which was written for the readers of that language, a private one requires total commitment from the 'consumer'. Granted, nothing but academic reiterations of fare pandering to the lowest common denominator would result from lack of innovation. And educating an audience, in at least general terms, to the language of the medium is necessary. But, too often, what seems to permeate Aperture is utterly incomprehensible by fairly visually literate readers who nonetheless have no intention of making the enormous commitment to an artists expression to learn his 'unique' vocabulary.

 

[jd callow]

If we see a poem written in a language that we don't understand we wouldn't say that it was a meaningless poem, nor would we demand that all meaningful verbal communication should be in our language.

This may not be entirely true for the visual arts. J Johns' targets, flag's, etc, Warhal's portraits, soup cans and other pop artists' works require context otherwise they are meaningless. I think that that is also part of, if not entirely, the point of the work.

Edit
I should add that the objects used in these pictures are a kind of vocabulary.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Today you may need a historical background to understand Johns early works.
As far as needing some sort of greater context to understand his work, Johns wrote about his paintings, "There may or may not be an idea, and the meaning may be just the painting exists."

That does not sound like an artist who felt there needed to be anything beyond the canvas to explain his work to the viewer. One can approach his work in variety of ways, probably all valid. Personally I have always liked his work. Again, I do not see Johns requiring the viewer to know additional context of his work.

Perhaps a big difference between the late 40s-1960s and today is the artists that we consider to be the giants of contemporary art, (Rothko, Pollack, DeKooning, Rauschenberg, Johns, Kline etc) had a supreme confidence in their ability and vision. Only someone with near fanatical dedication can follow through on a work like DeKooning and his Woman I, or Rothko moving from fugurative painting to color field painting.

I feel that most of what I see in modern art, especially photography is more about what is the trend or gimmick that will get me noticed. It seems to be much more about the artist getting recognized by the right people, and little about art. And yes there are artists out there that do great work today. Great does not mean widely known or popularly recognized. It simply means wrok that stands on its own and engages the viewer one on one.

I will conclude with an admission however. I do acknowledge that certain works are designed to incorporate dialogue via a written essay or audio presentation. Multimedia presentations have resulted in all kinds of hybrids between installation, sculpture, 2 dimensional and video. But when this is the case I do not consider it to be part of photography as I understand it.

 

[jd callow]

Today you may need a historical background to understand Johns early works.
As far as needing some sort of greater context to understand his work, Johns wrote about his paintings, "There may or may not be an idea, and the meaning may be just the painting exists."

That does not sound like an artist who felt there needed to be anything beyond the canvas to explain his work to the viewer. One can approach his work in variety of ways, probably all valid. Personally I have always liked his work. Again, I do not see Johns requiring the viewer to know additional context of his work.

I agree that Johns is less applicable in the whole than some of his peers. Although, the quote doesn't reconcile well with his images. I would argue that his depictions of flags, numbers, targets, etc. depends upon a viewer who was raised in a culture that has or uses these items daily. Better examples might be some of the sculpture of the period that is already being passed by: a mound of rotary telephones, and a giant oscillating hot water bottle comes to mind.

The point was and remains that you need to speak the (visual) language to understand the message. If the language becomes archaic or disused than the message may become meaningless. Some 'language' never becomes obsolete -- such as a language the describes how we feel. Would Warhol's portraits have the same value if they were not of America's new royalty, but of common folk? What happens when we forget who these people are or if you grew up in a culture that didn't recognize them? When this happens the pictures do become portraits of common folk (with weird hair styles).

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Had a look at some of the publications mentioned in this thread and would mildly point out that you don't get a masterpiece every four weeks, so give it a break if you don't find anything interesting in the latest Aperture. Maybe there just isn't: you can't have a new master for each issue. The past always appear to us with the benefit that the major part of it was weeded out. Contemporary art does not have the same vantage point.

 

[jd callow]

That is very true.
I do think Aperture trys hard with all good intents and in the overall is a very positive publication.

 

[roteague]

I think what everyone is missing, is that the magazine is not intended for all audiences. It has its own distinct editorial direction.