Politeness versus Photography

John McCallum · Mar 20, 2007

Yes, well put.

bjorke said:
Heh, well as my dad used to say at little league practice: "just keep pitching 'em slow, sooner or later somebody'll swing at it."

Actually ALL the images I've posted are technically-proficient romanticisations becuase those are exactly the sorts of art that restrictive governments like. The first one is from the studio of Josef Thorak.

jstraw's "bread & circus" comment made an excellent hammer btw.

My point, really, is to simply say that pictures need to be free, and discussion of pictures needs to be free. I find it odd that threads get bounced to the Soapbox because they mention, oh, Fox News, but at the same time images that are HIGHLY codified with a wide variety of political content (e.g, partial inert female nudes, where individual portraiture is de-synergized into collections of interchangeable parts) is accepted without a whiff of complaint.

As I expected, those who proclaimed themselves apolitical seem to have had the most reactionary and vitriolic reactions. Funny how that works, huh.

I agree pictures and especially photographs need to be free to enable frank discussion - photographs esp. because in other art it is often clearer as to whether there is an intentional message. The social acceptance or not of discussion or images seems to be quite pervading, and so it seems odd that political messages in images are not readily accepted by some, given that the fundamental meaning of politics is the influence of social relations in order to affect change. I suspect that those who declare themselves apolitical perhaps do so to avoid discussions, either that or are naive in the thought politics does not or should not exist in images such as Norfolks'.

But we're missing an important ingredient (unless I've missed it somewhere) when it comes to the ability to readily interpret the likes of work by Norfolk, and so properly discuss it - that is Proper Context. As Bjorke so easily showed earlier, images taken out of context can very easily be missinterpreted or inadequately interpreted.

There's a reason why such message charged images work better on display in a gallery with the carefully controlled environment of titles, support text and if that weren't enough the selective audiences by promotion, and a curator to guide your thoughts while you're there. And in my experience a politically charged contemporary image can initially give a far more enriching experience.

As an example of the influence of context. If I'd been told this image had been made by Mark Citret or say Donny Miler, it would have had x appeal for me.

Staircase at Auschwitz

Knowing it was made by Norfolk in the context he intends prompts me to view the associated message, and makes it one of the more affecting images I have seen.

Struan Gray · Mar 20, 2007

copake_ham said:
Those towers are unlikely to still be in active service and these days, if in more accessible locations than the South Atlantic, would more likely be considered "historic landmarks" or have been torn down as "eyesores"!

Most similar relay stations (for all kinds of shortwave broadcasters and locational servicers etc.) have been torn down. Whereas, if these towers still exist, they are wonderful relics of an earlier time - protected by their remoteness and the cost therein of tearing them down!

One man's visual pollution is another's memoir!

Did you read the text for the Ascension Island series? It's a bit 'strident', but unmistakedly political, and impossible to read as mere nostalgia or consumerist greenery.

Are you aware of the link between Sigint and the few last tiny specks of the British Empire?

Don't look up.

Tony Egan · Mar 20, 2007

Thanks for a lively post Bjorke. I don't need convincing that art is political and every picture I make has a political context. Even in the sedate and conservative world of camera clubs it can make an appearance. A photographer I know once received a letter from his club suggesting that he may prefer to cease exhibiting his "figure studies" and return to the lovely landscapes he did so well. I'm sure that club committee thought their letter had absolutely nothing to do with "politics" as they understood the word.

So on the eve of a very sad and sorry anniversary may I post something that needs no additional words and everyone would agree is political?

vet173 · Mar 20, 2007

mark said:
ME WANT EARLY RISER CALENDAR.

Not me, I want 12.

Early Riser · Mar 20, 2007

Any work can be politicized, especially if you explain or title the artwork in a political way. The image of the stairs at Auschwitz is not a political image based on it's appearance but is political based on the after the fact knowledge that it's Auschwitz. John's admission that knowing it was done by Norfolk made it a more affecting image to him. The paintings that Bjorke posted may not seem political to us now because we have no idea of the thinking of the people at the time of that art's creation. There are elements in those images that may have been considered very political at the time but that we are blind to.

Clearly Norfolk is an extremely talented photographer. His photograph of the Kabul balloon seller is both beautiful and extremely ironic, not an easy thing to combine and to do so well. His commitment is very apparent in his choice to go to such an extremely dangerous place, one in which the danger can be both random and pointless, something very hard to prepare for and almost impossible to protect yourself from, he is either very brave or very foolhardy, probably both. However I think he takes himself way too seriously and as someone who also can take himself too seriously I can speak from experience.

Almost any art can be political, whether that is the intention of the artist or not. There is work that is political in the arena of the world or regional politics. Much of the work that museums seem to embrace nowadays seem to be work that is political about the art world itself. The whole artspeak dialogue that so and so artist in embracing Dadaism, or this artist is rejecting Modernism, etc. If two people have different POVs, there's politics.

As for all the calendar requests, I'm very flattered and I'll let you guys know when one comes out.

jstraw · Mar 20, 2007

Tony Egan said:
Thanks for a lively post Bjorke. I don't need convincing that art is political and every picture I make has a political context. Even in the sedate and conservative world of camera clubs it can make an appearance. A photographer I know once received a letter from his club suggesting that he may prefer to cease exhibiting his "figure studies" and return to the lovely landscapes he did so well. I'm sure that club committee thought their letter had absolutely nothing to do with "politics" as they understood the word.

So on the eve of a very sad and sorry anniversary may I post something that needs no additional words and everyone would agree is political?

Drew's hot.

jstraw · Mar 20, 2007

The paintings Bjoke posted and the Auschwitz stairs are both (small p) political even with no context. Knowing the context for the stairs alters the meaning but it's not meaningless without that knowledge. The knowlege transformes them from an innocuous architectural detail to a deeply fraught cultural image. The paintings do what they do as images without any knowledge of their context whatsoever.

copake_ham · Mar 20, 2007

Struan Gray said:
Did you read the text for the Ascension Island series? It's a bit 'strident', but unmistakedly political, and impossible to read as mere nostalgia or consumerist greenery.

Are you aware of the link between Sigint and the few last tiny specks of the British Empire?

Don't look up.

Sturan,

It was not my intention to support or disagree with the photographer's "politics" as he was trying to express via the photo. Frankly, I don't care what his politics are - I just liked the picture - but for reasons probably very different from his intention.

What I was saying is that different people bring different experiences and perspectives to an image.

Taken simply as an image, without text, if I were writing a History of the BBC World Service or of International Short-Wave Broadcasting that picture would make a great cover photo!

Anyone interested in those topics would not likely consider those towers to be offensive or polluting to the environment. Rather, they would be seen as icons of an earlier era's technological solution to providing world-wide communications. You know, kind of like "talking" here over the internet between Sweden and New York.

As to having any angst and agony about a few tiny dots in the South Atlantic remaining yoked to the British Empire - sorry, but it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, as a ham radio operator, those little dots are the kind of places we fantasize visiting and "putting on the air" in what are called DXpeditions.

Struan Gray · Mar 20, 2007

copake_ham said:
What I was saying is that different people bring different experiences and perspectives to an image.
.....

Anyone interested in those topics would not likely consider those towers to be offensive or polluting to the environment. Rather, they would be seen as icons of an earlier era's technological solution to providing world-wide communications. You know, kind of like "talking" here over the internet between Sweden and New York.

I agree about the different people bit. It is one of the reasons I am suspicious of the whole 'the photo should stand on its own' idea.

I would have thought that anyone interested in these topics would be aware of the uses to which long wire antennas are put these days. Makes it a bit harder to don the dewy-eyed spectacles.

If you're ever over here, Grimeton is worth a visit. That one truly is mothballed (most of the time).

John McCallum · Mar 20, 2007

jstraw said:
The paintings Bjoke posted and the Auschwitz stairs are both (small p) political even with no context. Knowing the context for the stairs alters the meaning but it's not meaningless without that knowledge. The knowlege transformes them from an innocuous architectural detail to a deeply fraught cultural image. The paintings do what they do as images without any knowledge of their context whatsoever.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be trying to discount the importance of context to a political statement in an image. I don't understand your logic. In the case of Norfolk's picture if you did not know where the stairs were photographed, the association with quantities of walkers and a death camp can not be made and so the actual message is lost.

One of the statements made by detractors in this thread is that if the image can't stand on its own without commentary, then it fails. A valid test for some genres of photography, but not here.

jstraw · Mar 20, 2007

John McCallum said:
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be trying to discount the importance of context to a political statement in an image. I don't understand your logic. In the case of Norfolk's picture if you did not know where the stairs were photographed, the association with quantities of walkers and a death camp can not be made and so the actual message is lost.

One of the statements made by detractors in this thread is that if the image can't stand on its own without commentary, then it fails. A valid test for some genres of photography, but not here.

You don't understand me correctly. Probably my fault.

I'm saying that if a photograph needs context for a specific message to be conveyed, if that message cannot be discerned from the image itself then so be it...with the context, the politics of image is overt. It's possible to make an image that makes the same statement without external contextualization and that image would also have an overt message.

When this image is stripped from that context, it loses that meaning, not all meaning.

Whether or not an image is "valid" if it requires context to be understood as intended is an interesting question. I think a work can be successful that involves the use of more than one form of media. The constituent elements of a composite work are often presented on their own. An orchestra may perform the scor from a film for an audience, for example. Out of context, the work succeeds or fails for what it is, a composition...an image...

So if you ask me if I like this fellows work we're not just talking about photography. If you ask me what I get from the photograph, we are.

jstraw · Mar 20, 2007

Here's a data point. Yesterday I went to see a showing of very large reproductions of the photographs that illustrate a 22 page story in next month's issue of National Geographic. I have no access to the story yet. I just had an opportunity to see and respond to the photographs. My context is limited to knowing who shot them...where...for what purpose...and a certain understaning of how photojournalists work in such circumstances. I had both praise and criticisms for what I saw.

I may have had a different response to the images in their intended context. Seeing them in it later may alter my view. But the bell that's been rung cannot be unrung.

bjorke · Mar 20, 2007

jstraw said:
The paintings do what they do as images without any knowledge of their context whatsoever.

Or so it might seem -- the reason totalitarians like this sort of thing is their (mistaken) belief that all context has been stamped out, has been rendered inert and without opportunity to challenge the rules of "correct" art -- none of those pesky Ideas. But in truth the bogus sentimentality speaks volumes.

--

And no, George, I didn't miss the small "p" -- the pictures I chose (well before you posted) were simply chosen as vivid examples. I find much the same in lots of predictable "pleasing pictures" (to borrow a term from Stephen Shore). One can always hope for more from pictures than just proof that the shooter has successfully received an "A" for "Adherence" to the rules.

It's important that photos can embed so much more than their simple pictorial impressions. This has always been true. The direct connection to context is a primary feature of photography that distinguishes it from other visual arts.

The idea that an image is somehow better if it requires no context is patently absurd, a bit like saying food is best if you don't have to eat it.

Lewis W. Hine, Finnish Stowaway, Ellis Island

copake_ham · Mar 20, 2007

bjorke said:
.....
The idea that an image is somehow better if it requires no context is patently absurd, a bit like saying food is best if you don't have to eat it.

bjorke,

I find this an interesting comment. Not because I disagree with it - but, quite the contrary, because I do.

Yet, in the current edition of Aperture there is a brief piece on a new photography museum in Paris that is presently featuring an American photographer. Unfortunately my copy is right now in Copake and I am in NYC!

But that doesn't really matter to my point. The text to the article indicates that this museum adheres to the "new ethic" of providing little or no liner notes next to the photos in its exhibits.

The reasoning is that since you are viewing a photograph. Thus, if it is a "good photograph", the image itself should be self-explanatory to the photographer's context and intention.

I thought to ask what folks thought of this conceit in a separate thread but without the sources chose to hold off for now.

jstraw · Mar 20, 2007

bjorke said:
Or so it might seem -- the reason totalitarians like this sort of thing is their (mistaken) belief that all context has been stamped out, has been rendered inert and without opportunity to challenge the rules of "correct" art -- none of those pesky Ideas. But in truth the bogus sentimentality speaks volumes.

That's actually my point. The opiating effect those paintngs are designed to have do their work without any need to know their insideous context. In fact, the work better if the viewer is blissfully unaware of the agenda they represent.

They're very much about what they aren't. As I think of the sort of art the Nazis despised.

Struan Gray · Mar 21, 2007

Even bogus sentimentality can be art, if you give it long enough. See duck for further details.

The lurking issue here is that whether they explicitly recognise it or not, societies have a body of knowledge that 'reasonable', 'educated', and 'normal' people are expected to know. In Europe this is taboo because of its historical use as a way of subjegating lesser classes and races. In America this is taboo because American public politics likes to pretend that everyone is equal.

Despite the denial, there exist canons of art, science and even politics. You are expected to snigger at Gary Hart. You are expected to know what a Pollock drip painting looks like, even if you hate it. You are expected to know who painted the Mona Lisa and who wrote Beethovan's Ninth. You are expected to know that the earth goes round the sun.

One of the great powers of photography is that it can take you outside the comfort zone of your particular clique's expectations. Sometimes it does it by twatting you over the head with the two-by-four of an undeniable new fact. Sometimes it does it round the back way, with poetic subtlety. Sometimes it does it by the dislocation between the thing depicted and the undepicted or unstated wider context. This last is what I think Simon Norfolk does so well.

The banality of evil is an old concept now. Beauty of death and the aesthetics of power have likewise been well-explored in pretty well all art forms. I don't see why Norfolk's exploration of these themes in relation to C21st armed conflicts and nation-level power relationships is perceived as so unusual. If you can relate to the Auschwitz steps, or the more usually shown piles of spectacles, hair or false teeth, you should be able to relate to Norfolk's pictures of icy puddles. The difference is that we today have a direct connection to and - Norfolk would argue - responsibility for the horrors behind the icy puddles. Auschwitz is safely packaged, labelled and harmless.

What responsibility do you have as a human, or as a citizen, to learn about the world you live in? How much should you be expected to bring to the table when you sit down with artists treating serious issues in a serious way? There is no right answer, except to note that parochialism and sentimental inaction are not usually regarded as virtues.

The ducky: kitsch or great art? Whose job is it to teach you?

Ed Sukach · Mar 21, 2007

As we keep discussing "context" and its effect on the perceception of the work, things seem to be getting more and more obtuse and convoluted. In order to sort things out (when in doubt or confused, SIMPLIFY!), I've gone to a number of sources, all seem to agree, closely, with good ol' Wikipedia:

CONTEXT: " ... Often used in Contemporary art to describe everything other than the content of the of the piece of work. for example, the way a painting is hung within a gallery; the political (hmm... familiar - ES) situation at the time of viewing, the amount of wine consumed at a private view(ing)."

That leads me to consider - I think it is very difficult to actually take a photograph out of ALL "contexts" ... we generally move the work into another - possibly NOT the one intended by the photographer. There, the function of a caption, or other description is an effort to limit the choice of the viewers context ... to, in effect, keep the viewer on track and preserve the original, intended, perception of the work.

It IS possible, I guess, in theory, anyway, - to consider a photograph while it is "standing alone" - suspended in space - no image or surroundings of ANY sort - but even then, there is a "context" as a result of our own presence ... our pre-conceptions; sense of aesthetics (note redundancy); morality, defects in vision; mood; ambient sounds - or even the lack thereof - silence.

I can't imagine that I have ever done that - the amount of self-disciplne necessary would be enormous.

In any event, I would suggest that we keep in mind that CONTEXT is the opposite of CONTENT.

copake_ham · Mar 21, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
As we keep discussing "context" and its effect on the perceception of the work, things seem to be getting more and more obtuse and convoluted. In order to sort things out (when in doubt or confused, SIMPLIFY!), I've gone to a number of sources, all seem to agree, closely, with good ol' Wikipedia:

CONTEXT: " ... Often used in Contemporary art to describe everything other than the content of the of the piece of work. for example, the way a painting is hung within a gallery; the political (hmm... familiar - ES) situation at the time of viewing, the amount of wine consumed at a private view(ing)."

That leads me to consider - I think it is very difficult to actually take a photograph out of ALL "contexts" ... we generally move the work into another - possibly NOT the one intended by the photographer. There, the function of a caption, or other description is an effort to limit the choice of the viewers context ... to, in effect, keep the viewer on track and preserve the original, intended, perception of the work.

It IS possible, I guess, in theory, anyway, - to consider a photograph while it is "standing alone" - suspended in space - no image or surroundings of ANY sort - but even then, there is a "context" as a result of our own presence ... our pre-conceptions; sense of aesthetics (note redundancy); morality, defects in vision; mood; ambient sounds - or even the lack thereof - silence.

I can't imagine that I have ever done that - the amount of self-disciplne necessary would be enormous.

In any event, I would suggest that we keep in mind that CONTEXT is the opposite of CONTENT.

Interesting point, Ed.

So if the original image was presented at an exhibition related to environmental degredation then by that context alone we would know the photo is decrying the degrading of an idyllic tidal basin with obtrusive, man-made structures.

Yet, if the same image was presented in an exhibition related to the history of long-distance, wireless shortwave broadcasting, say at a museum devoted to radio communications, then in that context we would know the photo is celebrating how earlier technologies overcame geographical distances.

bjorke · Mar 21, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
... CONTEXT is the opposite of CONTENT.

Plenty who would be quick to disagree with you. I'll spare you the snaps of Abu Ghraib (torture, or fraternity-club hijinx?) or Jeff Koons & Ciccolina's asses (bad home-made porn, or really expensive bad home-made porn?). Look at the current Sugimoto work at Dead Link Removed which could easily be mistaken for a photo 101 project but whose context provides most everything (including the $80k/print pricetag).

There's a whole lengthy theme in contemporary art (probably the majority, in the gallery stratosphere), where the context is the primary content. Execution is just so much grunt work, like picking up the laundry or sending out an assistant to pick up prints at the lab. Conceptual art tries to create its own context and then execute (sometimes incredibly ephemeral) works within that context. Obvious photographic examples range from Baldessari forward, less obvious ones at least as far back as August Sander & Lewis Hine.

Nikki S. Lee

Ed Sukach · Mar 21, 2007

copake_ham said:
...So if the original image was presented at an exhibition related to environmental degredation then by that context alone we would know the photo is decrying the degrading of an idyllic tidal basin with obtrusive, man-made structures.
Yet, if the same image was presented in an exhibition related to the history of long-distance, wireless shortwave broadcasting, say at a museum devoted to radio communications, then in that context we would know the photo is celebrating how earlier technologies overcame geographical distances.

I think the idea of "knowing", at least in the sense of discovered ultimate truth, is far too intense.

Our PERCEPTIONS of the images will definitely be influenced by the surrounding factors - the context of the exhibition - and whatever titles or other descriptions accompany the work.

Let me simplify somewhat further: Photographs of slaughtered animals - sides of beef hanging from hooks ...

What would be their meaning in an exhibition sponsored by the "Strictly Vegetarian Society of Citizens Against Causing Any and All Distress to Animals" - and how would it compare with their interpretation at a meeting of the "United Meat Packers of America"?

Same photographs. How uniform would one expect the perceptions of those photographs to be here on APUG, where we - or most of us - would have no SET "context" fpr them?

Ed Sukach · Mar 21, 2007

bjorke said:
Plenty who would be quick to disagree with you...

I don't take that as a diasgreement with a concept of MINE, rather, as a disagreement with the definition of CONTEXT.

I've written, nearly word-for-word, what was contained in Wikipedia (supported by sundry other sources).

What is YOUR definition of "context"?

jstraw · Mar 21, 2007

I think two things being distinct, even to the point of mutual exclusion, is different than being opposites.

If content is everything about a photograph within its two dimensions and context is everything about a photograph outside of its two dimensions, I don't see those elements as inherently in opposition.

Ed Sukach · Mar 21, 2007

"Opposition", in the strict sense of the word is, IMHO, not really important: the separation between Content and Context IS.

I am trying to come up with an antonym for "content". The closest I've been able to come is "context". BOTH, together - although possibly not equally - have a significant effect on the perception/ meaning/ "message" - "aesthetics" - of the photograph.

Anyone else care to contribute an "opposite" or "antonym"?

copake_ham · Mar 21, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
"Opposition", in the strict sense of the word is, IMHO, not really important: the separation between Content and Context IS.

I am trying to come up with an antonym for "content". The closest I've been able to come is "context". BOTH, together - although possibly not equally - have a significant effect on the perception/ meaning/ "message" - "aesthetics" - of the photograph.

Anyone else care to contribute an "opposite" or "antonym"?

I'll take a stab at it - always fun to watch the balloon get popped...

Content = Interior (i.e. to itself) as in the "Table of Contents" of a book.

Context = Exterior - the book on a shelf of similar books (i.e. sorted by subject or author etc.)

bjorke · Mar 21, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
What is YOUR definition of "context"?

I'm personally reluctant to say this, but when I was in school at CalArts I was told by my Critical Studies professor that anyone using a dictionary to attempt rigid definitions of art-related terms was someone whose statements w.r.t. art could be safely ignored. I expect if the class were given again today that sentiment would include Wikipedia.

I do think that if there's "meaning" in a photograph, that meaning comes exclusively through the resonance of the photographic object (trace, ash, call it what you will) and the contexts in which it is embedded: made, distributed, seen, found, seen again. Context is the framework necessary to distinguish a picture from a smudged rectangle.

J. Deller

Dead Link Removed
D. Hirst

D. Lange

B. & H. Becher

A. Eisenstadt

Politeness versus Photography

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency