Allen Friday
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 882
- Format
- ULarge Format
Given the recent flack generated by posting a photograph in the gallery depicting Nazi memorabilia, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the issues raised by the photograph posted below. I post this photograph specifically because it has absolutely no connection to the Nazis. And yet, that is what makes it such an interesting photograph, one which raises issues about symbols and their use in art in general and photography in particular.
Background: Five or six years ago, I was given several hundred glass negatives which were found under a stairwell in a commercial building in the small town in which I live. They mostly are commercial portraits taken of the settlers and early residents of Cass County Iowa. I cleaned the plates and printed the best negatives. The one posted below always draws the most attention.
I have determined that the plate was exposed sometime between 1900 and 1920. The name Dvorak is written in grease pencil at the base of the plate. It was taken in the Lewis Photography Studio, Atlantic, Ia. Thats it as far as the facts.
Each viewer of the print has pretty much the same reaction. First, they give a quick glace at the faces of the woman and girls. They then pull the print closer and look closely at the ribbon worn by the middle girl. They then look up at me with a quizzical look. Generally, they will ask, Were they German immigrants.? I then remind the viewer that the photograph was taken before 1920, and their last name was Dvorak. So, why is the girl wearing a ribbon with swastikas on it?
To me, this simple portrait demonstrates the problem inherent whenever one uses a symbol in art. The symbol must be understood the same way by the artist and the viewer. Here, the girl was wearing a swastika, a symbol of peace and prosperity. We view it, 90 years later, as a symbol of hatred and genocide. I can intellectualize why she was wearing it, but it is still difficult to get past my revulsion for the symbol.
The meaning of symbols changes over time. The meaning of symbols varies from culture to culture. To work as a system of communication, the viewer and creator must speak the same language.
So, should we use symbols in our photographs--what does it mean if the female nude is holding a fig verses a pomegranate verses a glass ball? Can we ever really understand art of the past, which used a definite systems of symbols, on anything other than an academic level?
Should we go ahead and use past symbols in our contemporary art, realizing that only a select few will fully understand what we are saying? Should we use contemporary symbols in our art knowing that they may be misinterpreted in the future? Did modernism completely kill symbolism, so that we are only left with metaphor and allegory?
Is the impact of the symbol greater or lesser because it is in a photograph compared to a painting, drawing or sculpture? Does this photograph prove that works are always products of their time and to be fully understood, we need to know the facts concerning their creation, or are works of art timeless?
Just a few things to discuss. I'm not atempting to give any answers here. I thought I would just get the ball rolling. Feel freee to introduce additional issues in your discussion.
Allen
Background: Five or six years ago, I was given several hundred glass negatives which were found under a stairwell in a commercial building in the small town in which I live. They mostly are commercial portraits taken of the settlers and early residents of Cass County Iowa. I cleaned the plates and printed the best negatives. The one posted below always draws the most attention.
I have determined that the plate was exposed sometime between 1900 and 1920. The name Dvorak is written in grease pencil at the base of the plate. It was taken in the Lewis Photography Studio, Atlantic, Ia. Thats it as far as the facts.
Each viewer of the print has pretty much the same reaction. First, they give a quick glace at the faces of the woman and girls. They then pull the print closer and look closely at the ribbon worn by the middle girl. They then look up at me with a quizzical look. Generally, they will ask, Were they German immigrants.? I then remind the viewer that the photograph was taken before 1920, and their last name was Dvorak. So, why is the girl wearing a ribbon with swastikas on it?
To me, this simple portrait demonstrates the problem inherent whenever one uses a symbol in art. The symbol must be understood the same way by the artist and the viewer. Here, the girl was wearing a swastika, a symbol of peace and prosperity. We view it, 90 years later, as a symbol of hatred and genocide. I can intellectualize why she was wearing it, but it is still difficult to get past my revulsion for the symbol.
The meaning of symbols changes over time. The meaning of symbols varies from culture to culture. To work as a system of communication, the viewer and creator must speak the same language.
So, should we use symbols in our photographs--what does it mean if the female nude is holding a fig verses a pomegranate verses a glass ball? Can we ever really understand art of the past, which used a definite systems of symbols, on anything other than an academic level?
Should we go ahead and use past symbols in our contemporary art, realizing that only a select few will fully understand what we are saying? Should we use contemporary symbols in our art knowing that they may be misinterpreted in the future? Did modernism completely kill symbolism, so that we are only left with metaphor and allegory?
Is the impact of the symbol greater or lesser because it is in a photograph compared to a painting, drawing or sculpture? Does this photograph prove that works are always products of their time and to be fully understood, we need to know the facts concerning their creation, or are works of art timeless?
Just a few things to discuss. I'm not atempting to give any answers here. I thought I would just get the ball rolling. Feel freee to introduce additional issues in your discussion.
Allen