Fried's Conclusion

Walker Evans

Why photography matters as art as never before refers to the predetermined relationship the subject has with the viewer. Fried relates the photographers from the 1970’s to present as not being different from those prior, but that the determined response of the viewer is different. By this I mean that photographers such as Arbus, Avedon, Freelander, etc all created art, but they presented images of those that knew they were to be glanced upon.

This tableau form of art, to be seen, reflects on the sitters’ undesired-ness of needing to be seen. This is a point I feel Fried failed to reflect enough. Is this not a contradictorily essence? Fried, backed by his friend Michael, discusses previous writings about the objecthood of this medium, and the unobjectivity of photography as relevant in art as painting. Towards the end of the conclusion Fried refers to Wall’s interest in Manet being an inspiration in his early work, though not a reference to his images, and in After “Spring Snow” Wall referred to Courbet’s Wheat Sifters as inspiration for posture.

Jeff Wall After "Spring Snow"

Manet

Though I agree with Fried about the relevance of Photography being an Art now more so than before but for slightly different reasons. It is through these readings that I have come to a conclusion that it is not just through the exclusion the subject has for the viewer, but also through the tableau format of the object, the photograph, needing to be viewed. We as viewers are not looking at the subject in the photograph, but rather the photograph itself which holds the subject, paused for eternity, in it.  That now photographers are understanding the complete control over a scene, by staging or reconstructing completely, and using that as a theatrical aspect in their art to exemplify the essence they are trying to portray, just as painters do.

Chapter 9: Intention and Exclusion

Chapter 9 discusses four photographers’ intentions examining various subject matter yet creating a similar aura through their work. The photographers discussed in this chapter are Thomas Struth, Thomas Demand, Candida Höfer, and Hiroshi Sugimoto. The main connection these photographers have with each other is the absence of life, the quietness, represented in each print. In each composition the subject needs human interaction for it to have meaning and a purpose. The topic for this reading is not just the exclusion of life in these photographs, but also the exclusion of the viewer.

Thomas Demand

Höfer and Struth’s work show the interaction of life present in the scenes without the presence of actual life. They both examine situations that are not possible without a human presence. These images seem to reveal an easy, eloquent taste that reflects of the passage of time and the solitude that seems fairly normal. With this exclusion of life the viewer wants to enter this scene and acknowledge the scenes presence, but yet at the same time the scene is intimidating. In Höfer’s image Ballettzentrum Hamburg III the chair is not facing the viewer, rather looking off scene as if it isn’t acknowledging our presence looking in on it.

Thomas Struth: Hörder Brückenstrasse, Dortmund

Candida Höfer

Similar to this is Sugimoto’s Sea Scapes which Sugimoto examines multiple seas and photographs them all the same way by splitting up the frame in half. Though all the images are of completely different bodies of water they are all the same. There is no life, no reference to any sort of disturbance from a ship or plane; it is another world. Thomas Demand’s images bring in a new idea to this continuation of the exclusion of life. Since Demand constructs his models from images he has obtained through other media, he is able to have complete control over the outcome of the scenes look. He doesn’t just leave life out of the image he goes past that by removing all signs of life, literally. This type of absence is very intimidating for the viewer because, not only is it a negatively acclaimed scene, if one was to be in the scene they would be lost. There is no way to know where you are, to move to the next room, and no way to get out. Also the use of paper, from which Demand creates all his scenes, is very fragile which can tie into this unwelcoming image.

Hiroshi Sugimoto Sea Scape

Michael Kenna

I believe that throughout this chapter Fried argues that the subject is determines everything about the photograph. Fried states, “ the object, not the beholder, must remain the center of focus of the situation, but the situation itself belongs to the beholder – it is his situation.” This statement exemplifies the importance a subject has, that the subject is chosen by the artist and reflects the intentions of the artist. But the viewer must take from the image what he/she wants or can. I agree completely with this because the artist chooses to photograph whatever will express their ideas, but that when the viewer is put into the situation as the onlooker of the situation they are given responsibility to accept or oppose this situation. Once the art is given to the onlooker the artist’s influence of the piece technically has no influence on the onlooker.

Peter Schjeldahl states, one of Thomas Struth’s commentators, “we do not feel necessarily that the photographer knew the secret,” in reference to what Struth was trying to show. This is what photography is, a complete secret. When we look at a photograph there is always something that seems not normal other than the obvious lack of proceeding time. When we look at Struth’s image Hörder Brückenstrasse, Dortmund (image above) we are looking into an empty, quiet world we are not a part of at the moment. But in actuality we are in that world at the same moment as that of which we see it presented; feeling we are not present. This has as much relevance to Struth as it does to Höfer, Sugimoto, and Demand. There is also a similar essence in the Cindy Sherman Movie Stills. Though one gets a feeling, from all these photographers, of the subject, a minimal understanding of the scene. There is a lack of time, and understanding of what has happened and what is to come. Sherman displays the element of human life in her work, but without the presence of herself the same attitude, essence, and feeling would still exist in all the images.

The Twilight Zone: H-Bomb episode

Beginnings

             I believe it is no random occurrence that Fried combined Sherman, Wall, and Hiroshi into the same section of this reading. Though Fried hints at the connection of Hiroshi and Wall regarding the mesmerizing connection of their work. Hiroshi, on one hand, draws on the fleeting of reality/loosing focus of the absolute reality of oneself and others around, and Wall focusing on the audience who have left reality, too, with the desire to be in that exact reality they are experiencing on the screen, possibly heaven or in Hiroshi’s case the sitter being drawn into the “light”. What Fried forgot was the necessity of Sherman in the picture. For without one of these elements the others are insignificant in the cinema atmosphere at least. For Sherman needs the audience (Wall), Hiroshi needs a projected movie (Sherman), and Wall needs a theater (Hiroshi) to enjoy the movie. I am not sure if this is relevant to the importance of this chapter I just thought it was fairly intriguing.

            Fried starts to distinguish the importance of the onlooker having just as much responsibility for the work as the artist through Bustamante’s work, which is also distinguishable through the other photographers represented in certain aspects. The largest connection I realized was between the painter Andrew Hopper and Sherman. Through Sherman’s Film Stills series we are as she stated, the moments of expressionless, representing the nothingness or in between state of happenings. Like Hopper, Sherman is leaving the viewer without an answer to exactly what happened or will happen in the next second. It is as if a game to the viewer to have to immerse themselves into the scene and decide the outcome. I must say this connection should also be added to Bustamante’s work as well.

            I must have to agree with Fried about the minimalist sculptures being awful, I do want to know how he would feel about Walead Beshty… I feel that the theatricality of a print or story insisting the audience to conceptually and/or visually become involved is what Fried is appealed to rather than the audience literally and physically. For when the audience begins to act with the object through our senses we don’t need to use our minds to contrive ideas or feelings, only our physical nature. Susan Story’s point of Wall’s Dead Soldiers Talking print that we don’t know how it feels to die and even though we are seeing this atrocity, that is obviously false, we cant say that it is wrong. In a way there is no way to display a false photograph due to the fact that no one will understand an occurrence until they experience it. Leading from this I was fascinated of the story of “Adelaïde” and, as Fried put it, the second visual scene. The way that our minds automatically transmit ideas into instances, even descriptions that come from no evidence. This connection of literature to photography, though short as of now, is a large interest for me. When thinking of a story and being able to visualize the scene, thinking that the author created the scene, his/her own world, so that others can see; poets being the possible pretext of photographers.

Contemporary/Modern/Postmodern

“contemporary art: that which emerges from within the conditions of contemporaneity, including the remnants of the cultures of modernity and postmodernity, but which projects itself through and around these, as an art of that which actually is in the world, of what is to be in the world, and of that which is to come.”

Contemporary is impossible to define by definition in regard to the art period. None of the readings allowed for a concrete explanation. We know that through the definition contemporary means of the now, in the now, but that is the exact meaning of modern, in a way. The difference of these two periods is in the action from the viewer. Modern art mainly looked into the future to see the possibility for the change in art. The main emphasis modernity had on the art was that through the art we were told what the piece was and there was no other explanation of the piece. Art from this period was abstraction of form creating new energy, using extremely large pieces, more instillations. Modern art went back to the basic principles of art: form.

Contemporary art gives us a more subtle essence in a way by looking at the current time as a way to reconsider the flow and direction in which art is going. Through the use of globalization and technology we are able to see how the art is evolving and transcending all over the world. It is my understanding through these readings that the word contemporary is not defined by its art, rather by unified world’s reaction and influence on art at the current time. We are now looking at the art as a means of explanation and change in many mediums and medias. There is a connection through all mediums for this change something that I understand has never happened. Terry Smith states that contemporary art is known for posing questions and its “surety of form and uncertainty as to content.” I feel that through these two points the art in the contemporary period is not defined by any one person, no artist, critic, nor anyone can have complete say as to the meaning of any piece. That it is up to the viewer, the individual, to take away what they will from a piece.

Postmodern art is a mix of both modern and contemporary art. It looks into the future like modern, but plants itself in its current time. Allowing the potential future to affect the current time. Evidently given its time period it is full of energy and expressive meaning, and is known for creating for just that reason as to create.  This art has a more unified connection to the individual viewer.