Please write a 100-200 word response relating to our discussion of yesterday's readings and our subsequent visit to the exhibition in CFAM. Your response should specifically address how you feel the work in this exhibition relates to the critical essays we've read this semester including those by Walter Benjamin and Hal Foster.
You might find visiting this website useful:
http://www.aperture.org/edgeofvision/
After reading the Hal Foster article and viewing Edge of Vision at CFAM it is interesting to see the correlation between Benjamin’s article and Foster’s. The articles crossed paths when discussing the idea of a painting or photograph having an aura and also the reproducibility of the work. When thinking about reproducibility I find it would be difficult to take some of the same images more than once that were displayed in the show. So many factors seem to go into creating the more “boundary pushing” works that if one factor were off slightly from the rest the entire product could change. I am wondering if Benjamin would think the works displayed in the CFAM were original or if because they are under the medium of photography if that somehow lessens their uniqueness? And what is their aura?
ReplyDeletethere are a lot of interesting correlations between the essays and the body of work we saw at the Edge of Vision show... Sio made a nice point about the idea of the aura and they grey area this show has created (yes its still photography, but for some, the reproducibility element was been removed). there are a number of pieces that are unique images eg, the burst polaroid and salted paper.
ReplyDeleteThe ch.5 reading mentioned that "all persue experiences beyond what is conventionally present in photography" (on the topic of abstraction). I think this quote nicely sums up the Edge of Vision show, in that it pushed the boundaries (expectations) of photography and forced the audience to think about photography in a whole new way...
Ch.6 also had some interesting and relevant quotes i had previously picked out, and now having seen the show, definitely apply:
* the idea of the "death of the subject"
*** "the abstract photograph signifies not the given but the possible"
* "reflection rather than inspection"
Sio and Jen already pointed out connections between the two articles. This is the discussion of an original piece of work and ones that are reproducible and the differences of the photograph and paintings. Do paintings have more of an aura because they cannot be reproduced like that of a photograph? Foster’s article challenges this idea because he points out all the different photographs there are, and not all are reproducible. That comes to the next question, are they still considered a photograph? These abstract photographs are pushing the boundaries of their medium and changing the way we traditionally look at photograph. On Sio’s question I think Benjamin would consider them to have an aura because they are unique, some not reproducible, and taking the medium of photography to a different level. (Some look like paintings and Ben likes paintings). He would agree with the quote Jen pulled out from ch. 6, “the abstract photograph signifies not the given but the possible.”
ReplyDeleteThese artists’ work goes well in response to my question in class in slowing down the volume of photographs that are so easily produced. Many of the artists chose this medium and altered the form from traditional use, and lack of subject matter, to create pieces that would comment on the issue.
After reading the essays and seeing Edge of Vision at CFAM, all three seem to touch on the idea of reproductability and the meaning behind using photography as a medium. I agree with Jen that the discussion of "pushing the boundries" and the meaning behind a photographers "willingness to interrogate their works motives, material situation, and its signifying relation to the world" in chapter 5 describe the show at CFAM.
ReplyDeleteI really liked discussing how an artist's choice to use photography has a lot to do with its ability to be reproduced. Unless you stop to as Jen states "reflect rather then inspect" one does not ponder these observations. As hall states the compilation of material and imagery forces the viewer "to think beyond the limits of critique."
Just as Sio, I too wonder whether Benjamin would admire the pieces in CFAM or find that those that are reproduced limit aura, preventing the "present day masses from getting close to things' and experiencing their uniqueness."
Benjamin was discussing the impact of reproducible technology on art and the culture. The “Edge of Vision” exhibition appears to be a reflection on the theories and observations of Benjamin. The artists in the exhibition use a reproducible medium, photography, and almost transform it into a non-photography art. There is an obvious connection to other mediums—like painting, drawing and sculpture. Some of the artwork is non-reproducible since it has no negative. As a result, the art has a unique aura and viewers might view the photographs like paintings. I had a difficult time viewing half of the photographs in the exhibition as photographs. They did not fit the standard notion of photographs—fitting a rectangular flat space. The style of the works showed a connection to minimalism due to their emphasis on the formal composition rather than the content depicted.
ReplyDeleteThere were definitely some interesting connections among the articles we read this semester. The one point which was covered in nearly every essay we’ve read was, as the others have already mentioned, reproducibility. Benjamin thought that a piece’s reproducibility was directly linked to its aura; that is, if a work was easily reproduced, its value would be significantly decreased. This makes me stop and think about some of the work hung in CFAM – though it falls under the category of “photography”, it is not reproducible. This is a bit of a contradiction, in a sense, but it certainly allows us to stop and think about what connotations are attached to “photography”. We also spoke about how nowadays everyone considers him- or herself a photographer because technology has given even individuals with no formal training or teaching the ability to hold up a camera, press a button, and sometimes end up with a visually successful shot. Because photography is now accessible to the masses, does its value decrease?
ReplyDelete