introduct io n
Each answer remains in force as an answer only as long as it is roo ted in
questioning. Heidegger, "The Or igin of the Work of Art"
J have always liked photog rap hy, and in a low- key way I was always intereste d in ir. I bough t a Berenice Abbott prim of an Arget bedroo m ar rhe Willard Ga llery in New York Cit y more t han rhirry years ago, and have lived for a long rime with photog rap h s by Evans, Baldus, Frith, and O'S u llivan (a part icular fa vorite). Ove r rhe years, too, I attende d numerous ex h ibit ions of pho to gra phy, th ough rarely wit h rh e sense of urgency rhar I felt with respect to ex hib itions of modern painting or sc ulptur e. Bur unril recen tly I did nor have any strong int u itions abo ut pho to gra phy, an d without such an intuition - some sort of ep iphany, real or imag ined - I have never been mot ivated to write o n anyt hing. Th en several things happene d. First, I got ro know J am es Welling and his work because frie nd s in Ba ltimo re wa lked inro his first show at Metro Pictures and bough t seve ral o f the " Diary" photographs; soo n they became close to him . l found t ha t I liked his p hotographs eno rm ously, an d we, too, became friends . And t hen about ten years ago, by sheer chance, I mer J eff Wall at the Boymans Museum in Ro tterdam and dis covered that, to put it mild ly, we were int erested in many of rhe sam e p ictorial issues . I had been aware o f Wall's work for years an d had even had an in k ling of our share d co ncerns, bur meet ing him and excha nging rhoughrs was galvanizing for me. Fro m that moment on I starred look ing seriously at recent photog rap hy, a process grea tly aided b y major exhibitions of work by figur es s uch as Welling, Wall, Andr eas Gursky, Tho m as St ruth, Bernd and H illa Becher, Tho m as Demand, Rineke Dijkst ra, Ca ndida Hofer, H iroshi Sugim oto, and Luc Delahaye, among orhers. To my surpri se I fairly quick ly b ecame gr ippe d by the though t rhat a ll rhar work, and m uc h else b esides, hung together artistica lly in ways rhat it seeme d to me no one else writi ng ab out the to pic had qui te recognized . At t hat poinr, I bega n dra fti ng whar J hoped woul d be a short book on recen t art photogra p hy that would convey rhe gist of m y think ing . Prett y soo n, though, ir became clear t hat no suc h short book was in the cards . Rather, if I wan ted to do jus t ice to my sub ject, I would have to de a l with the work of more th a n fifteen photogra p hers (and, ir rurne d o ur, video and film makers) in suf fic ient deta il to co nvey a sense of wha t eac h was up to and at rhe same rime to allow th e co n nectio ns I saw among rheir ind ividual projects ro emerge. Thi s is what I have trie d to do in Why Photography Matters as Art as Nev er Before.
introduction
The basic idea behind whar follows is simple. Srarr ing in rhe lare , 970s and 1980s, arr phorographs began ro be made nor on ly ar large sca le bur a lso - as rhe French crir ic J ca n -Fran ~ois Ch ev rier wa s th e firsr ro po inr our - for th e wall; this is widely known an d no one will conresr ir. What I want ro add is rhar the momenr rhis rook place - I am thinking, for example, of Ruff 's passporr-sryle porrrairs (wh ich begin modesr in scale bur are marked fro m the srarr by rhe for-rhe-wa llness thar Chevr ier rightl y regards as decisive), Wall's firsr lighrbo x transparencies, and Jean -M a rc Busramanre's Tableaux issues concerning rhe relationship berween rhe pho rograph and rhe viewer sranding before it became cru cial for phorography as they had ne ver previous ly bee n. M o re precisely, so I wanr ro claim, such photography immediarely inherited rhe enrire problemaric of beholding- in rhe rerms defined in my previous wri t ing, of rhearricaliry and an rirhe atrica liry - rhar had been cenr ral, first, to rhe evo lution of painr ing in France from rhe middle of the eighteent h cenrury unril rhe advenr of Edoua rd Maner and his gene rarion around 1860, an evo lurio n explo red in my books Absorption and Theatricality, Courbet 's Realism, and Manet's Modemism ; and second, co rhe opposition between high modernism and minim a lism in rhe mid- a nd lare 1960s, as expounded in, and perhaps exacerba red by, my "infamo us" essay "Arr and Objecr hood. » 1 Whar rhis has meant in indi vidual cases will become clear in rhe course of rhis book, bur I might as well acknowledge at the outser rhat my mor ivation for wr iti ng abour recent arr photography has every thin g ro do wirh my be lief that issues of rhe sort I have jusr named rhar mig hr hav e seeme d (rhar did seem, ro me as muc h as ro anyone else) quir e po ssibly forever inva lidated by the eclipse of high mode rn ism an d th e t riump h of posrmodernis m borh arr isrically and rheorerically in the 1970s and 'Sos have returned, may I say dialectically, to rhe very cenrer of advanced phorographic pracrice. Pur slightly diff erentl y, I shall rry ro show rhar the mos r characteristic pro ducti o ns of all rhe photograph e rs jusr mentione d (and ot hers as we ll) belong ro a single photographic regime, which is ro say ro a single com plex srrucrure of rhemes, co ncerns, and represenra riona l srra regies, whic h on rhc one hand repr esents an epocha l develo pment w irhin rhe hisrory of art phorography and on th e othe r can only be unders tood if it is viewed in the context of issues of beholding and of what I rhink of as rhe ontology of pictures rhar we re first th eo rized by Deni s Diderot wirh respect to stage dram a and painting in rhe lare 1750s and '6os . This means, among other things, thar rhe chapters that follow co nsta nt ly refer ro my own earlier writings; I declare rhis up front, ro preempt the facile cr iticism rhar I am excessively preocc upi ed wirh my ow n ideas . I am pr eoccup ied wirh those ideas, for the sim ple reason rha r rhey seem ro me ro hold the key ro much (far from every rhing, much less rhan half of eve ryrhing, but srill, a grear deal ) in the picrorial arts of rhe pasr 2.50 years. The qu esrion, in orher words, is no r whe th er in rhis book I am ex plo ring ropics and issues I have discusse d before bur rather whether Ill) ' interpretations of spec ific works by a number of rhe leading phorographers of our rime, and beyond rhar my account of the lar ger project of much conrempora ry arr ph otography, a re or are not persua sive as rhey sran d. (I kn ow ir is roo much ro ask, bur it would be useful if reade rs impatient wirh whar I have done were ro feel compe lled ro offer superior interprera rions of rhe ir ow n.)
why photography matters as art as never before
T he organizat ion of Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Befor e is as follows . Chapter One sketches three possible "beginn ings," each of which involves t hree terms, by way of indicating something of t he scope of the issues to be dealt with in subse qu ent chapters . C hap ters Two and Thr ee are co ncerne d wit h works by Jeff Wall; the first also says some t hing abou t the concep t of worldhood as it is theor ized in Mart in Heidegger's Being and Time {also ab out the not ion of techn ology as deve loped in his later essay "The Quest ion Co ncerni ng Techn ology") and the second abou t the concep t of t he everyday as it emerges in a remarkable ext ract from Ludwig Wittgenstein's note books for 1930, both o f these in relat ion to Wall's pictures . {For various reasons, Wall's work plays a large r role in t his bo ok than t hat of any ot her photograp her.) Cha pter Four comprises a reading of Ro land Bart hes's Camera Lucida, with partic ula r attent ion to his no tion of the /Junctum; my aim is to show that Camera Lucida is everywhere driven by an unacknow ledged antitheatr icalism and that it the refore bears a close relation ship to t he larger argume nt of this boo k. C hapte r Five exam ines T homas Strut h's mu seum pictures, and Cha pter Six a range of works by Thomas Ruff, Andr eas Gursky, and Luc Dela haye. Chap ter Six also includes a br ief discuss ion of Chevrier's account of t he new "tableau form, " on e of the few sign ificant co ntribm ions to a t heo ry of the new art photogra ph y with whic h I am fam ilia r. Chap ter Seven, on photographic portra itur e, co nsiders Struth 's fami ly port rait s, Rineke Dijkst ra's beach ph otog rap hs, Pat rick Fa igenba um's busts of Roman emperors, Dela haye's L'Autre, a boo k of black-and -white photographs made with a hidde n came ra o f passenger s on the Paris Metro, Roland Fischer's portra its of monk s and nuns, and Douglas Gordo n and Phi lippe Par reno's film Z idane : A TwentyFirst Century Portrait . Ch apter Eight, organize d around the the me of st reet photogra ph y, exa mines Wall's Mimic, Bear Streuli's videos and phorographs of crowds made wit h a concea led ca mera, an d vario us pictures and a pho tobook by Philip-Lorca diCorcia. Chapte r Nine looks at wo rks by T homas Demand a nd Ca ndid a H ofer before closi ng with bri ef remarks a bout Hiros hi Sugimoto's "Seasca pes," St ruth's " Paradi se" ph otographs, and two gat herings of pho togra phs of anim als in zoos by Garry Winogrand and H ofer. C haprer Ten, the climax to t he boo k, begins with a few wo rds abou t James Welling's ea rly Polaroid photograph, Lock, by way of sett ing the scene for an interpretat ion of Bern d and Hilla Becher's Typolog ies, one of t he most orig inal and impr essive - also, I sha ll t ry to show, philoso ph ically one of the most profound - artistic achieveme nt s of the past fifty years. Noti on s o f " true " or "genuine" versus "bad" or "spur ious" infini ty as pu t forward by G. W. F. Hegel in his Science of Logic an d Encyclopedia Logic are central to my arg ument, as is the theme of objec thoo d in "Art and Objecthood ." The cha pte r ends wit h a bri ef read ing of Wall's Concrete Ball. Ther e follows a Con clu sion, bea rin g t he sa me title as the book, that at onc e reviews and extends my overall argum ent before closing wit h a discussion of one last work by Wall, Aft er "Spring Snow" by Yukio Mish ima. As t his su mmary sugges ts, philoso phica l texts by Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Hegel (also by Stanley Cave ll and Rob ert Pippin) are vital to my pro ject; this is because the new arr photography has fou nd itself compelle d to do a certa in amount of what I thin k of as ontolo gica l wor k, and beca use the writ ings of t hose pa rt icu lar philosophers have
introd uction
3
pr oved indispensable ro my efforts ro mak e clear exactly what this has involved. Othe r writer s who figure in thi s book in tex t and not es (apart from numerou s co mm entato rs on my photographer -subjec ts) are C hevrier, Bart hes, Brassa"i on Pro ust an d Prou st himself, the anonymous author of a French eighteenth-century conte, Susa n Sonta g, Clement Greenbe rg, Gertrude Stein in her essay " Pictur es," Heinr ich von Kleist, Robert Musil, Brian O'Doherty, Walter Benn Michaels (whose writing s on photo graph y bear closely on my arguments), and , per haps most surpri singly, Yukio Mishima in several pa ssages in his great terralogy , Th e Sea of Fertility. H oweve r, my focus will be overwhelmingly on th e photograph s I ha ve chose n to discuss. Two more point s. First , in my introduction to Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews, I insist that "be tween m)•self as histor ian of the French antirh eati ca l tradition and the crit ic who wrot e ' Arr and Objecrhood ' there loom s an unbridgeable gulf . ... 11see J no way of nego tiating th e differen ce between the priorit y given in [my earl y arr crir icismJ to judgment s bot h po sit ive and negat ive and the princ ipled refusa l of all such jud gme nt s in rhe pur suit of historical und erstanding Jin Absorption and Theatricality, Courbet's Realism, and Manet's Modernism]." 2 This seemed ro me a mat ter of some imp ort anc e, if onl y beca use I did nor want to be unde rsto od as end orsing Diderot's views of individual artist s (for example, deprecatin g Watteau ). Well, as the reader of Why Photography Matt ers as Art as Never Before is about to discove r, th e gulf in qu estion no longer loo ms as it pr evio us!)' did; pu t slightly differentl y, th e pr esent book turn s our to be generica lly mix ed - at once crit icism and history, jud gme nt al and non-judgm ental , engage d and detached - in ways that would hav e been inco mpr ehensible ro me only a short rime ago .J Second , a word about my epigraph . Th e citat ion from Heidegger, " Eac h answe r rem a ins in force as a n answer onl y as long as it is roo ted in ques t ioning ," was previously used by me as t he epigraph ro rhe introductor y essay, " About my Arr C rit icism," to th e 1998 anthol ogy of 111)' arr crirical writ ings, Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews. Whe n I plac ed it there , 1 meant to signal an aw a rene ss that th e issues grap pled with in my arr criticism of the 1960s were no longer burnin g topi cs in conte mp o1ary a rr (the introdu ct ion dar es from 1995-6 ), and that I ought nor rob e ima gined as standing behind each and eve ry claim in my ear ly writings as if nothing significa nt had happened in th e intervening years . By using it ag ain here, however , I mean to signal som ethin g almost exac tly op posite: rhar the issues of rhearri ca liry and objecrhood rhar were cru cia l to my arr criticism in J 966-7 a re once aga in, in Heidegger's tremendou s phr ase, "roote d in que stio nin g," nor least ques ti oning conducted with great force and brilliance by the photographers them selves. Inde ed the questioning had begun well befor e I wrote that introduc tory essay, bur I did nor know it then. Now I do.
4
why photography
matters as art as never before
three beginni ngs
1
There are rhree b eginni ngs to rhis book, eac h of which in irs own way pre pares rhe grou nd fo r t he chapt ers th ar follow. The firsr rakes off from a consi deration of rhe Ja pan ese ph otograp her Hiro shi Sugimoto's widely ad111ired black-and-whire photographs of mov ie rhearer s in different ciries in rhe Unired Srares, w hich he began 111 aking in rhe 111 id- , 97os, while he was srill phorograph ing di ora111asin 111u se u111 s of natura l histo ry- his firsr m arure body of wo rk (Figs. , an d 2.). (Sug i111o to, born in Japan in 1.948, came to rhe Uni red Srares in 1970 to srudy arr. Since rhen he has rraveled widely bur lives mainly in New York. I shall have some thin g ro say abour his "Seascapes" larer in rhis book .) He went on mak ing rhe movie rhearer phorogra ph s for another rwe nt y-five years : in the cara logu e to his 2005 - 6 trav elin g ret rospective exhib itio n rhey a re dated 1975 - 2.001. In char catalogue, too, Sugimoto prov ides rhe fol lowing brief intro ductory sra rem enr ro rhose pictures : I am a habirual se lf-inte rlocu tor. O ne even ing whi le raki ng p hotographs fof dioramas ] ar rhe American Muse u111of Na tur a l H isrory, I had a near-hall ucinatory visio n. My internal ques t ion-and-a n swer session lead ing up to rh is vision went so meth ing like rhis: "Su ppose yo u sh oo r a whole movie in a single fra111e?"Th e answer: " You ger a sh ining screen." Immediately I began ex per iment ing in or der to realize rhis vision . One afterno on I wa lked in ro a c heap cine ma in rhe Easr Village wit h a large-formar camera . As soo n as rh e mov ie sta rted , I fixed the s hutt er ar a wide-o pen ape rtur e. When rhe m ovie finished rwo hou rs later, I clicked rhe shurrer clo sed. Thar evening I deve loped the film, and m y vision ex ploded befo re m y eyes.' In orher words, the dazzl ing blank ness, rhe sheer whireness, o f che scree ns in rhe mo vie rhearer photographs are rhe resulr of leav ing rhe shurre r ope n chroug hour an enti re film; by th e same token , there was jusr enough cum ulati ve reflected ligh t fro m the scree n ro make poss ible rhe relative ly dark bur a lso m ar velous ly detai led registrat io n of rhe rhearer interio rs themse lves. Now, I have no wish to challenge the veracity of Sugimoto's accou n t of how he came ro make rhe movie theat er pho tog rap hs. Bur ir s ho uld be noted t har he presents his doing so as rhe ourco me o f a so lita ry brill iant int uirion, as if rhe photographs spran g full y co n ceived ou r of his q uest ioning mind and thus had nothi ng wharever to do wirh any rhing else rakin g place in photography at approximately t he same mo m ent. Maybe thi s rea lly is how t hey ca m e to be m ade. Yer th e facr remains rhar rhe seco nd half of t he 1970s saw ar leasr rwo orhe r n orable iniriarives in "a rt " photography rhar engage d head-on with the quesrion of cinema, and I want to sugges r rhat unless rhose init iat ives are ta ken
three beg,nnings
5
Hir os hi Sugimoto, U.A. Walker, New York, 1978 . Gelatin silver print. u9.4 x 149.2 cm, Negative 213 1
2 Hir os hi Sugimoto, Ohio Theater, Ohio, 1980 . Gelatin silver print. 1 19.4 x 149.2 cm, Negative 205
into conside rarion, one's sense of Sugimo ro's achieve ment in rhe movie theate r photo graphs risks being curio usly abstract, cut off from the contem pora ry histo ry of which it was a part. l refer to the early work of Cindy Sher man and Jeff Wall. Sherman first. The works I have in mind are her famous Untit led Film Stills, modesrsized black-and-w hite photographs which she made between r977 and 1980 .2 T hey are, of cour se, not actua l film st ills but ph otographs imita t ing t he look of film st ills, and in all rhe images (a tota l of eighty-four) t he protagonist is Sherman herself, or rather one or ano t her female "c har acter" who m Sherman is play ing or imp ersonat ing (in a ll the photographs she is alone, no one else appears). There is by now a vast critical lirerarure on Sherm an's work, muc h of it in my op inio n t heo retica lly overblow n,3 bur here are some interes t ing remar ks by Sher man herself: I liked rhe H itchcock look, Anto nion i, Neo realist st uff. What I didn't want were pictures showing st rong emot ion . In a lor of movie photos rhc actors look cute, impish, allurin g, d ist raught , frighrene d, rough , ere., bur what I was int eresred in was wh en they were almost express ion less. Whic h was rare to see; in film stills there's a lot of overac t ing because th ey're trying ro sell rhe movie. Th e movie isn't necessa r ily funny or happy, bu r in those pub liciry photos, if there's one cha racte r, she's smiling. Ir was in Europea n film st ills that I'd find wome n who were more neutral, and maybe the origina l films were ha rder to figure our as well. I foun d thar mo re mysterious. I looke d for it consc iously; I didn't want to ha m ir up , an d I knew rhat if I acted too hap py, or too sad, or scared - if rhe emotio nal quot ient was too high - t he photograp h would seem campy. 181 O ne way of gloss ing rhis might be to say that by her own account, despite rhe fact t hat she was in effect "pe rformi ng" for the camera - dress ing up, mak ing up, arranging rhe scene, and finally playing a role - Sherman at the same time felt impelled to avoid displays of emorio n and by imp licat ion entire scenes t hat might stri ke rhe viewer as theatrica l in rhe pejorative sense of the rerm. (The wo rd is mine, no t hers. T his is nor to say rhar a ll the Untit led Film Stills are eq ually restrained. I need hardly add rhat the issue of t heat r icality looms large bot h in my art critical essay of 1967, "Art and Objecrhood," and in my histo rical studi es of the evol ution of paint ing in Fra nce bet ween the middle of rhe eighteenth cent ury and the adve nt of Ma net and his genera tion in the early , 86os .4 ) Acco rdingly, in most of the Stills Sherman depicts characte rs who app ear absorbed in thoug ht or feeling (Fig. 3); or who look "offscreen" in a man ner that suggests t hat their attentio n has been dra wn, fleetingly or ot herwise, by somethin g or someone ro be fou nd there (Fig. 4); or who gaze close up at their own image in a mirror (Fig. 5); or who are viewed from the rear or the side, from an elevated or "depressed" viewpoi nt, from a co nsidera ble distance, or unde r orher circumstances that ru le out the possibi lity of any implied commu nicat ion between t he per sonage in t he photograph and rhe viewer (Fig. 6). Thro ugho ur the series the bas ic movies co nventio n (or diegeric law ) of never depicting the subject looki ng directly ar the camera is in force,' and in general the cinematic characte r of the photographs co uld hardly be more emp hatic. But there is also a convergence bet ween a numb er of the actional and structural mot ifs char one
three beg innings
7
3 Cin dy Sher ma n , Untitled Film St ill, #53, 1980 . Ge lat in silver print . 16 .2 x 24 cm. M useum of Mod ern Arr, New York . Grace M. Ma yer Fun d
4 Cindy Sherman , Untit led Film Sti ll, #9, 1978 . Ge la tin silver print. 18 .9 x 24 cm . Mu seum of Mo dern Art, New York. Purchase
/
5 Cin dy Sher man , Untitled Film Still, #56, r980 . Gela tin silver print. r6.2 x 24 cm . Mu seum o f Mod ern Art, New York. Acqui red throu g h th e genero sity of J o Carole a nd Rona ld S. Laude r in memor y o f Mr s John D. R ocke fe ller 111 6 C ind y Sherman, Untitled Film Still, #48, r 979 . Gelatin silver print. 16.2 x 24 c m. Mu seum of Mo d ern Arr, New York. Acqu ir ed throug h th e gene rosity of J o Caro le a nd Ron a ld S. Laud er in memory of Eug ene S. Schwartz
7 (righ t and faci ng /Jnge)
Jeff Wall, M nuie Aud ience, 1 979. Seven transpa rencies in thr ee lightboxcs. Eac h tra nsparency 10 1. 5 x 105 cm
finds in the Stills an d mot ifs deployed by eighteenth - and nin eteenrh-cenrury French pa int ers in the inrerest of what l have called a nti t hea trica lit y (as Regis Durand recognizes aprop os o f the t rea tment of the subj ect's gaze in Sherman 's Rear Scree11Projectio11 s of 1980) .6 I sha ll ha ve much mor e to say ab out thi s issue furth er on in t his chap ter a nd in tho se that follow, but I wa nr to stop shore o f characteri zing the Stills as ant itheatric a l pur e a nd simple for tw o reason s. First , it is not clear - at least not at this prelim inar y point in rhe la rge r argumen t of this boo k - w hat such a claim can mean in the rea lm o f ph otograph y or indeed th at of cinema (a sepa rat e topic) and therefore, 11 fortiori, in t he rea lm o f a co nce pti on of ph otograp hy th at o penly presents itself as parasit ic if not on cinema itself t hen on a part icula r cinemat ic a rt ifact, the film st ill. Second , Sherm an 's Stills both individually an d (even more exp licitly) as a group present themselves as having been delib erat ely staged by the photogra pher - and is not ''s tagedn ess" such as one find s in these images a marker o f t hea trica lity, nor its ant ithesis? Th e answer to thi s question, which will eme rge as I proceed, is fairly comp lex, but rhe poinr I want to und ersco re is t hat Sherm an's Stills raise rhe qu estion in a particula rly pressing form {they are not simpl y t heat rical, in ocher wor ds), w hich is also to say that t here is more to them as works of a rt tha n br illiant visua l deco nst ructi ons of fictions o f feminity, which is mostly ho w t hey have been und ersto od .7 Jeff Wa ll, the ot her key figure I want to cite in this co nn ection, made The Destroyed Room, his first lightbox pictur e - a C iba chrom e t rans pa rency illumin ated fro m behind by fluoresce nt bulb s, thro ugh out almost all his ca reer his preferred medium - in 1978.k Fro m the o ut set, his art has involved t riangulat ing ben vcen photog raphy, paint ing, and cinema, as he himself has repeated ly stated in essa ys and interview s. (A pa rtic ularly splend id exa mple of such t riangulatio n, Momi11g Cleani11 g, Mies van der Rohe Fou11 datio11 , Barce/o11 a f r999 J, w ill be the pr incipal wo rk d iscu ssed in C hap ter T hree.) In fact, in Wall's rece ntly publ ished cata logue raiso nne all his work s ar e chara cterized by him either as " docu mentary " or " cinematograp hic" pho togra phs, the latt er rerm implying some meas ur e of preparat ion of t he motif - some meas ur e of "s taging," in other
10
why photography
matters as all as never before
words. As in Sherma n's case, the larger q uestio n of the exact scope and n ature o f Wall's exp loitatio n of movies and the thought of movies lies beyond the scope of this in tro duction - in fact la m aware of scan ting the subjec t in my chapters o n Wall and for that matter in this book generally . However, one early work by Wa ll is especially relevant to Sugimoto's Mov ie Theaters : Movie Audience o f 1979 (Fig. 7), which co mprises seven lightbox portraits of pe rsons seen slig htly fro m below, all of whom gaze towa rd the lcfr as if towa rd a movie screen on wh ich a film is being pro jected, their faces illum inated from the lefr as if by reflected ligh t fro m that screen. Each portrait is abou t one meter high and wide, and the seven have been grouped in three un its depict ing o ne "fa m ily" (" mot her," "ch ild ," and "fa t her" ) and two youthful couples. By cla imi ng that Movie Aud ience is especia lly relevant to Sugimoto 's Movie Theaters l mean tha t whereas the latter with their blan k sc reen s are in almost all cases co mplete ly devoid of an aud ience, Wall's Movie Audience purports ro be a representatio n of members o f such an au dien ce
three beginnings
11
(tho ugh we as viewers do not for a moment im agine that his personages are act ually watc hing a movie und er ordinary co nd itio ns; for one thin g, the light falling on their faces is muc h too stro ng for that to be cre dible). In 198 4, to accompany an exhi bition of t his wo rk in Base l, Wall wrote a text of several pages in a tort uous, post-Adorno idio m t hat contra sts st r ikingly with the exce ptional lucidity of his other wri t ings abou t pho tograp hy (the most disting uished body of writing on the to pic of the past thirty years, in my opi nion). One paragraph suffices to convey the teno r of the whole: W hen we go to the cinema, we enter a t heat re (or what remains of a theatre) which has been re-insta lled in a monume nral isi ng mac hine. Th e hu ge fragmented figures projected on the screen are the magnified sha rd s of the o utm oded thespia ns. This implies that the film spectator has also become a fragment of society which acquires ident ity throu gh its repetitio us accumulat ion ; in thi s process it beco mes an "au dience." The audience is not watch ing the prod uct of t he action of a machine; iris inside a machine and is expe riencing the phantasmagoria of t hat interio r. T he audience knows t his, but it knows ir t hrough t he labour of trying to forget it. Thi s amnes ia is w hat is known cul tur a lly as pleasure and happ iness. On t he other ha nd, the utopia of the cinema consists in the ideal of happy, pleasan t lucidity which wo uld be created by the revolutionary negation and transfo rm at ion of amnesi ac and mon um ent alising cultural forms. Cinemat ic spectarorship is a somnamb uli stic approa ch toward utop ia. 9 At the risk of simplify ing Wall's thought, T might note, first , that the top ic of theater, hence of t heatricali t y, is definitely in play, and second, that Wall is struc k by the fact that a movie au dience (as one might say) " loses itse lf" or, per ha ps more accura tely, "fo rgets itself" in the experie ncing of a mo vie, or rather is led or induced by the apparatus and the situatio n to seek to do so (Wall : "Th e aud ience knows !that it is inside the exper iencing mac hinej, bur it kn ows it t hrough the la bour of tryi ng to forget it"). Thus the " utopia of t he cinema" - which presumably has not been achieved - would be to convert this trop ism toward forgetting into a kind of "happy, pleasant lucid ity" abo ut the whole expe rience, a lucidity that wou ld nor simply be a form of distanci ng and alienat ion. (Wall associa tes the latter condit ions, dista ncing and alienatio n, wit h what he calls "crit ical modernism" jsee below] - Ben oit Brecht and Jean-Luc Godard wou ld be the models here, not Morris Louis or Ant hony Caro.) As for Movie Audience it self, Wall goes on to say that he trie d to make it anticipate, even evo ke, its own mom ent of trial and occl usion as modernist arr, its o wn transfo r mation into tyran nical decor. [In ot her words, its own conscri ption to an experie ntial regime of imme rsion and forgett ing.] T his is greatly facilitated by the lighting techn ology used to make the piece, wh ich itself induces a kind of pri mal specular fascinatio n o r absorpt ion which is in some ways ant ithetical to the cond itions of reflective and artificia l est rangement indispensa ble to the un happy lucidity of critical mode rni sm. [28 11 At the same time, the fact that Movie Audience has been hun g unusua lly high by Wall himself is on the side of est rangemen t rather than fascination - it is har d to lose oneself in an image conside rably above one's head.
12
why photography
matters as art as never before
Here it is wort h gla ncing at some remarks a bou t movies that appear in "Art and Objec t hood": lt is the overco ming of theater t hat modern ist sens ibilit y finds most exa lting an d that it experie nces as the ha llma rk of high art in our time. There is, howeve r, one art rhar, by irs very narure, escapes t heate r ent irely - rhe mov ies. This helps explain why movies in gene ra l, including frank ly appa lling ones, a re acce ptab le to mod ernis t sensibi lity whereas all but the most succesf ul paint ing, sculpt ur e, music and poet ry is not. Because cine ma escapes theater - automa tically, as it were - ir provides a welcome and absorbing refuge ro sensibilitie s at war with theater and rhear ricaliry. Ar t he same rime, rhe auto matic , guaranteed chara cter of th e refuge - more accu rately, the fact that what is prov ided is a refuge from theater and nor a triumph ove r ir, absorption no r conviction - means rhat rhe cinema, even ar its most experimental , is nor a modern ist arr. 10
Today I per haps want to qua lify rhe fina l co ncl usion, but my ba sic claim, char rhe absorption or engross ment of rhc movie audience sidesteps, auro marically avoids, the question of thea rricaliry, st ill seems to me - very broa dly-c or rect. It has much in co mmon, I t hink , with Wall's characre rizarion of t he movie aud ience as ar once "i nside a machi ne" an d as "experienci ng the phantasmagor ia of rhar inter ior," though his emphas is on the au dience's " labor" of forgett ing int roduces a note of complex it y ab sent from my cruder form ulat ion. (l shou ld add rhat rhe adverb " autom atic ally" w as not mea nt by me to impl y that rhe avoidance of rhea t rica liry I associate wirh mov ies results simp ly from rhe natur e of rhe appara t us - the camera and pr ojector - as distin ct from t he dep loyment of a hosr of techni ques of acting , directing , scene-settin g, light ing, photogra phin g, sou nd recordin g, editin g, and so on. T he whole q uesti on w ill ha ve to be taken up again o n a futur e occasion.) All rhis leads me to suggest rhat one way of understanding Sugimoto's Movie Theaters, Sherm an 's Untitled Film Stills, and Wall's Movie Audience is as responding in different ways ro rhe pr ob lematic stat us of mov ies in thi s regard by making pho tographs which, althoug h mobil izing one or anot her conve nt ion of movies (or the rhoug hr of movies), also provide a certa in essenti a lly photographic distance from the filmic experience, a distance by virt ue of w hich rhe automaticity of the avo idan ce of theat ricality l have just evoke d is foresta lled or undone. By t his I mean t hat th e issue of theatricality is allowed to come into focus, as a lmost neve r in narrative film as such, and even to be eng aged with as a problem - though not, I sugges t , unambiguously defeated or overcome. (That had to wai t for Do uglas Gordon's brilliant Deja 1111 [2000), nor discussed in this book. I sha ll have a littl e more ro say abour rhe relat ion of film to pho tograp hy as theorized by Roland Barthes in Camera Lu cida in Chapter Fo ur.) In Sherman's Stills, as seen, this is acco mp lished in part through motifs of absorption, distract ion, look ing "offscreen," distance from rhe camera, and the like. In Wall's Movie Audience, it is done by dep ict ing members of an oste nsibly or rather no t ion ally immersed aud ience from a point of view that virtually ass ur es a cert ain crit ica l distance on the pa rt of rhe viewe r but thar at rhe sa me t ime (accordi ng ro Wa ll) seeks at least somewhat to entra nce rhat viewer by means of rhe sheer allur e of the ba ck lit t ransparenc ies. Viewed in rhis context,
three beginn ings
13
in imp licit dialog ue wit h the work of Sherman an d Wall, rhe blank radiance of Sugirnoto's movie screens present s it self as an abst ract image of spectatorly fascinatio n {think o f t he shiny objects trad itionally ernpl oyed by hypno t ists to fixate a subject 's att entio n), while the fac t t hat in all bu t rhe ear liest Movie Theaters the seats in rhe theate r are empty - there is no audience to be seen - co mes to seem a brilliant figure for, very nearly a represent a tion of, the fascina ted or hypnotized {that is, ab sorbe d or imrnersed) rnovie aud ience's charac terist ic forge tt ing of itsel f and irs positio n w ithin the cinematic "mach ine," to adopt Wall's ter min ology. {The absence of ca rs in Sugimoto's photographs of DriveIns has a co mp ara ble sign ificance .) Ar rhe sarne time, howeve r, the viewer of rhe Movie Theaters and Drive-Ins has no sense of be longing ro t hat {at o nce presen t and absent) movie audience: rather, he or she stan ds conscio usly apart frorn the images in question, and peru ses t heir con t ents in a detached or say disinte rest ed man ner, which in t urn a llows the cornplex relati on to t he filmic ex perience I have tried ro descr ibe to become available on rhe pla ne of critical or t heoret ica l reflection. That pla ne coexists with anot her, shee rly sensu o us one, which conce rn s only the und enia ble and uncanny beauty of t he ph otographs . What I am sugges t ing is that we as viewers oug ht nor ro ler the seco nd ent irely eclipse the first, as of ten ha pp ens in co mrnentaries on Sugimoro's arr; rather, here as elsewhere the case for his irnportance requ ires rhat we take into account the relation of his work to t ha t of his co ntemporaries, a relario n t hat he himse lf in his pub lished st aremen t s seerns conte nt to leave un ack nowledged .
M y seco nd beg inn ing cen ters on t he protracted rnomenr between 1978 and 1981 when three yo un g art ists in d ifferent parts of the wo rld - Wa ll in Vancouver, Th omas Ruff in Diisseld o rf, and Jean -Ma rc Bustamante in P ro vence and nort hern Spain - mo re or less sirnulr aneous ly started to make ph otographs that I am not the first to see as exernplifying a new regime of "art" photography (from now on 1 sha ll drop t he quota tion rnarks), one that the learn ed and acute French cr itic Jean-Fran~o is C hevrier has character ized as the "tableau form." 11 I shall cons ider Chevrier's ideas in greate r deta il at t he start of Chap t er Six, whe re I sha ll also say more about Ruff's breakt hroug h works, his frontal, deadpan, "passport-style" co lor portrai ts of fellow stu dents and ot hers in his immed iare milieu . For prese nt purposes, however, t he t wo distinctive and closely related character istics of rhe new regirne are, first, a tende ncy t owa rd a considerably large r image-size tha n had prev iously bee n thought appropriate to art photogra ph y; and seco nd, an expectatio n or, pu t more stro ngly, an intention that t he pho tograph s in question wou ld be frarned and hun g on a wa ll, to be looked a r like pa intings {hence Chevrier's ter m "ta bleau" ) rather t ha n merel y exami ned up close - pe rhaps even held in the hand - by one viewer ar a rime, as ha d hithe rt o been the ca se. Not that pr evious arr photographs - wo rk s by Carneron, H ill and Adamson, Nadar, Le Gray, Baldus , Emerson, Steic hen, Coburn, Stiegl itz, Strand, Westo n, Eva ns, Rodc henko, Sande r, Carrie r-Bresson, Kert esz, Brassa'i, Wo ls, Levitt, Ada ms, Frank , Calla han, Winogrand, Fr iedland er, Arb us, Brandt, et al. - had no t lent rhernselves perfectly well to being matted, fra med, and
14
why pho t ography matters as art as never before
exh ibited on the wa ll - obv iously t hey did. Yet co mpar ed to the new work, the re had always seemed so methin g a littl e arb itra ry abou t such a mode of display, as if material images tha t had not been made for the wa ll - which often app ear ed to have been mad e to be reproduced in books an d cata logues, w here they co uld be stud ied in private by individual viewers - co uld not be certified as wor ks of arr unless they were so displayed , usually in gallery or mu seum environm ent s w hich furthe r ma gnified their "est hetic " cac her. T he new work, in con t rast, had its desti nation on the wa ll in view from the first on the level of "form," to use the ot her of Chevrie r 's key word s. It is imm ediately appa rent what t his mean s in the case of Jeff Wall' s early lighrbox pict ures such as The Destroyed Roo m (T978; Fig. 8) and Picture for Women ( 1979; Fig. 9) : not only are both works far larger than pr evious art phot ograp hs bad been (roug hly five feet high by seve n and a half feet wide) , they also co ntain a wea lth of minu te derail tha t is cru cial to t heir content but tha t wou ld effectively be lost if the images were sign ifican tl y reduced in size - which is what happe ns when the y are illust rat ed in books or catalog ues. So for example t he ar t historian Ralp h Ubl ha s based a readin g of the role of "co ntinge ncy" in The D estroyed Room on th e place men t of a cluster of gleaming tac ks in th e wa ll near t he " w indow " at the right of the picture; 12 the racks a re all but indis cernible in rep rod uction but , like t he small pieces of jewe lry on th e carpe ted floo r, at t ract one's gaze when
8
Jeff Wall, Th e Destroyed Room, 1978 . Tran spare ncy in lighr bo x. , 50 x 234 c m
three beginnings
15
9 Jeff \Xlall, l'ic ture for \Y/0111eu,1979. Transparency in ligbtbox. 150 x 234 cm
one sta nds before the actual tran sparency. Derai l as such matters less in l'icture for \Y/ome11but the issue of size is even more cruc ial: eve rything depen ds on the viewer's abili ty to respo nd not just intellectually but p unctua lly, in the mo ment of viewing, ro t he int ernal complexi ties of the life-size image as a who le, in part icular ro its carefu lly eng ineered struct ure of reflected gazes - th at of t he young wo man "mo d el" ro t he left; that o f the photogra p her, Wall, operat ing t he sh utter attac hment ro the right ; and chat of t he camera on its tri pod at the exac t cent er of the picture. (As near as one can tell: the mirror in which everyt h ing is reflected is identified with the picture plane; t he actual, not the reflected you ng wo man gazes at a reflect ion o f the camera lens, whi le the actu al, no t the reflected p hotog rap her gazes at a reflection of the young woma n . The actua l camera a lone rakes in the enti re m irrored scene.) Fu rthe rmo re, bo th The Destroyed Room and Picture for \Y/ome11 all ude ro major pa intings in the mode rn French trad ition - the forme r ro Delac ro ix's Destructio11of Sarda11apa/11s, the latter to Manet's Bar at
16
why photography matters as art as never before
the Folies-Bergere - the reby underscoring both works' specifically pictor ial ambitions as well as their adherence ro an essent ially rableau- like mode o f presentation. 13 (More on Wall's use of pictorial "sources" in Chapters Two and T hree. ) As for Ruff's ear ly co lor head-s hots of students an d others (Figs. ro an d , 1 ), they arc espec ially int erest ing in this con nection beca use they d id nor begin large (t hat is, a ll those made between 1981 and 1986 were 24 x 18 centimeters); only from 1986 d id he dramatically increase their dimensions (ma ny to 210 x I65 centi meters), no do ubr part ly in response to Wall's lightbox p ictures and per haps the work of ot hers as well. 14 Never theless, there is an impor tan t sense-on which I shal l expand in Chapte r Six - in which on the level of "form" they were fro m the first imagined for the wall, by wh ich I mean that by virtue of their fronrali ty (with some profi le views a nd obl ique angles thrown in), repet it ive srructure, and psych ic blankness - also of their colored backgrounds - they implied a part icular mode of relat ion to the viewer, one of mu tual facing, indeed con frontation , tha t some how exceeded, in effect subtly negated, the conventions of the tradi tiona l fronta l
10
T homas Ruff, Portrait /8. }ii11ger/,1981. Chromoge nic
processprint. 24 x 18 cm
TT Thomas Ruff, Portrait /K. K11e((el},1984. Chromogcnic process print. 2.4 x 18 cm
three beginnings
17
photograph ic portra it . T heir subsequent increase in sca le therefore seems right, as if only then did rhey assume rhe dimensions and sheer "visual presence" (Valeria Liebermann's phrase) prope r ro rheir idea. 15 Indeed ir was rhen rhat rhe portra its became rigorously frontal and cons istentl y dea dpan . In contrast, Sugimoto's Dioramas or Movie Theaters lose intensity when rhey are printed ar a larger scale, as is sometimes done. (Ler me be clea r: I consider bo rh the Dioramas and Movie Theaters to be early instances of the new art photograp h y, wirhour t heir adhering to the tab leau form as suc h. Sherman's U11titled Film Stills' srarus w irh respect ro t he new art photography featured in this book is a trickier matter, in part because of he r own subsequent development; I find almost all her work after rhe "centerfolds" I 198 1i to be of relative ly little artistic interest.) M ain ly, rhough, I wanr to say somet hing abour Busrama nte's ea rly Tableaux (the designation is his), a series of large color photographs that he made in the outskirts of Barcelona and in various places in Provence between 1978 and 1982 . (Bustamante, born in 1952 in Tou louse to a n Argentine father and a British mother, had worked in Paris as an assistant to the American stree t photogra pher William Klein, a leading figure in the previous generation.) According to Jean-P ier re Criqui, organizer in 1999 of a retrospective exhib ition of Busrama nte's arr, the photogra pher rook the Tableaux wirh a cum bersome 8 x 10-inc h box camera, "whic h, need less to say, ha d to be fixed to a tripod for the me rest shot ." 16 T his was far from standard working procedure for a young photographer at rhar time, but even less so was Bustama nre's decision to print his photographs at the maxim um size then possible . Cr iqui beg ins his introduc tory essay with a brief discussion of an exemplary wor k, Tableau no. r7 ( 1979; Fig. 1 2), which shows, in its foreground, an expanse of trodden earth littered with pebbles and crisscrossed by tire marks . A narrow, dusty road comes to an encl here, hemmed wit h rrees, scrub and some building mater ials - breeze-b locks, stones - waiting for who knows whar. On either side of the strip of earth, two paltry signs announce "Avda de Catalunya ." In rhe distance, hills beneath a lowering sky. In contrast with the anyt hing bu r grandiose characte r of t his scene, the exac tness of t he visua l dara offered by this photograph is notewort hy. This kind of "sharpness" makes the eye waver between afocality and the identificat ion of discrete points, and the roing and froing between these two facto rs presupposes a duration that greatly exceeds any mere ass umption of aware ness . Simply because of the absence of any spectacle and evenr, you have to look for a long time here. T his is how I understand Busramanre's words desc ribing t he Tableaux as "ki nds of slow snaps hots ." [ 163 l A lirtle furt her on, Criq ui rema rks that in the catalogue for a previo us exhi bitio n Tableau 110. 17 is immediately followed by Tabl eau no. 43 (198 1; Fig. 13 ), which makes an arresting contrast wit h its predecessor: T his is a contrast that is sw iftly perceived ra ther in rerms of comp lementarity, for [rhe second of these!, organized around this metal enclosure thar splits the image in rwo (in from, a lick of pa le gravel, like part of a bullring; behind, moved far back beyond this wa ll whic h only lers part of their bodies show, a woman or girl with two children, and a greyish mass of unsightly buildings), forms wirh what goes befo re a sort of diptych in which the entire repertory of motifs explored by the whole series is
18
why photography
matters as art as never before
12
Jean-Marc Busta1i1ante, Tableau
110.
17,
1979.
Type C and Cibachrome.
ro3 x
130
cm
summed up. Areas o f wastela n d, per ipheral zones, cons t ructions unfinished o r in the process of being built (or unfinished), roads eng ulfed and faded, dead-ends: everywhere the signs of man, who nevertheless remains aloo f, withdrawn, an d o nly rarely appea rs, blen d ing in with a set tha t he is forever redesign ing. A faint sen se of disaster wafts u p from this paradoxica l comb ination o f invasion and aba ndonmen t. I163 I Cri qui 's observatio n s seem ro me exactly right, as does his recognition that t he "thankless" nature of Bustaman te's motifs is such that the viewer is not invited ro engage with them imagina t ively (the parallel with Ruff's pass po rt-style port raits is ev ident ), as well as his further claim t hat the Tableaux therefore large ly leave it to the viewer to dec ide what ro make of them - witho u t mor e t han a minimum of guidance by the works rhemselves, so to speak. (The t hanklessness of t he motif s is compounded b y what Tar o Amano remarks was Bustamant e's tendency "to take his pho tographs at noon when he wi ll get
three beginnings
19
13
Jean-Marc Bustamante, Tableau 110. 43, 1981 . Type C and Cibachromc. 103 x 130c m
no shadows, so t hat no specific portion will stand out, nor one sub ject - be it a t ree or a perso n ." 17) Interestingly, Bustamante himself describes the places in his Tableaux as being "w itho ut q ualit ies," a reference to Robert Musi l's mo numenta l unfinished novel, The Mau without Qualities (1924-42), 18 a text rhat turns our to have su rp rising reson ance for several of the photogra phers discussed in this book . As Criq ui goes on to say: "Bus tamante o ften a lludes to the t ype of re lationshi p he wo uld like to see introd uced b y his wo rk - a no n-direct ive relatio nship, based o n a form o f fruitful indeterm inacy that he calls 'in between' ('eutre-deux '), and which purs the onlooke r in t he positio n of becoming 'e qually respo nsible for t he work '" (r64 - 5 ). In his images, Bustamante exp lai ns, "t he evenr !more broadly, the mot if! is place d at suc h a dista nce, and contained, t hat these imag es move beyon d the context in wh ich the y were made, t he geograp hic sett ing an d so on, and engage the viewer in a one -to-o ne relat ionsh ip so lely th rough t he ir phys ical prese nce" and "My aim is to make rhe viewe r becom e aware of his or her resp onsibili ty in what he or she is looking at. " 19 A crit ical factor in achieving th e p hys ical presence Busra manre sought is of cou rse size: the ea-rly Tableaux a re all 103 x r30 centi m etres, that is, more rhan th ree feet high
20
why photography
matters as art as never before
by four feet wide, unus ually large for tha t moment, and his later ph otograp hs of cypresses, also called Tableaux, a re even larg er (more on th ose sho rt ly). Another factor, I suggest, is colo r, specifica lly the harshness of the early Tableaux's juxtapositio n s of redd ish ea rt h with green foliage, often in fur t her cont ra st to whi te stu cco unfini shed houses, orange-red ceramic rile roofs, ligh ter colored san dy soi l, a nd fresh ly cast greyish wh ite concre te fou nda tio ns. A third is the sheer density of visua l information contai ned in eac h pri nt , a factor th at far from drawing the viewer "i nto" the wo rk rend s to d istance, in that sense ro "ex clud e," him o r her by virtue of its rnure , unin flecred, un mcrabo lizable chereness . As Ulrich Loock, along with Cri qui o ne of Busramante's most astute co mm entato rs, observes, "The init ial reference o f the photograph co realit y is sec to work in such a manne r char the !d epicte d ] th ings can and must be contemp lated in their silent recessive ness, wit hout consideratio n for their 'mean ing' [signification I. T he beholder is exclude d co rhe extent rhar Bu sra mante's icon ic strategy co nsists in present ing t hings in all their physica lity, as materia l realities, bur , because the gaze is n or allowed to penetra te t he scene, deprived of all (imag inary) bod ily inte ra ctio n wit h them. Th is exclusio n of rhe beholder . .. is one cond ition o f t he appearance of th ings in their intact singularit y."'" (There will be more co say abo ur "excl u sio n " as an artistic st rategy apropos of photographs by T ho mas Dema n d, Candida Hofer, Sugimoro, a nd T ho mas Stru th in Chapter Ni ne. ) A useful contrast might be with any of rhe slightl y older Stephe n Sho re 's su perb color photographs of a wide ran ge of American locales, almost all take n with an 8 x TO-in ch view ca mera between , 973 and , 98 1 and in itially pu blished in t he co111111011 Places in r982 a nd more recent ly in an expanded selectio n (Figs. volume U11 14 and , 5)." Altho ugh Shore's photographs, too, are su ffused wirh visual info rmatio n,
14 Srcphcn Shore, Beverly Boulevard and La Brea Ave11ue, Los A11geles.Califomia,J1111ezr, 1975, 1975. Ch romoge nic
15 Srephcn Shore, Holde11 Street. North Adams, Massachusetts, July 13, 1974, 1974. Chromogcnic process prim.
process print. 50.5 x 6 1 cm
50 .5 x 61 cm
three beginnings
21
his choice of motifs, refined handling of co lor, canny use of "side lighting," as H illa Becher ca lled it,u and met iculous composing of his images bo rh latera lly and- more ro rhe point of the compa rison - in depth 21 combi ne to produce the opposite of the refusa l of imag inary penetra t ion of the scene Loock associates wit h the Tableaux. "\Xlith Shore," Hilla Becher remarked in a conversa t ion with her husband Bernd and Heinz Liesbrock , "every th ing is rendered very affectio nately, it is genuinely gras ped. For me, his pho t os have so mething chat I see as being an idea l in phorogra phy: that one ac tu ally ent ers into the object, t hat one loo ks at in such a way t ha t afterward one has a genu ine love for it" (27). To w hich Liesbrock added, "As a n author, as a perso n, he becomes absorbed into what he is showing" (28). 14 It is worth no t ing t hat the o riginal pri nt s of the U11com111011 Places images were modes t in size; more broad ly, Shore's photograp hic vision in that series belongs ro a historical mo ment im mediate ly pri o r to t he emergence of the "tableau for m," above all in that Shore's photograp hs were not made for the wa ll, a fact that does not prevent H illa Becher from pra ising them for their "pictorial qua lit y" (27). Fina lly, Bustamante affixed his prints to a flat plate of alumi n um and then framed them wit hout surro undin g mats of any kind. 1 ; To quote Bustamant e once more: "I wa nted not to mak e pho t ographs that would be art , but art t hat wo uld be phoro graphy. I refuse d the small for mat and t he craft aspect of black and whit e. I wan ted ro move int o color, in a form at for the wall, in order to give to t he photograp h rhe dimensions of a tablea u, tu trans fo rm it into an ob ject. " 16 There is ambigui t y in this last sentence. On the one ha nd, the not ion of a tableau asserts t hat Bustamante wished to or ient his work to t he nor ms of pai nt ing. As Criqu i writes: '' Th e powe r of such works as t hese" - N o. 9 ( 1978), No. 68 (1982 )- " resides to a cons iderable degree in t he way they minimize [t he interest o f J the ir referents in orde r to att ract our eye in an ex perience whic h can be calle d picto rial" ( 165). On the other, Busta mant e's emphasis in t he remarks just quoted falls equally on t he notion of an objec t and indee d aspects of rhe object-charac ter of h is images beco me only more palpable as his caree r proceeds. So for example his next series of Tnblenux ( 199 1), compr ising t wem y-rwo large photogra ph s of a cont inu ous curt ain of cypresses situated just above and beyond a low scone wall (the latter inrcn n irten rly stepped upward from left to righ t ), gives rhe pictoria lly inclined eye even fewer pa rt iculars ro dwell on t han the earl ier works : virtuall y the ent ire sur face area of each image is taken up by rhe deep green, close ly planted cypresses, and t he viewe r has to loo k hard ro ascertain that the var ious photog raphs, structurally similar, are in fact subtly different from one anot her - witho ur chose differences having the least meaning in themselves (Figs. r6 and 17) .27 The basic relation of one pictu re ro rhe nexr thus comes close to rhe "one t hing afrer anothe r " st ructure of m inimalism (t he phrase is Dona ld Judd 's, cited by me in "Arr and Objecrhood " [r50J) 28 while the cypress curtain itself nearly eliminates all sense of visual dep t h in a manner t hat harks bac k ro t he non-illus ionistic painting t hat imm ediately prece ded rhe a dvent of minima lism, notably Frank Stella's st ripe paint ings (Bustamante has referred to the cypress photographs as " prac t ically monoc hro me" 29 ) . In the cyp ress ser ies, in sho rt , the distancing and "excl usion " of the viewer reac h an apogee in his early
22
why photography matters as art as never before
16 Jean-Marc Bustamante, Tableau Cibachrome. 1 50 x 120 cm
110.
103,
1991.
17 Jean-Marc Bustamante, Tableau Cibachrome. 1 50 x 1 2.0 cm
110.
104,
1991 .
wor k, without how ever the ph o tograp hs raking the fur ther step th at wo u ld fully identify th em wit h min imali st o bject hood , w hat ever tha t wou ld mean in this cont ext.Jo Similarl y, Busrama nre's d esire to mak e the viewer "e qua lly responsi b le for the wo rk " or, as he also says, to ma ke p icture s that woul d " engage t he viewer in a o ne-to-o ne relationship solely thro ugh rheir physica l p resence," wh ile comi ng close to minimalism's insistence that th e view er's experience is the wo rk (mo re on t his in Ch ap ter N ine), neverth eless stops well s ho rt of that insistence; simply put , his notion of " physica l presence" a ppea rs to have mor e in common w ith painti ngs b y C lyffo rd St ill, Barnett Ne wma n, a nd Stella tha n wit h minim a lism itself." Wit ho ut so much as g la ncing here at Busta manr e's sub sequ ent career, I thi nk it is fair to say that min ima lism has remai ned a bas ic po le in his t hinkin g bur thar his wo rk in a vari ety of med ia has consistentl y refused the minimalist op tio n in order to pursue a rang e of bro ad ly p hotog ra phi c aims.31 II am especiall y glad to in sist on Bustama nre's impo rtan ce beca use, of a ll t he photograp hers t reat ed in this boo k, I am least a ble to d o him justice, for the simple reaso n that I have seen on ly a limited sampl e of his oeuvre. N evert heless, I rega rd his Tableaux as o ne of t he most ori g inal and imp ressive p hoto graphi c ach ievement s in rece nt deca d es.)
three beginnings
23
Othe r pho tograp he rs too 111ighthave bee n cited in connectio n with th e e111 erge nce of th e n ew ap proach .33 Ho wever, the exa111plesof Wall, Ruff, and Busta111ant e show beyo nd all question that the pe rt inent develop111ents ca111eabout as if of the ir own acco rd , rath er than as t he ou tco 111 e of a shared background, com m on educa tion, or uniform set of art istic influences. Of course, all thr ee ph otograp he rs were awa re of certain maj or develop111en ts in the a rt world during the p revious ten or fifteen years, includ ing t he rise of mini111alis111,conceptua lis111 , and a ffiliated 111oveme nt s. Throughout thi s book 111in imalism in partic ular will be a constant term of reference for my observatio ns.
My thi rd beginni ng wi ll mos tly be a consideratio n of t hree exemp lary tex ts: an anonymo us French conte or tale of just over two tho u sand words, Adelaide, ou la femme morte d'amour, wh ich a ppeared in the m ont hl y journal Mercure de France in Janua ry 175 5; Yukio Mish im a's The Temple of Dawn, orig ina lly published in r970 {the English tr ans latio n came out fo ur yea rs later); a nd Susan Sontag's Regarding the Pain of Others, published in 2003, a seque l of sorts to her On Photography of 1977. This seems {and is) an odd selec tion , bur it has t he virtue of engag ing wi t h a set of issues th at will be bas ic to m y a rgument in the chap ters t hat fo llow. I first ca111eacross Adelaide, ou la femme morte d'amour (th e wo 111 an who died from love) in the 1970s, in t he course of pursu in g the library research for Absorption and Theatricality. In fact T t houg ht abo ut using it in that book, but quickly saw that it would int roduce a level of com p licatio n that rea ders might find confusing. So I dec ided to set it as ide un t il so111efuture date, which has now arrived, when it wo uld mak e strategic sense to bring it into play. "Th is adve nture cook place in 1678," the first sentence reads, "and will p erha ps app ear incredible in 1755 . Seventy-seven years have brough t about suc h changes in our m oeurs, that conjugal love , w hich then was respected, has today become ridicu lo us; it eve n passes for a chi111era, no one believes in it a ny more. Howev er, the story of Ade la.ide is accom pani ed b y such natural circu111sta nces, it bea rs a character of truthfu lness so striking and so na"ive that it must persuade th e 111 ost incredulous intelligenc e, as surp r ising as it is. T he reader wi ll jud ge: here it is." 14 The plot is si111ple: t he wea lth y Marq ui se de Fe rval, widow of a 111anof qualit y and ret ired to t he counr ryside to raise her famil y, decides co take a beaurifu l a nd virtuous orphan, Adela "id e, into her house hold as a co m panion for her sixtee n-year -old daughte r. Also in the fami ly is a so n ; the inevitable happe n s and h e declares his love to Adela"ide, going so far as co speak of marriage; she, h owever, recognizes that the dispari ty in the ir fo rt unes makes any futur e for the m inco n ceivable a nd does her best ro avoid hi 111.Nevert heless , the ir feeli ngs cannot be concea led, and th e Marquise o n e day teases her so n abo ut them. He is about to tell her the rrut h when she, realizing what is happening, preve nt s hi111fro111saying any th ing mo re by abso lute ly refusi ng to consider Adela"ide in th at light. She goes further: France is a t war, th e Marq ui s is a musketeer, and s he gives him ju st one day to leave for the ca 111 pa ign . He goes, bu t not b efore i111ploring Adela"ide to re111aintru e to him .
24
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
D uring his ab sence a neighb or falls in love wit h Adela"ide and decla res his intentio ns to the Marquise, who welcomes t he opp o rt un ity to pu t her son out of dan ger. The youn g Ferval learn s of rhe plan, returns by post, and throws himself at his mother's feer. She refuses his pleas, bur t he trouble at home reaches the ear of the neighbor, who breaks off the marriage arrangeme nts. This infu r iates the Ma rquise, who expels Adela"ide from her house , in effect d isgrac ing her. Th e Ma rquis mar ries Adela"ide and is at once disinherited; a boy is bo rn an d broug ht to the Ma rquise but she remains inexora ble, and ro make matte rs even more tragic the infant dies. The lovers live three or four yea rs virtually abando ned by the world, bare ly making do, until it becomes necessary for them to separate. Adela 'ide enters a co nvent and the Mar quis goes to Paris to join an austere religious order . Yet forrune was not done persecuting Adela 'ide. Some of the wo men in her co nvent learn her history and ca bal aga inst her so cleve rly t hat she is oblig ed to leave. One of the older religieitses, touched by her state, gives her lett ers of reco mmendat ion to t he religieuse's fathe r in Pari s, a high official who undertakes to seek anothe r retr eat where Adelai'de can spend the remainder of her life. Ho wever, w hile she is wait ing for such a retre at to be found, she sends a message t o the M arqu is annou ncing her arr ival, and asking to speak to him. "The new disgrace that had co me t o Adela"ide is painfu l for him. He conti nues to love her, he fears t he interview rhat she wishes, and asks her to spare him an enco unte r [une vue ] which can be only har mfu l to the repose of each of t hem . Adela'ide, altho ugh dera che d from t he wor ld, is no t detached eno ugh from a hu sband whom she so loved; his refusa l only increases her desire t o see him" (57). Th ere follows the paragrap h that l rak e to be the raison d'etre of t he rale (and one more, bringing the tale to a close): She goes t o the Monas tery, enters t he Church, and the first object that st rikes her is the Marquis her husba nd, occupied in a pio us exerc ise with all his Communi t y. His penitential ha bit tou ches her; she shows herself, he sees her, he lowers his eyes, and no matt er what effort she mak es to at t ract his gaze, he doesn' t so muc h as glance at her. Althou gh she unders tand s the motive behind the vio lence of his act , she finds in it so mething so crue l, tha t she is seized wit h the most ext reme pain . She falls unco nscious; someo ne suppo rt s her, she recovers only to ask for her dear Ferval. Someone runs to tell him t hat his wife is dy ing. H is Sup erior orders him to go an d co nsole her; and she d ies from the force of her seizure, before he reaches her.35 [57-8 J The Marquis wee ps, t hen falls into a profou nd reverie. Finally he return s to his monaste ry, where by the practic e of auste r ities " he tries to make up for his passion, alt hough legit imate, having had in it som ething too vio lent" (58) . O n the face of it, Adelaide is an undistinguished specimen of the sentimenral contes moraux that att racted an enrhu siastic readership amo ng the edu cated classes in France in the 17 50s and 1760s (Marmontel's "novel" Be/isaire f1767J, barely readable today, is the classic of t he genre) . Considered as ficti on, suc h tales are o f scanr interes t ; nothing could be more differe nt from Adelaide, for examp le, than th e brilliant contes D iderot was soon to wri te - Deux amis de Barbonne, Mme Carlier, Ceci n 'est pas u11 conte . The
three beg innings
25
co11tesmoraux' s interes t , I suggest, resides elsewhere: in their pictoria lism, whi ch is ro say in their tendency to evoke literary "p ictur es" which themselves are mosr intere stingly seen in the con text of the pictor ial issues of the rime. ' 6 In th e case of Adelaide, rhe " pictur es" in qu estio n are those "pa inted " from Adela'ide's po int of view in rhe climact ic paragraph just quo ted . I am inte rested mainly in the first and seco nd " pict ures" - the Marqui s in mo nk's raime nt absorbed (th e French is occupe) in a religious exerc ise along wit h all his commu nit y; an d the n, afte r Adela.ide ha s shown herse lf to him (we are nor rold how), t he "pic tur e" of him refusing to look up despi te her efforts ro attract his arrenrio n. Th e qu estion is how to visua lize the secon d " pict ur e," and my thought is rhar although rhe tale do es nor spell rhis our, we are invited to ima gine the Ma rq uis seemingly absorbed once more in his "pi ou s exercis e" along with ot her members of his community , with trag ic conseque nces that need no retelling. Moreove r, alt houg h the ta le as much as states that Adela"ide dies beca use of her hu sband's (if no t just ified, ar least und ersta ndab le) "c ru elty" toward her, we are, I want ro sugges t , furt her invited to int uit rhar - from what might be ca lled a srruc rural or the ore tica l rathe r than a stric tly narrative point of view - the cause of her co llapse an d deat h is a pa rt icular cr isis of representation conce rni ng the rwo " pict ures" just glance d at. H ere some back gro un d is needed. The backg round T have in mind is the central argu ment of my ea rlier books on eighteenth- and nineteent h-century Frenc h pai nt ing. Briefly, starrin g in the mid-r 75os in France a new con ceptio n of painti ng came to the fore tha t requ ired that the perso nages dep icted in a canvas appea r genuinely absorbed in w hatever they were doing, thinking, and feeling, which also meant that t hey ha d to appear who lly unaware of everything other than the object s of t heir absorption , inclu ding - this was the crnc ia l point - t he beholder standi ng before t he paintin g. Any failur e of absorpt ion - any suggestio n tha t a paint ed personage wa s act ing for an audie nce - was co nsidered thea t rical in the pejorati ve sense of the term and was regarded as an egreg ious fault . By th e same to ken, rhe de mand that paint ing defeat t heatricali t y - that it establish what l have called the su preme fict ion or ontologi ca l illusion rhar the behol der did not exist, t hat there was no one standi ng before t he canvas - placed the art of pain ti ng under tremendous pressure for rhe sim ple reaso n that paint ings, more intensively a nd as it were primord ially tha n any oth er class o f art ifacts, are mad e to be behe ld. What this was to mean historically is t hat, t hrough out the century t hat followed, one or another "so lution " to the new requirements cam e so one r or late r to revea l its inadequacy, as the un derlying tru t h about pa inting - that it had the behol der in view from the first - could no longer be denied . (For an accou nt of some of those develop ments see my Courbet's Realism and Manet's M odernism, or, Th e Face of Painting i11the 1860s .) As regard s pai ntin g alone, the new conc eption was at least potentia lly in place in Chardin's genre pa int ings of the 1730s . H owever, it was nor un til Didero t 's wri tin gs on dra ma and pain t ing of t he late 1750s and '6os th at the double st ress on a bso rpt ion and antitheatricaliry received its full art icula t ion , alo ng with a new theo rizatio n of the tableau (itali cized ro mark its use as a period conc ept ) as rhe instru ment of bot h, that is, a deliberate cons tru ct ion dir ected towa rd the beholder w ithin which the individual personages appear ed not just abso rbed in what eac h was doing bur also collectively absor bed in t he overa ll dramat ic act ion
26
why pho tography matters as art as never before
represented by the co nstru ction as a whole. (Obv iously the Diderotian tabl eau ha s a different valence from Busramante's use of the term , thoug h both imply some thin g stro nger, more claim ing of autonomy, than t he English "pic tur e"; I sha ll say more about Chevr ier's notion of rhe "tab leau form" in Chapt er Six.) ln a certa in sense, we as readers are ent itled to think of the enti re paragraph quoted ea rlier as a success ion of tableaux in Did erot 's sense of the term , desp ite the fact that the notio n is first developed in his Conversations on the Natural Son and Discourse on Dramatic Poetry of T7 57 and '5 8 respectively (rhar is, a few years afte r the pu blicatio n of Adelaide). By this I mean that everythin g t he reade r is given to visual ize, includin g Adela.id e's act ions, co llapse, and death (with on e or more persons bending over her?) and the gr ief-stricken Marq uis's falling int o a profound rever ie, is inten sely absorptive, just as the settin g itself, a mon ast ic chur ch interio r, perfectly ex presses th e theme of separat ion from the wo rld of rhe rea der/beho lder. Yet if we co nsider only t he two tableaux seen by Adela"ide, something else co mes into focus: the intim ation - I wo uld like to say rhe "fact," but of course I am extrapolating rather freely from a t heoretically ret icen t text - rhar from Adela"id e's poi nt of view no difference can be discerned between the outward behavior of the Ma rquis whe n he is trul y a bsorbed in his religious observ ances and when, after Adela.ide ha s shown herself to him, he has return ed with lowered eyes to those obse rvances bur is now acutely aware th at his wife has her eyes fixed on him . The abse nce of visible differe nce is what I meant by a crisis of repr esentat ion - thou gh furthe r explanat ion is again called for. I say thi s because from the perspective of Diderot's writ ings on drama , what l have ca lled a crisis is bound to seem illusory : what matter s in his accou nt is not rhat the actor s in a play actua lly be unaware of the presence of the audience - he later arg ued in the Paradox on the Actor that acto rs should not be so deeply identifie d wit h th eir ro les as to lose t hemse lves in the m - but rather t hat t hey deploy all the co nscious sk ills at their co mm and in order to creat e successfu lly th e dramati c stage tableaux that w ill secure the overa rching illusion that th e aud ience has nor been taken into account. Howeve r, what my readin g of t he clim ax of Adelaid e suggests is tha t as early as 17 5 5 - significan tly, t he year wh en Jean-Bap t iste Gre uze's Father of the family Readi11gthe Bible was shown at the Salon, ma rking the official deb ut of the leading French pain ter of his genera t ion an d a key figur e in t he first stages o f the a ntitheatrica l dialectic the n getting un der way - t here was ab road at least a hint of bad co nscience or more prec isely ontologica l uneasin ess abou t the "fa lseness" that t he very stru cture of the tableau could be felt to imply, a "falseness" that it was beyond the power of either paint ing or dra ma to themarize, but that fiction - a part icular genre of fictio n, t he pictorial isr conte m oral - could give expression to in its own characteristically sent imental or (the ano nymo us aurhor's term ) "na"ive" way. Adela.ide dies , in this reading, because the absence of outwa rd difference mentioned above is int o lera ble ro her. This is of course to attach a grear deal of significa nce ro an exceedingly slight literary work, bur before leaving Adelaide I wa nt ro go one step furt her and propose that the issue of " trut hfulness" versus "fa lseness" in t his conn ection alrea dy looks beyond stage drama , with respect to w hich it is essent ially a matter of techn ique, and beyond painti ng, with respect to whic h it makes no sense to ask wha t a personage in a ca nvas is "act ually"
three beg inn,ngs
27
or "truly" doin g, th inking, or feeling, tow a rd the mechanical reprodu ctio n of reality in ph orography, with respect to w hich such que st ions are inescapab le. (Or with respect to which such q uestions have been inescapable; 1 am thinkin g of the adve nt of digitization, the co nseq u ences of wh ich for pho rogr aphic practice an d theor y ha ve yet to become fu lly clear. 37) Th e second text 1 want ro cons ider, Mishima's The Temple of Dawn , belongs to the a uth o r 's late tetra logy, Th e Sea of Fertility, publi shed in J ap an between r968 and '7 1. By the latter date Mis hima was dead, ha ving led t he abo rt ive "u pr ising" that ende d as plan ned wit h his commi tt ing seppu ku im mediately upo n comple t ing th e fin a l volume in Nove m ber 1 9 70. l want ro focus on severa l passages, all of which co ncern the not ion of voyeurism, which l shall go on ro sugges t ma y a lso be though t of as an essentiall y photographic trop e. First, thoug h, I shoul d note th at rhe Diderorian ideal of the "fo rgo tten ," in tha t sen se functiona lly abse nt , beho lder has somet imes been glossed in terms of voye urism, but that has a lways seemed to me wrong. A voyeur of a scene is by definition p resent bu t hidden: fro m a place of secur ity, often of dark ness, he or she sp ies on the scene, which typica lly is ero t ic in natu re, as in a c ruc ial episode in Mishima's earl ier novel, The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea. 38 It is of course nor impossi ble for rhe a rr of paint ing ro convey rhe impr ession rhar a depicted scene has been represented from the point of view of a voyeu r, bur ro do so requires particular means (there are sma ll Fragonards of eroti c su bjects rha r seem as if witn essed th roug h a key hole or from inside a s ligh tly ope n closer), and is nor at all what Diderot had in m ind in his writings on dr ama a nd pai nt ing. Nor for rha t matte r d o voyeu rist ic points of view play a role in the evol ut ion of eightee nth- a nd n ineteent h-centur y pa inting in France ; not hing co uld be less vo yeur is tic , for example, than t he viewe r's implied relation ro David's Oath of the Horatii, Ger icau lr's Raft of the Medusa, Co urb et's Burial at Ornans , or indeed M anet's Olympia (a rguab ly rhe least voyeu rist ic n ude eve r painted). In Mis hima's nove l, rhen, t he fifty-seven -yea r-old protagonist, Shigek uni Ho nda, has placed a peep hole in th e back of a bookcase through which he plans to spy on a guest in his hous e, the beaut iful Thai princess Ying Chan, as she di sro bes in her bedro om . Honda , we read, "had never crave d for any momen t so much as th is. ... [He ] was going to see Ying Cha n in a sta te that as yet had been see n by no one. This was what he wanted more th an anythi ng else in the wo rld . By his act of watc hing, rhis unseen con dit ion was already destroyed . Being seen by a bso lutely no on e an d being u nawa re of being seen were similar, yet bas ica lly d ifferent." 39 (Th e flow of sentences, especially the transi t ion between "This wa s what he wante d .. . " and " By h is ac t o f watchi ng ... , " sho uld bring us up short: th ere seems ro be an importa nt " But" or " However" tha t t he novelist has deliberate ly om itt ed, perhaps by way of suggest ing rh e destru ctiveness o f H on da's inmos t impul ses.) La ter in the novel we are ro ld: " It was certain t hat the Ying Chan one saw was not a ll t here was . For Honda, longing for the Yin g Chan he cou ld not see, love de pended on the unknown; an d naturally per cep t ion was related to the known. If he drove his percept ions on and wit h the m plunde red th e unk nown, t hereby inc reasing the area of t he known, coul d his love be achieved? N o , it wo uld not work rhat way, because his love st rove ro keep Ying Chan as far aw ay as poss ib le from rhe ralons of his perceptio n " (276). Thi s leads ro the followin g:
28
why photography matters as art as never before
Therefore his desire to see Ying C han in the nud e, a Ying C han un known to a nyone, became an unatt ainable desire divided con tradicto rily into perceptio n and love. Seeing alrea dy lay within the sphere of pe rcept ion , and even if Ying C han was no r aware of ir, from t he moment he had peepe d th rou gh t he luminou s hole in the back of t he bookcase, she had become an inh abitant of a wo rld crea ted by her fsic: the sense of the sentence dictates t he pronoun " his" .I percep t ion. In her wo rld, contam inate d by his t he moment he laid eyes on it, w hat he rea lly wanted to see wo uld neve r appear. H is love could not be fulfilled . And yet, if he did not see, love wo uld forever be precluded . . . . fHonda's perception it self therefore] became a screen and was defect ive, an infinitesimal obsr rn crion. Then how would ir be if he go r rid of rhe obst ruct ion and cha nged rhe situ at ion? That wo uld mean t he removal of H onda from the wo rld wh ich he shared wit h Ying C han, in ot her words, his own deat h. It now beca me clear that Honda's ulrima re desire, what he really, real ly wanted to see co uld exist on ly in a world where he did not. In order to see what he tru ly wishe d to, he must die. Whe n a voyeur recognizes that he can rea lize his ends only by eliminating rhe bas ic acr of wa tch ing, this means his dea t h as suc h. [276 - 7] One way of cha racterizi ng Honda's pr edicam ent is as a radicaliz ing or meraphys icalizing of voyeurism, if nor of ant ithearrica liry as such; the cruc ial stat eme nt , from which everyt hing else follows, is: "Being seen by ab solut ely no on e and being unaware of being seen were similar, yet basically diff erent" - rhe word "bas ically" here car r ying onto logical weight . In Adelaide, ar rhe o utset of rhe pictorial evolu t ion that led t o modernism, being tru ly absor bed, t here fore truly unaware of bei ng seen, and (merely) ap pear ing to be thus absorbed and unaw are of being seen a lso prove d "simila r, yet basically diff erent" (if my reading is believed). However, t he diffe rence in t he ea rlier case lay precise ly in the beheld sub ject 's consciousness, which the reader is exp licirly told is not the dec isive factor in the late r one - t he Pr incess will not be aware of being beheld and yet everything w ill have been changed . The shi ft of empha sis between t he t wo tex ts, wr itt en more than two hund red years apart, might be charact erized by sayi ng that in Mishima's novel the situatio n with regard to beho lding has becom e muc h more dire : simply by virt ue of being beheld the Prin cess's "world" (a fascinating not ion in t his context) w ill be fundamenta lly altered - Mis hima says co ntamin ated . Put slig hrly diff erenrly, whereas in Adelaide t he sour ce of mortal di fficu lty is the possibility that being abso rbed and pretending to be abso rbed (or represe nting being absor bed ) ca n be indistinguis hable from each other, in The Temple of Dawn the source of difficult y is beholding it self, and the only solution the tex t im agines is the preemp t ion of beholding through the deat h of the voyeur. My furt her suggestion, in t he sa me vein as my con cludin g remarks ab o ut Adelaide, is that H onda's reflections ma y be read almost as if t heir u lt imate po int of reference were not the figure of the voyeur so much as that of the photogra ph er, wh ose relat ion to his o r her subjec ts has frequently been described in terms of voyeurism and on e of whose tradi t ional a pproach es, in the int erest of t rut h of ex pr ession, has been to depict perso ns who for one reaso n or anot her are unawa re of being photograp hed, often because they are absor bed in wha teve r they are doing, thinking, or feeling. 40 As Susa n
three beginnings
29
Sontag puts it in a sta tement l shall return ro more rhan once, "Th ere is some t hing on people's faces when they do n't know they are being obse rved that never ap pears when they do. " 41 It is also tru e, however, that att itudes wit hin pho tography toward that approach have shifted ove r the course of time (Sontag herself cites Brassai"'s " [denu nciat ions ofj pho tograp hers who try to t rap their subjects off-guard, in rhe erroneous belief t hat something special will be reveale d abou t the m " 42 ), and I thin k it is fair to say char by t he end of the 1970s - Sontag's views notwit hstanding - t here took place a widespread reaction against all such practices, a reac t ion em blemat ized by the crisis of confidence that seems ro have overtake n the brilliant Amer ican st reet pho tographe r Gar ry Winogrand in the years shortly before his deat h in 1984 (Winogrand in t he !are 1970s rook t housands of photograp hs rhat he never bothere d ro develop, and seems to have been on the verge of giving up street photography entirely 43 ), as well as by some passages in Roland Barrhes's Camera Lucida (1980), to be discusse d in dera il in Chap ter Four of t his boo k. In ot her words, l propose rhar t here exists an affinity between rhe problemarizing of beholding in rhe cont ext of voyeurism in The Temple of Dawn and certai n deve lopmen ts in photog rap hy and the t heory of photography in rhe 1970s and early J 980s . Indeed I want to go beyond t hese considerations, which remain in rhe realm of the sub ject 's, and by implicat ion t he artist's, puta t ive psychology and suggest that rhere ex ists a more profou nd affinit y between rhe metap hysica l or ontological register in whic h Mish ima's problemat ic of seeing and being seen is cast and some, tho ugh by no means all, of rhe photographic work to be discussed in rhis book : as if what ult imate ly is at stake in rhar work is prec isely the depiction or evocat ion of a separatio n of worlds (" It now became clear that Honda's ultimate des ire, what he really, really wanted to sec could ex ist on ly in a worl d where he did nor"). Mo re precisely, ir is as if some such depic t ion or evocation tu rns ou t to lend itself especia lly well ro rhe construction of rhe new relationship betwee n photograph and beho lder that in my account - also, ar least up ro a po int, in Chevrier's - is at the hea rt of rhe "tab leau form." (The theme of "exclusion" in the strongest com mentaries on Bustamante is a respo nse ro this state of affairs .} Let me add that I shall return to Mishima's retralogy twice more in this boo k, once in relat ion ro Sugimoro's Seascapes and once, more importantly, t owa rd the end of t he Conclusion, in connect ion wirh a recent work by Jeff Wall t hat illustra tes a part icular episode in the first novel in rhe rerralogy, Spring Snow. Finally, I wa nt to glance ar certain passages in Susan Sontag's Regarding the Pain of Others, a book -length essay in which she reconsiders some of the t hemes in On Photography of almost thirty years before. In particula r she reflects in her new book on the efficacy - even, at times, the legitimacy - of images of pa in, violence, suffe r ing, and death as a means of promoti ng po lit ical aware ness, given the countless respect s in which such images lend themselves ro ot her purposes as well, are pro ne ro becom ing overfamil iar, hence polit ically ineffect ive, or risk appeali ng, by the ir very cont ent, ro pruri ent interests on the part of the viewer . So for exam ple she writes: Tra nsforming is what arr does, but photography t hat bears witness to the calam itous and the reprehe nsible is much criticized if ir seems "aesthetic"; that is, too much like art. The dua l powers of photography - to genera re documents and to crea te works of
30
why pho tograp hy matters as art as never before
visual art - have produced some remarka ble exaggerations abou t what photographers ough t or ough t not to do . Lately, rhe most co mm on exaggerat ion is one that regar ds these powers as opposites. Photographs that dep ict suffer ing shouldn' t be beautiful, as captio ns shouldn't moral ize. In thi s view, a beautiful photogra ph dra ins att ent ion from rhe sobe rin g subject and turns it towa rd the med ium itself, the reby co mp romising the pict ur e's sta tu s as a docum ent . The photograp h gives mi xed signals . Stop this, it urges . Bur it also ex claims, What a spectacle! 44 And: Ir used to be tho ught , when rhe candid images were nor co mm on, that show ing some t hing t hat needed to be seen, bringing a painf ul rea lity closer, was bound to goa d viewers to feel more. In a world in wh ich photography is brilliant ly at the service of cosu merist manip ulat ions, no effect of a photograp h of a dole ful scene ca n be taken for gra nted . As a conseque nce, mora lly alerr ph otogra phers a nd ideologues of photogr aph y have become increasingly concerned with the issues of explo itation of senti ment (pity, compassion, indigna t ion) in war pho tograp hy and in ro te ways of provoki ng feeling. (79-80 J O f an ex hibitio n in 2000 of "a trove of ph otogra ph s of black victims of lync hing in small tow ns in the United States between the 1890s and t he 1930s, which provided a shattering, revelato ry experience for the thousan ds who saw t hem in a ga llery in New York in 2000," Sontag rehearses a series of questions t hat were raise d at t he time of the exh ibitio n and when a boo k of rhe photograp hs, Without Sanctuary, was pub lished: "W hat is the po int of ex hib iting these pictur es? To awaken indignatio n ? To mak e us feel 'bad'; that is, to appall and sa dd en? To help us mourn? Is loo king at such pictur es really necessary, given rhar these horro rs lie in a pas t remote enough to be beyond punishment? Are we the bett er for seeing these images? Do they act ua lly reach us anything? Don't they rat her just confirm wha t we alread y kn ow (or want to kn ow)?" (91-2) . Alt hough one senses rha r Sontag does nor share the negative attitude towa rd rhe exhibition and book rhar rhe ques tions imply, she does no t quite co me out and say so, presumab ly because she also feels t he quest ions' mo re t ha n just rhetorical force . Simi lar ly, al though in th e first passage quoted above she appar ently distan ces herself from the "exaggerat ion" rha r would draw a shar p distinction between a photograph's dep iction of suffering and its "aest het ic" q uality, she also wr ites towa rd rhe end of her book: So far as pho tographs with rhe most sole mn or heartre nd ing subject matter are art and rhis is what they become whe n t hey ha ng on walls, whateve r rhe disclaimers rhey pa rtake of the fate of all wall- hung or floor-suppo rt ed arr displayed in publ ic spaces. T har is, they are stat ions alo ng a - usually accom panie d - st roll. .. . Up ro a po int, rhe weight and ser iousness of suc h photograp hs survive berrer in a book, where one can look privat ely, linger ove r rhe pictures, wit hout talking. Still, at some mome nt rhe book w ill be closed . The strong emotion will become a t ransient one. Event ually, the specifici ty of rhe photographs' accusat ions will fade; t he denunciat ion of a particular conflic t and at t ribut ion of spec ific cr imes will become a de nu ncia tion of human
three beginnings
31
cruelty, hu man sav agery as suc h. The p hotogra ph er's inrent ion s are irrelevanr to this larger pr ocess . I 121 - 2] At o ne point Sont ag d oes state uneq uivocally: There now exis ts a vast repo s ito ry of images that mak e it harde r to ma intain this kind of mo ral d efective ness [Son tag has in min d someone who remains pere n nially surpri sed th at de pravit y exists, tha r hu man beings are capable of great cruelt y to ward one anot her, ere .]. Let t he atro cio us images haunt us. Even if t hey are only tok ens, a nd can n ot possib ly encompass most o f th e reali t y ro which they refer, rhey still perfo rm a viral function . T he images say: T his is wha t hum an bei ngs are capable of doi ng- 111ayvo lunteer to do, enthusias tica lly, self-righteo usly. Do n 't forge r. [114- 15] Howeve r, these sorts of assertions are few an d far betwee n; one of the stri kin g things about Regarding the Pain of Others (fo r all its lack of a vecto red arg ument, a typical feature of Son tag's wri ting) is its reluctance to take up a sim ple or co nsistent stance towar d the diffic ult q uestions it contin u ally raises. l find it all the more un expected, then, that in her book's final pages Sonrag sing les our o ne "an t iwar" imag e, Jeff Wall's
Dead Troops Talk {A Vision After an Ambush of a Red Army Patrol near Moqor, Afgha nistan, Winter 1986 (1992 ; Fig. r8), as be ing "exe mplar y in its tho ughtf uln ess and p owe r." She expla ins tha t t he pict ur e, "a Cibac h rome tr ansparency seven and a ha lf feet high an d more rhan th irtee n feet w ide an d mo unted on a ligh t box, shows figu res posed in a landscape , a blasted hillside, that was co nstru cted in t he pa inrer's stu dio" ( , 23 ).'' H er con clud ing paragraphs read: Th e figur es in Wall 's visiona ry photo-work are "rea list ic" but, of co ur se, th e image is nor . Dead sold iers don't ta lk. H ere they d o. Thir teen Ru ssian soldiers in bu lky w int er unifor ms an d high boo t s are scattered abo u t a pock ed , b lood -splashed slope lined wit h loos e roc ks an d the litter of war: shell cas ings, cru m pled metal, a boot tha t ho lds the lower part of a leg ... A few still have rheir helmets on. The head of o ne kn eeling figure, talk ing animated ly, foams w ith his red brai n matter. The a tm os p here is warm, co n vivial, fra te rn al. Some slouc h, leani ng on an elbow, or sit, cha tti ng, th eir o p ened sk ulls and des tro yed han ds on view. One man bends over another who lies on his side as if as leep, perh aps encouragi ng hi111to sir up. T hr ee men are h ors ing around: o ne wirh a huge wound in his belly straddl es ano th er, lying prone, who is laughi ng at a third ma n , on his k nees, who pla yfull y dang les befor e him a st rip of flesh. O n e soldier, helmeted, legless, has rurned ro a co mrad e so me d istance away, an alert smile on his face . Below him ar e two who don't see m q ui te up to the resurrect io n and lie supi ne, their b loodied head s hanging down rhe ston y incline. Engulfed by the i111 age, w hich is so accusato ry, w e could fanta s ize thar rhe so ldiers 111i g hr turn and talk to us. But n o, no one is looking o ut of rhe picture . T here's no th reat of pro test. They are no t abo ut to yell ar us to bri ng a halt to tha t abo min at ion whic h is war . Th ey ha ven 't co me bac k to life in or der to stagger off to denoun ce the war-ma kers w h o sent them to kill and be killed. An d the y are not rep resente d as rer-
32
why photography matters as art as never before
18 Jeff Wall, Dead Troo/1sTalk (A Vision After a11Amb ush of a Red Army Patrol near Moqor, A(gha11ista11, Wi11ter1986), 1992.. Transparency in lightbox .
229
x 417 cm
rifying to o t hers, for among them (far left) s irs a whi te-garbe d Afghan scavenger, entirely abso rbed in go ing through so meo ne's kit bag, of whom they take no note, and entering the pic ture above t hem (top righ t) o n the path windi ng down the slope are two Afghans, perhaps soldiers the mse lves, who, it wo u ld seem from the Kalashnikovs collected near the ir feet, have a lread y str ipped the dea d sold iers of their weapo n s. These dead arc supremely uninterested in t he living : in t hose who rook their lives; in w itnesses - a nd in us. Wh y shou ld they seek our gaze? W hat wo uld t hey have ro say ro us? "We" - th is "we" is everyone who has never experie nced any t hing like what they went throug h - don't understan d . We don' t get it. We tru ly ca n't imagi n e what it was like. We can' t imagine how d readful, how terrify ing war is; an d how norma l it beco mes. Can' t unders tan d , can' t imagi ne. Tha t 's what every so ldie r, and every journa list an d aid worker an d ind ependent observe r w ho has pu t in t ime under fire, and had rhe luck ro elud e the death that st ruck down others nea rby, stubbornl y feels. And the y are right. I 124-6 1 Sontag's respon se to Wall's monumenta l pho tograph is framed in terms of her cen tral concern wit h images of vio lence an d their efficacy or lac k of it as a means of conveying rhe horro r o f modern war; rhe exem p lariness of Dead Troops Talk in her eyes co n -
three begmmngs
33
sists in its ability co do just rhis. What I want to ca ll artenr ion ro is rhat for Sontag rhe dec isive feature of Wall's phocograp h is not so muc h the brilliant interplay among rhe slau ghtere d Russian soldier s, as gr ippin g as she finds it, bur rhe facr thar, as she puts ir, " no one is looking out of the picture." For Sontag, of course, whar makes rhar facr mea ningfu l is thar it is pa rt of a large r recognir ion she arrribures co rhe dead Russians ro rhe effecr rhar rhere is no point in rheir address ing the viewer - in add ressing "us" for rhe ir refutable reaso n thar, nor having actually experienced the horror s of war, "we" are incapa ble o f under stan ding or ima gin ing wh ar they have jusr gone rhroug h. This is a perfectly plausible way of thi nking abour whar rakes place in Dead Troops Talk. Howe ver, rhe fact t har none of rhe soldiers is loo king our of t he picture also means rhar Wall's picrure is consistent wirh rhe crucial princip le of rhe Diderorian tableau - the use of absorptive mot ifs and st ru ct ures to estab lish th e ontological illusion rhat rhe beholder does not ex isr. Sontag doe s not exp licitly invoke the no rion of abs orprion in her descriprion of rhe Russians, but she does rema rk on the "w hite-garbed Afghan scavenger [who is] entire ly absorbed in going thro ugh somebo dy's kir bag [and] of whom rhey rake no nore." In facr iris as if Wa ll's pictur e as seen by her rep resents two dist inct "worl ds," that of the dead but risen Russians and that of the living Afghans, which occupy the same pictor ial space but are some how invisib le to one anothe r even as they are both separa te from , though not invisib le to , o ur own. Th ere is a further co mplexity here. As has emerged, no t hing was mo re inimical to rhe oper at ions of the Diderotian tableau than rhe least hint of " pr etense" or "posi ng" on the parr of rhe figures it co mpri sed - indeed, Did erot saw the use of professio nal models, whose job it was to hold var ious more or less co nventional poses, as a source of the dreadfu l mann erism of much of the paint ing of his t ime. (Yet what was an ambitious histo ry painter to do? Say he wante d to rep resent a pe rsonage from Gree k or Roman antiq uit y swearing a morta l oath or consume d with gr ief or dying from poison or engaged in some violent mo mentary actio n; obv ious ly no professiona l model coul d fit rhe bill - but what recourse did the painter have othe r than to depict the personage on t he bas is of his im agination? And was not thar a possible so urce of man nerism in irs own right ?) In co ntra st , it is at once appare nt that all of Wall's soldiers, Russian and Afghan alike, ca n only be per sons hired by him to dr ess up in the appro priate clot hing and assume rhe poses and enact the pieces of bus iness that he had devised for them (compare Sherman's use of herse lf as model in the Untitled Film Stills). What is more, it turns our t hat there was neve r a mome nt in Wall's st udio when the scene before the came ra was as it appea rs in th e ph otog raph; rathe r, he shor his picture one or rwo figures at a time a nd sumre d t he w hole cogerher wirh the aid of a compurer. Sontag may or may nor have known about the piecemeal shoo ting, bur she notes ar rhe start that Wall posed his figur es in a fictive landscape and is not in rhe least t roubled t hat this is so. In fact, I suggest tha t it is prec isely Sontag's reco gnit ion that Dead Troops Talk is nor a ca ndid shor of an actual event bur rat her a work of de liberate and elab orate art ifice rhar - tog et her with the aware ness that none of Wa ll's figures "loo k our of rhe picrure" und erwrites her adm irario n fo r his ac hievement . We mighr say that the facr rhat Dead Troops Talk is rran sparen rly a wor k of high artifice saves ir from rhe risk of "aesrheri-
34
why photography matters as art as never before
cizarion" which for Sontag constantly thr eatens non-art phot ogra ph s such as the sho ts of lynchings or the other images of violence and oppr ession she conside rs, even as its (do ubly) absorp t ive int erna l st ructure allows ir to avo id seemi ng to address rhe beho lder directly, a feature she approve s of on na rr ow ly et hical grounds but which l am suggesti ng has a more profou nd appeal to which she also respo nd s - one in keepi ng, l note, w ith her earlier (and probably the n st ill curr ent) preference for photographs of person s unawa re of being observed. Here it may seem as if la m on the verge of accusing Sontag of being inco nsistent, bm nothing co uld be furthe r from my point . Rathe r, my claim in rhe chapters rhar follow will be rhar just suc h a conjunc t ion of what l wan t to call "tobe-seenness" and a Dide rorian thematics of absorptio n has pla yed a significant role in some of the most interesting and impo rt ant photogr aph y of recent decades, and tha t Sontag 's accou nt of Dead Troops Talk, alt houg h nor co ncerned wit h art istic issues as such, is itself emblemat ic in tha t rega rd. Or to pu t thi s in terms harking back to the radicalization of voyeuri sm in The Temple of Dawn, I sugges t that once ir became imaginable that a "wo r ld" cou ld be " contami nated" by the mere fact of being beheld, the situation was ripe for t he emerge nce of an est het ic that would accept suc h "contam inat ion " as the basis of its procedures . Inevitabl y, that estheric found irs hom e in phorogra ph y.
three beginnings
35
notes
introduction 1
2 3
The epith et is Mark Linde r's. See Lind er, Nothing Less than Literal: Architecture after Minimalism (Camb ridge, Mass., and London, 2004), p. 102. See also the discu ssion of" Art and Objecthood" in James Meyer, Minim alism: Art and Polemics in the Sixties (New Ha ven and Londo n, 2oor}, pp. 229- 42. H ere I will ment ion rhar in an endnot e to the introducto ry essay in Art and Objecthood I wrote: " It's noceworrhy ... the extent to which photography-base d (or simply pho tograp hic) work of the 1970s and after - for exam ple, that of Cindy Sherm an, Jeff Wall, and Gerh ard Richter - has found itself co mpelled co address issues of beho lding, often by an ap peal co abs orpti ve mean s and effects. Thi s is a large topic" ("A n Introduction to my Arc Criticism," Art and Objecthood : Essays and Reviews (Chicago and Lond on, 19981, p. 74). So I had begun to th ink alo ng these lines as early as t99 5-6. Fried, "A n Intr oduction to my Art Critici sm," p. SJ. My thanks co Molly Warnock for urging me to make this point.
6
three beginnings l
2
3
4
5
H iroshi Sugimoto in Kerry Broug her an d Davi d Elliott , Hiroshi Sugimoto, exh. cat. (Washingto n, D.C. and Tok yo, 2005 - 6), n.p . C indy Sherma n , Th e Complete Untitled Film Stills (New Yor k , 2003). Further page references to th is boo k will be in par enth eses in rhe text. See e.g. the essays by Craig Owens, Do uglas Crimp, Rosa lind Kra uss, et al. in Jo hanna Burton , ed., Cindy Sherman, OCTOBER Files 6 (Cambrid ge, Mass., and Lon d on, 2006); and J. M . Bernstein, Against Voluptuous Bodies: Late Modernism and the Meaning of Painting (Stanfo rd , Ca l., 2006), pp . 253-323 . See Michael Fried, "Art and Objecthood," Art and Ob jecthood: Essays and Reviews (Chicago and Lon don , 1998), pp. 148-72; Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of D iderot (1980 ; Ch icago and London, 1986); Courbe t 's Realism (Ch icago and London, 1990); and Manet's Modernism, or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s (Chicago and Lond on, 1996). See also Fried, "An Introd uct ion to my Art Criticism," Art and Objecthood, pp. 40-54. See e.g. Edwa rd Branigan, Narrative Comprehension and
7
Film (Londo n and New Yor k , 1992), p. 53 : "A glance (in a narrative film] imp lies an interaction with an ob ject. In fact, glances are so important to narrating a scory wo rld that the only glan ce that is genera lly avoided is a glance into the lens o f the camera . A look int o the camera br eaks the diegesis because it mak es the convent ional reverse shot or eyeline ma rch impossible. (Such a matc h wou ld reveal the cam era itself; its absence wou ld be just as revealing.)" For a fuller treatment of the tra nsgression constitute d by "a loo k and a voice addressed co the camera," also charac terized as "a n infraction of canon ical proportions, an affront co th e 'prop er' functioning of representat ion and filmic narrati ve," see Francesco Case tti , Inside the Gaze: The Fiction Film and }ts Spectator, trans. Ne ll Andrew with Charles O'Br ien (Bloom ington and Indianapo lis, 1998 ), esp. ch. 2, "The Figure of the Specrator," pp. r6, 17. My thanks co Dudley And rew for both references. See R egis Durand , " Intr od uct ion," in Cindy Sherman, exh. cat. (Paris, Bregenz, Humbleba ek, Berlin, 2006-7 ), p. 246. Othe r essays in the catalogue are by Jean-Pie rre Criq ui, who int erest ingly emph as izes Sherma n's "d isap peara nce" in favor of her many fictiona l self-images, and Laura Mulvey. More broadly, James Conant has argued in a series of seminars entitled "T he Onto logy of a Movie World," given at the H umanities Center, Johns Hopkins University in April 2007, tha t the requirements for the internal co herence o f such a "wo rld " align close ly with Diderot's account of the proper funct ioning of drama and paintin g in his wr iting s of the 17 50s and '6os . T he key essay in th at regard is undoubtedly Doug las Crimp's "The Photographic Activity of Posrmodernism," first pub lished in October, no. 15 (Winter r980 ): 91-ror. (Cited here from Burt on, Cindy Sherman, pp . 25-37.) At one po int Cr imp describes a phocogra ph y "that is selfconsciously compose d, man ipulated, fictionali zed, the so-ca lled dir ecto rial mode, in wh ich we find such auteurs of ph ot ography as Duane Mic hal s an d Les Krims." He cont inu es:
The strategy of this mode is to use the apparent veracity of photogra ph y agains t itself, creat ing one's fictions thr oug h the appearance of a seamless reality inco whic h has been woven a narrative dimension . Cindy Sherman's phot ographs function with in th is mode, but only in orde r to expose an unw a nted aspec t of that fiction, for the fiction Sherman discloses is the fiction of the self. Her pbocographs show th at the supposed auto nomous and unitary self out of wh ich those other "directo rs" would
not es to pages 1-10
353
create their fictions is itself nothing other than a discontinuous series of representations, cop ies, and fakes. Sherman's photographs are all self-portra its in which she appears in disgui se enacting a d rama whose particulars are withheld. This ambigui ty of narr ative parallels the ambiguity of the self that is both actor in the narrative and creato r of it. For tho ugh Sherman is literally selfcreated in these works, she is created in the image o f already known femin ine stereotypes; her self is therefore unde rstood as conti ngent on th e possibilities provided by the cu ltu re in which Sherman participa tes, not by some inner impulse. As such, her photographs reverse the terms of ar t and autobiog rap hy. They use art not to reveal the artist's true self but ro show the se lf as an imagi nary constr uct . Ther e is no real Cindy Sherman in these pho tographs; there are only the gu ises she assumes. And she do es not create these guises; she simp ly chooses them in the way that any of us do. The p ost of aut hors hip is d ispensed with not on ly through the mechanica l means of making the image but also through rhe effacement of any continuous, essential persona or even recognizable visage in the scenes. 134-51 The "d ispe nsin g" o r "effacement" of the "post of auth o rsh ip" is a crucia l postmodernist motif, as is the critique of rhe very not ion of a stable identi ty that C rimp 's account puts forward. More recently, Wa lter Benn Michaels has had this ro say about Sherma n's place in postmodern crit icism : [!In an important essay ca lled "Photography afte r Art Photo graphy, " Ab igail Solomon -Godea u could argue that photography had come ro "figure as a crucia l term in postmodern ism" precisely insofar as it had r epud iated the am bition to make photographs into works of art and had tak en instead "an instrum ental approach to the medium." What this involved was "using photography " to mak e art ra ther than making photograph s that were themselves arr, a d ist inction she derives from Peter Bunn ell's rema rk tha t he finds Cindy Sherman "interesting as an artist but uninteresting as a photographer" and that Arthur Da nto's su bsequent analysis of Sherma n "photography is not her medium . It is rat her a means to her artistic end s. Her medium is herself " - mak es perspicuous. In al l these analy ses, it is what the photograph is of that mak es it art . Even a more or less explicitly deconstructive manife sto like Craig Owens's essay " The Allegorica l Impulse: Tow a rd a Theory of Postmod ernism" p ra ises "untitled photos for film sti lls" in terms of Sher man's cleverness as a model: the "perfection of her imp erso nation s," Owens says, turns "d isguise" into "parody" and thus into cr iticism of the "a lienating identifications" of the mass media . Photo graphy is, of course, necessary for this project - without ir there would be no record of Sherma n 's virtuosity and, in fact, there wou ld have been no occasion for the virtuosity: the pose that is recor d ed by the photograph is also produced for the photograph. But thi s doub le functi on of the ca mer a in relation to rhe pose - it both causes and reco rds it - in no
354
notes to page 10
way detracts from th e primac y of the pose . Instead, insofar as the pose themat izes photography, trans forming the photograph into an element in the history of the pose (subsu ming the photo graph in the narrative of its own ex istence), the photo g raph is even more rigorously subord inated to the pose than it wou ld othe rwise be, for the p ose becomes, in effect, a critique of the pho togra ph. What the photograph shows is an object th at has been called into the worJd by the existence of came ras; rhe pose, as pose, calls attent ion to th is fact and cr iticizes the world rhe camera has made; the camera, then, reco rds this crit ique. Th e parodic elemen t in Sherman consists in her ins istence tha t the object the camera records is an objec t th e camera has made, but th e status of the ph otograp h as record is asserted rather tha n challenged by the parody. [The Shape of the Signifier: 1967 to the End of History (Princeton and Oxford, 2004), pp. 97-8, emp ha sis in origi nal] Michaels's po int in rehearsi ng the pos tmodern account of Sherman's Untitled Film Stills is ro set the stage for a very different, i.e. modernist, reading of the work of the photographer James Welling, in which, as Mic haels puts ir, "Welli ng deploys the shape of the photograph aga inst rhe shape o f the objects photographed in order to defeat the camera's ability to let us see ob jects in the world and to emp loy those objects instead in the mak ing of photographs (to use them like paint )" (100). This scarce ly does justice to his pages on Welling, but my point is that, in the course of contrasting Welling with Sherman, Michaels perhaps too much accep ts th e postmodern readin g of her signature works - at any rate, my suggestion that the film stills bear a significant relat ion ro an antithearrica l problemati c concerns the photographs thems elves, not simp ly or essent ia lly the poses and disguises they record . 8 In the 2005 catalogue raisonne of Wall's work, one r eads : "Th e literature various ly describes the artist's backlit colour transparencies as 'transpare n cy in ligh tbox ', 'c ibachrome in lightbox', 'cibachrome transp arency in aluminium ', 'c ibachrorn e transparency in fluorescent light box ', ere. T he artist has spec ified th at the ter m 'tran sparency in lightbox' be used thr ougho ut ro des igna te these wor k s." And: "T he transparencies are mad e on Ilfochrome Class ic tran sparent mat erial. Ilfochrome was form erly known as Cibachrome ." Theodora Vischer and H eidi Naef, "Introductory Notes," Jeff Wall: Catalogue Raison ne r 978 - 2004 (Basel, 2005), p. 27 L And a few pag es on: "A year before comp leti ng The Destroyed Ro om, Wall produced a tr iptych of transparen cies entitled Faking Death . The left pan el d epicted a set featuring a bed in which th e art ist and severa l ass istants are absorbed in what appe ar to be prepara tions for making a photograph . The central and r ight panels depicted the artist lying in th e bed, actin g as if he were dead. Fakin g Death was exhib ited first at th e Nova Ga llery in Vancouver along with The Destroyed Room, and th en at his solo exh ibition at the Art Gallery of Greater Victor ia. It was exh ibited onc e aga in in the group exhib ition 'Cibachrom e' at Th e Photo
9
to
11
l2.
13
14
Gallery in Orrawa in T980. Soo n after , Wall decided to withdraw the work from his co rpus" (p. 275). For an informative d iscussion of Wall's beginn ings as an artist, includ ing his close relations with h is fellow ar tist from Vanco uver Ian Wallace, see Peter Ga lassi, "U northodox ," in Peter Ga lassi and Nea l Benezra,jeff Wall, ex h. cat. (New York, Ch icago, San Francis co, 2007-8 ), pp. 14-29 . Jeff Wall in Vischer and aef, Jeff Wall (Basel, 2005), p. 28!. Further page refere nces to th is book will be in parentheses in the text. Fried, "A rt and Ob jecthood, " p. 164. See also Sta n ley Cavel!, Th e World Viei11ed:Reflections 011 the Ont ology of Film, en larged editi on (Camb r idge, Ma ss., and London, 1979), p. 90: "One impu lse o f ph otog raphy, as imm edia te as its imp ulse to ex tend the visible, is to theatrical ize its subjects. The photographer's co mmand, " Watc h the birdi e!" is essentially a stage d irection. One may object that th e command is give n not to achieve the unnaturalne ss of theater but precisely to give the impression of the natura l, that is to say, th e candid; and that the point of the dire ction is nothi ng more th an to dist ra ct the su bject 's eyes from fronting on the ca m era len s. But th is misse s th e point, for the que stion is exac tly why the impression of natu ral ness is conveyed by an essenti ally theatrical tec hn ique. And wh y, or when, the candid is missed if the subje ct turn s hi s eye into the eye of th e ca mera." And p p . r J 8-19: "Setti ng pic ture s to mo tion mechanically overcame what I earlier ca lled the inherent theatr ica lity of th e (still) phocogra ph. The development of fast film allowed th e sub jects of photographs to be ca ught unawa res, beyond ou r or the ir con trol. Bur they are neve rth eless caught; the ca mera holds the last lanyard of co nt rol we would forgo." See Jean-Fran<;ois Chevrier, "T he Adve ntur es of the Picture Form in the History of Pho cograp h y," tra ns. Mic hae l Gilson, originally publ ishe d 1989, cited here from Douglas Fogle, ed ., The Last Picture Shoi11:Artists Using Photography, ex h. cat. (Minneapoli s and Lo s Angeles, 2003- 4), pp. Tl 3-27 . In the original French text Chev rier refers to " la for me tab leau;" for re aso ns that will become clear, I shall reta in rhe word tablea u (in preferen ce to "p ictu re") in my citations from and discussio ns of his essay. Ra lph Ubl gave hi s lecture, w hich has not been p ublishe d, in co nnection with Wall's retrospect ive exh ibition at Schaulager in Basel in th e lare spr ing of 2.005. My thanks to Ubl for shar ing his thoughts with me. See in pa rt icular Thierry de Duve's discussion of Pictur e for Women in Look, 100 Years of Contemporary Art, trans. Simon Pleasa nce and Fro nza Woods (Bruss els, 2001 ), pp. 243-9 (rev. and enlarged edn. o f th e Fren ch and Dutch Voici, roo ans d'art contempora in (Brusse ls, 2000-or ). I shou ld say, thoug h, tha t I am not persuaded by de Duve 's analysis of M anet's Bar, wh ich p recedes his accou nt of Picture for Women {ibid., pp. 229-44). See Valeria Liebermann, "Annota ted Catalog ue Rai so nne of Works since 1979," in Matthias Winzen, ed ., Thomas Ruff: r9 79 to the Present (New York, 2003), p. 183. Published in conj unction w ith the ex hibition "T ho mas Ruff Fotografier en 1979 -heut e" (Baden -Baden , 2001-2).
r5
r6
17
18
19
20
21
See also Eric de Cha ssey, Platitud es: ,m e histoir e de la photographi e plate (Par is, 2006 ), pp. 172-84. Liebermann , "A nnot ated Catalog ue Raisonn e," p. 183. "Betw een 1984 and T986 ," she writes, "Thomas Ruff kept experiment ing with the size of his Portraits looking for another form at in addition to the 'red uced reality' of 24 x , 8 cm . When he managed to make five print s in L986 on the large st photo pa per ava ilab le, he discovered that a completely new pictu re had eme rged . Through th e enlargeme nt, the look and ex p ression of the sitt ers was inten sified and the visual pr esence o f the ph otograph became d omina nt. The projec t came to a hale in 199 r beca use the p aper he had been using was no longer in production. The new photo pa per had such a great ra nge of colo r and co ntra st that it was no longer suitable for his por tra its." Jean -Pierre Cr iqui, " Bustama n te as Photographer (No tes for an Unfin ishe d Portrait), " tran s. Simon Pleasance and Fron za Wood s, in j ean-Mar c Bustamante: oeuvres photographiqu es .r978-r999, ex h . ca t. (Pari s, 1999), p. 162. Further page referenc es to th is essay will be in parenth eses in the text. See also rhe va luabl e rema r ks on Bustamante's Tableaux as exemplars of "flatness" in de Cha ssey, Platitudes, pp . 163-7 1. Taro Amaro, "I ntersecting Relat ionsh ips," in Jean-Mar c Bustamante: Private Crossing, ex h. cat. (Yokohama , 2002 ), p. 1 59. Also, " ungrat efu lness" is Bustamante' s word - in French /'ingratitud e - in an in terview by Ann ick Co lonna Cesar i in !.'Express, Jun e 9, 2002. T here Bustamante spea ks o f having (in his Tableaux of the late r9 7os and ear ly 'Sos) "i mmer sed himself in the lands ca pes in orde r to realize prints [that would be] ca lm an d hard at the same time" (translat ion mine ). See Mich el Ga uthier , "C on struct ing an Aura," in Alfred Pacqu emen t and Jean -Pierr e Cr iqu i, eds., Jean-Marc Bustamante (Paris, 2003 ), p . 54. As Bustamant e has remarked: " Mu sil cer tainly left his mark on me, a lot of thing s can be traced back to The Man With out Qualiti es. I am tryi ng to produce wo rk 'w ithout qua lities'" (" Fragm ents d ' un entr etien: Jean-Marc Bustamant e, Jan Debbau t et Yves Gevaer t," j ean-Marc Bustamant e, ex h. cat. fEindhoven, 1993 ], p. 14, quoted b y Gauthie r, p. 7 3, n. 4 ). Sophie Berrebi, "Jea n-M arc Bustamant e: 'It's Crap, but in the Right Way,'" inte r view, http ://eyestor m. com/ fea ture / ED2.11_article.asp?article _id= r 4o. In the same int erview, Berrcbi allud es to Bustamante's havi ng said " that Rob ert Mus il's novel The Man With out Qualities ha s had a long lasti ng influence over [him!." Ulrich Looc k, " Out of Focus ," in Jean-Mar c Bustamante (Paris, 2005), p. 13 6, transl at ion m ine. " Long after their m aking, " Jacinto Lageira wr ites in ibid., p. 68, "w hat always str ikes on e in the Tableaux is th e plenitude of these imag es in wh ich everything is give n [/i11reland at the same time withdrawn. Th e supera bun da nce of details is in conflict with what one is temp ted co call a vaca ncy" (" La taille de la m atiere," translation min e) . Step hen Shore, Uncommon Places: Th e Complete Work s (New York, 2004). Thi s book also includes a n exce llent essay by Step han Schmidt-Wulff en, "Step hen Shore's
notes t o pages 11-21
355
22
23
Uncommon Places," and a high ly int eres ting conve rsa tion betwee n Shor e and th e wr iter Lynne Tillm an . H illa Bec her in "' H is Pictu res H ave the Qua lity of a First Enco unt er ' : Hilla and Bern d Becher in Conve rsa tio n wit h Heinz Liesb rock," Stephen Shore: Photographs 1973 1993, ed. Heinz Lies brock (M unic h, 199 4 ), p. 2.7. W hat she say s is: " I like th e way he ap pro aches co lor photography , th e way he concei ves of th e colo r and the Amer ica n light, wh ich is ac tuall y q uite d ifficu lt, very hard. Fo r exa mp le, the strugg le with the sky th at a lway s h as to be fought out in co lor photogra ph y, at least in land scape - he has m astered it q uite felicito usly by light ing m os t of t he ob jects from the side, or using thi s side lighti ng. T his has enab led him to avoi d t hat d rea dfu l blue sky th at always looks lik e a slab of sto ne, a nd to so ften th e co lo rs." Furthe r page referen ces ro th is co nversa tion w ill be in parenth eses in th e text. Shore ea rl y on beca m e friends w ith H illa Bec her, and th e Bechers ow ned ph otographs by him tha t we re kn ow n to th e yo un ger Ger m an p ho tograph ers who were th eir stud ents. A recent conve rsa t ion betwee n Sho re an d me, ro be published in a Ph a ido n Press vo lum e on his art, includ es the follow ing:
ss: On e of th e things I did at th e time I was ra kin g [the Uncommon Placesl pictur es was stand next to the tr ipo d and simp ly look. After I had gotten a roug h idea of what I was ph o to grap h ing I wou ld look at what was in fron t
2.4
356
of me an d liter ally pa y attentio n to as mu ch as I could as far back inro space as I co uld see. And I wo uld dec ide whether there was an y slight adju st ment l wa nted to mak e. M F: Syste ma tica lly? ss : Yes, tak ing into acco unt any perce p tion s that ca me my way. And I wou ld say yes, sys tem atica lly, because if I didn't do it syste matic ally then I wo uld n 't do it. Do es that ma ke sense? MF: Perfect se nse. ss: So it was like a chec kli st . O kay, I have don e all th is, I h ave got the ro ugh framewo rk of th e p ictur e and now I am go ing ro stand here a nd rea lly look at eve rythin g. The me taph or that I had in my mind was th at in a ce rt a in way I am cleari ng the spa ce fo r the viewer. That by m y mo ving my att en tio n thr oug h th e scene and m akin g an y necessa r y adju stm ent to th e pictu re, I clear th e space go ing back into th e scene for the viewer ro mov e h is or her atte nt ion. If I on ly looked fift y feet in, then there wo ul d be a wal l that th e viewer wo uld stop at. One o th er exc hange is of inte rest in th is connect io n: HL : Let 's thin k for a mi nu te ab ou t the subjects in his wor k of th e 1970s. Th ere are a few po rt rait s, very few sti ll life p ictur es, but mai nl y it's ur ban cont exts that are character istic in his work: a rch itecture in th e city cen ters, in th e sub ur bs, traffic scene s again and again, str eet s, espec iall y inters ect ions. Wha t is it th at cre a tes the mag ic in th ese pictu r es? Is it h is special angle of visio n, o r is there already somethi ng in the subjec t itself that radiates u niqu ely?
no t es to pages 2 2- 23
HB: Well, he d iscove red these places . Th e int er-sectio n is w hat America is. Yo u cou ld alm os t say that outside Ma nh att an life intens ifies pr ec isely at the int ersecti on. And he looked for, and fo und, th e right int erse ction s. Ir's a ques tio n of artis tic inte lligen ce to find thi s out , to recog nize what it sy mb o lizes . For us, ou r first tr ips to America we re like a d rea m. You abs or b the cou ntry like a spo nge , lik e a child. Stephe n Shore's photos have someth ing o f thi s qua lity o f a first encou nter . (30) 2.5 Amano , Private Crossing, p. r62 . 26 Fro m interview by Co lonna-Cesa r i, L'Express, tran slation min e. "Je vo ulai s cons ide rer non plus la photograp hie en rant qu'art, mai s l'a rt en rant que ph orog rap h ie. Je refu sais le pe tit for mat et le co te arrisa nal du noir et blanc. J e vo ulais pas ser la cou leur, a u forma t pou r le m ur, afin de d onner la photographie la dim ension du tableau, de la tra nsform er en objet." 27 De Chassey sum s up th e for mal achieve ment of th e cyp ress photo graph s as follow s : "A uron omou s, th e photogra phic image becomes a neutral and pe rfectly flat veh icle, of a flatness th at is active and , so to speak , free of co nstraint s" (Platitudes, p. ,:71, tr anslation min e). 2.8 T he phra se occ ur s in J ud d's landmar k essay, "S pec ific Ob jects" (orig ina lly publi shed in Arts Yearbook 8, 1965) in connectio n with Frank Stella 's shaped stripe pa intin gs. Th e pa ssage rea ds: "S tella 's shaped pai nt ings invo lve several impo rt ant charac ter istics of th ree-di m ensio na l wo rk. T he per iph ery o f a piec e and the line s inside co rrespon d. The stripes ar e now here near be ing d iscre te parts . T he sur face is farthe r from th e wa ll th an usual, though it rem ains parallel to it. Sin ce th e sur face is excep tionally un ified and invo lves little or no spa ce, the para llel plan e is unusually distin ct. T he or de r is not ra tio nalistic and underlying bur is simpl y or der, like that of co ntinuit y, o ne thin g a fter ano th er. A painting isn't an image . T he shape s, the uni ty, p rojectio n, orde r a nd col or are spec ific, aggress ive and powerf ul" (Dona ld Judd , Compl ete Writings 1959-1975 [H a lifax, Nova Scotia, and New Yor k, 197 5), pp. 183 -4 ). 29 Int erv iew by Ca ther ine Francbl in, "Jea n-Marc Bustamant e: le proc he et le lo inta in," Art Press, no . 170 (Ju ne 199 2.): 2.6. Furt her page refere nces to th is int er view wi ll be in parenth eses in th e rexr. 30 In Stationnaire I (J 990), a tightl y framed pict ur e o f th e cypresses is comb ined with sixtee n m od est-sized L-shaped "sc ulpt u ral" elements sta nd ing on th e ga llery floor in front of th e p ho to, th e eleme nt s th emselves recalli ng th e shape of ear ly pieces by Robert M orri s. I have not seen thi s work , but it see ms likely tha t the ju xtaposi tio n of the photograph and th e "scu lp tur a l" elements wo uld be felt to point to a contrast between t he two kinds of element s, ra th er tha n to th eir s imilarit y as ob jects. 3 1 So e.g. Ga uthier co mpa res rhe cypress ser ies wit h its " curtai ns of vegetation cros sed vertica lly by th e lines settin g the di fferent trees apart, with gaps in p laces letting throu gh the blu e sky" to " th ose grea t pa inti ngs o f C lyffo rd Still disrupt ed by jag ged edges of thi s kind ." H e adds: "Havin g sa id that, Busra mante' s photograph s need bea r no form al resemblance in o rd er to recall abst ract paint ing. T he likeness lies
a
a
32
33
34
35
at a deeper level, chat of rhe viewer's pe rception of the picture" ("Constructing an Aura," p. 61) . Thus Loock wr ites: " In many respec ts, Busramanre's photographs have a para digmatic funct ion for the w ho le o f his work: from rhe point of view of th eir grounding in reality (in the double sense o f th eir wea lth of elements bo rrowed from th e real and of the absence in them of an imaginary 'pene tratio n of the gaze'), of rhe rea lizat io n o f the in- irself of things foreign ro a ll meaning; bur also from rhe po int of view of the exclusio n of the body, even when the latt er is sometimes reintegrated, under certa in co nditions, in recent phorograph ic works . The exclus ion of t he body is the price that must be pa id for the return ro t he rea lity of the o bject and therefore also for the rejection of a mode rn ity defined by its exclus ive character [a dou ble refer ence to minima lism, I chink]. To pur chis differe n tly, Bustamante opposes the abstract io ns of minimal arr, the red ucti on o f the o bject ro irs material ity, its extens ion, its situaredness, to its interaction with a gene ric observer - Andre's metallic carp ets like scenes to walk on , Flavin's lumin ous pieces like atm ospheres - in chat he renders rhe object concrete, objective, sometimes in d irect po lemidironic refe rence co Judd's boxes, all the whi le divesting it of the relation to the bod y" ("Our of Focus," pp. 140-42, translation mine) . For Chevrier in J989, five photographers exemplified rhe eschecic stance he wish ed to stress: Joh n Co p lans, Bill Henson, Craig ie H orsfield, Suzanne Lafone, and Jeff Wall. "Adela'ide," Mercur e de France (Janu a ry r755), p . 49. Reprinted in Slatki ne Reprints, Ge neva, 1970, Tome 68 . Further page references to this edit ion w ill be in pare nth eses in the text. The nam e of the her o ine probabl y derives from chat of the heroi ne of Mme de Tencin's famous novel, Memoires du Comte de Comminges ( r 73 5), as does rhe theme of lovers preve nted by thei r famil ies from marrying rhe person rhey love. Here is rhe French: "E lle va au Co uve nt , entre d'abord clans l'Eglise, & le premier o bjer qui la frappe, est le Marqu is son cpoux, occupc clans un exe rcice pieux avec rout sa Communaure. Cet hab it de penitence la to uche; elle se montre, ii la voir, il baisse les yeux, & quelque effort qu'e lle fasse pour attirer ses regards, ii n'e n to u me p lus auc un sur elle. Quoiqu 'e lle pcnecre le mot if de la violence qu ' il se faic, clle y trouve quelque chose de si cr uel, qu 'e lle en esr sa isie de la plus vive douleur. Elle rombe cva nouie; on l'emporte, elle ne revienr elle q ue pour dem ande r son che r Ferval. On court l'avertir que sa femme est moura nt e. Son Super ieur lui ordonne de la venir consoler; & elle expire par la force de son saisissemenr, avant qu'i l se soi t rendu au pre s d'e lle." On Marmontel 's Belisaire in this connection, see Fried, Absorption and Th eatricality, pp. 147, 1p -2 . On digirizarion see rhe referenc es given in Ch. 4, n. 26. Yukio M ishim a, The Sailor who Fell from Grace with the Sea, tra ns. John Nat han (196 5; ew Yo rk, r9 94), pp. 14852. Yukio Mishima, The Temp le of Dawn, tran s. E. Dal e Saunders and Cecilia Segawa Seigle (r970 ; New York, J975), p. 217. Furth er page references co chis book will be in parenrheses in the tex t.
40
See the photographer Brassa'i's pen etratin g discussion of the scene in The Giiermantes Way in whic h Proust's narrato r observes his beloved grandmother while she is una ware of his presence, an act that P rouse co mpar es to chat o f "the photographer, " quo ted lacer in chis book, Ch . 4, n. t 5. 4 1 Susa n Sontag, On Phot ography (New Yor k, 1977), p. 37. 42 Ibid., pp. 36-7. She cites chis, then immedia te ly adds in a note : "Nor an er ror, really. There is something on people's faces . .. " 4 3 See Russell Ferguso n, "Open City : Possibilities of rhe Street," in Kerry Brougher and Russell Ferg uson , Open City : Street Photographs Since 1950 , ex h. cat . (Oxford, Salfo rd Quays, Bilbao, Washi ngton, o. c ., 2001 ), p . 14, as well as th e br ief discussion of Winogrand 's career in Ch. 8 below . 44 Susa n Sontag, Regarding the Pain of Others (New York, 2003), pp. 76-7 . Furthe r page referenc es to th is book will be in parent heses in the text. 45 Acco rd ing to Vische r and Naef, Jeff Wall :
Dead Troops Talk (A Vision After an Ambush of a Red Army Patro l near Moqor, Afgha11istan, Winter 1986) wa s photographed on a set in a temp o rar y studi o in Burnaby, British Co lumbia in winter r 99r -r 99 2. Preparatory work was done throughout r 99 1. It is the artis t's second wo rk using d igital techn o logy. As the title ind icates, the wor k depi cts an unreal vision . The artist has refe rred to the work as a "hallucinat ion" and a "d ialogue of the dead . " Wall wan ted the "ha llucination" to ha ve historical and technical realism . Th e arti st began wor king on Dead Troops Talk in 1986-1987, whi le st udying the development of digital tech n ology and its possi bilities . H e was awa re that compute r montage would be a central aspect in the process of realising the pictu r e. The preliminary work on the projec t took place in the late stages of the Sov iet occupation of Afghanistan and the collapse of the U.S.S.R. The set wa s constructed in wood and covered with a layer of earth. The shape of the rav ine in which the action cakes place was developed usin g drawings and mode ls. The drast ic wounds were construc ted using bod y parts and prosthetics, photographed separately and blend ed o nro the figur es in rhe montage process. Th e models were p hotograp h ed singly or in small gro ups . [338 1
a
36 37 38
39
2 1
wal l, heidegger, and absorpt ion "Jeff Wall in Conve rsation with Marcin Schwander," in Je ff Wa ll, Selected Essays and Interviews (New York, 200 7 ), p. 230 . Ori ginally published 1994. Wall's reference is to my Absorpti o n and Theatricality : Pai11ting and Beholder in the Age of Did erot (1980; Ch icago and Lon don , 1986) . Fo r more on Wall's engage ment with my writing, both art critica l and arc histor ica l, see esp. his essay " Fram es of Referenc e," " Interview betw een J eff Wall and Jean -Frarn;:ois Chevrier," and " Post-'6os Photo grap hy and Its Modernist Context: A Conve rsa tion betw een J eff Wall and John
notes to pages 23-38
357
jeff wall and absorption; heidegger on worldhood
and technology
2
J eff Wall's Adrian Walker, Artist, Drawing From a Specimen in a Lab oratory in th e Dept. of Anatomy at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver ( 1992; Fig. 19 ), like by far the majority of his works, is a large Cibachrome transparency mounted on a lightbo x, which is to say that it is illuminated from behind by fluorescent light s (Wall's preferr ed medium ). In my opinion and by common cons ensus, Wall is one of th e mo st ambitious and accomplished photogr a pher s working tod ay but, of course, to say that is to say something quit e diff erent from what a comp arab le claim would have ent ailed even twent y years ago. One of the most important developments in the so-called visual ar ts of the past twenty-plus yea rs has been th e emer gence of large- sca le, tableau-sized photographs that by virtu e of their size dema nd to be hung on gallery walls in the mann er of easel paintings, and in other respects as well aspire to what migh t lo ose ly be called th e rhetorical , or beho lder-addressing, significance of paintings while at the same time declaring th eir artifactua l identity as photographs (I touched on thi s in my bri ef discussion of Wall, Ruff, and Bustama nt e in Chapt er One). There will be more to say abo ut all thi s in the pages that follow, but for th e moment my point is simpl y that Wall ha s been a cruci al figure in that development, and th at Adrian Walker is a st riking examp le of such a work. (By no means among the largest of Wa ll's pi ctur es, it measures over four feet high by m ore than five feet wide.) A brief descri ption of Adrian Walk er will amplify th e already consid erable amount of informati on conveyed by its titl e. It depicts a yo un g man, perh ap s in hi s early thirties, sea ted on a moveable desk chair befor e a simpl e table (woo den top , m eta llic legs) on which ha s been pla ced a flayed and preserved spe cimen of a severed human right arm and hand. The latter, red -brown in co lor, rests on a greenish cloth, which itself seems to cover a sha llow tray . An old-fashioned gooseneck lam p sits on a wind ow sill as if bent over th e specim en but the bulb, a fraction of w hich one can jus t glimp se beneath its sha de, a pp ears unlit; instead th e scene is i.lluminated by sunli ght streaming rather coldly in from a window toward the right. On th e table top toward the righthand edge o f th e picture other objects are cluster ed: a coff ee mu g, an erase r, a box of six ty-fo ur Crayo las, a roll of toil et paper, a sp ray bottl e of detergent(?), a piec e of pa pe r bearin g reddish sm udg es. On the window led ge one sees a smaller ta nni sh cloth and a so mewhat battered paperba ck book with slip s of paper between some of the pa ges. (Look ed at closely, th e book turn s out to be Don Quixote.) T he young man , in glasses, is we aring jea ns, a white shirt, and a light blue sweater; his left an kle crosses hi s right knee. Resting at once on his lap an d agai nst the front edge of the table is a dra w ing
Jeff wall and absorption ; heidegge r on worldhoo d and technology
37
(right) Jean-Bapti ste-Simeon Chardin, Young Student Drawing, c. 1 733 -8 . Oil o n pan el. 21 x 1 7 cm. Kimb ell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas 20
21 (facing page, left) Jean -Bapt iste-Simeon Chardi n , The Young Draftsman, 1737. Oi l on canvas. 81 x 67 cm . Staatl iche Museen Preussischer Kulturbe sitz Berlin, Ge maldega lerie
22 (facing page, right) Jean -Baptist e-Simeon Cha rdin , The House of Cards, c. 17 37 . Oil on canvas . 83 x 66 cm. Na tional Gallery of Art, Washington, o .c .
board on w hich has been clipped a sheet of paper that bears a drawin g in sepia of the arm and hand before him. Th e youn g man ho lds a red mechani cal draf ting pencil in his right hand, and his left arm and hand support his chin as he gazes somewhat downwa rd, w heth er at his draw ing or the flayed arm it is imposs ible to say (possibl y he is comparing o ne to the ot her). The wa ll beh in d him is of gleaming white tile, and near the left- han d edge of the picture is a stac k of roun d specimen boxes; th e overall mood of the p ict ur e is quiet, contemp lat ive, matter-of-fact, though th e severed a rm is hard ly p leasa nt to look at . Wall spea ks directly to the question of his intent ions in thi s wo rk in the course of an int erview wit h Martin Schwander in 1994 : Schwander : With Adrian Walker you made a portrait of a young man who is concentrat ing so intense ly on his work that he seems to be removed to ano th er sphere of life. Wall: But I don't th ink it is n ecessari ly clear tha t Adrian Walker is a po rtrai t . I think there is a fusion of a couple of po ssible ways of loo king at the picture generica lly. One is that it is a pi ctur e of someon e eng aged in his occupati on and not pa ying any attention to, or responding to the fact that he is bein g observed by, the spectator . In Mic hae l Fried's interest ing book about absorption and th eatr icality in late eighteen thcent ury pa int ing, he ta lks abo ut the different relat ionships betwee n figure s in pictures and th eir spectators. H e identified an "absorptive mode ," exemp lifed by pa inters like Chardin, in which figure s are imm ersed in th eir ow n world and activit ies and display no aware ness of the co nstruct of the picture a nd the necessary presence of the viewer. Ob vious ly, the "theatr ica l mode" was just the opposite. In absorptive pictures, we are lookin g at figures who appear not be "acting out" the ir world, on ly "be ing in" it. Both, of co urse, ar e mode s of perfor mance . I th ink Adrian Walker is "abso rpt ive." 1
38
why pho t ography matters as art as never before
(Fo r th e reco rd , Wall and I met by cha nce in the Boymans Museum in Rotter dam in r996 , which is also w here and when I saw Ad rian Walker for th e first tim e. It quick ly emerged that we had been track ing eac h other's wo rk for years . Since th en we have become friends . Th e conn ect ion betwee n us is part of the argument of thi s book. ) T hree genre pa intin gs by th e grea t Jea n-Baptiste -Simeon Chard in (1699-1777), the a rtist ment ioned by Wall, make relevant viewing in this connection . The first is Young Stud ent Drawing (c. 173 3-8; Fig. 20) . Althoug h Wall 's pictu re dep icts the dr aftsman largely in profi le ra th er th an from behind, we as viewers neverthe less feel we a re look ing somew hat ove r hi s should er (we are slightl y behin d him , in oth er words), an d of course we are show n t he dr aw ing h e is m aking (in so ft reddi sh lead ) jus t as in the Chardi n. The seco nd wor k, The Young Draftsman (1737; Fig. 21) , subtl y dir ects th e viewer's attention to th e chalk -hold er in th e hands of the you ng arti st, just as in Adrian Walker we are given a clear view of the mec han ica l pencil in Wa lker's right hand. T he third , th e ma gisterial (if mi stitl ed) The House of Cards (c. r 73 7; Fig. 22), is discussed in some detai l in Absorption and Theatrica lity, w here I ca ll atte nti on to the co nspic uous juxtapo sitio n of two p laying car ds in the pa rtl y op en drawer in the near for eground. 2 I go on to propo se th at th e face ca rd, appa rentl y a Jack of H eart s, embl ema tizes the fact that th e picture surface itself faces th e beho lder (that is, is entir ely ope n to our gaze) whereas th e dazzlingly blank back of t he second card evo kes the sealed off consciousness of th e yo ung man a bso rbed in his appa rently trivi a l pa st ime. The juxtaposition of th e two cards thu s offers a co nd en sed statem ent of th e stru ct ura l du ality of th e pai nting as a w hole, at once facing th e beholde r as art ifact and close d to him or her as repr esentat ion. I suggest too tha t paintings lik e The House of Cards, Soap Bubbl es (173 5-40), and The Game of Knuck lebon es (c. 1734) repr esent a quietly mom ento us discove ry o n C hardin's pa rt, nam ely that absorption as such is perfec tly indiffer ent to
jeff wall and absorption;
heidegge r on world hood and technology
39
th e ex tra-a bsor ptive stat us of it s ob jects or occas ions: so parti cular ac tions - arra nging car ds, blowin g b ubbl es, play ing knu cklebones - w hich in the previous cent ury the Ja nsenist thi nker Pa sca l wo uld ha ve st igmati zed as mer e distractions from the thoug ht o f a Chri stian life, emer ge instea d as th e veh icle of a new, essenti ally "pos itive" mental o r sp iritua l state, the ultim ate impli ca tions of w hich for a history o f what in anothe r co nt ext h as been ca lled " m ind edn ess" have yet to be fath omed .3 And I argue, not just in Absorp tion and Theatricality but in tw o subse qu ent books, Courbet's Realism and Manet's Modernism, t hat a ce ntral cur rent or tra diti on in French painting from JeanBap tiste Greuze's mo men to us Salon debut in 17 5 5 to the advent of Edou ard Manet and his generat ion aro und 1860 may be understo od in term s of an ongoing effort to make pa int ings th at by o ne stra tegy or an oth er a pp ear - in th e first place by depicting personages wh olly a bso rb ed in w hat they are doi ng, t hinkin g, and feeling, and in multifigur e painting s by bindin g th ose p erso nages toget her in a sing le, uni fied com pos ition to deny tb e pres ence before th em of the be ho lder, or to put this more affirma tively, to establi sh th e onto log ica l fictio n th at the beho lder does not ex ist. 4 O nly i£ this was accomplishe d cou ld th e act ual beho lder be stop ped and h eld befo re th e can vas; converse ly, tbe leas t sense on th e beh o lder's part that th e depi cted pe rso na ges were act ing or, even worse, pos ing fo r th e art ist (and ultim ate ly fo r th e beho lder) was registere d as thea trical in the pejora tive sen se of th e term , and the pa inti ng was judged a fai lure . Wi th Ma net, in works lik e the O ld Musician (1862), Dejeuner sur l'herbe (1 862- 3), and Olympia (1863), that antithea trica l cu rrent or t ra diti o n reac hes the po int of o vert crisis; the pr imor dial convention th at pa intings are ma de to be beheld ca n n o lon ger be denied, even for a little whi le, and abso rp tion in all its ma nife stations gives way to rad ical "facingness." Tak ing my bear ings fro m Ch ardi n's The House of Cards, l might say that in Ma net th e empha sis shi ft s to th e face ca rd in th e open dr awe r (Co urb et is supposed to have described Olympia as the Q ueen of H ea rts aft er a bat h ), th ou gh in view of the notor ious psycho log ica l blank ness of M ane t's perso nages it might be tru er to say that it is as if the oth er card, th e o ne turn ed away from the beho lder, is reint erpr eted as facing him or her as we ll. All t his co uld hardly be more summa ry, but it per haps su ffices to indicate somethin g of th e intri cacy of th e issues at stake in th ese deve lop ments . Re turnin g to Wall and his int erviewer , note to beg in w ith how Schwa nd er, before Wa ll exp lains th e o perat ion of the " absorpt ive m ode," responds to Adrian Walker in precisely th ose terms. "Wi th Adrian Walke r," Schwa n der says, "you made a po rtrait of a yo ung ma n who is co ncent rat ing so intense ly o n his wor k that he seems to be removed to anot her sp here of life ." Thi s is th e abso rp tive effect in its class ic form . As Diderot m ak es clea r, a perso nage en tire ly abso rbed o r engrosse d in an actio n , feeling, or state o f min d is by virtue of that fact w ho lly una wa re of anythin g but the ob ject of his or her abso rpti on, starting with t he beho lder stand ing before th e painting . (ln The House of Cards thi s un awa reness or oubli de soi - lit erally, self-for getting - is signa led by the open drawe r, which , the viewe r senses, goes unp erceive d by the boy . In The Young Drafts man it is imp lied by th e ro se-co lored strin g of th e d rafts man 's po rtfol io that fa lls over the edge of the tab le in the nea r fo regro und. And in Young Student Drawing the implicat ion of obliv iousness is fo rcefull y co nveye d by th e hole in the up per back of the
40
why photography
matters as art as never before
student's coat, thro ugh which one glimp ses his red und erga rment. 5 ) It is as if the personage and the beholder inhabit different Worlds, w hich is what Schwander as much as says when he describes Adr ian Walker - the personag e, not th e picture - as seemingly "remo ved to another sph ere of life." Two points are particularl y interes tin g abou t Schwander's remarks. T he first is that Schwander, without prompting from Wall, was moved to describ e Wall's picture in the language I have just quoted , w hich appe ar s to impl y that he took th e p icture to be a candid ph otograph of a draft sman ent irely abs orb ed in conte mplatin g his work. Howeve r, a mome nt 's reflection suffices to sugges t th at th at is un likely, both beca use th e dep icted sit uat ion appea rs pate ntl y staged - it is, in a sense, too good to be true - and because the conspicuousness of th e a pp aratus of displa y suggests a comparable conspicuousness of the photographic appa ratu s as such. (It is hard to ima gine Wall shoot ing the scene unob served with a lightw eight camera like Cart ier-Bresson's or Winogrand's Leica, and in any case had he done so the resultin g image cou ld not ha ve been enlarg ed to Adrian Walke r's dim ension s without loss of clarit y.) As Wall says in the interview, both the absorptive and th e theatrical are for him " mod es of performance." And, in a state ment from 1996 he exp lains that th ere was in fact a real Adria n Walker, who was a draftsman and who had made the drawing on his drawing boa rd in the labora tory specified , but that the pic ture is also a re-enactment, by the art ist in th e pictu re, of his ow n practice. Th at is, he a nd J collaborated to create a com posit ion that , wh ile being strictly accurat e in all det a ils, was neverth eless not a candid picture, but a pictorial co nstru ction. I depicted th e moment when be has just comple ted his dra wing, and is ab le to conte mpl ate it in its final form, and, once again, a t the sam e time, to see its subje ct, the specimen, th e po int fro m wh ich it began. There was suc h a mom ent in th e creat ion of his dra wing, but the moment depicted in the pict ure is in fact not that mom ent , but a reenact ment of it. Yet it is probably indi stingu ishab le from the actua l moment. 6 In an interv iew fo ur years later, Robert Enri ght asks Wa ll w hy a copy of Don Qu ixot e appea rs in Adrian Walker . Wall replies : Th e picture is factua l. The man who is named in the t it le is in fact the person Adrian Walker; that is the corner of th e ana tomy lab where he wo rked. It's all real. The Don Quixo te just happ ened to be there. The pictu re involved a perform ance in th at Adrian was wor king with me, but he didn 't do a nythin g he didn't norma lly do . I visited him occasionally during the tim e he was dra wing there. He was a st udent of min e, and want ed to be more involved w ith dr aw ing the figure. H e a rranged with the depa rtment of anatomy that he co uld work t here for an extended period. I mig ht have moved the lamp over a little bit, but I didn't ch ange anyth ing. Th e picture is an examp le of what I call "near doc um entary. " 7 The second po int wo rth stre ssing is that Schwand er 's readin g of Adr ian Wa lker 's state of mind goes considera bly beyond th e visua l evidence. For Wall seems de liberate ly to have chosen not to depict his sitter in the th roes of a bsorp tion , so to speak . H is mea-
jeff wall and abso rption; he ide g ger on wor ldhood and tech nology
41
Gerhard Ric ht er, Reading lLesendel, 1994. Oil o n linen. 23
72 .4 x 10 2.2 cm. San Francisco Muse um of Art . Pur cha sed th rough th e gi fts of Mimi and Peter H aas and He len and Cha rles Schwab, a nd the Accessions Committe e Fund
sured account o f what he tried to do feels exac tly right: Walker is able to contemplate his drawing in its fina l form and at the sam e tim e to see th e spec imen he cop ied, a formulat io n that avo ids positing a definite inner state. (One m ight even say that Walker appears dispo sed to do both th ese thing s, to put matters slightl y mor e stro ngly.8) Moreover, th e cold glar e of the dayl ight on th e whit e tile wa ll, so different from the mid-ton ed, warm ambiences of Ch ard in's canvases, reinforces the sense of expr essive restraint. As does, even mor e tellin gly, the unp leasan tn ess to sight of the specimen itself. So Schwa nder 's rem arks are doubly mis leading with respect to what the picture gives us to be seen. Yet pr ec isely becau se this is so, his com mentar y illustr ates what I have elsew here called the "mag ic" of absorption , wh ich first beca me a sta ple of pictori al art in the West shor tly befor e r 600 when in th e canvases of Caravagg io and his followers absorpt ive them es and effects began to serve as a singular ly effective matrix for an unprec ed ented real ism, an d wh ich cont in ues to hold even the mo st sophist icated viewers in its spe ll down to th e present tim e.9 (In th a t sense Schwa nder is not so mu ch mistaken as deep ly in the picture's thrall. Whether Wall mea nt him to be is a question.) Anothe r recent work who se widesp rea d appea l rests largely on th ese ground s is Gerhard Richter's pai nting Reading [Lesende} (199 4 ; Fig. 23), in which a yo ung woman's appa rent engro ssment in her journa l (th e Ger man magazine Der Spiegel) goes hand in hand with th e man ifestly photograph ic cha racter of the pr esum ed "source" image. Once again, howev e1; a mom ent 's reflection suffices to reveal that thi s pictur e too cannot be a candid representat ion of an actual situ ation. Fo r one th ing, th e (pr esum ed) photograp her's relation to th e reading wo man - the arti st's daught er - feels too near and in th e op en for her to have been unawar e of his presence; for another, the fact that th e painting seems so clearl y to have been ba sed on a photograph throws int o relief the former's part icula r mod e of a rtifactualit y, whic h in its techni ca l perfect ion - I refer to th e absence of
42
why pho t ography matters as art as never before
visible brush strokes - conveys a sense of expert performance. Tnother words , both Wall's Adrian Walker and Richter 's R eading mob ilize absorptive motifs that reca ll C hardin, but the y do so in ways that expressly acknow ledge w hat I want to call the " to-beseenn ess" - by which I mean something other than a simple return to or fall into theatric ality - both of the scene of representation and of the act of presentation. (From now on I shall dispens e with quotation marks around th e term.) Yet, as Schwander's remarks show, the a bsorpti ve allure of Wall' s picture, as of Richter' s, is not thereby undon e. (Obv iously, the features of Chardin 's genre paintings T have commented on - the open drawer, the dangling string , the h ole in the young man 's jacket, and so on - also po sit a beholder positioned so as to take them in. However, the operative fiction in Chardin' s canvases is that th eir protag onists are ob livious not only to the features in qu estion but also, crucially, to the pre sence before the painting in the first place of the painting 's mak er and, sub sequently, of the entranced viewer; indeed the purpo se of all those featur es is to reinforce that fiction to the extent of makin g it appear simpl y true. Wall's photograph and Richt er's painting stop far short of such assertiveness, which is why neither one nor the other dep loys anythi ng remot ely like th e toke ns of selfforgetting that C hard in uses so brilli antly.) Let me briefly co nte xtu alize this . Earli er I exp lain ed how the antith eat rica l cur rent in eighteenth - and nineteenth -cent ur y French paintin g reached a po int of overt cris is in the a rt of Manet and his cont empor aries. T he issue of beholdin g was not ther eby dissolved , though , and by th e 1960s it was ba ck in force in the co nfrontation, as l portr ayed it in "Art and Objecthood," between high moderni sm and minimali sm, or as I also called the latter, litera lism. This is not the place to rehearse the story of that confrontation in detail but presumably no reader of thi s book will need to be told that to all inte nts and purposes minim alism/lit eralism routed high modern ism, whi ch in th e terminolo gy of "A rt an d Ob ject hood" meant that by the ear ly and mid -197os th eatrical, behold er-ba sed ar t definitively held the field. (Albe it the crit ical and th eoretical essays most clo sely associated with postmodernism date from the end of that decade and the early 198os. ' 0 ) It is har dly sur pri sing , then, that l ha ve been deeply inter ested in th e new ph otograph y, w hich I see as having reopened a range of questions and issues - a problematic of beholding - that appeared to hav e been closed, for all I knew permanently . Yet reopening that prob lemati c ha s not been accomplished by a simpl e return to the pa st (out of the question, in any case), which is why I have stressed both the similaritie s and the differences between Adrian Wall'-er a nd severa l genre pa intin gs by C hardin. In genera l, I shall argue in this book that the new art photography seeks to come to grips with the issue of beholding in ways that do no t succumb to theatricality but whi ch at the same tim e register the epochality of minimali sm/literalism's inter vention by an acknowled gment of tobe-seenness, just as ambitiou s French painting after Ma net ack no wledged painting' s facingness (not flatn ess, as is usually said) while nevertheles s reserving an ima ginati ve spa ce fo r itself that was not wholly given over to solicit ing th e app lause of th e Salon-goin g p ublic .
jeff wal l and absorption,
heidegger
on worldhood
and techno logy
43
A seco nd , more recent work by Wall throws further light on his tr ea tm ent of the se issues. The work is th e highly amb itious After "Invisible Man" by Ralph Elliso n, the Prologue (I999-20or; Fig . 24), one of three pictures Wa ll ha s made based on literar y tex ts . (T he first of these, Odrad ek, Taboritska 8, Prague, July r 8, I 9 84 fI984 J, is based on Ka fka's short story, " Dearest Fa th er"; the third and most recent, After "Sprin g Snow," by Yukio Mishima , chapter 3 4 l2000-05], is taken from the first volu m e of Mi shima's Sea of Fertility tetra logy, his culminati ng masterwork. I shall disc uss th e latter in th e Conclu sion to this book.) The situ at ion described in th e Prologue of Invisibl e Man 11 is locate d tempora lly aft er the act ion of the novel proper has been concluded: the nameless protagonist , a black man who claims to be in visible to whit es (hen ce the book 's title), has temporarily settled down in an underground "hole," that is, in a " shut off a nd forgotten" section of a basement of a bui ldin g rent ed str ictly to whites in a neighbo r hood borderi ng on Harl em. The narrator exp la ins that althoug h h e calls his ho me a " hole," it is not cold but on the cont ra ry is warm . And som ething mo re: My hole is warm and full of light. Yes, full of light . l doub t if ther e is a br ighter sp ot in all New York than thi s hole of mine, an d I do not ex clud e Broa dway. Or the Empire Stat e Building on a photographer's dream n ight . But that is taking ad vant age of yo u. Thos e two spots a re among the darkest of our w hole civilizatio n - pa rdon m e, our whol e culture (an imp ortant distinction, I've heard ) - whic h ma y sound like a hoax , or a contrad ict ion, but that (by contradictio n, I mean) is how the wor ld moves : No t like an arrow, but a boomerang. (Bewar e of those w ho spea k of the spi ral of histor y; th ey ar e preparing a boomerang. Keep a steel helmet hand y.) I k now ; I ha ve been boomeranged across my head so much that I now can see th e darknes s o f lightn ess. And I love light . Perhaps you'll think it strang e that an invisibl e man sh ould 1-1e ed light, desire light, love light. But maybe it is exac tly beca use I am inv isible . Light confirms my reality, gives birt h to my form . .. . Without light l am no t only invisible, but form less as well; and to be unaware of one's form is to live a death . I myself, after ex isting some tw enty years, did not become alive until I disco vered my invisibility. That is wh y I fight my battle with Monopolated Ligh t & Powe r [from which he siphons off the electricity needed to illuminate his " ho le" ]. The deepe r rea son, I mean: It a llow s me to feel my vita l aliveness. I a lso fight them fo r takin g so much of my mone y befor e I learned to prot ect myself. In my hole in the baseme nt the r e ar e exactl y I,369 lights. I'v e wired th e entire cei ling, every inch of it. And not with fluo rescent bulbs, but w ith th e o lder, more -exp ensive-to-ope r at e kind, the fila ment type. An act of sabotag e, you know. I've already begun to w ire the wall. A ju nk ma n T know, a man of vision, has suppl ied me with wir e and sockets. N othin g, storm o r flood, must get in th e way of our need for light and eve r more and bright er ligh t. The trut h is the light a nd light is the truth. When l finish all four walls, th en I'll sta rt on the floor. Just how that will go, T don 't know . Yet when you have lived inv isible as long as I ha ve yo u deve lop a certain ingenuity. I' ll solv e the problem. And ma ybe I'll invent a gadget to place my coffee po t on the fire w hile I lie in bed , and even invent a gadget to warm my bed - like the fellow I saw in o ne of thos e picture mag az ines who ma de
44
why photography
matters as art as never before
24
Jeff Wall, After " Tnvisible Man" by Ralph Ellison, the Prologue , 1999- 200 1. Transparency in lighcbox. 17 4 x 250 .5
cm
himself a gadget to warm his sho es! Thou gh in visible, I am in th e great American tra dition of tink ers. That make s me kin to Ford , Edison and Franklin. Call me, since I have a theo ry and a concept, a "t hinker-tinker. " Yes, I'll warm my shoes; they need it, they're usually full of hole s. I'll do that and more. [6- 7l
It is hard not to instantly assoc iate Ellison' s theme of electric light w ith Wall 's lightbox technology - Wall too ha s a theor y and a concept and might be called a " thinker-tinker" as well as an artist - but rath er tha n dwell on th e conn ection I wa nt to concentrate on th e work itself, w hich is both like and unlike Adrian Walker . What the two have in common is that each is " a picture of someone engaged in his occupation an d not pa ying any att ention to, or responding to the fact that he is being observe d by the spectator. " In Af ter "Invisibl e Man" the prota gonist, a burly black man of indet erminate age (in his thirtie s?) and wear ing bro wn trouser s w ith suspender s, a sleeveless undershirt, and in ba re feet sits leaning forward on a met al folding chair while he dries a metal p ot - note the wet spot s
Jeff wa ll and absorption;
he idegge r on wo rld hood and tech nology
45
on th e floor where pre sumably water has dripp ed from the p ot as he wal ked fro m th e sink to the chair. M o re th an in Adria n Walke r th e protagoni st is turned into the picture-space, with the result that his fac ial expression is mostly unreadable (jus t enough of his profile is seen for the viewer to im agine that he is deep in thought or reverie ), and h e is farth er away than Wall's draft sman - ten or fifteen feet rather than three or fo ur - wh ich grea tly incr eases the viewer's sense o f hi s separate ness an d alo neness. After "Invisible Man" is a lso larger th an Ad rian Walker - more th a n five feet high by mo re th an seven and a ha lf feet wide - and, m o re impo rtant, it depicts not a sparsely furni shed co rn er of a contemporary laborato ry but an expans ive if w ind ow less int erior cra mmed with misce llaneous objects all of which, to a greater or lesser degree, belo ng to a specific "his torica l" moment: aro und 19 50, ro ughly the time of t he w riting of Invisible Man . In terms of the implied narrativ e fram e of the image con sidered as a fiction , a ll th ose things are seen as havi ng been deliberat ely acquir ed by th e protagonist in order to furni sh his " hole" in a wa y tha t make s it a miniature reflection of the upper world from w hich, for th e tim e being, he has cho sen to retr ea t. But in term s of the impli ed narrati ve of th e pic tur e's productio n, the sam e item s are und erst oo d to ha ve been collect ed painstakingl y by th e artis t o r his agent s fo r th e purpo ses of constructing thi s wo rk. M y sense is that the viewe r cannot but think - and p ro bab ly is meant to th ink - of that acti vity of co llection as he o r she stand s before the pictur e. An ex hau stive inv entor y of th e contents of the roo m seem s beyond the view er's capac ity, but one can at least mention th e unco unt a ble array of ligbtbulb s, lit and unlit , that hang dow n from fixture s att ac hed to the cei ling (it is impossible to know wheth er there are in fact 1,369 of th ese, but it would not be sur pris ing if there were), an improvised mantel , vari o us ill-m atch ed pi eces of furniture , severa l brai ded rag rug s, miscellaneou s pieces of k itchen eq uipment (dishes, bowl s, pots, bottl es, mugs, cups ), a ceramic go lliwog (o n the mant el), a lucky rabbit 's foot (ha nging from the mantel), a lea th er bri efcase that figur es import antly in the novel, sever al po rta ble reco rd pla yers, items of clo thing and a few hangers (also a jur y-ri gged po le on w hich they hang), boots, sho e-trees, a tr as hcan and severa l oth er galvan ized iron can s, dis h cloths hun g up to dr y, a red -a nd-wh ite can of Co lgate toot h powder, a shav ing bru sh, a small American flag with forty-e ight sta rs, a numb er of small black- an d-whit e photographs (like the flag, affixed to th e card boa rd -covere d mak eshift wa ll), multi ple elect ric outlets, a few books a nd at least one reco rd , sca tt ered peanut shells (on th e low tabl e to the In visible Man's left) , and finall y, resti ng on the top of the back of a gree n padd ed chair , sections of w hat ap pear s to be a manuscript - pres um ably the manuscript o f inv isible Man. (Significantly, the Prol og ue says nothing abou t th e cont ent s of the " hole, " apa rt from the refer ence to the lightbulb s, the wi re and soc kets need ed to support them, and one "radio-phonogra ph." As Wall ex plains: "M y pict ure suggests th at, like Ellison, th e nar rator took if not seven years at leas t so me considerab le tim e to writ e his book , and tha t he has lived in th e cellar all that time. Th e room ha s been furnis hed a nd even clutter ed w ith his possess ions, some purc hased, some fo und, so me fabric ate d, a few saved fr om the tim e befo re he went undergroun d . The text does not go into int o great descriptiv e deta il ... " 12 ) Cons idere d so lely as rep resent atio n, th e domin ant impre ssion co n veyed by the p ictu re is at o nce of the In vis ible M a n's qui et absorption in his simp le tas k (also in tho ught or reverie) - his profil e may be largely los t to view but th e behold er is in no doub t of the
46
w hy photography matters as art as never before
import of his body language - and of the enve lopin g, all but stupefying profuseness of his immediate environment, to which he appears, for the time being, more or less obliv ious. A further impr ession , harder to make precise, is of th e connectedness of the two: as thou gh th e Invisible Man's absorptive state, hence unawareness of his surroundings, is an enabling condition if not of that profuseness itself at any rate of its appearance as such in the picture. Earlier I suggested that the link between absorption and realism is one of the unacknowl edged stap les or "opera tors" of Western painting since the midI 590s. Simply put, I believe that there exists a strong affinity or mutual attunement of: I) a thematics of absorption and hen ce of a depicted personage's seeming obliviousness to his or her surroundings; 2) the implied temporal protractedness of such a state; an d 3) the pictorial project of close and detailed description as well as, following on from that, 4) the spectato ria l project of close and detailed loo king. More precisely, the first two factors (absorption-plu s-temporal dilation ) larg ely enable the third and fourth (th e pictorial and spectatorial project s) by giving both artist and beholder the time and so to speak the psychic freedom needed for the successful enactment of th eir respective tasks. (A related factor is chiaroscuro, which enhances the effect of absorptive motifs even as it contribute s to the sculptural illusionism of the resulting pictur e. Caravaggio , again, is the decisiv e initi at ing figure. ) Some such affinity or attunement is, I feel, in force in After "Invisible Man", thou gh whether or not Wall consciously reco gnized the separate terms in the picture's synthe sis rema ins unclear. In an important sense, of course , exactly how and why Wall came to do what he did ha rdly matters; what doe s matter is how the picture works, which in this context means how to characterize its impact on the viewer. These are delicate issues conceptually, but as far as Wall's art is concerned, both the impr ession of a bsorption and the illusion of "reality," even in photograph s th at the reflective viewer recogn izes ca n only have been staged, turn out to be surpri singly ro bust. (No t that an awareness of stage dness play s no role at all in the viewer's ultimat e respo nse to the work - far from it. More on this as I proceed.) Another way of putting the above might be to say that Wall's picture goes far beyond Ellison 's prologue in seek ing to recrea te the world of the Invisible Man - this is how I unde rsta nd the eno rmous effort of co llectin g period item s and arran ging them so as to create a plausible environment for EIJison's (and Wall's) protagonist - and th at it turns out to ha ve been inherent in that endeavor that the Invisible Man him self should appear "not to be 'acting out' hi s wor ld, only 'being in' it, " to adapt Wall's words quoted earlier. As if on ly by virtu e of th e Invisible Man's seem ing obliviousness to his wo rld cou ld the latter have yielded itself up to depiction - I wo uld like to say : only thus could the world ha ve manife sted itself - as it do es here. (This is a stron ger vers ion of something alrea dy said in the previous paragraph.) The concepts of "wo rld" - and even more to the point, of "being in" the world- are centr al to one of the major philosophical texts of the tw entieth centur y, Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (1927),u an d my conte ntion is that up to a point (I will show where that point lies) After "Invisible Man" is a stro ngly "Heidegger ian" work. Nat ur ally I cannot begin to do justice to the German ph ilosopher's noto riously difficu lt ma sterwork in a few sentences, but I might begin by saying with Robert Pippin that central to Heidegger's atte mpt to construct a phenomenologi cal ont ology is his "emphasis on the ro le of unthematic , practical engageme nt as essen-
Jeff wall and absorpt ion; heidegger on worldhood
and t echno logy
47
tial, even prior , in any relatio n to a nd within th e wor ld." 14 That is, Heidegge r stands oppo sed to th e notion that primordiall y D ase in (ro ugh ly, human being 15) confronts a world of o bjects in an d of th emse lves (in w hat he ca lls the mode o f "pr esent -at-h an d"). Rath er, H eidegger imagin es Da se in as continually "abso rbed" (his wo rd; the German infiniti ve is aufgehen) in pract ical acti vity, which is to say as co ntinua lly putt ing things to use, in the mod e of "e quipm ent " or " rea din ess- to -han d," for part icular pu rposes. Onl y w hen th at relation ship is suspe nd ed, either because a piece of eq uipm ent breaks down or for so me ot her reason (in H eidegger's lan g uage, when the re is a "de-ficiency in o ur havin g-to-do w ith th e world concern fully " r88] ), 16 d oes D ase in ent er "t he sole remaining mod e of Being- in, the mode o f just tarrying alongside . ... T his kind of Being towards the wo rld is on e which lets us encounter entitie s w ithin -the-wor ld pure ly in the way they look, just th at; on the basis of thi s kind of Being , a nd as a mode of it, looking explici tly at wha t we encounter is possible" (88 ). 17 (Even the n , howeve r, such a relatio nship is not o ne between a subj ect and objec ts. He idegge r writes : "T his pr esence-athan d of so methin g that ca nnot be u sed is sti ll not devoid of a ll readiness- to- hand w hatsoeve r; equ ip ment wh ich is p rese nt- a t-h and in this way is still not just a Thi ng whic h occ ur s so mew here" [10 3]. 18 ) Ind eed his subse qu ent analysis of mod es of presenta t-h and co nt in uall y disc ove rs o ne o r an other "deficient" relation to mode s of concern, in spec ific resp ects that need not co ncern us here . 19 Moreover, the primordia lness of abso rption in practica l act ivity is cruc ial to understandin g what Hei degger ca lls " th e wo rldhood of th e world," whic h he unders tands as somet hin g like the to tality of "refer ences" o r "assignments" that determine the nature o f th e activity in question (105-7, r14-2 0 ; 69 - 71, 77 - 8 1). Thus for example we use a hammer in ord er to join board s toge th er; w e do th at in order to mak e a wa ll or a Aoo r; we do that in o rd er to co nstruct a hou se; we do that in order to find shelter from the elements; all this rakes place in th e contex t of becomin g part of a community of housedwellers; an d so on. In additi on, the very need for shelter discovers " the environing Natu re. " H eidegger continues: " In roads, str eets, brid ges, bu ilding s, our concern discov ers Nature as hav ing some definite dir ecti on " ( LOo),20wh ich is to say th at ultimately Na tu re itself is disclose d to D asei n by the latter's a bsorpti on in practical activity. Once aga 111 th e assignments them selves are not o bser ved; th ey are rather " there" when we concernfull y submit ourselves to t hem. But when an assignment has been disturbed whe n so meth ing is unu sab le for some purpo se [e.g., when a ha mm er breaksl - then th e assignment becomes expli cit . ... When an assignment to some partic ular " towar ds-thi s" has been thus circ um spec tly aroused, we catc h sight of th e "towa rd sthi s" itse lf, and along w ith it every thi ng connect ed with th e wo rk - th e whole "workshop" - as that wherein concern always dwe lls. The co ntext of equipm ent is lit up Ian exp ression to w hich I shall return l, not as somet hin g never seen before, but as a totality constant ly sighted befor ehand in circum spection. Wi th this totali ty, however , the worl d announc es itse lf. 105]2 1
r
More succ inctl y: "In anyt hin g read y-to-hand th e world is a lways ' th ere'" (114). 22
48
why photography
matters
as art as never before
Things that are ready-to-hand are also fundamentally dose, de-sev ered, located m "regions" and "plac es" keyed to structures of concern. The alternative is stark: When space is discov ered non -circumspectively by just looking at it, the environm ental region s get neutraliz ed to pur e dimensions. Places - and ind eed the w hol e circu mspectively or iented totality of places belonging to equipme nt ready-to-hand - get reduced to a multiplicity of positions for random Thin gs . Th e spatiality of what is ready-to-hand within-the -world loses its involv ement-character, and so does the readyto-hand. T he world loses its specific aroundness; the environm ent becomes the world of Nature. The "world," as a totality of equip ment ready-to-hand, becomes spa tia lized to a context of extended Things which are just present-at-hand and n o more. The hom ogeneous space of Nature show s itself only when the entities we encounter are discovered in such a way that the wo rld ly cha racter of the ready-to-ha n d gets specifica lly deprived of its worldhood . [14 7 J23 The claim I want to mak e about After "In visible Man" is that w hether or not its mak er had Being and Time in mind (1 consider it unlikely), Wall's picture is to say the least open to being understood as an attempt to picture the Invisible Man's immedi ate environment in someth ing like th e Heideggerian terms just adumbrated, that is, as distinctly ot her than or prior to "a context of ext ended Things which are jus t pres ent- athand and no more." The uncountable array of lightbulb s, lit and unlit, wh ich dominat es th e picture , is in relation to the novel a p erfect example of the structure Heidegg er calls "in-order-to" - as the prologue explains, in order not just to light the Invisible Man's secret domain (a Heideggerian "region" if ever there was one ) but also to commit "a n act of sabotage" aga inst the unseeing society outside his "ho le." More broadl y, virt ually all the objects in the picture, down to the snapshots an d th e American flag, ha ve been shaped or reshaped to human purpos es (to structur es of "concern") in wa ys that scarcely requir e further commentary. Seen in these terms, the Invisible Man's absorption - like Adrian Walker's befor e him - assumes particular significance. Ind eed there is a suggestive analogy, of which until coming to grips with this picture I was only partly aware, betw een H eidegger's anal ysis of Being-in-the-world, with its stra teg ic emp loyment of the concept o f absorption, and my own philosoph ically much less developed proposals concerning the affinit y betwe en absorption and realism in Western painting from Caravaggio on. As if realism, or absorptive rea lism, has from the first been Heidegg erian in its impli cit ontolog y, or as if Heidegger in Being and Time develops philosophically an insight tha t had belonged to Western painting - more precisely, to a major current within Western paintin g - for mo re than thr ee centuries . In any case, all this seems to me of interest for several reasons. In th e first place , it amo unts to one mor e demonstration of the philosophical - specifically, the ontological - depth of which painting is capable (1 am deliberately holdin g off mentioning photography - but wait). Th is is a genera l point but one wort h under scoring in view of the usual intellectual assumptions governing the history of art as an academic discipline. In the second place, the concep ts of world and wor ldhood will play an important albeit
Jeif wa ll and absorption;
he 1degger on worldhood
and technology
49
intermittent ro le in this book; it is beyon d my powers here to offer a full theorization of eith er in relat ion to the photography th at I sha ll be discussing (nor is it clear that such a theorization is precisely called for), but I ca n at least say that Heidegger's emp hasis on abso r bed prac tica l activ ity, hence oblivio usness to one's surround ings beyond the im mediate sphe re of such act ivity, as revelatory of wo rldh ood wi ll be relevant to much of what follows in th ese pages. 24 Mo re broadly (in the third place, as it were), considerations of absorpt ion such as those I have been rehea rsing direct atte ntio n not only to certain ontologica l dimensio ns of Wall's (and others') ph otograp hs bu t also to a zone of cont inuit y - of sha red concerns a nd resources - between painting and photograp hy (that was Wa ll's poi n t in his conversation with Schwander). Yet there is an important sense in whic h the Heidegger ian issues just summa rized a lso present a spec ial cha llenge to photog rap hy. For what is ph otography, wh at has it been (and been celebrated for being) since 1839 whe n Daguerre's inventi o n was ma de availab le to all part ies, if not a techn ology for automatically depicting "the 'world' ... as a cont ext of extended Things wh ich are ju st present -at-han d an d no more"? It is as if photography in its inmost nature h as from the first been a profoundly anti- or at least un- Heidegge rian medi um or enterprise (refe rring to the He idegger of Being and Time), muc h more so than painting in oi ls, wh ich virtually fro m the start has had th e capabi lity of the matizing the fact that a fin ished picture is inevitably th e produc t, and in cer tain respects the record, of tbe pa inter 's sustained absor pti o n over time in the act of painting . (Some painters have been particu lar.ly brilliant at suggesti ng th is.) In contrast, photography, not being in that sense a work of the ha nd, finds it vas tly more difficult, n ot to say imp oss ible, to produce images th at " read" unequivocally in those terms. Yet precisely because that is the case, the stage has been set (so to speak) for certa in photographers, Wall preeminen tly, to work aga inst the gra in of photographic spatia lization and world-deprivation - of its address to a subject who " looks exp licitly" at th e photograph and all it depicts - in the He idegger ian direction I have been tr ying to evoke. The result will inevitab ly be a comprom ise; th ere ca n be n o sheer ly H eideggerian photograph, o ne that makes "direct ly" accessible to the viewer a par ticula r Dasein's practical absorpt ion in the wor ld . Indeed it is a bove all the viewe r 's aware ness of the fact that Wall's Invisible Man is posing for th e camera and tha t his surro un dings have been laboriously co nstruc ted by the photographer - in other words, that the picture as a who le has been deliberately and elaborately staged - that on the one hand reduces to a minimum any tendency on the par t of the viewer to "i dentify" with th e pro tagonist and on the other actively promotes the kind of imagin at ive engage ment with an d philosophical reflection on the larger import of the picture that I have been pursuing here. In ot her wo rd s, After "invisible Man" is no t an image of the protago nist's mind, his fantasy wo rld , his private vision of rea lity; it is a picture of a sha red world, inflecte d individua lly. But it took all th e photographer's artis tr y to make such a rea ding availab le to the viewer. And a crucia l aspect of that art istry involved an ack nowle dgment of to-be-seenness, w hich emerges in this co ntext as a necessary con diti on for th e successful depiction of world-mea nin gfu lness in contemporary photography.
50
why photography
matters as art as never before
25
Jeff Wall, Untangling, 1994. Transparency in lightbox. 189 x 250.5 cm
What there is not, obviously, in After "Invisible Man" is any attempt to evoke the sort of breakdown in equipment that, in Heidegger's metaphor, "lights up" for Dasein the totality of assignments "constantly sighted beforehand in circumspection," and along with that totality the worldhood of the world. 25 (Here it is worth noting the parallel between th is figure of speech, which Heidegger uses repeatedly, and Wall's lightbox technology.) But an otherwise enigmatic photograph of the mid -199os, Untangling (1994; Fig. 2 5 ), invites being seen in those terms. The action takes place in a tool -rental shop with a cement floor and wooden ceiling; pairs of fluorescent bu lbs on the latter illuminate the scene. In th e shelves at the left are lawnmower-type engines and engine blocks, perhaps awaiting reconditioning; elsewhere one finds paint sprayers, compressors, wheelbarrows, little cement mixers, _small backhoes, drills, and so on. 26 Toward the right and perhaps twenty feet away a standing workman in a blue bas eball ca p seems to be looking for something on an upper shelf; and in the left foreground, much nearer the viewer, another workman with a moustache, light brown hair, and blue overgarment
Jeff wall and absorpt ion; he idegge r on world hood and tech nology
51
26 Jeff Wall, Rainfilled Suitcase, 20or. Tra nsparency in lightbox. 64 .5 x 80 cm
27 Jeff Wall, Peas and Sauce, 1999 . Transparency in light box . 49 x 6r cm
grasps in his gloved ha nd s two lengths of thick blu e-paint ed rope whic h quickly lead to a seemingly intractable tangle of heavy, tub e-like cab les and ropes of other co lors. The title of th e wo rk suggests th at he has em barked or is about to em bar k on the job of untangling all those ropes; I put matters this way because it is not clear whether the process of untan gling has actu ally begun: th e wor kman - no doubt pos ed by Wa ll looks dow n on the m ass of ropes befor e him w ith a frown ing, absorbed-seeming expression, but the viewer instinctively senses that the task itself hove rs on the brink of imposs ibi lity, in which case th e workman will soo n be encou n terin g the tangled ropes "pure ly in th e way they look, " if he is n ot already d oing so . (No ne of this quite depends on th e evoca tion of the wo rkm an's stat e of mind; on th e contrary, it is hard not to feel that the picture wou ld be stro nger if both men we re absent.) Also to the point are three sm aller works roug hl y cont emporary with After "Invisible Man" and in fact exhibited along with it on at least one occasion : Rain-filled Suitcase (2001; Fig. 26), a downward view of an aba ndoned su itcase (at first glance it seems mor e like a dresser dr awe r) partly filled with ra inwater a nd sur round ed by scraps of paper, discarded paper cup s, and other bit s of ur ba n detritu s (the impression is of stuff aba ndoned in an alley); Peas and Sauce (1999; Fig. 27), a sm all, mos tly empty tinfoil conta iner of peas, partly bent out of shape, that seems to have been cast down on the same a lley floo r; and Diagonal Composition No. 3 (2000; Fig. 28), on e of thr ee pictures with th e same basic title , wh ich comprises a view from above of an interior floo r cove red with cracked a nd dirty lino leum, a met a l pa il on four ro llers co nt ainin g rusty slop water, and, on the floor beside it, the filthy head of a many-st randed mop. In Ro lf Laut er's wo rds:
52
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
28
Jeff Wall, Diagonal Composition No. 3,
2000.
29 Jeff Wall, Diagona l Composition, 1993 . Transparency in lightbox . 40 x 46 cm
Tran sparency m lightbox. 74 .5 x 94 cm
30 J eff Wall, Diagonal Composition N o. pare ncy in lightbox. 5 2 . 5 x 64 cm
. ,,
2,
199 8. Trans-
The collection of objects leaves no doubt as to the content of the picture. We are looking from above at a still life of cleaning implements such as can be found anywhere in the United States. However, their appearance and condition is [sic] io conflict with the function of the objects. The dirty, dri ed mop and slop bucket with th e water standing in it seem not to have been used for a long rime. The place, possibly a cellar or clea ning room in an office building, has not been cleaned in some time, and perhaps not even entere d. The room is abandoned, th e objects forgorten. 27 Lauter may go coo far in his spec ulation that th e room has not been enrered (what can that mean in the light of the picture itself?) but his claim that there is an apparent conflict between the present condition of the mop and pail and their normal functioning is suggestive, and although he does not quite say so, the viewer's sense of such a conJlict is made more intense by the sharply downward view of those objects and, especia lly, by their eccentric, Rodchenkoe sq ue framing (one is shown a surprising extent of floor relative to the mop and pail). An earl ier work, Wall's first Diagonal Composition (1993; F ig. 29), a downward, close-range view of pare of a seemingly dry and dirty sink on the ledge of which there rests a cracked and dirty (also dry) piece of soa p, appears in retrospect to set the terms for the later pictures of malfunction with respect both to the choice of subject matter (in the Diagonal Compositions at any rate} and to the adoption of a point of view that ca lls attention to th e photographer's activity, thereby con firming a cer tain phenom eno logical (and ontological?) distance from th e ordinary use of the objects depicted (as Lauter recognizes 28). Oddness, verg ing on perversity, of point of view is even more palpable in Diagonal Composition No. 2 (1998; Fig. 30), a picture that seems designe d to frustrate the viewer's impulse to see more than a bare minimum of the obj ects it depicts (a sink , a rag and stick on the £Joor to the low er right, a patched greenish wall, the wooden floor itself). Yet just for chat reason, the weight of the image falls all the more strongly on the "look" of the total ensemble. Then there are three other pictures, A Sapling Held by a Post (1999; Fig . 31), Clipped Branches, East Cordova St., Vancouver (I999; Fig. 32), and Cuttings (200 .L), that may perhaps be read in a com plementary spirit as figures of "care," Sorge, the phenomenon in terms of which "the Being of Da sein in general is to be defined" (157) .29 (Related terms are "concern," Besorgen, and "so licitud e," Fursorge;30 it is not usefu l to try to distinguish more sharply among these in the present con text.) Of A Sapling Lauter writes: "The supported sapling becomes a symbo l of the socia l necessity to support chjldr en, young people and the weak in some form or other. Without help they cannot dev elop, strengthen, and look after their own natural or socia l balance" (3 5 ). As a readin g I find this a bit too "symbolic," but the basic idea is doubtless correct, and I understand the pictures of cuttings in much the same light, with the clipped branches as the residue of equ ipm ent -using, care-givin g activity. For Lauter, however, the second work ar least has a critical dimension, depicting the integration of chose nat ural elements within an "urba n space that only serves as a place for dogs to urinate or as a receptacle for people co deposit the small, invisibl e Litter of prosperity, such as casually discarded medicine packaging, cigarette stubs or other urban consumer remnants" (35). This is the so rt of sociological reading chat Wall's art is routinely subjected to, but for
54
why photography matters as ar1 as neve r befo re
31 Jeff Wall, A Sapling Held by a Post, 1999. Transparency in lightbox. 56 x 47 cm
3 2 Jeff Wall, Clipped Branches, East Cordova St., Vancouver, 1999. Transparency in lightbox. 72 x 89 cm
me the overall feeling of Cuttings is not at all critical in this sense. (By the same token, my reading of those works in terms of "c are" risks imparting its own apolitical pathos to Heidegger's ontological notion. 3 1) A recent and, to my mind, altogether compelling wor k that stands in a more comp lex relation to Heideggerian matters is Staining Bench, Furniture Manufacturer 's, Vancouver (2003; Fig. 33), where the inference of repeat ed use of equipment over a period of time is inescapable. Thus the neatly arrang ed cans of stain, the brushes and thin painter's gloves resting on the lid of the nearest can, and the wooden stirrer leaning against that can, although not shown in actual use, are, I think, not presented as marked by a "deficiency in our hav ing-to-do with the world concernfully." Rather, they are depicted in a way that thematizes both the purposes to which they have been put and the work-world - the "reg ion " - within which they have been employed. (And will be again, no doubt: one senses that the very meticulousness with which the cans have been resealed and arrange d belongs to a certain routine of work.) The image itself, at two-and-a -half feet by just over three feet, is not large . Yet it is so remarkably replete, so richly tactile, so densely layered with material traces of practical activity (the gloves, once noticed, seem almost like shed skin, while the table cover impregnated with stain appears sticky to the touch) that it might be said at once to confirm and to escape H eidegger's categories, as if the photograph represents equipment, thing s in the mode of readiness-to-hand - only not for us viewers . Or perhaps one might say that Staining Bench discovers a strictly photographic eq uiva lent of "readiness-to-hand" that in the end chiefly brings into focus
jeff wa ll and abs orp tio n; he idegg er on wo rldhood and tech nology
55
3 3 Jeff Wall, Staining Bench, Furnitur e Manufactur er's, Vancouver, box. 77 .5 x 96 cm
20 03.
Transparency in light-
the Heidegge rian theme in relati on to the photo grap her' s use o f the cans of stain and associated item s to make h is picture.
There is one even more rcccnr work by Wall, A View from an Apartment (200 4-5; Fig. 34), th at I wan t to approach in th e light of Heidegger's wri tings. The settin g, as in many of his works, is Wa ll's na tive Va nco uver, a city bu ilt aro und a magnificent natural h arbor. For years Wall had wan ted to make a picture based on a view of th e harbor thr oug h a window, and finally he decided co do so . Th is is whar doin g so entailed. First, he searc hed extensively for an apartment that wo uld hav e the kind of view he wan ted; this rook a long time (Wa ll spend s many hours dr iving a roun d Vancouve r looking for settings an d subjects) but eventually he found what he was after and rented th e apa rtment for an indefinite period. Second, he held casting tryouts to discover a young woman wh o would suit the sort of pictu re he had in mind. His cho ice wa s the mod el for the walking figure to the left, a former art student in her ear ly twe ntie s. Wall discu ssed the
56
why photography
matters as art as never before
project witb her at length, exp laining that to all intents and purposes she wou ld be his coUaborator rather than simpl y the subj ect of a photo. Toward that end he gave her money to furnish and decorate th e apartment accor din g to her tastes (and according to the financial level they agreed a yo ung woman like herself would be living at). Over a period of weeks and months she did that . In add ition, Wall encouraged her to spend as much time as possible in th e apartment, so that it wou ld come to feel famil iar to her. She did that also. Further conversati on led to the decision that she vvould not be alone in tbe photograph but would have a friend for company; the frien d, chos en by the youn g woman, was also encouraged to spend time in tbe apartment, wh ich she did. It was then necessary to determine wh at the two wo men woul d be doing in the pic ture; Wall told me that the on e thing he knew he wanted was for one of the women to be engaged in iron ing napk ins or some similar activ ity. (ln his 200 5 catalogu e raisonne Wall comments on his interest in the theme of cleaning , washing, and housewor k - a ll everyday act ivities involved in rhe maintenance, the keepin g up , of our common world -in "care , " I am tempt ed ro say.32 ) Eventually a basic scenario was decided on and the shooting began; ir lasted about rwo weeks, as Wa ll ha d the wom en rep eat these and other actions again and again in an attempt to ach ieve an effect of naturalness. It also became clear to Wall that the ideal hour for the picture was dusk, when street lamps and oth er lights came on outside . This meant that photographically speaking there was an obviou s mism atch between the interi or illumination of the apartmen t (itself the resu lt of lights not depict ed in the photograph) and the crepuscular scene through the win do w, a mismatch that Wall hand led by shoot ing the two separately and then re concil ing th em with the aid of a com puter (this would have been require d even if the hour chos en had been earlier in the day}. In fact the picture as it now stands is the product of nw11erous shots chat hav e been seamlessly blended to gether digitally. The entire project from start to finish - fro m rent ing the apar tment to th e fina l image - rook more than two years. A View is not very large in comp,H·ison with ocher mu lti-figure works by Wa U:,roughly five and a half feet high by eight feet wide. It is also somewha t different in feeling from bot h Adrian Wallur and After "Invisible Man" in that one is given a more or less fronta l view of the principa l young woman as she turns from her ironing- o.r perhaps from the table beyond? - and begins to cross the room in her stockinged feet . Mor ever, she is caught in motion, which is not true of eith er of the ocher works (or of absorp tive paint ing general ly ). Howev er, like Adrian Walker's and the Invisible Man's action s only more so, hers is not unambiguously readable in narrative terms . She ho lds a cloth napkin in both hands, her head is tilted slightly downward, and her abstracted gaze is directed downward and to her right (toward the laundry in the basket? }- but what exac tly is she doing with the napkin and wh ere is she going? Here too I emphatically do not regard this lack of tota l clari ty as an artistic flaw; on the contrary, the ambiguity- or resistance to reading - seems on the side of reality, so to speak: it is as if Wall welcome d a moment in the act ion chat on the on e ha11d was perspic uous as regards its ove.rall significance but on the other refused total comprehensibility, as mom ents in reality often do . As for the picture as a whole , I ha ve no idea whether Wall had Eugene Delacroix's Algerian Women (r 834; Fig. 35} in mind as an implicit term of refe rence , bur the wa lking
jeff wa ll and absor pt ion; heidegge r on world hood and t echno logy
57
34 Jeff Wall, A View from an Apartment, 2004-5 . Transparency in lightbox. r67 x 244 cm
woman's dancelike grac e, a ll the more moving for the "uncool" look of her short grey socks, recall s it to me, as does th e gener al sense of a femininized int er ior, as different from one anoth er as th e two interior s an d their occupa nts are - and of co urse it is impossib le to forger that Wall began his mature photographic career with The Destroyed R oom (1978), an inspired free variatio n o n Delacroix's Death o( Sa,·danapalus. (Anot her pos sibl e reference, keyed to the notion of an int ernally framed view, is Gustav e Ca illebotte's Young Man at a Window [1875 l.) By now it is hardly necessa ry to remark that neither woman appears aware of the presence of the photographer . M ore accurately, the wom an sea ted o n the couch - who has been drinking tea a nd eatin g a snack- appears ab sor bed in her magazine (unprobl ematica lly, so to sp eak), w hile the wal kin g woman, although facing the camera, does so with averted gaze. Yet, precisely because the rationale for th e wa lkin g woman's moveme nt s rema ins obscure, th e possibility can not be rul ed out that she is delib era tely avoiding m akin g eye -cont ac t with th e camera. In any case, t here is no question of the women having been photographed withou t the ir knowl -
58
why photography
matters as art as never before
3 5 Eugene Delacroix, Algerian Women, 1834 . Oil on canvas. r8o x 229 cm . Musee du Louvre, Paris
edge, besides which the composi tion as a whole conveys an unmistakable sense of deliberate constructio n th at belongs to what I have called to-be -seenness and have associated with the pres ent impossibility of any unproblematic or "naive" return to the absorptive strategies of the pre -modernist trad ition - or rath er, to the impossibility of any such return count ing ar tistically in the present situa tion. (Interest ingly, Delacroix's Algerian Women sta nds apart from that tradition, as does his oeuvre generally.) Tben there are what for want of a better term may be called the self-referential aspe~ts of Wall's photograph, in the first place because the view throug h the window inescapably presents itself as analogous to the lightbox image itself (Fig. 36) . In part this has to do with the similar physical proportions of the two "p ictures." Plus there is the fact of dusk, wh ich calls attention both to the lighting of the int erior scene and of the pr esence of artificia l illumin ation in places in the exterior scene as well . Finally and cruciall y, there is an obvious {but not, I th ink, too obvious) thematization of the modern global ized technology on which the lightbox image relies for its existence, from the television set in the left foreground (an image-making device, needless to say) to the cellphone rest ing on some magazines on the low table to the left of the seated woman, and reach ing a climax, so ro speak, in the exterior scene: traversed by power lines, with a ship docked in the harbor bearing on its side the name "Han jin " (a Korean shipp ing company) in large white letters, spidery orange cranes beyond it, and the spectra l mod ern Vancouver skyline in the far distance, the whole offering a condensed image of global izat ion that the viewer registers as at once contrasting w ith an d as subtending- one might even say supporting - the domestic inter ior.33 That neither of the two you ng women tak es in the view from the w indow mak es the juxtaposition of interior and exte rior spaces only more compelling, as do the hovering reflections of light sources, the originals of wh ich are evidently located inside the apartment, in the double-glazed
je ff wall and abs_orpt1on;heidegger on wor ldhood and techno logy
59
36
Jeff Wall, A View from
a11Apartme11t, detail
window itself - the window glass standing in for the Cibachrome transparency, or say for its " inv isibl e" surface. (R eflections are a conspicuous motif throughout the picture, involving not only t he window but also the tel evision screen an d th e polished wooden floor.) Nor surpr isingly, in view of thi s chapter's engagement with Heideg ger, the treatment of the t heme of techno logy in A View from an Apartment recalls for me the philosopher's power ful albeit prob lema tic essay, "T he Qu estion Concerning Technology," first given as a lecture in 1955. 34 (Two other essays, "Th e Age of the World Picture" [1938] and "The Turnin g" l19 501, are pertin ent as we ll.35 ) For the lacer H eidegge r, whose thought undergo es a shift away from fundament a l on tolo gy- "the ana lysis of Dasein's understanding of being and t he world it opens up" - coward a more cultural -hisrorical project- conceiving of "world disclosing as D asein's receiving of a succession of clearings" 36- technolo gy under stood as En-framing, Ge-stell, and the related notion of {technologized) natur e, more simply the rea l, as "standing reserve," are dete rminin g of modern scientific cult Uie. In Heidegger's words, technology is a challenge "wh ich puts
60
why photography matters as art as never before
to na tu re th e unreasonable demand that it suppl y energy that can be extracted and stored as suc h " (" Qu estion,'' p. 14). Whatever else Wall 's pictur e is "a bout,'' it surely depicts th e every day use of stored ene rg y, as well as, thr oug h the w indow, so met hing of th e opera tions that ma ke th at possible. By "Enframing" Heidegger means to sugges t that such a stance toward nature involves a kind of distanc ing, or as he puts it in ''T he Age of th e World Pictur e" an "objec tifying of whatever is, [tha t] is accomplished in a sett ing before, a represent ing, tha t aims at br inging eac h particular being before it in suc h a way tha t man who calculates can be sure, and that means be certain, of that being" ("P ictLLre," p . 1 27) . More succinctly, "the worl d is transformed into picture and man into subjectum" ("Question," p. 133), the being for whom the En-frame d p ictu re has been set up . H eidegger is deeply troubled by this state of affai rs, above all beca use in his accoun t Enframing blocks access to "a more original revealing and hence to experienc[ing] the call of a more prim a l truth" ("Q uestion," p . 28) . H oweve r, perhaps surpri singly, th ere is hope, for the "rule of Enframing canno t exha ust itse lf solely in blocking all 1ightingup of every revealing, a ll ap peari ng of truth. Rather, precisely the essenc e of technology must harbor in itseLfth e grow th of the sav ing power. But in that case, might no t an ade quate look into wha t Enfra niing is as a destining of revea ling bri ng into appearance the saving power in its aris ing?" (ibid. )37 This is said in the cours e of glossing two lines by Holderlin: "But where danger is, grows/The saving pow er also" (a sta tement with a somew hat equivocal resonance in the light of n-ventieth-century Germ a n history) . Fmther on Hei degger w rite s: The coming to presence of technolo gy threatens revealing, thr eatens it wi th the pos sibility tha t a ll revea ling will be consumed in orde ring and that everything will pr esent itself only in the unconcealedness of standing-reserve . Human activity can never directly counter this dange r. Hum an ach ievement alone can never ban ish it. But human .reflection can ponder the fact that all saving power mus t be of a higher essence th an what is endangere d, though at the same rime kindred to it. But might th ere not perhaps be a more primally grante d revealing that cou ld bring the saving power into its first shining for th in the midst of the danger, a revealing that in the technological age rather conceals than shows itself? l"Q uest ion," pp. 33- 4J This "mor e pr imall y gra nted rev ealing" was the accomplishment of the arts in anc ient Greece, w hich also bore the name techne and whic h "bro ught the presence [GegenwartJ of the gods, brought th e dialogu e of divin e and human destinings, to radiance" (34). (At th e risk of simp lifying his thou ght, the lat er Heidegger grants abso lut e p rior ity ro "the pre -Socratic interpretat ion of all reality as presencing ." 38 ) This in turn leads to the concluding qu estion : "Cou ld it be that t he fine arts [i.e. the ar ts in our time] are called to poetic revea ling? Co uld it be that revea ling lays claim to the a rts most primally, so that they for their part may expressly foster the growth of the saving power, may awaken and foun d anew our look into that whic h grants our trust in it ? Whether art may be granted t his high est possib ility of its essence in the mid st of th e extr eme dang er, no one can tell" ("Question,'' p . 35) .
jetf wall and absorpti on: he1degger on worldhood
and te chno logy
61
Naturally, I do not mean to claim that Wall's A View from an Apartment fulfills Heidegger's hopes, roughly seventy years after the writing of the words I have just cited ("The Age of the World Picture" was first given as a lecture in x938} . In the first place, there is no reason to think that Heidegger' s later texts , any more than Being and Time, have been important to Wall. Furthermo re, apart from other considerations, A View is uncomestably a picture (with another picture "ins ide" it), which presumab ly would invalidate it as a work of poetic revea ling in Heidegge r's understanding of the concept. Or perhaps not: think of the significance attributed to Van Gogh's unspecified painting 19 of peasant shoes in "The Origin of the Work of Art," written just a few years before. Fina lly, it is certain that Heidegg er would have found in the act ions of the two women, not to mention the appearance of the apartment itself, an image of routinized banality - what might be called a "bad" everyday - rather than of a largely pos itive mode of domestic intimacy - a "good" everyday -which is what I have no doubt the artist intended. 40 (More on the topic of the everyday in the next chapter.} Indeed what Wall's picture may be taken to reveal is precisely the at-homeness of the two young women in the present technological world, or say the way in w hich technology in its current globalized incarnation provides the framing structure for a mode of being-in-the -world, of everydayness, toward which, at least seen from "o utside," the artist feels positively drawn. Not that A View is devoid of any critical dimension: it cannot be taken as endorsing every aspect of the lifestyle it depicts - the ubiquitousness of television, for example, or the ro le of Vancouver in the new global economy. Yet whatever implicit cr i6cism may be at work goes unstressed and in any case A View, like all Wall's Ligbtbox pictmes like all his photographs, lightbo x or other wise - is technological to its core . So A View is anything but Heideggerian in its deepest content (no imp lied harking back to the preSocratics, fostering of a "saving power," or invocations of "extreme danger") even if, as I believe, "The Question Concerning Technology" and related texts prov ide a uniquely product ive basis for engaging with Wall's long -plotted, artfully constructed , yet also mysterious and lyrical tableau. 41
62
why photogr aphy m atte rs as art as neve r be fo re
jeff wa ll , wittgenstein,
and the everyday
3
Wall's involvement with absorption and with what, following Heidegger, I have been calling the worldhood of th e world is closely related to his longstand ing interest in the ordinary, the commonplace, or, his preferred term, the everyday, a topic that comes up frequently in his many interviews. ' For Wall, the importance of the everyday for modern art goes back at least to Baudelaire and the idea of the painting of modern (jfe, another theme that Wall has spoken of in interviews, though .mainly in earlier ones. lt is not my purpose in th is chapter any more than in the previous to survey Wall's development since r 9 78, the date of The Destroyed Room, his first lightbox picture, but I think it is fair to say that he has moved from works whose fictional or staged or otherwise construct ed aspects are in different ways positively announced (such as Picture for Women [r979], Double Self-Portrait [1979], Stereo [1980], Woman and Her Doctor [1980-81), Doorpusher [1984], Bad Goods [1984), The Thinker [1986], Outburst [1989], and The Drain [1989)), through a phase of far more spectacular or indeed " theatrical" produc tions (notably The Vampires' Picnic [1991] , The Stumbling Block [1991], The Giant [1992], Dead Troops Talk (A Vision After an Ambush of a Red Army Patrol near Moqo1~ Afghanistan, Winter r986) [1992), and A Sudden Gust of Wind (after Hokusai) [1993]), toward a quieter, mor e "realist ic," above all more ordinary-seeming though nevertheless carefully construct ed kind of picture that Wall has characterized as "neo -realist " (Adrian Walker, After "Invisible Man," and A View from an Apartment are three such works) . In his 2005 catalogue raisonne Wall divides his oeuvre into "cinemacographic" and "documentary" pictures, depending on wheth er or not the image was prepared by him in any way/- significantly, all the works just cited fall into the first category . Of course, the term "neo-realism" is a cinematic one, as Wall exp lains in a 2003 interview with Jan Estep: "I use the term 'neo-realism' in the sense the Italian filmmakers of the I94os and after used it. It refers to using non-professional performers in roles very close to their own lives, photographing events as if you were doing reportage, and recognizing good subjects in the everyday." 3 (1 should add that my thr ee-part chronolog ical and them atic division is at best approximate. The internal structure of Wall's oeuvre is much more complex than it suggests, and throughout his career there are significant works, such as The Storyteller [r986], Restoration [1993], A Hunting Scene [1994], and A Man with a Rifle [2000), that resist being neatly p laced.) Another way of putting all this would be to say that in recent years Wall has become increasingly interested in making works that evoke the appearance of documentary or "straight" photography (hereafter I shall drop the quotation marks), the criteria of which, he explained co Jan Tum lir in 2001, "have always had a lot to do with all my
j eff wa ll, wittgenstei n, and the everyday
63
wo rk, even if I've argued aga inst th e esthetic principle s of stra ight photo gra phy." 4 At th e sam e time, Wall ha s tended to distance him self from the o vertly politi ca l conce rns th at ar e front an d cent er in works like Mimic (1981), Bad Goods (198 4 ), and Eviction Struggle (1988) an d th at were an important attr actio n for social historian s of arc early in his caree r. Not that Wall 's recent wo rk has lost all concern for th e marginal, neglected, and overlooked in co nt emporary life - far from it - but he ha s tended to ex press tha t co ncern a rtist ica lly in a more understated mann er than pr eviou sly, just as in interviews he ha s more and more emp ha sized the primac y for him of notion s of beaut y, pleas ure, and quali ty (citing not just Kant but Greenberg in support o f his views) ,5 while also insisting on the co ngruence between th ose notions and an art of th e everyday. "You can make bea utifu l p ictur es o ut o f common thing s," Wa ll remarks to Ro bert Enright in 2000 . "Ba udelair e was right when he said that th e most fascinatin g element is th e commonp lace. " 6 And to Tum lir: "T he everyday, o r the commonp lace, is the mo st basic and riches t artist ic category . Altho ugh it seems famil iar, it is always surp rising and new. But at th e same time, there is an openness th at permit s people to reco gn ize what is there in t he pi ctu re, because they have already seen som ething like it somew her e. So th e everyday is a space in w hich meanings acc umul ate, but it's th e pictorial realization that ca rries the mea nin gs int o the realm of the pleasurable" (114) . 7 H eid egger, too, cru cially deplo ys a notion of th e everyday in Being and Time, where it is associated w ith th e notio n of Das Man, a term often trans lated as "the they" but w hich Hub er t Dr eyfus conv incing ly argues shou ld be rendered as "the o ne," the struct ure of norms and und ersta ndings in which Dasein is soc ialize d and wh ich in effect ultimately determines all "refe rences" an d "ass ignmen ts," thereby subj ectin g Dasein to its "ave rage ness" (another key concept) .8 "Dasein' s every da y possi bilities of Being are for the Oth ers to di spose of as they please," H eidegger wr ites. 9 Also : T he Self of everyday Da sein is the one's-self which we distingui sh from the authenti c Self- that is from the Self which has been taken ho ld of in its ow n way . As a one'sself, the part icu lar Dase in has been dispersed int o the "o ne," and must first find itself. Thi s dispe rsal characterizes th e "s ubj ect" of that kind of Being whi ch we kno w as co ncernf ul a bsorption in th e wor ld we enco unt er as closes t to us. If Dasein is familiar wi th itself as a one's-se lf, this mea ns at the sa me time that th e "one " itself prescr ibes th at way of interpr eting the world and Being-in-the -wo rld which lies closest. l167 ] 10
In ot her wor ds, the stru ctur es of rea din ess-to-hand and equipm ent th at Heide gger has been analyzing are over looke d, o r as he puts it, "t he ph eno m enon of the world itself gets passe d over in this abso rption in the worl d ," an d what takes its p lace, as in the co mmon und ersta nding, is "w hat is pre sent-a t-hand within -t he-wo rld , nam ely, Things" (168). 11 Or again, the "very state of Being" that has been H eidegger's foc us, "in its everyday kind of Being, is what proximally misses itself and covers itself up" (168). 12 All this is well known but two po int s may be stresse d. First, for Heidegg er the everyda y, along w ith abso rpt ion, are in a certain sense "negat ive" concepts. Granted, Heidegge r exp licitly sta res that th e " fall ing " of Da sein wh ich " belongs" to everydayness "does not expr ess a ny nega tive eva luation" b ut he also writ es:
64
why ph otograp hy matt ers as art as nev er befo re
This "absorption in . . . " has mos tly th e character of Being-lo st in the publicness of th e "one." Das ein has, in the first instance, fallen away from itself as an authentic potent iality for Being its Self, and has fallen into the "wo rld." "Fallenness" into the "wor ld" means an absorption in Being-w ith-one-a nother, in so far as the latter is guided by id le talk, cmiosity, and ambiguity. Through t he Interpretation of falling , what w e have ca lled the "inauthent icity" of Dasein may now be defined more pre cisely ... [220] 13 More to the point, Dreyfus observes, Heidegger at times confusingly conflates ontologica l "fall ing" wit h psyc hological fleeing from anxie ty, which has the consequence of suggesting that Dase in's absorption in the world "is the result of fleeing its unsett ledn ess" (225-37, 229 ). As Dreyfus also says, this "would mak e Das ein essentially inauth ent ic" (229) - a "negative" consequence if eve r there wa s one. However, He idegger goes on to claim that there is an alternative to the above, which he calls "resoluteness," and which involves an or ientation toward death that acknowledges, rather t han flees or overlooks, Dase in's fundamental nullity . "[ l]t is only in the anticipation of death that reso lut eness, as Dasein 's authentic trut h, has reached the authentic certainty wh ich belongs to it" (3 50) , he writes. 14 The imp lica t ion is that both absorp tion and everydayness are ther eby transfo rmed, even as their content remains unchanged. 15 (Another implica tion is that answer ing the "ca ll" to "r esolu teness " is an exceptiona l event .) The question that now arises is what bearing if any t hese considerations have on Wall's involvement in the everyday as an artistic category . On this topic 1 want to say three things: first, it may seem as if rhere is 110 shortage of p icrures by Wa ll in which som ething lik e a "negative" understand ing of th e everyday appears to be in play - Untangling is a case in point , as is Night (20ox), t o be d iscussed later in th is chapter - but one has only to call r.o m in d Adrian Walker, After "Invisible Man," and A View from an Apartment to recognize how d ifficult if not imposs ible it is to locat e them firmly in rela tion to th is aspect of Heidegger's thought. This in turn leads one to suspec t t hat t he ''nega t ive " valence that one might wish ro apply to certain of Wall's pictures is more soc iological than onto logica l. Second, there is 110 meaningful way of connecting th e idea of the "posit ive" transformation o f the everyday in and through "resoluteness" and "authenticity" to Wall's art. Third, perhaps most important of all, Dasein's absorp tion in the "bad" everyday (my epithe t , not Heidegger's) is imagined by Heidegger as total and unreflective . (" Reso lureness" does not come about t hrough any sort of choice or ind eed action on D ase in's part. As Dreyfus writes, " Phenome nologically one can think of th e transformation from inauthentic to authentic exis tence as a ges talt swicch," 16 which is to say that until that switch occurs - if in a part icu lar case it ever does - inauthentic existence and the "bad" everyday preva il abso lutely.) Th is too does not ho ld for the three p ictures just mentioned, in which the personages not only have been posed by the artist bur also, as seen earlier, invite recognition by the viewer as having been so pose d ; the pictmes thus comprise images of absorption that imply the dep icted subjects' awareness of their respective situations, situations chat inevi tably includ e an a,vareness - however atten uated by repeti tion - of performing absorp tion. (Put slightly differentl y, the depic ted subjects are recogn ized by tbe viewe r to be split or divided, at once them -
Jeff wall. w itt gens tem , and the everyday
65
selves and the "roles" they are performing .) This is not precisely Robert Pippin's point when he writes apropos of Being and Time : "Some richer dialectical notion of not simply being immersed in the wo rld of concern, but also, in some sort of co-original way, always taking onself to be immersed in a concrete way, self-conscious ly situat ing oneself, as well as merely 't hrown' [into death ], might have made possib le a richer and less critically suspect account of existence. " 17 Yet th ere is at least a partial analogy between Wall's photographs and the spirit of Pippin's critique. At this point Being and Time ceases to be useful to the present discussion.
Another way in which Wall describes his intentions w ith respect to the everyday involves an esthetic ideal he calls "near docum entary." "That means," he wrote in 2002, that they are pictures whose subjects were suggested by my direct expe rience , and ones in which I tried to recollect that experience as precisely as I cou ld, and to reconstruct and represe nt it precisely and accurately. Although the pictures with figures are done w ith the collaboration of th e people who appear in them, I wan t them to feel as if they easily could be documentary photographs . In some way they cla im to be a plausibl e account of, or a report on, what the events depicted are like, or were like, when they passed without being photographed. 18 "What the events depicted are like, or were like, when the)' passed without being photographed" - by now it sho uld be clear that this is, fundamenta lly, an a ntitbeatrical ideal, which is to say that it amounts to a kind of continuation or reprise, though with subtle but decisive differences owing to the difference in medium, not only of the Diderotian pro ject as I described in Absorption and Theatricality and related books but also - a far more contentious claim - of the project of high modernist abstract painting and sculpture as I characterized it back in 1966 - 7 in essays such as "Shape as Form: Frank Stella's Eccentr ic Po lygons" and "Arc and Objecthood." 19 Here I want to consider a monumental picture that is for me one of WalPs masterpieces, Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona (1999; Fig. 37). The building in which the picture is set is the famous German (or Barcelona) Pavilion that Mies together with Lily Reich built for the German section of the Exposici6n Inter nacional in Barcelona in 1929 - or rather, since the original building was subsequently destroyed, a reconstruction comp leted in 19 86. 20 The Pavilion features a radically open plan (conceived "as an analogy of the socia l and politica l openness to which the new German republic aspired") 21 that dissociates space -defining elements from structural columns and merges interior and exterior spaces by means of transparent and trans lucent walls. Morning Cleaning- mor e than eleven feet w ide by just over six feet high depicts such a merger of spaces. At the rear, the ma in, interior space is partly closed off by floor-to -ceiling glass panels, beyond which one sees a reflecting pool; the floor of the main space extends , however, past those panels to the edge of the pool. At the far side of the pool there rises abruptly a wall of alpine green mar ble, divided into large rec-
66
why photography
matters as art as never before
tangles, beyond the top of which one glimpses a band of tree bran ches and sky. The room is closed off at the left by a spectac ular freestand ing wa ll of onyx dare, warm brownish yellow in color, divid ed into even la rger rectangles, and full of splendid stri at ions. Th e floor is travert ine marble, and on th e floor there rests a long black carpet oriented roughly left to right (rather than near to far). The carp et, in fact the entire "room," is angled slightly relative to the picture plane, the right-hand portion seeming nearer the viewer than the left-hand one. The effect of this is subtly to dynamize the seemingly emp tier left half of the composition. Six of Mies' s "Barcel ona" chrome-and leather couches, designed for the Pavi lion, sit at the two end s of the carpet (three at the left, tliree at the right), and two matching chairs sit just beyond th e partly turn ed-back carpet, the one at the left bear ing several cloths folded across its back. On e of th e Pavilion's characteristic cruciform -sectioned steel columns punc tuat es the compos ition slightly to the right of cente r. lt is cut off by tbe top of the picture but one sees it penetrate the floor. The column thus stops short of th e bottom of the pictu re, but this does not prevent it from playing a vital structural role both compositionally - it provid es a strong vertical accent wh ere one is needed - and spatiall y, at once declaring its nearness to the picture pla ne and throwing the space beyond it into measmed relief, not least by partly blocking from view the righ tmost of the two cha irs . At th e extreme right of Wall's pictur e another glass wa ll recedes sharply into depth, along with a red curtain that has been partly drawn . (The curtain is reflected in the glass, as are part s of two of the three nearby stoo ls, bur looking closely we rea lize that we are a lso given a surprising glimpse through the angled glass toward a car park ed outsid e. We realize too, however , that no amount of close looking can resolve the complexities of transp arency and reflection in this portion of the pictur e.) Fina lly, beyond the carpet and to the right of the almost central steel column, in blue tro users, sandals, and a white T-shirt, a dark -haired w indow cleaner bends at the waist over a large yelJow bucket on wheels as be man ipul ates a long-handled squeegee in a way that suggests that he is affixing a new head onto the hat1dle, a suggestion confirmed by Wall in a personal communication (Fig. 38). The cloths folded over th e back of one of the chairs are evidently his. The quality of th e window cleaner's movement is at once natur al and elegant, and ind eed we quick ly realize that for all the richness of his surroundings and the artful lateral spread of tl1e composition, he is the principal focus of the wor k. At the sa me time , his apparent engrossment in h.is task positively libera tes us to lo ok elsewhere, and when we turn our attention to the floor-to-ceiling glass panels beyond him we observe that they are partl y streaked with suds (the cleaning is underwa y); as we scan the pa nels toward the left, which the composition with its leftward spat ial bias encourages us to do, we not ice, on a pe desta l rising from the poo l, blurred by the suds or because slightly out of foc us, a scu lpture of a standiog female nude with sway ing hips a nd arms raised above her head - a wo rk entitled Dawn by Mies's German contemporar y, Georg Kolbe (Fig. 39). 22 Only one thi ng more remains to be mention ed, and that is th e warm sunlight that streams into the room at a descending a ngle from right to left, i!Jurninating the carpet in a ll its blackness, the thr ee couches, and most of the bot tom half of the left-band wall (tbe sunl ight falls short of the floor beyond the carpet and therefore a lso of the clean er), there by confirming the
jeff wa ll, w ittg enste in, and th e everyday
67
37 Jeff Wall, Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona, 1999 . Transparency 351c m
in lightbox . 187 x
38
Jeff Wall, Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona, deta il
subtle privileging of the left-hand ha lf of th e compos ition desp ite th e p resence of the cleaner on the right. Morning Cleaning is a work of great simplicity and directness but also of consider able them at ic richness. Wh at precisely, for example, are its politic a l resona nces, if any ? As menti o ned, Mies des igned the Pavilion on conunission from the Weimar government, partly as an arch itectural sta tement of th e political principles the latter repre sente d. Within five year s the republic was dead, the Na tional Socialist s were in power, and Mies foun d it necessary to leave Ger many for th e United Stares. (Kolbe, an immense ly gifte d and accomplished sculptor, remain ed and moreover tried co adapt to the new reg ime,
70
why photograph y matte rs as art as nev er befo re
39 Jeff Wall, Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona, detail
with disastrous consequences for his art. 23 ) To what extent is the viewer of Wall's picture invited to bear this knowledge in mind, or for that matter th e furth er knowledge that the room depicted in Morning Cleaning- like the Pavilion as a whole - is a fairly recent reconstruction, which is to say the product of an effort to "repair" history at least to a certain extent? In any case, Mies's Barcelona Pavilion is not just any modernist building- though the fact that it is, or was, a key work of architectural modernism is surely to the point (I mean that Wall would not be averse to being considered a modernist artist) . A related question might be to what extent Morning Cleaning may be und erstood as referring back, in a general way, to seventeenth-century Dutch paintings of
jeff wall, wittgenstei
n. and the everyday
71
Pieter Janssens Elinga, Interior with Painter, Reading Woman, and Sweeping Maid, 166 5-70 . Oil on canvas. 82 x 99 cm. Sriidelsches Kunstinstitut und Stiidtische Galerie, Frankfurt -am -Main 40
ordinary persons performing everyday tasks in domestic sett ings - not that Mies' s Pavilion qualifies as domestic; nevertheless the affinity between Wall's picture and a painting such as Pieter J anssens Elinga's absorptive, partly shadowed, partly light-struck Interior with Painter, Reading Woman, and Sweeping Maid (:i:665-70; Fig. 40) in Frankfurt is food for intense thought. 24 "The histo rical image I want to create is one which recog nizes the complexity of the experiences we must have every day in developing relationships with the past," Wall has stated, 25 and in mor e than on e respect Morning Cleaning (not yet made when he said this) exemplifies some such recognition. Then there is the issue of reflexivity, as Wall terms it. "Because l grew up at the time I did, and exp erienced the art I did," Wa ll tells Tuml ir in 200 1, referring to his early formation in the wake of minimalism and early conceptualism (also high modernism), "I've always felt that good art has to reflect somehow on its own process of coming to be. I have never really been convinced that this reflexivity had co be made explicit, though . . . I've always tho ught that if th e work is good it will automaticall y contain that reflection, but you won't be able to see it immediatel y. It wi ll flicker into view in some subtle way" (n7). (Note, in Elinga's Interior, through the doorway at the left, a paint er at work on a canvas one cannot see, as well as, on the wall above the seated woma n a bsorbed in reading, a mirror tilted downward so as seemingly to reflect a portion of the black -and wh ite paved floor of the room. Reflexivity in Wall's sense of the term is by no means solely a feature of modernist art.) In the same interview Wall acknowledges that in earlie r wo rks by him , pr esumably including pictures as different from each other as Picture for Women and Dead Troops Talk, he had operated pol emically in a mannered, forced, or exaggera ted way "in order to provoke internal prob-
72
why pho tography matte rs as art as never before
!ems, to stimulate the kind of reflexivity we were just talking about. But I don 't think this is the only way, or even the best way, to do that. It's just one possible, interesting way. What I think of as a Neo -Realist strand of my work is just as good, and I'm a bit more interested in that these days" (117). (Wall then characterizes his close yet also critical relatio n to straight photography in the statement cited earlier in this chap ter.) [n this regard too Morning Cleaning seems a case in point, not simply in its thematization of light falling on surfaces as if to make the picture - I might add, in wh ich blackness, like that of the inside of a camera or of a darkroom, p lays a vita l rol e - but in other respects as well . In a brief, dazzling essay of 1989, "Photography and Liqu id Intelligence," Wall alludes to "a confrontation of what you might ca ll the 'l iqu id int elligence' of nature with the glassed -in and relat ively 'dry' character of the institution of photography." H e continues: Water plays an essential par t in the making of photographs, but it has to be controlled exactly and cannot be permitted to spill over the spaces and moments mapped out for it in the process, or the picture is ru ined. You certainly don' t want any water in your camera for examp le! So, .for me, water - symbolically - represents an archaism in photography, one that is admitted into the process, but also excl ud ed, contained, or channelled by its hydraulics. This archaism of water, of liquid chemicals, connects photography to the past, to time, in an important way . By calling wa ter an "archaism" here I mean that it embodies a memory -trace of very ancient production-processes of washing, bleaching, dissolving an d so on, w hich are connec ted to the origin of techne - like the separation of ores in prim itive min ing, for example. In this sense, the echo of water in photography evokes its prehistory. I think tha t this "prehistorica l" image of photography - a speculative image in which the apparatus itself can be thought of as not yet having emerged from the mineral and vegetable worlds - can help us understand the "dry" part of photograp hy differently. This dry part I iden tify with optics and mechanics - with the lens and th e shutt er, eith er of the camera or of the projector or enlarger . This part of the photographic system is more usua lly identified with the specific technological int elligence of image -making, wi th the projectile or ballistic nature of vision wh en it is augmented and int ens ified by glass (lenses) and machinery (calibrators and shutters) . This kind of modern vision has been separated to a great extent from the sense of immers ion in the incalculab le which I associate with " liquid intelligence ." The incalculab le is important for science becaus ~ it appears with a vengeance in the remote consequences of even th e most contro lled releases of energy; the ecological crisis is the form in which these remote consequences app ear to us most str ikingly today. 26 Wall goes on to note that electronic and digital systems are in the process of replacing photographic film, a nd while he considers this in itself neither good nor bad, he recog nizes that if it happens "there will be a new displacement of water in photography. It will disappear from the immed iate production -process, vanishing ro the more distant horizon of the generation of electrici ty, and in that mov ement, the historica l consciousness of the medium is altered . Th is expansion of the dry part of photography I see
j eff wa ll, w ittge nstein. and the eve ryday
73
metaphorically as a kind of hubris of the orthodox technological intelligence which, secured behind a barrier of perfectly engineered glass, surveys natural form in its famously cool manner. I'm not attempting to condemn this view, but rather am wondering about the characte r of its self-consciousness" (no). He concludes: "ln photography, th e liquids study us, even from a great distance" (no). The pertinence of the above to Morning Cleaning scarcely needs spelling out; in fact my main concern about citing Wall's text is that it risks making his piccme, produced with the aid of digital means, seem more progranunatic - calculated, not incalculable than I believe it is. My guess is that Wall did not intend his picture as an allegory of "liquid intelligence ," or of the tension between "liquid" and "dry" aspects of photo graphy (folly ten years separate essay from picture). However, it does not follow that the vision of the medium so brilliantl y ar ticulated in his essay was not somehow active in his later choice of subject matter, and who can say to what extent it may have con ditioned the final image as well? 27 One ind ex of the incalculable - also the photographic - in Morning Cleaning is the way in which the curving cnrorne legs of the three stools to the left partly disappear in relation to the black carpet. If Morning Cleaning were a painting, I want to say, that would be a flaw (in fact no painter would so depict them). Bur it is a photograph, and that is simply how the legs and caTpet were registered by Wall's camera . Of course, back in Vancouver he could have modified the legs digitally to make them stand out more distinctly but chose not to, a decision that show s how intertwined the issues of calculation and its opposite - accident or contingency- are in his work. 28 Finally, though, I want to return ro the linked issues of absorption and the everyday that receive in Morning Cleaning perhaps their most profound treatment to date in Wall's oeuvre. For there can be no doubt that the window cleaner is meant to be seen as absorbed in his daily task - a task, it is worth noting, that involves using specific pieces of equipment and th e dailiness of which is itself a further expression of the everyday. Once again, however, the picture is not candid; as its cinematic scale and proportions suggest, the photographer did not instantaneous ly capture a scene exactly as it happened. Rath er, Morning Cleaning involved perhaps a month's work in Barcelona, "a coup le of weeks organizing practical things with equipment, and another two weeks shooting." As Wall explains (in the persona I communication referred to earlier): Maybe it was more than two weeks shooting, I am not sure now. When the shoot began, I wasn't certain whether it would be sunny weather or cloudy . After a few days, it got clear and sunny and I rea lized that that was the best light for the picture. So then I was committed to staying and shooting for as many sunny days as were requir ed to do what I had co do. Luckily, the summer weather there is pretty consistent, so once it got clear, it staye d clear almost without interruption for the whole remaining time. [ think I shot for about twelve da ys. The light was right only in the early morning, from about 7 co 7:35. I had only about seven minutes each day to photograph the space as a whole, because the shadow patterns change so quickly in th e morning. I
74
why photo graphy m at ters as art as ne ver before
had to be ready for those seven minutes each morning, and during them I made the "m aster" views, without the figure. He was standing by, and as soon as the masters were done, L readjusted th e camera and photographed him changing the end-piece of his mop-squeegee. Since he is in shadow, and since that shadow did not cha nge shape and brightness as quickly as some of th e other areas did, I had ma ybe twent y to twent y-five minut es to wo rk with him each day. Onc e his shadow are a changed, the shoot was over. That was about 8 a.m. I'd get the film back around 4 or 5 p.m ., and spe nd some hours eac h evening studying it, tryin g to determine what I had and what f still needed, then got ready for the next morning's shoot , getting up at 5. It is a litrle stressf ul to be shoot ing for digital assembly without being able to make some test assemblies becaus e I am usually uncert ain about various possib le problem s. Most of these have to do with hard technica l things, like depth of field, focal plane, exposure and so on, things that need to be very consistent if the different pieces are going to go together properly. L had to examine all the film from each day extremely carefuJly, looking for problems and making certain that key pieces wer e compat ible with othe rs. Th e com pur er work was done later that fall 1999 I, back home. 29
r
Yet, as in the other works by Wall I have disc ussed , th e appeal to absorption, which is also to say to the implication that the ·1.vindow cleaner is unaware both "of th e construct of the picture and th e necessary pr esence of the viewer, " to cite \Vall in his interview by Martin Schwande r onc e more, is not tl1ereby nndone. Rath er, the impression of absorption and unawareness is to my mind cons ider ably strong er - less obviously qualifi ed than in any of the others, both because of th e prec ise practical reality of th e window cleaner's act ion and becaus e of our sense of his separation from us, by which I refer not merely to his physical distance from the pictur e p lane bur also, equally importantly, to his loca tion beyon d the zone of direct sunlight. The viewer is mad e to feel that th e man bending ove r his squeegee is ob livious even to the one indisputably great event, itself an emblem of dailine ss, depict ed in Morning Cleaning - th e dramat ic influx of wa rm morning light - and what mak es h is unawareness a ll th e more plausib le is the fact that the light does not fall directly on him . (In Elinga's interior, too , neither the maid nor the reading woman notices the bright trap ezoids of sunlight falling on the wall and Aoor roward the right .) On a lesser not e, which become s more sa lient the longer one look s, the window cleaner also app ears unaware of the light.struck Kolbe nud e displaying herself- sho uld one sa y th eatrically? - above the pool. Then , too, the division of the internal space into two zo nes, one brightl y illumi nated and the other not, is reinforced by the contrast between the relative ly forma l placement of the nvo trios of couches and the way in which the two chairs have been mo ved from the ir normal position s to make room for the cleaning of th e glass wall. (That is why the carpet has been partl y ro lled back .) Th e result is a composition of great pictorial and inrellectua l sophistication, one that exp loits the "mag ic" of absorption to induce the viewe r to accept as verisimilar something that he or she "k nows " to be improbabl e at best, and what is worth und er-
1elf wall. wittgenstei n, an d the everyday
7E,
scoring is that according to Wall's narrative of his picture's genesis, the sw1light was not part of the conception at the ou tset but rather emerged only in the process of shooting as the weather cleared - a further instance of the incalculableness that Wall welcomes in his art .
At this point I want to introduce another philosophical text , one that goes further than Being and Time and "The Question Concerning Technology" toward providing a conceptual fram ewo rk not just for a crucial aspect of \v'a!J>sart but also for the work of other photographers to be considered in this book . The text is the whole of a long extract from Ludwig Wittgenstein's manuscripts for the year J930. lt appears in the volume Culture and Value, first edited by Georg Henrik von Wright, which gathers a number of remarks and observations dealing with topics outside technical philosophy . It reads: Engelmann [Paul Enge lmann, Wittgenstein's close friend and faithful correspondent] told me that when he rummages round at home in a drawer full of his own manu scripts, they strike him as so glorious that he thinks they would be worth presenting to other people. (He said it's the same when he is read ing through letters from his dead relations .) But when he imagines a selection of them published he said the who le business loses its charm & va lue & becom es impossible. I said this case was like th e following one: Noth ing could be more remarkable than seeing someone who think s himself unobserved engage d in some quite simple everyday activity. Let's imagine a theatre, the cuna in goes up & we see someone alone in his room walk ing up and down, light ing a cigarette, seating himself etc. so that sudden ly we are observing a human being from outside in a way that ordinarily we can never observe ourselves; as if we were watching a chapter from a biography with ow: own eyes, - surely this would be at once uncanny and wonderful. More wonderfu l than anyth ing that a playwright could cause to be acted or spoken on the stage . We should be seeing life itself. - But then we do see this every day & it makes not the slight est impr ession on us! True enough, but we do not see it from that point of view. - Similarly when E. looks at his writings and finds them splendid (even though he wou ld not care to publish any of the pieces individu ally), he is seeing his life as God's work of art, & as such ir is certainly worth contemplating, as is every life & everything whatever. But only the artist can represent th e individual thing [das Einzelne] so that it appears to us as a work of art; those manuscripts rightly lose their value if we contemplate them singly & in any case without preiudice, i.e. without being ent husiastic about them in advance . The work of art compels us - as one might say - to see it in the right perspective, but without art the object [der Gegenstand] is a piece of nature like any other & the fact that we may exalt it through our enthusiasm does not give anyone the right to display it to us. (I am always reminded of one of those insipid photographs of a piece of scenery which is interesting to the person who took it because he was there himself, experienced something, but which a third parry looks at with justifiabl e coldness; insofar as it is ever justifiable to look at something with coldness.)
76
why photog rap hy matters as art as never before
But now it seems to me too that besides the work of the artist there is another through which th e world may be captmed sub specie aeterni. It is - as I believe - the way of thought which as it were flies above the world and leaves it the way it is, contemp lating it from above in its flight . 30 This is arguably Wittgenstein's most original and sustained contribution to esthet ic thought, though it may be only now , in the wake of developments in photography since the late 1970s, that it can be taken in that way. The following points shou ld be stressed : 1) The thought experiment Wittgenstein proposes - imagin ing a man who thinks he is unobserved engaged in some quite simple everyday activity as if in a theater - belongs to rhe cast of mind J have been calling antirheatr ical. Although Wittgenstein does not actually refer to tbe man as absorbed in the performance of that activity, it seems fair ro say that it is implicit in his words, bearing in mind tha t in Diderot's writings on painting and drama abso rption goes hand in hand wi th unawareness of being beheld . (No t the least interest of the 1930 extract for me is that it forges a link between th ese two largely unplac eable thinkers. This is also to say chat the significance for esthe tic thought of that extract can be made our on ly aga inst the background of the issue of antithe atrica lity.) 2) The thought experiment a lso expl icitly involves what T have been ca lling - in part basing myself on Wall - the everyday, which turn s out to be an immensely privileged esthetic category for Wittgenste in as well. M or e precisely, the everyday is here imagin ed by him as avai lab le only in an antitheatrica l (and implicitly absorptive) form, with artistic consequences that go beyond anything previously known: we shou ld be observing something "more wonderful than anything that a playwright could cause to be acted or spoken on the stage . We sho uld be seeing life itself" - a ne plus ultra of realism, it seems . 3) Wittgenstein (or one of his voices) immed iately objects, "Bur then we do see this every day & it makes no t the slightest impression on us!" and then at once counte rs the objection by saying: "True enough, but we do no t see it from that point of view." I take this to mean that in the course of our ordinary dea lings with other persons we no t infrequently come upon someone who, at least for a few moments, is unaware of being observed, and that we are far from regarding such a turn of events as "uncanny and wonderfu l." Bur our point of view - or to use Wittgenstein's subtler term, our perspec tive -when this occurs is not at a ll the one posited by th e though t experiment. The question, then, is how to characterize the latter perspective, which he associates wirh seeing the scene in quest ion as a work of arr (as he says Engelmann, without quite realizing it, is led at moments to see his own life as God's work of art), and my suggestion is that Wittgenstein imagines it as fundamentally - not just contingently - separate from that of the person being observed {as God's perspective is separate from Engelmann's), as if, ro put it strongly, tbe person a nd the observer inhab it different wo rld s (a formulation that came up in the previous chapter, in my su mmary of Schwander's response co Adrian Wallier).Or so it seemed to me for a long time. What has become clear, how ever, is that it would be more faithful to Wittgenstein's thought to say that he is evoking two radi cally different perspectives on the same world, one "wi thin " that world and the other
1etf wall , w ittgenste in, and the everyday
77
in some sense "outside" it. 3·1 Even as the account of Engelmann's changes of heart suggests that the two perspectives are not absolute ly sealed off from one another; rather, the y are different ways in which the world "discloses" itself, to use Heideggerian language in a Wittgensteinian context. 4) In this connection the extract deploy s an unexpected distinction between (the repres entation) of "the individual thing," das Einzelne, and, in the absence of art, "the object," der Gegenstand- a "mere" object, I am tempted to say (probably the tempta tion should be resisted). Wittgenstein leaves the distinction untheorized, which on the one hand is a pity but on the other is a goad to furth er thought. As I understand it, the distinction joins up with certain claims in "Art and Objecthood," and it will also prove relevant to the discussion of the work of Bernd and Hilla Becher in the last chapter of this book . To anticipate: I shall want to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" objecthood somewhat along the lines of Hegel 's distinction between "good" (or "genuine") and "bad" (or ''spurious") modes of infinity in the Science of Logic and Encyclopedia Logic and to associate the first terms in those distinctions with the typological depiction and presentation of industrial objects in the Bechers' photographic "rab leaus." I shall go on to suggest that the distinction between "good" and " bad " modes of objecthood can be said to hold, to be intuitable, onJy in the latter (and more broadly in photographs), not in reality "as such.'' As seen, Heidegger in Being and Time drew an ontologically charged distinction between equi pment and things, wh ich is to say between readiness-to-hand and presence -at-h and; mor e than two decades later, in the essay "The Thing," be put forward a different but not unrelated distinction between things (near to us, therefore "good") and objects (distant from us, therefore "bad"). 32 As is perhaps apparent, neither of Heid egger's distinctions lines up with Wittgenstein's, which operates in a different, in the end more powerful register. 5) The last few sentences in Wittg enstein's long first paragraph turn on yet another distinction: between looking at something "w ithout prejudice" - the Kantian term wou ld be "disinterest edly" - and looking at something "with coldness," which emerges as a (perhaps inevitable) failur e of humanity. This too may be new to esthetic thought, though the distinction is fully as ethical, perhaps even religious, as it is esthetic. " [IJnsofar as it is ever justifiable to look at something with coldness" - one way to take this tremendous and unexpected qualification is not simply as a rebuke, in the first instance to himself, but also as an intellectual caution, lest one assum e that absence of prejudic e or esthetic disinterest simply is a kind of coldness. At the same time, Wittgenste in is clear that nothing gives someone th e "r ight" to display to another person insipid objects or fragments of nature - photographs of scenery are the example he cites - in the expectation that the y could possibly mean to a second party what they do to the 33 first. Interestingly, Wittgenstein wrote in a notebook entry of about I929, "My idea l is a certain coolness Inor coldness]. A temple providing a setting for the passions without 34 meddling with them" - a statement that I cannot help but read in relation to the extract of I930 as well as, stretching the point, i11relation co Morning Cleaning itself. And of course photography has often been described as inherent ly cool, as in Wall's remarks cited earlier in chis chapter about "the orthodox technological inteJligence which . ..
78
w hy photography
matte rs as art as never be fo re
surveys natural form in its famously cool manner" ("Photography and Liquid Intelligence") or Sontag's characterization of the "habit of seeing" induced by photography as "both intense and cool, solicitous and detached. " 35 6) In view of Wittgenstein's distaste for the promiscuous displaying of snapshots, it is perhaps only fitting that, more than fifty years later, it has devolved upon photography- some photography - to take up the artistic challenge that his extract adumbrates. In Wall's Morning Cleaning, this involved shooting aspects of tbe same scene over twelve consecutive mornings for about half an hour starting at 7 a.m., while bright sunlight streamed into the large, glassed-in space at more or less tbe same angle during each session, as well as working collaboratively with the window cleaner much as he had done with the real Adrian Walker, and then combining the various images digitally back in his Vancouver studio. For this is my strong est claim, as well as my deepest reason for adducing Wittgenstein 's remarks in the present context. I take Wittgenstein to be inviting one to imagine an artistic medium significantly different from anything available to him (or others) at that rime . Obviously the theater could not supply what was wanted, even though he begins by asking us to imagine a curtain going up on a stage such as had never - he seems to think - actually existed. I have suggested, however, that the dramaturgy of hjs thought experiment is extremely close to that of Did erot 's writings on drama and painting of the 1750s and '6os. What 1 have not said is that the Diderotian dispositif of the dramat ic tableau with its "invisible" fourth wall provided a model for stage realism throughout much of the nineteenth century, but that by r 930 (indeed by well before) such a dispositif no longer sufficed, for avant -gard e playwrights and directors, to produce the impression of metaphysical aloneness t.he extract seeks to evoke. Or perhaps one should say that the very stage ideal of metaphysical aloneness bad lost its attractiveness, no doubt largely because in the post-Ibsen era it had become a bourgeois cliche. 36 In that sense the extract may be read as rediscovering, as i.f on new grounds, the spiritual and artistic depth of such an ideal (for Wittgenstein the two dimensions are one). What about film? In the decades after r930 Wittgenstein often went to the movies, usually accompanied by friends . Yet I serious ly doubt that movies, even Italian neo real.istfilms of the postwar period, or the masterpieces of Bresson and Ozu, would have fulfilled for him the terms of the thought experiment of 1930. Needless to say this cannot be proved, but Wittgenstein's famously total immersion in movies, of which there is ample testimony, would have worked against the ideal of disinterested and in effect distanced contemplation implied by the extract. (Whi le Wittgenstein was staying in Newcastle during the Second World War, he "went frequently to the cinema - 'every night' according to Mis s Andrews [someone who knew him] - to watch 'westerns or frankly bad films with happy endings and when asked about them the next morning, he could not remember details.' ") 37 In fact it may be that what is at stake here is pre cisely that aspect of the movies that led me in "Art and Objecthood" to claim that it was not a modernist art (see my discussion of Sugimoto's Movie Theaters, Sherman's Untitled Film Stills, and Wall's Movie Audience in Chapter One). In any case, I suggest that certain photographs by Wall, Morning Cleaning foremost among them, may be
jett wa ll, w ittge ns tein , an d t he eve ryday
79
understood, if nor as wholl y realizin g the ter ms of Wittg ens tein's simpl e but exalted vision , at least as coming clo ser to d oing so than any other works of pictori a l art wirh which I am familiar. "O h a key can lie for ever wher e the locksmith placed it, & never be used to open the lock for which the master forged it," Witt genstein writes in anothe r extra ct in Culture and Value.1x Does it go to o far co imagin e that th e extr act of 1930 amount s to such a key? 7) An elabora tion of the pr evious point as well as of the earlier one about dispar ate perspectives . Wittgen ste in writ es : "Bue only th e ar tist can represen t th e individual thin g so that it appears to us as a work of art." In ocher words, only a work of art, precisely becau se it "compels us to see it in th e right perspective ," can make " life itself," in the form of a bsorpt ion , ava ilabl e for est heti c contemplation. I want to assoc iate thi s ack nowledgment of art ifice (fo r that is wh at it is: think of the theat er and its curtain) with th e frank acknow ledgm ent - th e foregrou ndin g- of photographic and dramaturgica l art ifice in Wall's pictures, the first via the light box app aratus itself, th e seco nd via the imp lied pain stak ing collaborative staging of the depicted ac tion, and in some works the implied painstakin g construction of the depic ted set ting. What mak es th at association pertinent, of course, is the depth of Wall's com mitm ent to thi - may one say Wittg cnstei nian ? - everyday in the m ode of "near docu ment ary,'' th at is, co the antithe atrical project of making pictures that " in some wa y ... claim ro be a plausib le account of, or a report on , whar th e events depicted a re like, or were like, when th ey passed with ou t being pho to graphed." By now it shou ld be clea r that the entire purpose of Wall's la bors in Barcelon a a nd back in Vancouver was to produce such a picture. (As yet Wall has found no mean s of acknow ledg ing in his a rt th e sheer pro long ed and/or repetiti ve labor that go es inro the making of a work like Morning Cleaning, though perhaps rhe imag ery of digging a we ll, a grave , or a n anthropological site, as in The Well [198 9 1, The Floode d Grave [r998 - 2000J, and Fieldwor k [2003J may be viewed in that light. 39 I shall have some thin g ro say abo ut th e last of these shortly. ) 8) Fina lly, l read the brief concluding par ag raph in Witt genstein' s ex tract, with its image of co nt emplatin g the world fro m ab ove (and in flight , lest one think s he is envisaging a fixed pos ition of divin e omniscience) w hile leaving it the way it is (not in co ldness or indiff erence bur so co spea k disinceresccdly), as an early intuition of what would become in th e Phi losophical Investi gat ions the noti on of perspicu o us repr esent a tio n (iibersichtlich e Darstellung) and th e vision of phi losophy as leavin g the ac tu al use o f langu age as it is, rathe r than "cor rect ing it" in the spir it of tr adit ional phil osop hy - an ideal linked, as Stanl ey Cavel! has demonstr ate d, to notion s of th e or din ary a nd th e everyd ay.~0 Thi s sugg ests that between the enterpr ise of th e Philosophical ln vest igations and th e seemingl y mor e narr o wly esth etic concerns of the 19 30 ex trac t th ere ex ists an affinit y as fruitful to think ab o ut as it is - at least at first- su rpri sing . To sum up: I have tried to show th at in post-1990 works such as Adrian Walk er and Momi11g Cleaning Wall has mov ed decisively toward a n a ntitheatrica l a rt in and thr ough a focus sed con cern wit h the everyday an d an esrheti c strategy he ca lls " near docum entary." (The rela tion of After 'Invi sible Man ' and A View from an Apartment, both a lso a ntith ca trical works, to the notion of " near do cumen tary" is an open question; certain ly
80
why pllotography matters as art as never before
4I Morris Louis, A lpha-Pi, 1960 . Acrylic on canvas . 260 x 449 .7 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Arthur Hoppock Hearn Fund, 1967 (67 .2.32.)
the lengths ro which Wall went in acclimatizing the young women in the latter to the apartment and the entire situation of shooting are on the side of such a notion .) I have done this in part by bringing Wall's pictures into close contact with wr itings by two of the twenti eth century's foremost phi losophers, Heidegger and Wittgenstein - writings that seem to me to bear an intimate relation to what rakes place in those pictures rather than merely to offer a basis for intriguing but essentially fanciful associations. At th e same time, Wall's interest in absorption and antitheatrica lity links his work with the Diderotian tradition as I have presented it in my books on eighteenth - and nineteenthcentury French painting. However, there is a further possibility touched on earlier that 1 wanr to raise more vigorously here: that a picture like Morning Cleaning also amounts ro a kind of reinterpretation or say renewal, across a jagged breech, of the antitheatrical aims of certain high modernist painting and scu lpture as I interpreted those aims back in 1966 - 7 in "Shape as Form," "Art and Objecthood," and related texts. To speak personaLly, from my first encounter with Morning Cleaning in Frankfurt in 2002, I have not been able to get Morris Louis's multi-rivulet "Unfurl eds" of 196 0- 6 1 - Alpha-Pi (1960; Fig. 4 1), for example - our of my mind. 4 1 I am deliberat ely stopping short of spelling out all th e reasons for this. Suffice it to note the simi larity of overall format and dimensions ; the grouping in both of crucial elements near the right-and left-hand edges of the picture together with the openness of the composition as a whole; and the suggestive analogy between the liquid flow of Louis's color rivulets and the w as hing of the windows in Morning Cleaning. ls there not also a parallel of so rts betw een the daz zling blank expanse of the bare canvas in the Louis and the irradiated black expanse of the carpet in the Wall? Not that Wall is likely to have intended the connection, any mor e than he was thinking of Elinga's exquisite Interior or, more broadly, of seventeenthcentury Dutch painting of quotidian scenes when he began shoo ting in Mies's Pavilion in Barcelona. Yet it will be a central claim of this book that some of the most important and vital recent initiatives in photography turn out to have been renewing, even
Jeff wa ll, w 1ttg enste in. and th e eve ryday
81
43
Jeff Wall, A Wall in a Former Bakery ,
2003.
Transparency in lightbox. xx9 x
1 51
cm
As for Fieldwork's larger mean ing, I suggest that it is above all an attempt to repre sent, to make visible, the historicalness of the everyda y. For consider: look ed at close ly the excavate d hole reveals multiple strata, each of which represents a particular period of time an d a particular mat erial reality (one darkish stratum, part way down , may be what is le.ft of the roof of the dwelling that once stood at that spot) .43 A commonplace abo ut photography, about which there will be more to say, is that it depicts surfaces, and traces on surfaces . No doubt Wall would agre e - a p icture roughly contemporary with Fieldwork, A Wall in a Former Bakery (2003; Fig. 43), depicts nothing else. How ever, what I find in Fieldwork is more importantly a themat ization of the thickn ess and layeredness of the wo rld, by which I mean the way in which material traces deposit ed day by day in earlier epoch s ar e part of the very texture of reality, and the thematization too of a certain patient labor of recove ry, which one is allowed to witn ess only from a respectfu l distance and with which Wall, in this spellbinding and reflective image, plainly wish es to assoc iate his arr. A number of oth er, mostly recent pictures, including severa l large black -and -white photographic prints, further exp lore the territor y I have been surveying . In Chapter Two
84
w hy phot ography matters as art as neve r befo re
I quoted a passage from the prologue to Ellison's Invisible Man in which the protago nist develops the theme of his own invisibility in relation to whites; from the pr esent perspective it is clear that invisibility is an antitheatrica l trope, even as the the Invisible Man's obsession with light invites being read in relation to Wall's lightbox technology. In other works of the past decade or more the trope of invisibility gives way to themes of exit and departure, as in the large black -and-white photograph (not a tra nsparency) Housekeeping (1996; Fig. 44), in which a uniformed maid who has just finished cleaning and straightening a hotel room (a characteristic subject) is depicted leaving the room through a door in the wa ll farthest from the viewer and closing the door behind her as she goes; the effect is candid, but Wall has described shooting for two weeks, five or six days a week, before coming up with the image he wanted. 44 In another large, par ticularly impressive black -and -white photograph , Untitled (Forest) (2001; Fig. 45), a man and a woman are (bare ly) captured hurrying from a clearing in which they have been cooking food on a small grill. This is one of the works that Wa ll describ ed in 2002 as depicting "moments or events from obscw-e, unswept corners of everyday life, covert ways of occupying the city, gescuses of concealment and refuge," and the impression conveyed is indeed that th e man and woman are fleeing the scene - there is a note of
44
Jeff Wall, Housekeeping, t996. Gelatin silver print . 192 x 258 cm
•
Jeff wall, wi tt genstein , and the everyday
85
45
Jeff Wall, Untitled (Forest), 2001. Gelatin silver print. 239 x 30:r.5 cm
urgency about their departure which gives the entire picture an anx ious, unsettling aiJ:. (They have left their pot on the boil- why?) In fact I want to go fur ther and suggest that the man and woman are fleeing no one other than the photographer/viewer, who in any case has arrived too late to catch more than a glimpse of them: the long-haired woman, bent slightly at the waist as she climbs a slight rise, is sufficiently turned away so as to hide her features, and it is easy to miss the man entirely, so obscured is he by trees and branches to the left of the woman. Note, too, the nearness of the branches in th e left foreground, which seem almost to threaten one's sight as one approaches the photograph, as in effect the viewer is invited to do, at the same time as numerous small "scars" on the bark of the tr ees give the impression of being so many eyes looking back at one (aggressively, or at least nor at all reassui·ingly).
86
w hy pho tography matters as art as never before
46 Jeff Wall, Untitled (Night) , 20o r. Gelatin silver print. 239 x 301 .5 cm
Anoth er superb large black-and-white photograph, Untitled (Night) (2oo r ; Fig. 46), depicts in the foreground a body of water, perhaps the result of flooding or rainfall {though it might equally be a pond that has partly dried up}; beyond it ar e a patch of dry ground, a low wall, and a hillock with bushes and trees; and beyond that a fence and, at the top .left, part of a bridg e. The picture is extremely dark and takes a long time to read; only after a while does on e become aware of two persons and a dog seated or reclining against the wall at the extrem e left and realize that they or rather their "covert way of occupying the city" is the true focus of the composition. The overall effect, a tour de force of nocturnal lighting an d close-value printing, is of a sustained impeding of vision that forces the viewer to work hard for all that he or she is able to perceive, an impeding that thereby divests the imag e of the least suggestion of display
jeff wall. w itt genstein , and t he every day
87
47
Jeff Wall, The Burrow, 2004. Gelatin silver print. 161.5 x 189 cm
- put more strong ly, that establishes the picture as a whole as resistant to being beheld.
Untitled (Night) was elaborately staged by Wall in a property in Vancouver rented for the purpose, bur a fourth black-and-white work , The Burrow (2004; Fig. 47), depicts an actual structure he came across one day in that city, an underground space mostly covered up by large sheets of wood and cardboard . Wall at once fetched a camera and rook his photograph, which therefore belongs to the "documentary" category. The question is what made this particular subject instantly attractive to him, and my suggestion is that it was the (Kafkaesque?) idea of the burrow itself, an enclosure (a "ho le") in which a person might hide himself or herself from view, that drew his attention. In his 2005 retrospective exhibition at Schau lager in Basel, the last four photographs were hung in a single room; the cumulat ive impression of a profound antipathy to vision of antirheatrical desire - was palpabl e. Two other works, Untitled (Overpass) (2oor; Fig. 48) and Woman with a Covered Tray (2003; Fig. 49), both transparencies, thematize the motif of persons wa lking more or less directly away from the photog ra pher/viewer (Housekeeping was a version of the
88
why photogra phy matters as art as never before
48 Jeff Wall, Untitled (Overpass), 2001. Transparency in lightbox . 214 x 273 .5 cm
same idea). Again, I see this as an antitheatrical motif, one that goes back to the early nineteenth century, as for examp le in Theodore Gericault's great lithograph Entrance to the Adelphi Wharf [182I; Fig. 50], one of the supreme black-and-white images of th e period. (Gericault's Raft of the Medusa [18 19], with its vict ims of shipwr eck striving to be beheld by a ship on the far horizon, is also pertin ent her e - more on that work in relation ro one of Thomas $truth's museum photographs in Chapter Five.) A more complex offshoot of the same idea is Passerby (i:996; Fig. 51), a black -and -white night scene powerfully illuminated in the right foreground by a light source evidently located "this" side of the picture surface. The event depicted - instantaneous ly, indeed with a show of instantaneousness - is simple yet takes a further instant to construe: a man in jeans and a shor t jack et about to ex it the pictur e at th e lower right glances back over
je ff wall, wi tt ge nstein , and th e everyday
89
Jeff Wall, Woman with a Covered Tray, 2003 . 49 (above)
Transparency in lighrbox . .164 x 208 .5 cm
50 (right) Theodore Gericau lt, Entrance to the Adelphi Wharf, r82 .r. Lithograp h . 25 .3 x 3X cm
51 Jeff Wall,Passerby,1996. Gelatin silver print. 250 x 339.5 cm
his left shoulder at another man who has just run past (the second figure can be made out immediately to the left of a tree, the cast shadow from which partly falls on him). It is not just that the nearer man appears unaware of being photograph ed but that the running figure draws the first's attention away from the camera (and the lights and th e viewer), so that the picture as a whole combines a manifestly amitheatrical "actional" motif with the fullest possible acknowledgment of photographic artifice (no te in particular the reflected light from the stop sign toward the left), hence to -be-seenness. Finally, there are two lightbox pictures that Wa ll calls Blind Window No. I (2000; Fig. 52) and Blind Window No . 2 (2000; Fig. 53), both of w hich belong to th is infor mal and by no means inclusi ve gathering of ant itheatrical works . L1 Abso1·ption and Theatricality I remark on the prominenc e of the subject of blindness in post-1750 French painting and suggest that its importance derived from the fact that a blind person is
j eff wa ll, w ittg ens t ein, and t he eve ryday
91
52. Jeff Wall, Blind Window no. r , 133 cm 53 Jeff Wall, Blind Window no.
2, 2000.
2000.
Transparency in lightb ox. ro9 x
Transparency in lightbox . r34 x
1 70.5
cm
54 (left)
Paul Strand , Blind, 1916 . Platinum print . 34 x 25. 7 cm.
5 5 (below) Walker £vans, Untitled /Subway Passengers, New . The Metropoli tan Museum of York], 193 8. Film negative, 3 5111111 Art, New York, Walker Evans Archive, 19 94 (1994.253 .5ro .2)
easily represented as wrnware of being beheld. 45 As it happens, blindness is also the subject of one of the most powerfu l and influentia l p hotographs of the early twentiet h century, Paul Strand's Blind (I9I6 ; Fig . 54}, a work later identified by Walker Evans, one of Wall's particular admirations, as the decisive early influence on his art; indee d Evans's volume of "Subway Portraits," to be discussed later in this book, ends with a ph(?tograph of a blind accor dion ist (1938; Fig. 5 5).46 I take Wall 's two p ictures as highly original restatements of the sub ject of blindn ess (the titles underscore the po int), and I find especially in the second a singularly empathic version of the theme, as if for a fleeting perceptual moment - before the image "naturalizes" itself - the imp licit analogy between dwelling and body underwri tes an evocation of blindness as experienced /;om
within.
jeff wa ll, wittgenste in, and the everyday
93
"I under.ttoodat once that thi.t photograph'.t'adventure' derived from the co-presenceof two elements ... " KOBN WBSSING: NICARAGUA. 1979
56
Koen Wessing, Ni caragua, 1979 . From Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida
barthes's punctum
4
At the crossroads of the entire oeuvre, perhaps the Theater ... Roland Barthes, Roland Barthes 1
Roland Barthes's final book, known in English as Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, was originally published in France in 1980, the year of his tragic death, and was trans lated into English in r 981. 2 From the moment it appeared it has been a dominant point of reference for writers on photography, at least in the United Stat es and Great Britain . Above all Barthes's central distinction between what he calls the studium and the pun ctum has been enthusiastical ly taken up by countless critics and theorists, who almost without exception have found in it princ ipally a contrast between the ostensible subject of a given photograph, or rather the general basis of that subject's presumed interest for an average viewer (the studium), and whatever that photograph may contain that engages and - Barth es's verb s - "pricks" or "wounds" or "bruises" a particular viewer's subjectivity in a way tbat makes the photograph in question singularly arresting to him or her (fro m her e on I shall stay with "him") . T b.is is not wrong- as will be seen, it is pretty much what Barthes explicitly states - but I want to suggest that placing all the emphasis, as is usua lly done, on the viewer's purely subjective response to the punctum ends up missing Bart hes's central thought , or at any rate failing to grasp what crucially is at stake in his central distinction. A further question, w hich will arise mor e tban once in what follows, is to what extent Barthes himself was aware of the ultimate implications of his own argument. Barthes 's announced approach in Camera Lucida is nothing if not personal. "I decided to take myself as mediator for all photograph y," he writes early on in Part One (8/21-2). Also: "I have determined to be guid ed by the consciousness of my feelings" (10/24). Ar greater length: I decided then to take as a gu ide for my new analysis the attract ion I felt for certain photographs . For of this attraction, at least, I was certain . What to call it? Fascination? No, this photog ra ph which I pick out and which I love has nothing in common with the shiny point which sways before your eyes and makes your head swim [a reference to hypnot ic suggestion]; what it produces in me is the very opposite of hebetude; some thing mor e like an internal agitation, an excitem ent, a certain labor too, the pressure of the unspeakable which wanes to be spoken. [18- 19/37] Further on in the same paragraph Barthes says that the best word for the attraction he feels for certain photographs is "advenience or even adv entur e. T his picture advenes,
barthes's punctum
95
that on e do esn't " ('t9/3 8), but typically Barrhes mak es little use of the se words in th e rest of his book. Fina lly, he comes right out and says th at in his present investiga tion he "borrowe d somet hin g from phenomenology's proj ect and so met hing from its langua ge" (20/40 ). But Barthes's h euri stic or "va gu e, ca sual , even cynical " (20/ 40) phenome nol ogy is one th at , unlike classical phenomeno logy, atta ches p rimary impo rtance to desire and mourning. "The anticip ated essence of the Phot ograph," he writes, "co uld not, in my mind, be separated from th e 'pathos' of which, from the first glance, it co nsists " (21/42) . And in th e ne xt sec tion of th e book (nj11eof forry-eight; th e book compri ses t wo part s o f tw enty-four sections each) , he at last m oves cowar d introducing his central d istinction by way of ana lyzing an exemplary photograph, Koen Wess ing's Nicaragua ( 1979; Fig. 56). " I wa s glancing through an illustrated ma ga zin e," Barth es begins. A photograph ma de me pause. Nothing very extraord inary: th e (photogra phic ) banality of a reb ellion in Nicaragua: a ru ined str eet, two helmeted sold iers on patrol; behind th em, two nuns . Did thi s photograph p lease me? In terest me? Intrigue me? No t even. Simp ly, it ex isted (for me). I understood at onc e th at its exis tence (its 'adv enture ') derived from th e co-pre senc e of two disc ontinuous elements, hete rog eneou s in that the y did not be long to the sam e world (no need to proceed to the poi11t of co nt ras t ): th e so ldiers an d th e nun s. I foresaw a stru ctural rul e (conformin g to my own obs ervation), and I imm ediat ely tri ed to verif y it by inspecting other phot ographs by the same reporter (the Dutchman Koen Wessing) : many of t hem attracted me beca use th ey included this kind of dua lity which I had just become awa re of. [23/4 2-4] By th e beginning of the nex t sec t ion Barthes at tempts to cha rac terize a nd name rhe "two element s whose co-presence establi shed, it seemed, rhe particular interes t l roo k in these photographs" (25/47) : The first, obviously, is an ex tent, ir ha s rhe extension of a field , which I perc eive quire famili a rly as a co nseq uence of m y know ledge, my cu ltur e; th_is field ca n be more or less sty lized, more or less successful , depending on t he photo gra pher's ski ll or luck, but it a lways refers to a classical body of information: rebellion, Nicarag ua, and all th e signs o f both ... Th o usands of photo gra ph s consi st of this field, and in these photographs I can , of course, rak e a kind of ge neral interest ... What I feel about th ese photographs derives from an average effect, almo st from a cert ain tr aining. I did not kn ow a Frenc h word whi ch mig ht account for this kind o f hum an interest , but 1 believe this word ex ists in Latin: it is studium, which doe sn't n1ean, at leas t not immedi ately, "study," but application to a thing , taste for someo ne, a kind of genera l1 enthu siastic commi tment , of co ur se, but without special acuity. It is by studium that I am int ereste d in so many ph oto gra phs, wh et her 1 rec eive them as po litical t estimony o r enjo y them as good historica l scenes: for it is cult ur ally . . . chat I participate in the figures, the faces, th e gestures, the settings, the act ions . [25-6/4 7- BJ Then (introdu cing the second term , which has prov en a lmo st as pop ula r as Wa lter Benjamin's "a ura ") :
96
why photography matters as art as never before
The second element will break (or puncture) the studium . This time it is not I who seek it our (as [ inves t the-field of the studium with my sovereign consciousness), it is this element wbich rises from the scene, shoots our of it like an arrow, and pierces me. A Latin wo rd exists to designate this wound, this prick, this mark made by a poimed instrument: the word suits me all the better in that it also refer s to the notion of puncruarion, and because the photographs I am speaking of are in effect punctuated, some times even speckled with thes e sensitive po ints; precisely, these marks, these wounds, are so many points . T his second element which will distmb the studium I shall therefore call punctuni; for punctum is also: sting, speck, cut, little ho le - and also a cast of the dice. A photograph's pimctum is that accident which pricks me (but also bruises me, is poignant to me). [26-7/48-9] Barthes glosses this basic distinction by noting that th e studium "is of the order of liking, not of loving," and further, crucially, that "to recogn ize the studium is inevitably to encounter th e photographer's intentions, co enter into harmony with them, co approve or disapprove of them, bur always to understand them, to argue them within myself, for cultur e (from which the studium derives) is a contract arr ived at between creators and consumers" (27- 8/50-51:) . Or as he also says, the studium endows tbe photograph ''with functions, which are, for the Photographer, so many alibis . These functions are: to inform, to represent, to surpr ise, to cause to signify, to provoke desire. And I, the Spectator, I recogn.ize them with more or less pleasure: l invest them with my studium (which is never my delight or my pain )" (2.8/5 r ). Most photographs, Barth es strong ly impli es, are in effect all studiwn; he thinks of them as "unary" and says of one type, the news photo gra ph, that it can shock or "'shout'" but is powerless to dist u rb or "wound" (41/70) . Standa rd pornography is also "unary," hence banal. A few photographs are different . "In this habitually miar y space," he writes at the stare of section eigbreen, "occas ion ally (but alas all roo rarely) a 'detaiJ' attracts me. I feel that its mere presen ce changes my read ing, th at I am looking at a new photograph, marked in my eyes with a higher value . This 'deta il' is the punctum" (42/71) . H e goes on: lt is not possible to posit a rule of connection benveen rhe studium and the punctum (when ir happen s to be there). Ir is a matter of a co-presence, that is all one can say: the nun s "happene d ro be there," passing in the background, when Wessing photographed the Nicaraguan soldiers; from the viewpoint of reality (which is perhaps that of the Operator), a who le causality explains the presence of the "detai l" : the Church implanted in these Larin-Am erican co untri es, the nuns allowed to circulate as nurses, etc.; bur from my Spectator's viewpoint, the detail is offered by chance and for nothjng; the scene is in no way "co mpos ed" acco rding co a creative logic; the photograph is doubtless dual, but this duality is the rnoror of no "development," as happens in classical discourse. In order to perceive the punctum, no analys is would be of any use to me ... it suffices that the image be large enough, that I do nor have to study it (chis would be of no help at all), chat, given right there on the page, I should receive it right here in my eyes. r42- 3/71 - 2]
barthes·s punctum
97
In the remainder of Part One Barthes explores the notion of the punctum with characteristic panache, stressing among other features its "power of expansion" : so for examp le in an Andre Kertesz photograph of a blind gypsy violinist being led by a boy (1921; Fig. 57) what pr icks Barrhes is the recognition, "with my whole body, [ofl the straggling villages I passed through on my long -ago trav els in HLtngary and Ru mania" (45/ 77) . (Barthes qualifies this expansion of the punctum via persona l memory as "Proustian," for obv ious reasons . More on Proust shortly.) It is hardly surprising , then, that commentators on Camera Lucida, when glossing the punctum, have stressed the importance of the indivi du al viewer's sheerly p ersona l response. As Victor Burgin writes: "It is the private nature of the experience which defines the punctum. " 3 ln fact almost all of Part One of Barthes's book is written from tha t point of view, while Part Two, largely devoted to the mystery of the so-called Winter Garden photograph of Barthes 's mother as a young girl, carries the subjective emph asis to the farthest pos sible extreme. However, one short section in Part One (twenty), comprising a single page of print , embodies a rad ical shift in perspective: Certain details ma y "prick'' me. If they do not, it is doubtless because the photographer has put them there intentionall y. LRemember, for Barthes "to recognize the studium is inevitably to encoun ter the photographer 's intentions."] In William Klein's Shinohiera, Fighter Painter (1961), the character's monstrous head has nothing to say to me because I can see so clearly that it is an artifice of the camera angle. Some soldiers with nuns behind them served as an examp le to explain what the punctum was for me (here, quite elemen tary ); but when Bruce Gilden photographs a nun and some drag queens together (New Orleans, 1973), th e deliberate (not to say, rhetorical) contrast produces no effect on me, except perhaps one of irritation. [Neither the Klein nor the Gilden photograph is reproduced.] Hence the detail which interests me is not, or at least is not strictly, intentional, and probably must not be so; it occurs in the field of the photographed thing like a supp lement that is at once inevitable a nd delight ful [the French reads inevitable et gracieux, whjch is not the same thing; see note 32 below]; it does not necessar ily attest to the photograp her's art; it says only that the photographer was there, or else, still more simply, that he could not not photograph the part ial object at the same time as the total ob ject (how could Kertesz have "sepa rated" the dirt road from the violinist wa lking on it?). The Photographer's "second sight" does not consist in "seeing" but in being there. And above all, imjtating Orpheus , he must not turn back to look at what he is leading - what he is giving to me! [47/79-80) That is it; that is all Barthes has to say, with respect to the punctum, about the point of view, the activity, of the photographer (the "Operator") as distinct from the response of the viewer. But 1 think it is enough. By that I mean it is enough in order to situate Camera Lucida in relation to the central current or tradition of anti theatrical critical thought and pictor ial pract ice that I have tried to show (in my tr ilogy Absorption and Theatricality, Courbet's .Realism, and Manet's Modernism 4 ) runs from Diderot and Jean-Baptiste Greuze in the 1750s and
98
why pho tography matters as art as never before
"I recognize, with my whole body, the straggling v illages I passed throttgh on my long-ago travels in Htmgary and 'l{ttmania ... " A . KERTESZ : THE VIOLINIST'S TUN E. ABONY, HUNGARY, 1921
57 Andre Kertesz, The Violinist's Tune. Abony, Hungary, Camera Lucida
19 2
r. From Roland Barthes,
1760s through David, Gericault, Daumier, Courbet, Miller, Legros, and Fantin-Latour among others, a long with a matching list of arr cr itics, until it reaches a crisis of unsusrainability in the art of Edouard Maner in tbe 1860s and 1870s . Thereafter it undergoes a fundamenral change (of orienracion, rather than of purpose) that on the one hand indicates char the .Diderorian project - of effectively deny ing the presence before the painting of the beholder - was no lon ger feasible in any of its classic forms but on the other suggests that the problem of the beholder - of acknowledging 11-ispresence while not address ing him in the wrong way - was now absolutely fundamental to advanced painring and sculpture, in rhe first place in France, where the anrithear rical tradition arose, and eventually, decades lat er, in the United States . (The chief cr itica l cext in the latter regard is my "Art and Objecrhood," which I shall suggest has certain points in common with Barches's little book.) Understood in this context, Banhes's observatio n in section twenty of Camera Lucida char rbe detail char strikes him as a punctum could not do so had it been intended as such by the photographer is an antirbeatrical claim in chat it implies a fundamental distinction, wh ich goes back to Diderot, between "seeing" and "being shown. " 5 The punctum, one might say, is seen by Bart hes but nor because it has been shown to him by the photographer, for whom, literally, it does nor exist; as Barthes recognizes, "it occurs [onlyl in the field of th e photographed thing," which is to say char it is a pure arti fact of the pbot0graphic event- "[the photographer] cou ld not not photograph the partial object at the same rime as rhe total ob ject," is how Barthes phrases it- or perhaps more precisely it is an artifact of the encounter between the product of that event and one particular speccat0r or beholder, in the present case Roland Barrhes .6 This is in keeping with Diderot's repeated i11junction that the beholder be treated as if he were not there, standing before a painted or seated before a staged tableau, or to put this slightly differently, char nothing in a painted or stage d tableau be felt by the beholder ro be there for him. Works of painting or stagecraft char failed ro meet this experiemia l criter ion were pejoratively cbaracter ized as theatral, theatrical, which wou ld be one way of parap hr as ing Barthes's irritation with the too cleliberarely contrastive photograph by Bruce Gilden of a nun and drag queens that he compares unfavorably with Wessen's Nicaragua, in whic h, it is implied, the presence of the nuns appears fortuitous, Lutintended, as if they entered the photographic field withou t the photographer being conscious that they were there. (I do not deny that this seems an unlikely scenario; my point is simply that something of the sort follows from rhe argument of section twenty .) By no means coincidentally, Did erot also sha rply criticizes the too obvious use of contras t on the pan of the artist .7 At one othe r moment in Part One of Camera Lucida (section fourteen) Barthes considers bis topic from the point of view of the phorographer: [ imagine (this is all I can do, since l am not a photographer) that the essential gesture of the Operator is to surprise something or someone (through rhe little bo le of the camera), and rhat chis gesture is therefore perfect when it is performed unbeknownst to the subject being photog raphed . From thi s gesture derive all photographs whose principle (or better, whose alibi) is "shock"; for th e photographic "shock" (qu ite different from the punctum) consists less in traumatizing than in revealing what was so
100
w hy pho tography matters as art as never before
58 Walker Evans, Untitled /Subway Passengers, New Yorlil, r938. Film negarive, 35mm . The Metropolitan Museum of Arc, New York, Walker Evans Archi ve, 1994 (r994 .253 .502. 3)
well hidden that the actor himse lf was unaware or unconscious of it. Hence a whole gamut of "surprises" (as they a re for me, the Spectator; but for the Photographer, these are so many "performances"). [32/57] Barthes goes on to discuss severa l different kinds of "surprises," none of which he likes, but unfortunately he says nothing more about the large class of photographs taken of persons who are unaware of being photographed . The latter is a major element in twentieth-century (and for chat matter tw enty-first-century) street photography,8 as for examp le in Walker Evans's "Subway Portraits," made with a hidden camera on the New York subway in r938-4r (Fig. 58),9 in many of Garry Winogrand's street photographs from the r96os and r97os (see Fig. 148), or as in the contemporary Swiss artist Beat Streuli's telephoto videos of moving crowds on thoroughfares or street corners in different cities of the world, the film ing tak ing place without th e knowledge of th ose being recorded (Streu li also makes photographs of indivi dual pedestrians on th e same basis [see Figs c52 and r53l) . 10 Evans's, Winogrand's, and Streuli's projects may be understood as attempts to realize an ideal of natura lness chat goes back to Leonardo's note books and was restated in no uncertain terms just a few years before the publication of Camera Lucida. "T here is something on people's faces when they don't know they are being observed that never appears when they do,'' Susan Sontag writes in On Photography (1977), a statement already c ited in Chapter One. "If we didn't know how
barthes's punctum
101
Walker Evans took his subway photographs (riding the New York subways for hundreds of hours, standing, with the lens of his camera peering between rwo buttons of his topcoat), it wou ld be obvious from d1e pictures themselves that the seated passengers, although photographed close and frontally, didn't know they were being photographed; their expressions are private ones, not those they would offer to the camera." 11 This is, of course, an anrithearrical ideal, and the projects of all three men are iJJ different ways updated versions of the Diderotian project of depicting figures who appear deeply absorbed in what they are do ing, thinking, and feeling, and who therefore also appear wboJJy ob livious co being beheld (that is the crucial point, as it was for Wittgenstein in r930) . In their work as in that of other street photographers, absorption often shades into distraction, a less "deep" form of mindedness, but the same fundamenta l problematic is in fo rce. As seen in connection with Wall and Richter - and Sontag on Wall's Dead Troops Talk at the close of Regarding the Pain of Others - manifestly abso rptive motifs continue to exert their powerful spell down to the present day. Now one of the most original features of Camera Lucida is that Barrhes has no interest whatever in scenes of absorption or distraction - or more broadly in the capturing of personages mm ware of being photographed- as a representationa l strategy for the simple reason that such a strategy not onJy does not seem to him on the side of antitheatricality, it strikes him, on the contrary, as quintessentially theatrical in that although the ''actor'' - the subject being photographed - appears unaware of what the phorograp h has revealed about his or her state of mind and/or body, for the photographer the images that result "are so many 'performances'" - obvious ly a pejorative notion in this context (as is "actor," J suppose) . 12 In short in order for a photograph to be truly antitheatrical for Barthes it must somehow carry within it a kind of onto log ical.guarantee that it was not intended ro be so by the photographer - a requirement that goes well beyond anything to be found in Diderot or for that matter any eighteenth- or nineteenth-century critic or theorist. 13 The punctum, [ am suggesting, functions as that guarantee. 14 Or consider Barthes's contention (in section twenty-two) that sometimes the punctuni lis] revealed only after the fact, when the photograp h is no longer in front of me and I think back on it. I may know better a photograph I remember than a photograph I am looking at, as if direct vision or.iented its language wrong ly, engaging it in an effort of description which will always miss its point of effect, the punctum. [s 3/87] This is a surprising claim, but it leads to a stilt more remarkable one: "Ultimately - OJ' at the limit - in order to see a photograph well, it is best to look away or close your eyes. 'The necessary condition for an image is sight,' Janoucb told Kafka; and Kafka smi_ledand replied : 'We photograph things in order co drive them out of our miods . My stories are a way of shutting my eyes'" (53/88). "The photograph couches me," section twenty-two concludes, "if I withdraw it from its usual blah-blah: 'Technique,' 'Reality,' 'Reportage,' 'Art,' ere.: to say nothing, to shut my eyes, ro aUow the detail to rise of its own accord into affective consciousness" (55/89) . Nothing could better illustrate the extremity of Barthes's anritheatricalis(n in his final book {at least in Part One of that
102
why photogr aphy matters as art as never before
book) than the hyperbolic removal from the scene of response of the actua l photograph, the visib le material artifact, itself.
Part Two of Camera Lucida begins immediately follow ing a short section {twenty-fo ur) in which Barches abruptly and without warning gives up the project h e had been pur suing on the grounds that I had not discovered the nature (the eidos) of Photography. I had to grant that m y pleasure was an imp erfect mediator, and that a subjectivity reduced to its hedonist project could not recognize th e un iversal. I would have to descend deepe r into myse lf to find the evidence of Photography, that thing which is seen by anyone looking at a photograph and which distinguishes it in his eyes from any other image . I wou ld have to make my recantation, my palinode. [60/95-6] Thar recantation or palinode rakes place under the sign of Barthes's love for his deceased mother, wi th whom he had lived for much of his adult life, and finally focusses on a single image, a faded sepia print of his five-year -old mother and her seven -year-old brother "standing together at the end of a litt le wooden bridge in a glassed-in conservatory, what was called a Winter Garden in those days" (the year was x898; 67/106). This is tbe so -called Winter Garden Photograph, a photograph, he writes, that for once "gave me a sentime nt as certain as remem brance, just as Proust experienced it one day when, leaning over to take off his boo ts, th ere suddenly came to him his grandmother's true face, 'w hos e living rea lity I was experiencing for the first time, in an involuntary and complete memor y'" (70/109). 15 Yet Barthes wi ll shortly remark, "The Photograph does not call up the past (nothing Proustian in a phorograph). The effect it produces upon me is not to restore what has been abolished (by time, by distance) but to attest that what I see has indeed ex isted" (82/r29) . As he says later on : "Not only is the Photo grap h never, in essence, a memory . . . but it actually blocks memory, quickly becomes a counter -memory" (91/142 ). Barthes 's willingness to let these passages chafe against one another is puzzling (how could he have failed to note tbeir irreconcilability?) 16 but I tak e that chafing as an indication that the logic or analogy that binds Camera Lucida to Proust 's immortal masterpiece and even more pointedly to the preface of Contre Sainte-Beuve was in the end beyond his grasp. 17 Let me spe ll this out: in the preface Proust discovers and then expla ins the mode of action of what he calls involuntary memory, the almost magica l operation of which is dramatized in the famous madeleinedipped-in-tea episode in Du cote de chez Swann, volume one of A la recherche du temps perdu. But the preface insists on an insig ht that to the best of my know ledge is never made exp licit in the novel: that any delib erate attempt on th e part of a subject to imprint a contemporary scene on his or her memory wi ll not only fail to capture its reality,.it will actua lly render th e latter irrecuperabl e in the future by the action of involuntary recall. 18 Put more strong ly, on ly sce nes and events that escape the subject's conscious attention iJ1 the present are eligible to be recovered in the future, and thus , according to Proust, to be trul y experienced for the first time. The analogy between this claim and
ba rthes's punctum
103
Barthes's notion t hat th e effect of a punctum on a viewer depe nd s on its non ex iste nce for the photographer is obvious; conversely it is as though Proust's deliberately imprinted image - the product of volunta ry memory - were itself " unary," hence powerless to resurrect the past. N ow, as no reader of Camera Lucida needs to be cold, Barrhes never reproduces the Winter Garden Photograph. 19 H e explains in a parenthesis: "I cannot reproduce the Winter Garden Photograph. Tt exists on ly for me. For you, it would be nothing but an indifferent picture, one of the th ousand manife stat ions of the 'o rd inary' . . . at most it would interest your studium: period, clo thes, photogeny; but in it, for you, no wound'' (73/ 1 r 5 ). Th is makes perfect sense as far as it goes, bur l want to go a step farther and suggest that Barthes's declaration of the Winrer Gar den Photo graph's stru ctura l unre producibilicy shou ld be understood as st ill another measure of the not quite exp licit antithearrical animus of his overall argu ment - as thou gh for Barthes that unreproduc ibility epitomjzed hi s utter rejection of th e "ex hibiti on-va lue" th at Walter Benjami n famous ly associated wit h the photographic in "The Work of Arr in th e Age of i ts Technological Reproducibility . " 20 Not that Barthes mentions Benjamin, who was doubtless a less imposing figure in 1980 than he is today, bur nor does he mention a famous text by a great Fr ench w rit er rhac climax es with the revelation of a pa intin g of a be loved woman that cou ld be seen as such only by its creator, Balzac's Le Chef-d'oeuvre inconmt . It is hard to believe that the author of S/Z was unawa re of rhe laner con necti on.!' With the Winter Garden Photograph at the cente r of his reflections, Bart hes proceeds to zero in on t he assoc iat ion, as he sees it, between the photograph and the past and beyond that between the phocograph and death - in the first instance, the futur e death of the photograph's hum an subject (that is, furure relat ive ro the "rime" of the photo grap h): at th e epoch of the writing of Camera Lucida Barrhes's mother was dead, as was Lewis Payne, photographe d in prison by Alexa nd er Gardner in 1865 (Fig. 59}, soon thereafter to be hanged for his role in Linco ln 's assassination ("The photograph is handsome, as is the boy; tha t is the studium. But the punctum is: he is goiug to die" [96/148 50]); and in the secon d insta nce, or u ltima tely, the future death of one particu lar viewer, Barthes himself. 22 "lam the reference of every photograph," he writes, "and thi s is what generates my aston ishm enr in addressing myself ro the fundamental question: why is it that I am alive here and now?" (84/ 13 L). Of cou rse, being alive here a nd now inescapab ly impli es chat a day w ill come when he will no longe r be alive, which is why, in Barthes's words, "[EJach photograph ahvays conta ins this imp erious sign of my future deat h " (97/r51). All this is to say that in addit io n to the pullctum of the detail, the main concern of Part One, there is anothe r punctum, "no longer of form bur of intens ity," name ly "Time, the lacerating emphas is of th e noeme ('that has been'), its pure representation" (96/148) . An obv iou s conclusion follows, one that Barrh es himself docs not dr aw, eith er beca use he prefers his rea de rs to do so for themselves or, as l suspec t, because his thought here coo stop s just short of its farthest impli catio ns. Time, in Barthes's sense of the term, functions as a punctum for him precisely because the sense of someth ing being past, being historical, cannot be perceived by the photographer or indeed by anyone else in the present . It is a gua ran tor of ancicbeatrica licy that comes
104
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
"He is dead and he is going to die ... " ALEXANDER GARDNER: PORTRAIT OP LEWIS PAYNE. 1865
59 Alexander Gardner, Portrait of Lewis Payne, 186 5. From Roland Barches, Camera Lucida
co a photograph, that becomes visible in it, onl y after the fact, apres-coup, in order to deliver rhe hurt , th e prick, th e wound, to futur e viewer s that Barthes fears and cher ishes. Thi s has th e somewhat un exp ected consequence th at an)' phocogr aph of a present scene will undergo that development - hence Barrh es's claims that he is the reference of "eve ry " photo graph and that "each" photograph contains an imperiou s sign, the pun ctum of int ens ity, of his furure death - though his discuss ions o f pa rticular images, such as Gardner's pri son portr a it of Lewis Payne and a fortiori the Winter Garden Photo grap h , indicate that some phot ographs are far mor e wounding than ochers in thi s rega rd. On e such clas s of photograph s, Ba rth es recognjzes, are those tak en in and of ear lier epochs . "This punctum," Barth es writes, " mor e or less blurred beneath the abundance and th e dispa rit y of contempo rary photo gra phs , is vividl y legible in histo rical photographs: there is alway s a defeat of Tim e in th em : that is dead a nd that is going to die. These two litrle girls looking at a primitive airplan e above th eir village (they are dressed like my mothe r as a child , they are playing with ho ops) - how a live they are ! Th ey have their whole lives befor e them; bur also they are dead (today ), th ey are th en already dead (yeste rday)" (96/r50 - 51). 2J Actua lly, th e word " blurr ed " isn't quit e faithful to the Frenc h here; th e origina l wor d is gornme, which might better be tra nslated as "e rased" or "rubbed o ut. " In eith er case, however, the thou ght itself seems slightly errant; it would be truer to Barthes' s less than fully articu lated argument to think of the punctum of deat h as lat ent in contemporary photographs, to be bro ught out , developed (as in the photographic sense of th e term), by th e inexorabl e passage of time .24 More broadly, there is at least the hint of a contr adiction , if no t in logic a t any rate in th e realm of feeling, betw een the abso lut e uniqu eness of the Wint er Gar den Photograph ("Some thing like an essence of the Photo graph floa ted in thi s partic ular picture " l73/r I4 l) and the claim th at all photo gra phs , virtu a lly regard less of subject matter, are potentially carriers of th e punctum of time aJ1d deat h. W b.ich ma y have some thing to do with Barthes's hy perbolic (or H eideggerian? ) pronounc ement , a page or so ea rlier, th at modern society has made of th e Pho tograph precisely a means of "flatte ning " cfeath: "so that everythin g, tod ay, prepares our ra ce for this impot ence: to be no longer able to conce ive duration, affec tively o r symbolically : the age of th e Phocograph is also the age o f revolutions, cont estation s, assass ination s, exp losio ns, in short , of impati ences, of every thi ng which denies r ipening . - And no doubt, the asconis hment of 'that has been ' will also disapp ear. 1t has alr ead y disapp eared : I a m, J don 't know why, one of its last wit nesses .. . and this book is its archai c trace" (93- 4/l46-7) .25 Barth es thus comes co und erst and himself as commenting o n a n image-making or perhaps mor e acc urately an image-consuming regime that is all but def unc t, not because of any mat erial alterat ion in th e photographic artifact but because of whar he ta kes to be a profound transfo rmation of society - the wor ld - ar large. In fact two significant development s "w ithin" th e realm of the photographic were already taking place: digitization , which by th e 1990s wou ld be widely th ought to have tra nsform ed the o ntology of the phorogra ph ,26 and a considerable increase in th e size of arr photo gra phs, which already by 1980 was enabling work s such as Wall's lightbox tra nsp are ncies and Bustamant e's Tableaux to addr ess mor e than a single beho lder at the
106
why photography matters as art as never before
same time. Intimately related to the increase of size was the disp la y of those photographs on ga llery and museum wa lls, or rather the fact that photographs like Wall's and Bustamante's were made with the intention of being so displayed. (The last two points were discussed briefly in Chapter One and will be pursued at greater lengtb in Chapter Six.) lt should be obvious that both developments are at odds with the vision of photography in play in Camera Lucida. In th e first p lace, the advent of digitization, w .ith its impJjcation tl1at tbe contents of the photograph hav e been significantly altered or even created out of whole cloth by its maker, threatens to dissolve the "a dherence " of the referent to the photograph that undergirds the claim, basic to the punctum of the detail, that "the photogr apher could not not photograph the partial object at the same tim e as the tota l ob ject ." 27 (A partial object in the photograph that might otherwise prick or wound me might never have been part of a total object, which itself might be a digital construction .) In the second place, as Barthes specifies in connection with the punctum of time and death: "[P]hotographs ... are looked at when one is alone . I am uncomforta ble during the private projection of a film (not enough of a public , not enough anonymity), but I need to be alone with th e photographs I am looking at'' (97/r52) .28 bi both respects Camera Lucida has something of the character of a swansong for an artifact on the brink of fundamental change . (Perhap s the frontispiece illustration, a color Polaroid photograph by Daniel Boudinet of drawn turquoise linen curta ins with a pillow and presumably a bed in the foreground [Fig. 60] - an image unment ioned in the text- may be read allegorica lly in terms of th e first of these changes : the curtain is only barely transparent to the day lit scene beyond it, as if screening the viewer from whatever referent might lie our there. Alternatively, one might think of the weave of the curtain as an inadvertent figure for a digital photograph's pixe ls.) A further, and to my mind crucial, dimension of Barrhes's antitheatricalism emerges when one considers his engagement with the pose, the theatrical element in photography par excellence. Early on in Camera Lucida, in section five, he speaks of his considerable exper ience of being photographed whi le aware that that is taking place. Specifically, he describes the alteration that comes over him when this happens : "Now, once I feel myself observed by the lens, everything changes: I instantly constitu te myself in the process of 'posing,' I instantan eously make another body for myself, I tran sform myself in advance imo an image. This tran sforma tion is an act ive one: I feel that the Photograph creates my body or mortifies it, according to its caprice ... " (rn-rrh5). Further on :
In front of the lens, I am at the same time: the one I think I am, the one T want others to chink ] am, the one the photographer thiJJks 1 am, and the one he makes use of to exhibit his art. In other words, a strange action: I do not stop imitating myself, and because of this, eac h time I am (or let myself be) photographed, I invariably suffer from a sensat ion of inauthen ticity, sometimes of imposrure (comparable to certain nightmares). [13/29-30] This sense of theatrica lization, for that is what it amounts to, wou ld seem to be an inevitable consequence of posing, for Barthes and for anyone, but consider:
barth es's punctum
107
DANIEL
60
BOUDINET.
POLAROID. 1979
Dan iel Boudin et, Polaroid, 19 79. From Roland Barrhes, Camera Lucida
r) Not just the Winter Ga rden Photograph but every photograph of his mot her
manifested the very feeling she must ha ve experienced eac h time she "le t" herself be photographed : my mothe r "lent" herse lf to th e photograph, fearing that refusal wou ld turn to "a ttitud e;" she triumphed over th is ordeal of p lacing h erself in front of th e lens (an inevitable action) with discretion (but without a tou ch of the tense thea tricalism of humility or sulkiness); for she was always able to replace a moral value w ith a higher one - a civil va lue. She did not stru ggle with her image, as I do with min e: sbe did not suppose h erself. [67/ro5 l The quorarion marks, like th e italics, show how difficu lt Barthes found it to charac terize his mother's relation to th e camera; in the end th ere scarce ly were words for what he wished to say. As for th e Winter Ga rden Photograph,
ft]he distinctness of her face, the 11a·1ve att itude of her hands , the p lace she had docilely taken without either showing or hiding herself [emphasis added !, and finally her expression, w hich distinguished her, like Goo d from Evil, from the hysterica l litt le girl, from the simp ering doll wh o plays at being a grownup - all this constituted the £igme of a sovereign innocence . . . all this had transformed the photographic pose into tha t untenab le paradox whjch she had nonetheless maintained all her life: th e assertion of a gentleness . I69/ro7f 9 In the rares t of instances, then, it is possible to neutralize the theatricaliz ing effects of the pose by a kind o f gift of nature on the part of the sitter, which is also tO say wi th out any intention to do so on her part . 2.)Toward the end of Part Two Barthes ret urn s ro the topic of his mother's charac teristic expression and generalizes it in the concept o f "the air (the expression , the look )" (107/167). 30 " Th e air of a face is unan alyza ble," he goes on to say. " Th e air is not a schematic , intellectual datum, the way a silhou ett e is. Nor is th e a ir a simple analo gy however exte nded - as is ' likene ss.' No, the air is that exorb itant thing which induces from body to sou l - animula, littl e individua l sou l, good in one person, bad in another" (107-9/r67) . And after a sho rt digression on photographs of his mother: "The a ir (I use this word, lacking anything better, for the expression of truth) is a kind of intractable supplement of identity, what is given as an act of grace [emphasis added] , stripped of any 'importance' : the a ir expresses th e sub ject, insofa r as th at subject assigns itse lf no importance" (109/r68). (In Richard Avedon's photogr ap h of th e recently deceased leader of the American Labor Party , A. Philip Ran dolph [1976; Fig . 61 J, Bart hes reads "a n a ir of goodness (no impulse of pow er: that is certain)" [n:o/I69 i.)31 What espec ially intrigues me in these formu lations is the phrase I have itali cized : the air as "given as an act of grace ." (The French rea ds: cela qui est donne gracieusement .} "Art and Object hood, '' not oriou sly, ends wi th th e sente nce: "Presentness is grace." Is it po ssible th at th e essential, all but ineffable qualities that Barthes and I believed we found respectively in certa in photographs an d certain abs tract painting s and sculptures are at bottom th.e same?32 3) Also in Part Two Barthes goes so far as to propose that "wha t founds the nature of Photography is the pose" (78/122), a claim that on th e one han d is consistent w ith
barthes's punctum
109
"'No impulse of power'' R. AVBOON: A. PHILIP RANDOLPH (THB FAMILY).
61
1976
Richard Avedon , A. Philip Randolph, 1976 . From Ro land Ba rrhes, Camera Lu cida
his previously expressed distaste for the "performance" of phorographing "acrors" unaware of the presence of the photographer bur on the ot her appears to install an essen tially theatrical relationship a t the very heart of the photographic project. He goes on to expla in {brilliant ly, to my mind): The physical durat ion of this pose is of little co nsequence; even in the interval of a millionth of a second (Edgerton's drop of milk) there has still been a pose, for the pose is not, here, the attitude of the tar get or even a technique of the Operator, but the term of an "intention" of read ing: looking at a photograph, I inevitably include in my scrutiny the thought of that instant, however bri ef, in which a rea l thing happened to be motionless in front of the eye. I project the present photograph's immobility upon the past shot, and it is this arrest which constitutes the pose. l78/r22] The pose, in instantaneous photographs, is thus an artifact of the encounter of the product of the photograph ic event an d the viewer - just like the punctum . Barrhes continues (equally brilliantly): This explains why the Photograph's noeme deteriorates when this Photograph is animated and becomes cinema: in the Photograph, someth ing has posed in front of the tiny hole and has remained there forever {that is my feeling); but in cinema, something has passed in front of this same tiny hole : th e pose is swept away and denied by the continuous series of images: it is a differen t phenomeno logy, an d therefore a different art which begins here, though deri ved from the first one . (78/r22-3] One might expect Barthes to prefer cinema precisely on the grounds that it thereby escapes or avoids theatricality- mechanica lly, automa tically- but that may well be the deep if unacknowledged reason why he attaches a greater value to photography: because the latter is faced with the cask of overcoming theater in and throu gh the punctum, or in the case of the Winter Gard en Photograph through his mother's sheer innocence of nature . {Mechanica lly escaping or avo iding theater is not so much antithe atr ical as, merely, non-theatrica l.) This chimes wit h a similar claim about the movies in "Art and Objecthood," already broached in Chapter One in connection with Sugimoto's Movie Theaters, Sherman's Untitled Film Stills, and Wall's Movie Audience. Here too a certain closeness between the rwo texts, obv ious ly not the result of any influence of the American on rhe French, is suggestive .33 4) A final reach of Barthes's th ematics of the pose concerns his preference - too mild a word - for photographs that look him, as he puts it, "straight in the eye" {:rrx/J72). (Avedon's portrait photographs are exemplary for him in that regard. T he great missed encounter among the photographers of the 1960s and '70s, however, is with the work of Diane Arbus; one wou ld like to know what Barthes would have made of her often disturbing images of fronta lly posed subjects. 3 4 ) This corresponds to a major strain, which I call "fac ingness," in modernist painting since Manet, 35 and is said in conn ection with a further avowa l of his lack of interest in photographs that seem to ignore him, in particu lar news photographs of scenes of "death, suic ide, wounds, acc idents" (nr/I7r) .
barthes·s punctum
111
No, nothing to say about these photographs in which I see surgeons' gowns, bodies lying on the ground, broken glass, etc . Oh, if there were only a look, a subject's look, if only someone in the p hotographs were look ing at me! fBut w hat of Kercesz's The Violinist's Tune or Stieg litz's classic The Horse-Car Termina l, another image Barthes admires, neither of wh ich conta ins such a look? Yet there are facing figures in Wessing's Nicaragua p hotographs, William Klein's Mayday, Moscow, and indeed in most of the other images Barthes illustrates.] For the Phocograph has this power which it is increas ingly losing, the front a l pose being most often cons idered archaic nowadays - of looking me straight in the eye (here, moreover , is another difference : in film, no one ever looks at me: it is for b idden - by the Fict ion ).f rr r/171-2 l Barches is right about th e diegetic structure of film, or at any rate of traditional narr ative film (that is, movies} with its implicit inju nction agains t all direct sol icitation of the viewer (compare the bri ef discussion of this aspect of Sherma n's Untitled Film Stills in Chapter One}, but turns out to ha ve been wro ng about photography's abando1unent of the frontal pose . Apart from Avedon and Arb us (and Robert Mapp lethorpe, two of whose portrait photographs h e reproduces}, reliance on such a pose was already implicit in Bern d and Hilla Becher's documentary photographs of industrial bu ildings and constructions, wh ich they had begun to make in 19 59 and which by 198 0 were becoming widely know n, and in the early portrait work of Ruff, a student of Bernd Becher in Dusse ldor.f. Other photog raphers such as Thomas Stru th (an ot her Becher student}, Patrick Fa igen baum, Ro land Fischer, and Rineke Dijkstra soon fo llowed, an d in general the frontal pose came increasingly to play a vital ro le in the new art pbotograph y as the latter claim ed for itself the scale and so to speak the address of abstract painting. (Bustamante's photographs of cypresses also belong to this development, as does Wall's Picture for Women, perhaps his most important ea rly work .) So perhaps one shou ld say that Barches was forwa rd -loo king in his attachment to the frontal pose, even if his caste for Avedon in particular is at odds with recent developments. Th e question, of co ur se, is how, with in the logic of the arguments I have been track ing, photographs based on th e fronta l pose, th ereby foregroun ding the subject's awareness of the fact of being photographed, can succee d in defeating theatrica lity in the case of subjects who are no t, like Barth es's five-year -old moth er or A. Philip Randolph, human ly exceptional. Barthes's attempt at a solution (in section forty -six) takes off from a rea I-life situation in which a yo ung boy entered a cafe and looked at bim wit hout his being sure that the boy was seeing him. This leads to the proposa l char the Photograph separates attention from perception, an d yields up on ly th e former, even if it is impossible without the latter . . . [I]t is tl1is sca ndalous movement whkh produces th e rarest qua lit y of an air. Th at is the paradox: how can one have an intelligent air witho ut t hinking about anyth ing intelligent, just by looking into this piece of black p lastic? It is because the look, eliding th e vision, seems held back by something interio r. ln 1- 13/r72 - 4 ]36 This coo is brilliant in an ad hoc sort of way but , appealing as it does to th e photog raph as such, it fa ils to explain w hy only some fronta l portrait s are fel 1 by Barthes to succeed in this respect (is that rea lly wha t is at sta ke in Kertesz's great portrait of the fiercely
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
"How can one have an intelligent air witho11,tthinking of anything intelligent? ... " A.
KERTESZ. PIET MONDRIAN
IN HIS STUDIO. PARIS, 1926
62 Andre Kertesz, Piet Mondrian in His Studio . Paris, I926, 1926 . From Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida
intellectual Mondr ian [1926; Fig. 62], which Barthes illustrates in this co nnect ion?), and it appears to have nothing to do with the ontologica l and affective themes of what has gone before. At this point the imp etus of his discourse gives our and th e book is near its end. Yet one can at least say that Barthes 's avowed ta ste for photographs of the fronta l type, precisely because of the difficult ies the latt er seem inevitably to present for an antitbeatrica l est het ic, furth er suggests that for him overcoming , no t avoiding, theat rica lity is what has to be accomplis hed, and perhaps also that success in that endeavor can be imagined ro take plac e on ly aga inst the grain of the photog rapher's intentions. 37 (I shall have more to say about the issue of intentionality in Camera Lucida in the conclusion to this book.) The present chapter as a whole raises a broader question, namel y the sta tus of antitheatrica lism elsewhere in Barthes 's oeuvre . A serious attempt to answer that question wou ld have to consider at leas t his early writings on the theater both before and after bjs epocha l 19 54 encounter with the Berliner Ensem ble and the plays and theori es of Brecht (a high ly ambiguous figure with respect to the issue of theatrica lity); t he arti cles "Baudel aire's Theater," "Rhetoric of the Image," and "Diderot, Brecht, Eisenstein "; his more covert involvement with Artaud; the essay "The Third Meaning : Research notes on some Eisenst ein stills," which anticipa tes several points in Camera Lucida; and the exhilarated pages on th e bunraku puppet theater in The Empire of Signs.38 It is not to be expected, given the several intellect ua l peripeteias in Barthes's career, and also in view of the fact that even in Camera Lucida h e remains incomp letely awar e of the ultimate import of key distinctions an d arguments, that the story would be simp le.
114
w hy photography
matte rs as art as never before
thomas struth's museum photographs
5
Thomas Scruth, born in L954, belonged to Bernd Becher's first group of photography students at the Dusseldorf Academy, along with Andreas Gursky, Candida H ofer, Axe l Hi.itte, and Thomas Ruff. 1 Later on in this book I sha ll examine some of his fam ily portraits and sha ll glance as well at his early cityscapes an d his later "Pa radis e" photo s, but in this chapter I want to look closely at a num ber of the so-called mu seum photographs that he has been making at inter vals since 1989 . Thre e series of these will be considered . The first, by far the best known and most widely admired, comprises twentyodd large color photographs of people looking at paintings in museums and churches in Europe and, in a few cases, the United States . (I shall call them th e classic mus eum photographs.} Amo ng these are Louvre 4, Paris (1989; Fig. 63), featuring Theodore Gericault 's Raft of the Medusa; Kunsthistorisches Museum 3, Vienna (r989; Fig. 64), depicting a wh ite-hair ed man in a dark blue coat wi th hands clasped behind his back looking closeJy at a Rembrandt portrait of a muc h you nger man in a white ruff, one of a pair of portraits of a married coup le; Galleria dell'Accademia I, Venice ( r992 ; Fig. 65), dominated by Veronese's monumenta l Feast in the House of Levi; Art Institute of Chicago 2 (r990; Fig. 66), perhaps the best-known of all the mus eum phot ogra ph s, centered on Gustave Ca illebotte's Paris Street, Rainy Day; Stanze di Raffaello 2, Rome (1990; Fig. 72), a view of a milling crow d in th e Stanza della Segnatura i_nthe Vatican with parts of Rapha el's frescoes visible on the wa lls a bo ve the visitor s' heads (one can just make o ut pare of The School of Athen s at the left}; San Z accaria, Venice ( i:995; Fig. 70), the cen tra l painting in which is Giovannj BelLini's late a ltarpiece bearing th e name of the chur ch; Alte Pinakothek, Self-Portrait, Munich (2000; Fig. 73}, a frontal v iew of Diirer's great Self-Portrait of r500 with Struth himself slightly out of focus and partly cnt off by the edge of the photograph in the n ear righ t foreground; and National Gallery 2, London ( 2oor; Fig. 7r), a sho t of Vermeer's Woman with a Lute tak en from a resp ectfol distance and at an angle, so that it seems to han g alone on the right-hand wall, wit h no one looking at it. (The date s suggest that Struth began photographing in museums and the Vatican and moved on to churches somewhat later.} In most though by no means all o f the museum photogr aphs viewers are dep icted wholly or partly from behind as they sta nd before th e vario us canvases; the only photogi:aph w ithout a viewer is National Callery 2, London, and it cannot be an accident that it comes at the very end of the museum sequence (also that it depicts a Vermeer - but I am gettin g ahead of myself). A second series, comprising just six photographs, was made in the Pergamon Mu seum in Berlin between 1996 and 2oor. A third , somewh at large r group of works, known as the" Audience" series, was shot in Florence at the Galleria dell' Accademia in th e summer
t homas struth's museum photographs
·115
of 2004. 1 shall discuss both of these after considering the class ic museum photographs at some length .2 A fourth and a fifth series, the former shot at the Prado and the latter at the Herm itage (both in 2005), became known to me too late to be included in this chapter, though I shall say just a word about them in the conclusion to my book. Perhaps the best way to begin is by noting the tendency of many of Strut h 's commentators to equate the painted figures in the canvases and frescoes with the actual viewers (the visitors to the museum or church in quest ion) stand ing in front of the works of art. So for example the dist inguished art histor ian Hans Belting, in an essay first published in I993, claims, "It is the museum visitors, not the pictures, who are the first to enter our vision, and they deny us direct access to the photographed paint ings, even though they do not obstruct our view, as they would do if they were standing in the same place we are. They irritate us, howev er, because it is they who are look ing at the pictures instead of ourse lves." 3 Nevertheless, he takes it as obv ious that "Struth prefers to trace the consonance between the paint ings and their viewers rather than the contrast between them, because he is interested in putting the peop le in the pa intings and tbe people in front of the pa intings on the same level" (1r2). This leads to the further claim that "we begin to see the pictures as dramas in which the acto rs are in search of an audience, and the audience, for its part, is in search of an exper ience, or in search of itself" (n3). Farther on: Willy-ni lly, we are using dua l vision: one to view the painting , and the other ro glance at our contemporaries; or rather, we have one eye for art and another for everyday life, the latter of wh ich is being questioned and as a result transformed . fo comparison with the painted figures, our comemporar ies - most of whos e faces we do not even see- assume a visua l quality that po ints to photography as a medium. My awar eness of their poses and the colou rs they wear becomes more intense as r measure them against the very different poses and colours in the paintings. I suddenly begin to see photography in the same way I see painting. [n4] Lndeed the re emerg es in Belting's account almost an ambiguity as ro what lies inside and outside the painting. Thus the red check dress of the woman with the stroller who has paused in front of Cai llebotte's Paris Street as if she was hesitating to go out into the painted rain with her child's push -cha ir, complements the clothing colours in th e painting to such a degree that one no longer knows what is inside the painting and what is in front of it. Struth is using diiferent means to cont inue his game wi th the boundaries of art . ... We feel like rubbing our eyes when th e space in front of the painting transforms itself into a picture that is not sepa rated from the painting. [II 5 I Belting also says that precisely the opposite can happen, as in a photograph of crowds in front of N apoleonic pictures that seem like "windows whose curtains have been drawn" (1I5 ).4 But this is presented as an exceptional case, and even in a more than usually complex reading of Louvre 4 the emphasis comes down on the side of conn ection, not disconnection . Standing before the Raft of the Medusa, he writes, the viewers
116
why photography matte rs as art as never be fo re
63 Thomas Struth, Louvre 4, Paris, 1989 . Chromogenic process print. 137 x 172.5 cm; 187 x 2II cm framed
seem to be eyewitnesses of the human drama in the painting, within which almost every gaze out of the picture is directed toward a distant signal of rescue. The gazes of the viewers follow the gazes of th e shipwrecked sailors, but our own eyes have already tak en in th is double sequence. In the picto rial parallels between the photo graph and the painting, we experience both as a window, and windows are of course phys ica l obstacles, but not visual ones . In the colour ing, the space, and the lighting, the two media are as much consp iratorially bound together as they are self-confidently contradictory. [II5] Similarly, referring to what he sees as a silent "dia logue" between the actual white -haired man and the depicted younger man in the Rembrandt portrait in Kunsthistorisches
thomas struth's museum phot og rap hs
117
64 Thomas Struth, Kunsthistorisches Museum 3, Vienna, 1989 . Chromoge nic process print. 143 x 99 cm; 187 x 145 cm framed
Museum . 3, Belt ing writes: "Eac h of the int erloc utor s in the dialogue remain s enclosed within his own biography, no matt er when he lived," which is inco ntestabl e, but then adds : " everrh eless, they seem to be co mmuni ca ting w ith eac h other acr oss th e chasm of hist ori ca l, supraper sona l tim e .... The per so n painted and th e pers on photographed ... are in the m iddl e of a conversation with each other" (1 L9). As for Galleria dell' Accademia r, which for Belting brin gs th e mu seum cycle to a dramatic clim ax, "Now here else," he writes, " do th e co lour s in the paintings and in the photograph coa lesce so effo rtl essly, and the multitude of to urist s in th e museum seems to mi x casu ally wi th the guests at Veron ese's Feast in the House of Levi" (122 ). In that sense the pa intin g suppli es add itiona l mu seum guests, and a continuation of the mu seum room in the painted palace o f a Venetian ar istocrat . . . . If we reca ll that Veronese plac ed his own contem pora ries in the paint ing, we can reconstruct the virt uo so interpla y between real ity and illusion which the paint er, matching Struth's int enti ons exact ly, was enactin g eve n then. The painter was questioning the boundari es of rea lity, just as Struth is questioning the bound aries between painti ng and photography. [122] My point in citing Bel tin g at length is not to take issue wi th h im personally but rather co prepare the gro und for a far different reading of Stru th 's museum pictures (also to
118
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
6 5 Thomas Struth, Galleria dell'Accademia 1, Venice, 1992. Chromogenic process print. 184.5 x 228 .3 cm; 184 .5 x 228.3 cm framed
suggest why such a reading is called for) . My reading, like Belting's, will be based solely on the photographs but I shall also be relating my reading of particular images to certain larger issues of a sort that have no place in Belting's commentary. My basic claim is this: that in the most compelling - to my eye and mind, the strongest - of the museum photo graphs, the persons dep icted in the paintings and the actual persons who have come to the museum to interact with those paintings in one way or another, far from taking part in a sophisticated game in which the boundary between painting and photography is continua lly breached, belong absolutely to rwo disparate and uncommunicating realms or, as I want to call them, "worlds." Take Struth's Art Institute of Chicago 2: is it rea lly true that the woman pushing a stroller (mostly hidden from our view) who stands gazing at Caillebotte's Paris Street appears to inhabit a space that is continuous with the depicted space within the paint ing? Or that her red plaid dress is felt to be anythiJ1g but anomalous with respect to the painting's intensely atmospheric color scheme? Or that "one no longer knows" whether she stands in front of the painting or w ithin it? For me the answer to all such question s is no, a no that is particular ly emphatic both for the way in which the strong ly perspectival space of the painting might be held to beckon the viewer into the depicted scene and for the unconventional relation to the picture plane of the three figures in the
thomas str uth's museu m photographs
119
66 Thomas Strurh, Art Institut e of Chicago cm; 1 84 x 219 cm framed
2,
1990 . Chromo genic process print. L3 7. 5 x r7 4.5
right- hand half of the composi tion - the man and woman sharing an umb rella and glancing to the ir right (our left) as they wa lk directly toward the picture plane , and the tophatt ed man hold ing an umb rella to their left (our right) who not on ly is seen from behind but who is meant to appear to have just entered the depict ed scene from "our" space, in effect traversing the pictur e plan e as he did so. In other words , Caillebotte's canvas seems to pro vide an ideal test for Belting's acco unt precisely because it delib erate ly and consp icuou sly engage s the idea of the physical permeability - no t just the photograp hlike "transparence" - of the p icture plane , and my conte ntion is that despit e that fact, or ra ther because of it, $truth's photograph makes it especially clear that such perm eability is not hing more than a pictorial :fiction - that far from visua lly subsumingthe woman standing befor e it, th~ pa intin g_in the pl1orog1~p h is not on ly closed to ~er but -in the end almos t actively indiff erent to her very ex istence (and a f ortior i co oms as ; iewers of $truth's pl1otogra ph ). Ind eed if there is any ambiguit y at work in $truth's photog raph , it concerns the difficulty of determ ining how much of that sense of exclusion is based on the actions of the figures in the painting and how much on thos e of the persons in the photograph: so for examp le Caillebotte's man and woman sharing an
120
why photography
matters as art as neve r befo re
mnbrella appear mom entar ily absorbed in someth ing or someone to their right, hence unaware of anyone who happens to be before the canvas, but it is also true that the young woman with long braids standing wi th her hands clasped behind her back immediately t0 the painting's right and who perhaps is reading a wall text that we cannot see - she is p lainly not looking at the painting - underscores the sense of uncommunicating realms (all the more so in that purely formally she offers an approximate analogy to the top-ha tted man seen from the rear) . Again, looking at Struth's Kunsthistorisches Museum 3, I am not inclined to imagine that the white-haired viewer studying the Rembrandt portrait and the younger, whiteruffed, gesturing man in the portrait are "in the m iddle of a conversation with each other ." As regards the painting itself, in contrast to th e _painting as it appears in the photograph, this is not an implaus ib le not ion : Rembrandt's sitter looks directly out of the portra it so as to seem to address a beholder standing directly before it. However, if one shifts one's position to the side the sitter's gaze appears to follow one, and my sense is that the photograph positive ly makes a point of this fact by depicting both portraits from an oblique angle as well as by capturing a moment in which the white-ha ired man has approached the portrait closel y without at all seeming co draw the painted man's atte ntion . (It is important to realize that Srruth proceeded by taking numerous shot s in a particular spot , in the hope that one of them would turn out to yield a picture worth preserving. Evidently Scruth found somethi ng he wanted in this photograph's implied contras t between the dose-range scrutiny of the portrait by che white -hair ed man and the seeming indifference of Rembrandt's sitt er to his _presence.) The further fact that the man in the ruff gestures toward the porrrait of his wife while she appears to be looking appreciatively at him only reinforces one's sense of both pictures' closure to the whitehaired viewer. Something slightly different takes p lace in Galleria dell'Accademia I, dominated by Veronese's Feast in the House of Levi, but the end resu lt is similar . The Veronese occupies almost the entire facing wall, but only a few visitors - a young couple and a somewhat older man - are shown lookiJ1g up at it; in the near foreground other visitors, large in size owing to the effect of photographic parallax, are blurred from having been caug ht in motion and in any case are looking elsewhere (to the right or the left); farther back and to the right, stand ing on both sides of a long blue radiator, one glimpses another half dozen visitors of all ages who for the most part appear to be looking toward paint ings on the left-hand wa ll, most of which lie beyond the left- hand edge of the photograph; and still fart her back and to the left several visitors look up and to che left as well. (A correction: one dark -haired young man in jeans at the rear left a lso turns out to be looki_ng at the Veronese but it takes close study to find him.) One effect of this internal diversity - of scale of persons, of their sharpness or blurredness, of their spatia l distribution, of the direct ion of their gazes - is to isolat e Veronese's g iant painting, or at least to underscore its separateness from the "wo rld'' of tourist hwnanity , most rep resentative s of which are not even taking it in. As for the painting itself, no ma tter how meticulous the extreme perspective foreshor tening of its floor tiles or how spectacularly illusionistic the render ing of the arch itectural loggia in wh ich the feast is taking p lace,
thomas strut h's museum photogra phs
121
its blatantly scenic character- the sense it conveys of being spread out laterally before the viewer, hence resistant to penetration - is somehow heightened by photographic depiction. (The painting's elevatio n above the actual floor plays a role in this as weLI.) In any case, nothing could be more at odds with Galleria dell'Accadernia r as I see it than th e suggestioD that its hum an subjects are sh own "mix[ing l casually" with Levi's gues ts. I do not know know whether or nor Struth would agree with my account of his museum photographs, but some of his remarks in interviews suggest that he might. For example, Phyllis Tuchman quotes him as saying, "I wanted ro remind my audience that when art works were made, th ey were not yet icons or museum pieces." And: "When a work becomes fetishized it dies." She adds: "$truth feels th e paintings in his museum photographs regain aspects of their origina l vitality when seen anew in the context he renders so seam lessly. " 5 It is not bard ro see why $trut h or indeed anyone else might feel this, though the word "seamlessly" is somew hat misleading . For if my account of the strongest of the museum phorographs is correct, it would be more accurate to say th.at the photographs make perspicuous - or at least intuitable - an otherwise invisible (and in an important sense nonexistent) seam forever separating the represented "worlds" of th e paintings they show from the actual world of the spectators, and that it is the work of that sea m (more broadly, it is rhe ontological work of the photographs) to create rhe impression that Strut!, tried to put into words to Tuchman - as if the photographs th ereby evoke an imaginary "moment" before the paintings were given over to beholding. I have already offered a few suggestions about why, in particular images, this might be the case . There is a further, general consideration that bears on the issue: $truth's photographs depict not one but two "worlds" (from no\.v on I shaU dispense with quotation marks), that of the painting or paintings featured in a given image and that of the 01usew11 or church in which it or they hang, and although as viewers of the photographs we rend co assume char the second, publk wor ld is ours, we do not in fact inhabit it. (The famous "transparence" of the photographic smface is what misleads us here, a.long with the very force of photographic realism as such .6) Instead, that second world is manifest only in the photographs, which is to say rhar w hat Struth's photographs give us to see, if my claims so far are co rrect, is the disconnectedness - the onto logical disparateness or separateness - of the respective wor lds of the painting or paintings they depict and of the phocographs themselves, neither of wliich wor lds can be ident ified with our own. A passage from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Remarks, a long-unpublished work sub mitted to Cambridge Univers ity in May 1930 as part of an application for a renewal of his research grant, is suggestive here: That it doesn't strik e us at a ll when we look around us, move about in space, feel our bodies, ere., etc., shows how natural these things are co us. We do nor notice that we see space perspectively or that our visual field is in some sense blurred coward its edges. Jr doesn't strike us and never can strik e us because it is the way we perceive. We never give it a thought and it's impossible we shou ld, since there is nothing that cont rasts with the form of our world .7
122
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
A few paragraphs later he writes : Time and aga in the attempt is made to use language to limit the world and set it in re lief - bu t it can' t be done. The self-evidence of the wor ld expresses itself in the very fact that language can and does only refer to it. For since language on ly derives the way in which it means from its meaning, from the wo rld, no language is conceivab le that does not represent th is world . [80] Adapting Wittgenstein's thoughts to my account of Struth's museum photographs, what is suggestive is the idea that the latter make visible a certa in contrast or set of contrasts between the world in wh ich we live, perceive, and move - between what Wittgenstein also ca lls "the given'' 8 - an d another, mechanically depicted world which on the one hand in strictly visua l terms resemb les ours extreme ly closely (albei t imperfectly in many regards : for example, photographs are not normally blurr ed toward their edges, and of course we see wi th continuous ly self-adjus ting binocu lar vision) and on the other is separate from us or closed to us in fundamental ways. Indeed the crucial cont rast is that between the separateness or closure of the world depicted in the museum photographs and the structura l openness of our actual, lived world as described by Wittgenste in; to use two others of his formulat ions, th is is precisely the contrast that the photographs make striking to us, that they set in relief. (The photographs, one might say, perform a kind of ontologica l work that language as such canno t. ),,. ,. Also pertinent he re are paragraphs 600-05 in W ittgenstein's Philosophical investigations, rr. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford, r958), pp . 156e-57e: Docs everyt hing tha t we do not find conspicuous make an impression of inconsp icuousness? Doe s whar is ordinary a lways make the impression of or dinariness? When I talk about this cable, - a m I remem bering that th is object is cal led a "tab le"? Asked "Did you recoga ize your desk when you ent ered your room this morning?" - 1 shou ld no doubt say "Certa inly!" And yet it wou ld be misleading to say that an act of recognition had raken place. Of course the desk was not strange to me; 1 was nor surprised ro see it, as I shou ld have been if another one had been standing there, o r some unfam iliar kind of object. No one wi ll, say chat every time I enter my room, my long -famil iar surroundings , there is enacted a recognition of all chat I see and have seen hundreds o f t imes before . It is easy co have a fa lse picture of the processes called "recogn izing"; as if recogniz ing a lways consisted in compa r ing two impressions with one another. 1r is as if 1 carried a p icture of an object with me and used ir to
perform an ident ification of an ob ject as the one represented by t he picture. Our memory seems to us co be che agen t of suc h a compar ison, by preserving a picture of w hat has been seen before, or by allowing us to look into tbe pas r (as if down a spy -glass) . And it not so much as if I were comparing the object with a pict u re set beside it, but as if the ob ject coincided with the picture . So l see on ly one thing, not two. [Elllphasis in orig inal. ] W ittgenstein means ro be calling this way of understanding "the processes called 'recognizing'" into question, and what is fascinating about h is remarks in the present context is chat they ra ise the further possibility - at any rate, this is my thought - that the p icrure he imagines us imagin ing we carr y w ith us co compare with actual objects in the world is itself a kind of pbocograph. 1f true th.is would make it a ll t he more likely that we would cake the concems of an actual photograph to "coinc ide" w ith suc h a picture. Sec also Wittgens tein 's discuss ion of what he calls the "'v isua l room'" in the same work, para graphs 398-402, pp . 12.oe-2.2e, as well as the following from "The Blue .Book" : Now when in the so lips istic way I say "This is wha t 's rea lly seen," 1 po int before me and it is
thomas strut h's m use um photog raphs
123
lo one sense , of course, what I ha ve been describing is a property of photographs gen era lly. Hmvever, $trut h's mu seum p hot ograp hs subtly bur insistent ly thematize rhat prope rty by dir ect ing attent ion to a crucial similar it y between look ing at paintin gs and look ing a r pbocogra phs , namely that tb e viewer is no more invit ed co ent er the space of the ph otograph than be or she is invited to ent er that of a painting. Ar the same time, the mu seum phot og raphs make visib le only in the most atte nuat ed way a vita l, even a defining, difference between o il paintings and pbotograpbs: I mean that paintin gs have worked, ofte n physically o bdurat e surfaces an d typica lly phoco graphs do not. " Pai nting h as to do with touch ... . T ha t's th e eros specific ro painring . . . . Photogr ap hy is about distance, th e inability to to uch, maybe," Jeff Wall has sa id. 9 Yet attenuation is not elision , which is to say th at it is as if th e non-"tra n spar ent" character of the paintings' surfaces is inevitab ly registered in Struth 's photographs at th e sa me time as the vie'vver'ssense of remova l from all pos sibilit y of direct contact with thos e sur faces a llows the "world- likeness" or say "wo rld-apartnes s" of th e paint ings as representat ions to be app rehe nd ed w ith particu lar force . (As the discussion in Chapter One of Bustamante's Tableaux demonstrated, and as will emerge a t gL"eater leng th far th er on in this book, the beholder-"excluding" aspect of photography can lend itself to much mor e aggressive for ms of rhematization than is found in the mus eum photographs. 'By the same token, ph otographe rs can strive acti vely against that aspect of the medium , as Stephe n Shore d id in his Uncommon Places.) All this implies a subtl e balancing act, an d in one phorog rap h, National Museum of Art, Tokyo (1999; Fig. 67), featuring Delacroix's brightly illuminated L iberty at the Barricades behind a protective transparent screen, th e balance is p la inly off: the painting seems to have no m ore rea lity than a pr ojected ima ge woukl have, and the relationship betw een it an d the dark, barel y differentiate d a udience of viewers looking up at it is \-vithout m ore than journalistic interest. (Poss ibly the point of the photograph for
essential rhar I point visually. If l poi nt ed sideways o r behind me - as it we re, ro things which I don 'r see - the pointing would in this case be mean ingless ro me; it wou ld nor be po inting in the sense in wh ich I wish to point. Bur this means that when I point before me saying "this is what's really see n," a lthough I make rhe geswre of poi nt ing, l don't point co one thing as oppose d to another. T h is is as whe n travelling in a car and feeling in a h m ry, T instinctively press aga inst someth ing in from of me as rhoug h I cou ld push th e car from within. (Ludw ig Wittge nste in, The Blue 11nd Brown Bouks [Oxford, 19601, p . 71, emphasis in o r igina l) This paragraph occurs as part of a longer discus sion of the prob lematic nature of rhe concept o f "sense data." My thanks ro James Conant and
124
w hy pho tograp l1y matters as art as never before
Richard Mo ran for helpin g me grapple wit h these issues. There is, however, another possibility tbar should be ac kno wledge d : nam ely, that the force of Wittge nste in's insistence in Philosophical Remarks upon rhe necessary fa ilure of a n}' att empt to use language ro limit rhe wo rld and sec it in relief is that 1101/Jingcould do that, includ ing phocograp h y (wh ich of co urse he does no r ment ion) . T his is che view of Robert Pipp in , who also wishes ro say that $truth's museum photograph~ show us rhe paintin gs in o m wor ld, che world rbe museum-goers and Srrurh and we all inhabit. To rhe ex tent that the paintings cou ld then be seen as ignoring rhe museum-goers, and more broadly as resisting the casual tourist world environ ing chem, a certa in anr ith ea crica l rheme would sri ll be in play. However, L am nor persuaded by this .
67 Thomas Strurh, National Museum of Art, Tok) 10, 1999. Chromogenic process print. L69.5 x 267 cm; 179 .5 x 'l.77 cm framed
Struth concerns precisely t~ p~inting's transmogr ification under "foreign" conditions of exhibition.) Other museum photographs fall short of evoking the separa tion I have described for other reasons: in Musee d'Orsay r, Paris (1989) the seven Van Goghs are coo small and distant to provide anything but a foil for the absorbed att itudes of the tourist viewers; in National Gallery 1 , London (J9 89; Fig. 68) the featured picture, Cima de Conegliano's Incredulity of Thomas, aims too conspicuously at a kind of sunlit illusioniscic projection "this" side of the picture surface for an effect of separat ion to take hold (it may have been prec isely that qual ity that intrigued Struth, however); in Museo del Vaticano 1, Rome (1990), the crowd of young visitors in parkas and with notepads 10 is simply too "prese nt" rela tive to the painted figures in the two gold-ground pan els; whi le in Rijksmuseum 1, Amsterdam (1990; Fig. 69) the way in which th e young woman seated on a meta l benc h in front of Reinbrandt's Syndics turns away from th e painting, apparently directing her gaze at an unseen person or object to our left, detaches her too co nspicuously from the canvas for ontological considerations to come into play. lt is an appealing photograph but with too obvious a scenario, I feel, and indeed it turns out 1 to have been posed by the photographer. t Finally, it is in relat ion to questions of "world -likeness" and "world-apartness" that I understand the self-restriction of the museum photographs to repr esentationa l paint ing. "Although Strutb loves the work of Pier Mondrian," Tuchman writes in the article cited abov e,
thomas st ruth's museum photog raphs
125
68 Thoma s Scrutl,, National Callery 1, London, 1989. Chrom ogenic process print . r34 x 152 cm; 180 x r96 cm framed 69 Th omas Scrurh, Rijksmus eum r, Amsterdam, 1990. Chrom ogenic process print. u8 x 168cm; 164 x 2r2cm framed
he wasn't satisfied with his views of people looking at abstractions by the Dutch Modernist master. He also didn't like what he got when he worked with the bright, co lor fields of the American abstract expressionist Barnett Newman. He's come to realize he needs figures to respond to other figures. That's a major part of how he achieves a dialogue between two med ia - painting and photography . Possib ly, but my own explanat ion would stress the sense in which an abstract painting, for all its material rea lity and formal self-sufficiency,_falls short of picturing a world; or perhaps the point is that this is what becomes of abs tract paintings in photographs, at any rate in Struth's photographs, and that the photographer, being an acute observer of his own work, saw what was happening and drew th e correct conclusion. (The latest edition of $truth's Museum Pictures includes a photograph of one abstract canvas, Pollock's One: Number JI, I950 [1994 ] in the Museum of Modern Art; significantly, the viewers are blurred and the emphasis falls squarely on the painting. Moreover, not just abstract paintings are missing from Struch's museum photographs; so are major .figurative works by early twentieth-century modernists such as Matisse and Picasso. I suspect that the reasons for this are the same.) I have said that there are larger issues with which my reading of $truth's museum photographs engages . The se have mainly co do with the core argument of my Absorption and Theatricality, which (as outlined in Chapter One and touched on again in sub sequent chapters) maintains that a central current or tradition in French painting and art criticism from the middle of the eighteenth century up to Manet and his generation had for its guiding aim the project of establishing the ontologica l illusion that the beholder did not exist, that there was no one standing before the painting - a project which, if successful, wou ld in fact stop and transfix the actual beho lder precisely there . This was chiefly to be accomplished by the representation of figures so deeply absorbed in what they were doing, thinking, and feeling that they appeared unawar e of being beheld; the impre ssion conveyed was that they inhabit ed a worl d of their own, a wor ld in that respect - so to speak metaphorically - distinct and apart from that of the beho lder. (I noted the pers istence of this idea in Schwander's description of the young man in Wall's Adrian Walker as "concentrating so int ensely on his work that he seems to be removed to another sphere of life," and it came up again in the discussion in Chapter Three of Wittgenstein's 1930 extrac t.) It follows then that the depiction in Struth's museum photographs of non -communicating wo rlds - those of the pa intings, that of the museumgoers - harmonizes w ith crucial aspects of the Diderotian (or Diderotian/Wittgensteinian) ideal. What now needs to be remarked is, first, that some of the museum photographs that fit this acco unt do not represent scenes of absorption. This is plainly true of the Rembrandt portraits, while in the case of Feast in the House of Levi although none of the figures look directly out of the picture, the expans iveness of variou ;;gestures and more broadly what I have called the "scenic" quality of the canvas as a whole militate aga inst the idea of absorptive closure. Second, that other museum photographs do indeed depict works either in th e modern French absorptive 12 tradition or that may legitimately be seen in absorptive terms, at least up to a point.
thomas struth's museum photographs
127
Exa mpl es of the first includ e Cai.llebotte's Paris Street, w ith its two pri ncipal .figures, the couple sharing an umbr ella in the right foreground, whos e atte ntio n appears momentaril y to be engaged by something - a person, thing, or event - off-canvas to the left. In an essay on Caillebotte, I have tried to show that he was consistently an a bsorp tive pa int er, with the proviso that his work also characterist ically registers the impact of Man et's ant ithetical assertion of facingness, which is why in Paris Street th e absorbed coup le is shown walking directly to war d th e pict ure plan e (that is, why the two figures face us with all but their gazes). 13 In any case, my suggestion is that our intuition of their absorption, hence of their cut-offness from whatever migh t be taking place in the world of the museum-goers, cont ribut es to the effect of distancing and sepa ration betwee n wor lds I ha ve associated with that photograph. Th e other museum photograph that features a work belonging centra lly to th e French antith eatrical tradition is Louvre 4, in which eight or nin e spectators (counting body part s), most or all of them Asian, stand at a respectfu l distance fro m Gerica ult's stupendo us - but a lso, one feels, to them somew hat disconcerting - Raft of the Medusa. In my account of th e Raft, first in Courbet's R ealism and afterward in an independent essay on the paint er, I call attention to its altog eth er origin al comp osition and in particular to the fact that wit h the obv ious exception of the older man griev ing over the corpse of a yo unger one in the left foreground, mo st of the ot her figures take part in a tremendous co llective effort to attract the attenti on of a passing ship, the brig Argus, on the far horizon . 14 (If they can succeed in this, they will at last be rescued after two hor rendous weeks und er th e tropical sun; th e effo rt fails, but later the same da y th e Argus spo ts th e raft and the men are saved . The sub ject of the pa intin g was based on an actual shipwreck.) In the text s just cited I gloss thi s structu ral tour de force by suggesting that it was motivated by th e need to overcome the presence of the actu a l beholder before the painting - the depiction of "mer e" absorption or indeed a bsorbi ng drama being no longer sufficient to achieve thi s, so that stron ger meas ur es were called for. And what could be st ronger than in effect stra nding 150 shipwrec ked men on a ma keshift raft under a blazing sun for two weeks, subjecting them to hun ger, thir st, madness, ca nnib alism , an d other horror s, and then revea ling to a handful of despairin g survivo rs, at the farthest limit of representationa l space, a ship that wou ld surely rescue them if only they cou ld succeed in attracting the attention of tho se on it. Viewed in th at light , the efforts of the men on the raft to make themse lves beheld by th e men on the Argus may be understoo d, at a deeper level, as dir ected as well toward escaping being beheld by the museumgoers (.initiall y the Salon- goe rs) pausing befor e Gericault 's canvas, wh ich is to say that Strutb 's project in the strongest mu seum photo graph s to thematize the sepa ra tion betw een worlds turns out to coincide with Gericault's project in his masterpiece. (Co mpar e my discuss ion of Wall's Untitled [Forest} and related photographs in Chapter Thr ee.) With this qualification : what is striking to anyone familiar with the or iginal pa intin g is that beca use in the photograph th e right -han d half of Gericau lt 's ca nvas, or a t least the upper right quadrant, is mor e th an a little out of focus, the Argus, under the best of circumstances a minu scule item on the hori zon, is particu la rly hard to make
128
why photography
matters
as art as never before
out. (The blurring is deliberate: the view camera Struth used in the makin g of the museum pictures allowed him to manipulat e the plane of focus in relation to the plane of the resulting picture. ) This only slightly compromises the impression of a collective bodily effort in the direction of pictorial depth, but it obscures the specific rationa le for that effort, and yet - to my eye - what might be called the "world-apa rt ness" of the painting relative to the actual spectators in the Louvre seems unmistakable. Among the factors working to this end are the olive-green ish cast of the chem ically unsta ble painting as a who le, the simp le but massive light gold fram e sett ing the canvas apa rt from the redd ish wall, and especia lly the implied contrast between the collective action of the muscular, partly naked black and white bodies in the painting and the altogether different mode of behavior on the part of the crisply show n, neatly dressed spectators. That most or a ll of the spectators are Asian plays a role in this as well. 15 So also doe s the fact, noted by Belting, that they face in the same direction as most of the figures on the raft: I read that sameness of orientat ion not as qualifying the distinction between th e world of the painting and that of the spectators but rather as underscoring the starkness of the gulf between th em. (The formal structure of or ienta tion alone is ~e utral in this rega rd ; what ma tt ers is how one reads that structure, and that dep ends on one's sense of th e meaning of the picture as a who le.) Even the blurring of the upper right quadrant of the canvas and indeed the less than perfectly sharp focus across the whole of the picture surfa ce have the consequence - aga in, for me - of rein forcing a sense of the metaphysical separation between the painting and its viewers, but of course my memories of countless hours spent transfi xed before the Raft are so intense that my impression on this score perhaps shou ld be somewhat discount ed. I mean that I can imagine someone less satura ted than me with looking at the Raft coming to feel that the lack of sharp focus some ho w devalues the painting. But my convictio n is otherw ise. One other museum photograph, among th e finest in the series, bears closely on my argum ent. In San Za ccaria, Venice (Fig. 70), the camera has been set up almost but not qu ite dir ectly across t he nave from Giovanni Bellini's late masterwork , the epo nymous altarpiece. Witho ut laboring the point, it seems clear that Struth's photograph emphasizes both the pa intin g's superb ly authori tative rendering of light and shadow, or rather its remarkable combination of light/dark atmosp herics with areas of inten se, saturated co lor, and its overall mood not just of repose but of profound inwardne ss, perhaps most pow erfully felt in the stand ing figure of St Jerome in red absor bed in reading in the right foreground. At least in the photo graph, the painting's illusioni sm is so persuas ive that all sense of the pictur e plane is lost - it is as thou gh a rounded , literal space were excava ted below the semi-circular arc h - and yet the convict ion of a separate rea lm could scarce ly be more powerfu l, in part because of the painting's elevation and arch itectura l frame, in part because of its near-juxtaposition left and right to two large canvases wit h which, ot her than th em atically, it has nothing to do. Anot her factor is the dominant left-to-rig ht or ientation of the nave, which means that most of the tour ists in the chur ch are not looking at the Bellini; a coup le who do look - standin g respectfully at its low er left - ar e overmatched by its deep color, prodigious ca lm, and
thomas stru th 's museum
photographs
129
70
Th omas Struth , San Za ccaria, Venice, I99 5· Chromo genic process print. I SO x 228.5 cm; I 82 x 230 cm framed
vastly sup erior "prese nce." Th en there is th e day light flood ing the chur ch int erior from somew here at th e upper left: alth ough the direction of th e light is consistent with that in Bellini's a lta rpi ece, th e viewer gr adu ally become s awar e of a subtle discr epancy between th e inten sity of the actu al relat ive to th e dep icted illumina tion . (O ne more significant deta il is the blond e girl to th e right of the alta rpiece w ho is blurred because of having been cap tured in th e act of sittin g down in one of the pews - or standing up, it is impo ssible to know which. In any case, th e sense of movement makes a furth er con tr ast w ith Bellini 's canvas .) Finally, ther e are three pictu res tha t for me explore the limits of Strut h's pro ject as a w hole. The first of these, National Gallery 2, London (Fig. 7 1), depicts Vermeer's
130
wh y photog raph y matters as art as neve r before
71 Thomas Struth, National Gallery cm; 148 x 170.4 cm framed
2,
London,
2001.
Chromogen ic process prin t.
IIO
x 134 .4
Woman with a Lut e alon e on a wall with no one look ing at it. As in th e case of th e Rembr andt portr aits in Kunsthist orisches Museum 3 (see Fig. 64 ), th e Vermeer is p hotograph ed not frontall y but somewh at from the side; its placemen t towa rd the right-h and edge of the photograp h furth er heightens one's sense of its isolat ion, already und erscored by its br onze-colored sculptural frame and by th e fact that pa inti ng and frame are spot lighted on a shadowed bluish-gray wa ll. Mo st of all, tho ugh, it is Vermee r 's lut e-p layer's seemin g absorp tion in tun ing her instrume nt as she gazes abstractl y towa rd her rig ht in the direction of a near by window represent ed in extreme foreshort enin g, hence closed to our view, that so effect ively seals th e impr ession tha t she inh ab its a world of her own th at there is no need for mu seum -goers to dri ve th e point home. Anoth er factor in thi s is th e surpri singly small scale of the figure of th e woman, which adds a note of remoten ess to that of separati on. A third is pr ecisely th e o blique ness of the po int of view, which subtly them atizes t he non-transparen ce of the pa inted surface th at so to speak co mes "betwee n" the wo man in her wo rld and any possible viewe r, inside or outside th e photograp h.
t homas str ut h's m use um photographs
131
72 Thomas Struth, Stanze di Raffaello cm; 171 x 217 cm framed
2,
Rom e, 1990 . Chromo genic process print. 125 x 173
The first of the other two, Stanze di R affae llo 2, Rome (Fig. 72), depict s a packed crowd of tour ists in the Stanza della Segnat ura milling about und ern eath th e on ly partl y visible frescoes surroundin g th em (one can just make o ut th e School of Athens in th e sha dow s at th e upper left) . Belting rightly ho lds that this and another p hotogra ph in the Stanza d'Eliodoro repr esent the end of Strut h's proj ect in th at "in the Vatica n roo ms, the interp lay betwee n pa inting an d viewer cannot be developed any further. Th e location that belongs neither to the painting nor to the viewer has been lost and thu s the meeting betwee n t he two cann ot take place" (r22). 16 But what Belting mean s by interplay betwe en pa intin g and viewer is the calling into qu estion of the bound ary between the two, whereas in my reading of Struth 's project th e sharpn ess of th e separa tion betw een the wo rld of the fr escoes (in this case on ly dimly limned) a nd that of the milling tourists thr eatens to brin g the series to a close pr ecisely by literalizing th e distinc tion between them. In fact one's first impre ssion is that the photog rap h is basica lly a study of the crowd, juxtapos ing as it do es person s who are blurr ed because mov ing with oth ers, th e neares t, wh o are out of foc us, and isolated faces th at emerge w ith sudden clar ity (not ab ly the youn g man with bro wn hair and dark eyebrow s just to the right of cent er), the entir e jostlin g, p ointin g, guid eboo k-read ing mass at th e farthest pol e from evoking a not ion of co ntempl at ive loo kin g. Yet the relatively fade d an d unimpressive
132
w hy pho t og raphy matters as art as never before
73 Thomas Struth, Alte Pinak othek, Self-Portrait, Munich, print. u6.5 x 147 cm; 158.5 x 184 cm framed
2000
.
Chromogenic process
fresco at th e right, a depiction of Gregory rx on his papal throne, turns out to retain just enough illusionistic force to attract and hold one's attention, and th us makes th e image as a whole yet one more revelat ion of ontological, not merel y literal, separateness . Th e third and last work I want to glance at in this connection is Alte Pinakothek, Self-Portrait, Munich (Fig. 73 ), a confrontation, if that is the word, between Durer' s glorious Self-Portrait, wh ich has been photographed head-on at fairly close ran ge, and Struth himself (so the title of the photograph inform s one), wearing a blue jacket and with his left hand in his pocket, stand ing not directly in front of the painting but somewhat to the right, as if to concede priorit y to Durer's panel - and, impl icitly, to the camera . Indeed being near the latter the figure of Struth is somewhat out of focus and is severely cropped by the edges of the print, wher eas the splendidl y framed pa int ing is in the sharpest imaginable focus and is show n in its entirety . Of all the paintings that appear in the museum photographs, Dtirer's Self-Portrait goes farthest toward seeming directly to address the viewer, a featur e that places the notion of separat ion betwee n worlds under unusual pressure. And of course the intimation of a special relat ions hip between Durer and Struth, more precisely between the pain ter in the painting and the photographer in the photograph, further cha rges the space (or spaces - phy sical, chrono-
tho m as stru th 's mu seu m photographs
133
logical, ontological) between them. 17 Let me leave it an open question to what extent th e separatio n between worlds that I ha ve claimed to detect in the other photographs I have discussed is secure ly in place in this one as well. 18
Between 1996 and 2 00I Struth also mad e photographs of visito rs look ing at classical scu lptu ral and ar chit ectural remains in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin (Figs. 74-6) . Th ese follow on from the . class ic museum photo graph s while differing from them in several respects. In the first place, because there are no paintings in th e Pergamon Mu seum photographs the whole qu estion of separate worlds never arises. Then, too , Struth app ea rs to ha ve been as inter ested in the monumental scale of the viewing spaces as in the character of th e objects being viewed, an emphasis that gives these pho tograp hs as a group an architectural or environment al cast not pre sent in the earlier serie s. Fina lly, whereas the actua l per sons in the museum photograph s were almost always caught in the act of viewing or of mo ving into po sition to do so (in tha t sense the photographs are candid, in the usual sense of the term ), the viewers who inhab it the Pergamo n Mu seum photograph s were gather ed and set in place by Struth himself. 19 Apparentl y thi s came about becau se ordin ary visitors to the Pergamon Museum, most of w hom were equipped w ith he adset s, moved too quickly to provide the stati onary, abso rpt ive ensemb les that Struth soug ht ; mor eove r, consi dera tion s of depth of field meant th at he required ex posure s of ten to fifteen second s, far longer than would be pract ical under normal circumstances. Consequently Struth invited as man y as I40 persons to the mu seum on M onda ys, when it wa s officially closed, and more or less positioned them w ithin a part icular room. 20 Hi s intent, it seems clear, wa s to empha size the them e of the viewers' contemp lation - their a bsorb ed beho ldin g- of the mon ument s around them. As Wo lf-Dieter H eilmeyer notes, "No ne mak es eye-contact with the came ra, and Struth remain s, so to speak, a cland estine pr esence within the elevated viewpo int . " 2 1 By now I need hardl y und ersco re the Did erotia n implication s of suc h a mise -en-scene; the Per gamon Museum photo graph s are still anoth er exa mple of th e co ntinuin g fasc ination w ith abso rpti on on the part of a rtists and audien ces. What I find str ikin g, howeve r, is that certain critics who ordin arily admire Struth's work hav e been put off by the Perga mon Mus eum pictures precisely beca use they were posed . On the occasion of their ex hibition at the Marian Goo dman Gallery in New York in 2002, for exa mp le, Peter Schjeldahl - one of Struth 's mo st ardent supp orters - w ro te that the show suggests hubri s. After failing to get sa tisfactor y pictur es of ordin ary mu seumgoers, Struth brought in a crow d of his ow n choosi ng. Th e pictures are gra nd and bea utiful, but th e subtle self-consciousness of the "v iewers" proves de adening. Th ere is an ineffab le but fatal differe nce in attitude between people behaving naturall y and people behav ing natur ally for a ca mera. (l 'm co nfident of this jud gment beca use I felt the off-puttin g effect of these pictu res before learnin g its ca use.)22 Similarly, Micha el Kimm elman wrote apropos Strut h's retro spective exhibition at the Metropo litan Museum of Art:
134
why photography
matters as art as never before
74 Thomas Scruch , Pergamo n Museum I, Berlin, 2oor . Chromoge nic proc ess print . 188.4 x 239 .5 cm; 197 .4 x 248.5 cm frame d
75 Thomas Struth, Pergam on Mus eum 3, Berlin, 2001. Chrom ogenic proc ess print. 171. 5 x 21 1.8 cm ; 180 .5 x 220 .8 cm framed
76 Th omas Strut h, Pergamon Museum 4, Berlin, 200 c. Chromogenic process print . 144.4 x 219 .8 cm; 15 3.4 x 228 .8 cm framed
Mr. Struth 's failures have been contrivances: dep loying friends aro und the Pergamon Mu seum in Berlin or the Pantheon in Rom e, or posing himself beside Diirer 's selfportrait. Comp are th ose stagy photograph s to his pictur e of an old man in front of two Rembr andt portrait s at th e Kun sthi stori sches Mu seum in Vienna. Th e exc hange of glance s is sly mag ic. You ca n't simulate such a thin g. Photograp hy, a hypersensitive mediu m, show s wh en you're fak ing.23 It is not hard to see what both crit ics are drivin g at. But severa l points are worth makin g. First, Schjeldahl's and Kimmelman's responses are furth er evidence (if it were
themas struth's museum photographs
135
needed ) of ho w unr eflective th e ongoing commitment to ab sorpt ion and a nt ith eatr ica lity often is. By this I mean th at for both criti cs there is not th e slight est qu estion tha t indi ca tions of self-con sciou sness on th e part of ost ensibly a bsor bed subj ects are an ar tistic flaw; put sligh tly differ ently, neith er criti c seems aw ar e that his dista ste for selfcon scio usnes s or stagine ss or simp ly pose dne ss where po ses ar e not ex pected has a long histor y, ind eed tha t similar feelings pl ayed a cruci al rol e in th e developm ent of premod erni st painting fr om th e m id-175 os in France to th e ad vent of Mane t an d his generation in th e r 86os. ("Wh ere po ses ar e not expected" is th e cruc ial qualificatio n: it is as if, faced with seemin gly stra ight photo grap hs dea ling with a bso rptive themes, viewers unthinkingl y crave th e sedu ction of th e human sub ject s' expect ed ob liviousness to bein g beh eld. Wh en that craving is frustrat ed, they reac t badly.) I do not mean to suggest that h ad Schj eldahl and Kimm elman been alert to th ese considerat io ns, their assessments of the Perga mon Mus eum pictur es wou ld have been po sit ive. Yet it wo uld surel y have co lored th eir respon ses to tho se work s - it wo uld h ave mad e t heir respo nses more co mpl ex, mor e th o ughtful - had th ey und ersto od th at th ere was mo re to th e issues in qu estion th an their persona l taste. Seco nd , th eir comm ent s seem to ass ume t hat Struth int end ed the Perga mon Museum photo graph s to be ta ken as showing peop le tru ly ab sorbed in what th ey were seeing, feeling, and thinking , o r at th e very least un awa re of th e presence of the photogra pher. W hat if his int ention s we re oth erwise? Ju st as Wall in A drian Walk er, After "Invisible Man ," Morni ng Cleaning, and Fieldwo rk cannot be held to h ave intend ed an y of tho se work s (not even th e last) to be tak en stri ctly as a ca nd id photog ra ph of a perso n or perso ns absorb ed in an ac tivity and th erefor e o blivious of being beh eld, it seems likely tha t fr om th e o utset Struth ex pected t he Perga mon Mu seum phot ographs to be seen as what th ey ar e - truthful pictur es of museumgoers deliberately perfo rming a bsorption (as Wall might put it). For one thin g, non e of th e viewers is sho wn wa lking; especia lly in th e photo gr aph s with num ero us figur es (Pergamon M useum r , 3, and 5 ), this is highly imp ro bable, as Struth was bo und to have recog nized. Th en too there are pa rticular incid ent s, not ab ly th e ex am in ation of a small classica l fragm ent (I assume th at is what it is) by the whit e-coate d member of the museum staff and the tall visito r towar d the right -hand edge of Pergamon Mu seum r , th at go beyon d anyth ing one woul d actually exp ect to see und er o rdinar y circum stances.24 Furt herm ore, the same perso ns turn up in o ne image af ter an oth er, som ethin g that happens not at all in the classic museum photo gra ph s . In general all th e Pergam on Mu seum ph otogra p hs have a st ati c, set- piece qualit y th at di stin guishes them sharply from th eir pred ecessor s; inde ed it is prec isely that qualit y that app ear s to have tro ubled Schjeld ahl and Kimmelm an. On ce aga in, ho weve1; I am n ot suggestin g th a t had both writ ers th ought m ore reflective ly a bo ut the gro und s of th eir disaffec tion they wo uld have been mo re likely to admire the photograp hs. But "ove rreachin g," " hubris," and "fakin g" are pe rhap s not th e mo st useful terms for com ing criti ca lly to grips w ith th ese challeng ing - these interes tin gly pr o blematic works . Fin a lly, both critics ta ke it for grant ed that th e ca mera infall ib ly reg iste rs th e leas t sign of self-con sciousness o n th e pa rt of its hum an subjects . To repeat : "Th ere is an
136
why photography
matters as art as never before
78 Lee Fried lander, Omah a, Nebraska, J99 5. Gelatin silver print. 38.r x 36 .8 cm
77 (left) Lee Friedlander, Canton, Ohio, 1980 . Gelat in silver print. 28. 5 8 x 19. 5 cm
ineffabl e but fatal difference in attitude between peop le behaving natur ally and people behaving nat ura lly for a camera" (Schjeld ahl) and "You can't simu late suc h a thing [the "exc hang e of glan ces," presumab ly between the white-haired viewer and the man in the Rembrandt portrait in th e Kunsthist or isches Mu seum in Vienna - but do es any such "exc hang e" take place?]. Photogr ap hy, a hyper sensitive medium, show s whe n you're J..aking" (Kimmelm an ). Th ese are, of course, bedro ck assumpti ons a bou t the medium. To cite Sontag once more: "There is some thin g on peo ple's faces when they don't know they are being observed tha t never appears when they do . " Yet are these ass umpti ons tru e? Consi der, for exa mpl e, a selection of photographs of men and women engaged in different kinds of work from Lee Fried lander's 2002 book At Work (Figs. 77-9 ).25 The book compr ises six series of such phot ograph s com missione d between 1979-80 ("Factory Valleys" in Ohio an d Pennsy lvani a) an d r995 ("Gu nd" in Cleveland an d "Telema rketing" in Omaha) an d what almost all th e images in the various series have in com mon is that they were shot at close range, apparen tly with not th e slightest effort
thomas struth's museum
photographs
137
79 Lee Friedlander, Boston, Massachusetts, 1986. Gelatin silver print . 20 .3 x 30.4 cm
having been made to hide from the individual subjects the fact that they were being photographed. Indeed not only are many of the photographs shot more or less headon, in numerous cases the viewer can detect evidence of the strong illumination that seems have been necessary for them to be made. The question therefore arises: are Friedlander' s sitters " behaving naturally or behaving naturally for a camera"? Put somewhat more brutally, are th ey absorbed in what they are doing or just "fa king" being so? If photograph y were th e "hyper sensitive medium " Kimmelman takes it to be, thi s should be an easy question to answer. It is not, and no matter what one's personal intuition in this matt er, I take it to be significant that no one ha s ever suggested that Friedlander 's subjects were not truly engaged in th eir respective occupations. 26 In short , Friedlander 's At Work photographs turn out to be more complex with respect to issues of absorption and theatricality than they are usually regarded as being. I will add only that th e date s of these photo graph s, 19 79 -80 to 1995, belong to the span of years that is th e focus of the present book. This suggests that there may be far more continuity betwee n the work of a "traditionalist" like Friedlander (but who else is like him? ) and that of younger figures like Struth than has previously been imagined. 27
I come now to the "Audience" series of photographs made by Struth in Florence in the 28 summer of 2004. Struth was one of several artists commissioned to create works of art based on Michelangelo's monumental Da vid in that city's Galleria dell'Accademia. What he chose to do was set himself up with an 8 by 10-inch camera on a tripod near the ba se of the statue and to photo graph tourists - of all ages, dressed lightly in shorts, slacks, occasionally a skirt, feet in sneakers or sandals - as they came and went. In severa l photograph s, Audience 2 (2004; Fig. 80), for exam ple, the space is crammed and th e range of behavior and facial expression is fairly wide . In th e family to the left of
138
why photography
matters as art as never before
80
Thomas Stru th , Au dience z, Florence, 2004 . Chromogenic process print. 178 x 234.5 cm; 179 .5 x 234.5 cm fram ed
cent er, th e fath er gazes upw ar d respectfu lly, the moth er leafs throu gh a cata logue, the younger son gazes up war d as we ll, and th e older son, baseba ll cap in hand, stands with lowe red eyes wa iting to move on. A second fam ily to the right is livelier: the blond e, youthful parents seem happ y to be th ere, th e daug hter plucks at her str iped sundr ess in exc item ent, and th e somewh at older son is caught reach ing into his mouth as if to dislodge somethin g from between his teet h . Still further t o the right a han dsome (Europ ean?) wo man in chic black slacks and sleeveless cop with a yellow sweate r tied aro un d her waist ben ds almost protec tively over her daughter - I am guessing at all these re lat ionsh ips - as both gaze upwar d with ap pare nt intens ity. (To my eye they are the "stars" of thi s photograp h and it helps th at one does not noti ce them at first - they are
th omas str uth 's muse u m photographs
139
81 Thomas Struth, Audi ence 3, Florence, 200 4 . Chromo genic process pr int . 17 8 x 297 cm; 179 .5 x 29 7 cm framed
our rewar d for taking time and looking closely.) In th e backgro und other figures look up at th e sculptur e or talk among themselves, and toward th e left-hand edge of the pictu re still ot hers wa lk aro und or appear to cluster in small groups. O ther photogr aphs are less densely occup ied, an d in some - Audience 3 (200 4; Fig. 81), for instance - the ra nge of behavior an d expression is mor e restr icted, to th e extent tha t th ere app ear alm ost com ic accord s between th e pr incipa l figures (feet splaye d, heads cocked to the side, the two central young women resting their we ight on opposite legs). I hesitate to describ e such figur es as deeply absorbe d in th eir contempl ation of the David , but for th e mom ent at leas t th eir atte ntion is held by it. Th is is true as well of man y if not most of the persons in Strut h 's series - as in Audience I and Audience 6 - and in a ny case all but a handful of Struth' s museumgoers app ear ob livious or at least ind ifferent to being photo graphed . Th e " Audi ence" series thus differs fundam enta lly from bot h Stru th's classic museum pictur es, in which facial expression is minimi zed an d beho lders are often dep icted from behind, and hi s " Pergamon Mu seum " series w ith posed visitors . In th e Florence photo gra ph s we sense intuiti vely that the actions and express ions of the touri sts - also their distr ibution in space - are genuin e, spontaneo us, Did ero t might say "naive," one of his highest terms of esth etic prai se. (We sense thi s, I say, but we might be mista ken: since the advent of digitization it has become possible for scenes such as these to be staged, gro up by group and if necessary figur e by figure, and then assembl ed int o persuasive ensem bles. In actual fact that is not true of the "A udience" series. Howe ver, techno -
140
w hy pho t ograp hy m atters as art as never befo re
logically we are forever now on insecure gro und , and as Friedlander's At Work photos suggest, the ground was never absolutely secure.) At the same time, whereas in the strongest of the classic museum pictures the emphasis falls squar ely - so I claim - on the separateness of the world of individu a l paintings from that of the museumgoers, and ultimately upon the separateness of both those worlds fro m our own, the structure of the Audien ce photographs reconceives (or reframes) the issue of closure in two related respects. First, the photographs are intelligibl e only to the ext ent that we recognize th e implied - which is also to say the " invisible" - presence of Michelangelo's towering David "t his" side of the picture surface and somewhat to the right of the right-hand edge. (In several of the photographs Struth seems to have shifted his position to the right, so as to depict viewers gazing upward but not beyon d the right-hand edge of the picture.) Second, th e Audience photographs thematize, call attention to, the presence of the photographer in a way that is not true either of the classic museum photographs, in which it is in effect taken for granted, or those of the Pergamon Museum, in which the photographer is present mainly , an d to some critics obtrusively, as off-camera metteur en-scene. In contrast, the Audience photographs powerfully suggest that th e photo grapher was in no way concealed from his sub jects (though of cour se he might have been; but the very exposure of his subj ects is felt to redound on the photographer himself, as if the simpl e ethics of the situation called for him too to be in the open), and in actual fact Struth - shooting with multiple flashes - could not have been more exposed, stand ing alongside his instrument in th e roped off area surrounding the base of the sculpture. (Near the center of Audience 7 [2004; Fig. 82] a dark-bearded man in
82 Thoma s Struth, Audience 7, Florence , 2004. Chromogenic process print. 178 x 288 .3 cm; 179.5 x 288.3 cm framed
thomas struth's museum
pho t ographs
141
a broad-brimmed hat stares dir ectly at th e camera with a quizzical express ion on his face; app ro achin g more closely, we notice th at the statue is reflected in the sunglass es clipped to the neck of his shirt .) Indeed much of the quiet drama of the series consists in the ten sion, the balance of forces, between the photographer's impli ed lack of co ncealment and the seeming ob livious ness of his presence on the part of nearly everyone in th e photo s. T his is w here it matters that the engage d visitors are loo kin g upward, far above the photograp her's lens, and it doubtl ess matters too th at the masterpiece at which they are gazing is a considerably larger th an lifesize marbl e statu e of a supe rlative spec imen of psyc hically co ncentrate d, physically nake d virile hum ani ty. The viewer of the photo grap hs cannot but be aware of the profound contrast - whic h to me carries on ly the sca ntest charge of iro ny - between two very diferent stages of the sa me "c ivilizat ion," th e first associated with th e David, arche type of milita nt male heroism in th e mod ern Western traditi on as we ll as of an unemb a rr assed artisti c herois m character istic of its epoch , an d the secon d that of the internat ion al touri sts in their often awkward but invar iably resp ectful attitud es and cas ual summer dre ss. I speak of stages of a "c ivilization" rather than of wo rld s both because there is no equiva lent in sculp tur e or the p hotograp hy of scLilpt ure to the effects of clos ure I have associated with paintings in Strut h's classic mu seurh photographs (but see th e discussion of Patrick Faigenbaum's photog ra ph s of marble bu sts of Roman emp erors in Cha pter Seven), an d also beca use some kind of communi catio n, however limited or baffled, appea rs to tak e place between the stat ue an d its viewer s. More precisely, one is led to feel that even the least sophisticated-seeming viewers in Struth 's pictures are aware that the David incarn ates an ex istential cha llenge that today can not be fully understood, mu ch less answe red. The particular achievemen t of the "Audience" series is to have found a wa y to express th at awareness photographically without giving way either to mo ckery or to de spair.
142
why photography
ma tt ers as a rt as never before
6
j ean- fran c;ois chevr ier on th e "t ablea u form" ; tho rnas ruff , andreas gu rsky, luc dela haye
Arguahh · the mosl ded,,vc dcvclopmenr in the rise o f rhe new an phor<,gt:lphr h~s beeo the emergence, srarring io th(• hue 197os and g:iining imr,.-tus in the 1980s and afrer, of wlr.11the rrench cricic j1.-'lln -l-ran~is Chc\'rier has 1.-11111.'d Mrhe 1ablra11fom,." Apropos n i;roup of photographers who were making la rite photoia:raphs,Chevrier wrote m 1989:
Their im:;1gesore nm mere prims - mobile, n11111ipul:1blc sheers tl111tnrc fr:11ned(lOd mount·l·d on II w:ill for 1he durr11ionof :111 exhibi1ion 3Dd go back inLOrhcir boxes cd and pr()duced for rhe wnll, summoning n confronta:iftcrward . They arc desig11 tionnl exper ience 011 die 1)nrt o f che spcctocor rhnc sharply comras ts with rhc habit ual processes of :tpprop riation ;ind projection whereby phorogrnphic imngcs are normally received and ''.:rmsumed." The restitution of rhc tableau form (ro which the on o( dw 196os nncl , ~:17os,ir will he rec.11lcd,wa$ largely opposed) has the primary ,um c>( r1.~toring the d[smm :c to the f.>bjecr-iniagc necc~sary for the confronracional c,pcricnce, bur implies nn nosrolgi:1 for p;1iming and no spccificnlly "reacrion.iry~ co the w:111:mJ ilS auron impulse. The fronrnli1y o( the picture hung rm or nffi"
me
Th is pnssnge come.-;from nn importa nt essay, '''l' hl: Adventures of rhc 1hb lt:au Porm in rhc I lisrory of Phowi,:raphy" (in fact lhe Entli~ h rr:msl:irioo gives .. picwre" for "rablenn," bnr l prefer rhc French word for re.1sons rhot will become clcar1). Chevrier's
remarks dcsi::n·ea brit:f glos). hrsr, :1hhougb Chevrier says not hing here about cnnsiderarions o( ~i7.c:or scale, they ace implici1 iu hi,; claim th.u 1hc UC\\wock is ..dt:!,iµnetl:md protlul-ed for chc wall- -and that 1t i!. inrendeJ ro summon ..:t ronfronc:aaonal c.xperience on the pan of rhe spectator."' Only works of n ccrrnin SIZC could self-evidently hold tbc wall rn this way; this is why. for example, Thomns Ruff in 1986 was lcJ 10 l'nlargc the sfac of his portrairs of fd low srudc nrs, which hl' hntl heg1111 makini; on a much smaller sca le five years before - and wh)•, moreover, die enlarged porrrairs have complcrcly displ:iccd the earlier ones
1m111 •l f;Jn~o 1s chr,vr ler 01, 111 0 " wbt e au forri1 '' , 1homf.1s 1ult , andreos FJlllll ky, Ili c del&haya
111 3
i11 the public nw11rcncs$ of his work A~ was noted in Ch.1p1< :r One, the early light-box crnnsparcncil·~ of Jeff Wnll, smr ti11 g with T/JeDestroved R11 w 11( 1977; see Fig. !l), a work iuM under live feet hiAh by over M·vcnand a half feet wide, pnnl)' inspired thiQdcvdopmcm. (Al,o pertinent wns rlw 11ew ;tvrulabilir)' of h1rge--sizcnegatives .mcl ~>rn,ittve prinrin.g 1,,1per.) Secon,l, Lhcvnl'r·~ i:mphasts on the importance of ~die confrtlnr:nional CJ..pcncnce~ is correct a~ far ,h it gll¢S,~ i~ his clai m thac s-uch .1111•xpericnce marks a bre.1k with cradiciunal mode, of phorogrnphic n·ccprion and con~umptiun. (For &rthC5 in C mwro1 Lucida, :1~ I nureJ, phoroiraphic images arc ty pictll)' cncountcrcJ in a book or mnb'llzinc.) lr had nlwnys bC\:n possible rn frame phocogr.iph,, images :md hang them nn .1 walJ, hur rhcy ~till demanded to he seen up dose by one viewer nt n time, whi,h mcnnr thm their cxhibirioo on a wall w:is a purely exrcmal m;m cr, as Chevrier a~ 111111 :h ns · say~. (.Jeff Wi1II on his feelings i11the 1960s and '70s: "eve n while I loved pliorogmphy, I ofte n. didn't love lcJoki11g at phowgrnphs, pani c11l al'ly when they weye hung on wnlls. I felt thr.'ywc1·croo small for rh.1t formnt iind lookNI bcucr when seen in br,(lkS c)r as leafed rhrough ill albums." ') 'rhc new wo rk, however, ls conceived for the w:ill from the stare - or l11rhe ca~e of Ruff\ port raits, he soon c:imc to feel thnc the sm:111 formnt he b:iJ lxogun wit h was ina dequate for his purposes - wid, the result rhm it enters into a 11cwkind o f rcl.irionc;hip with 11, \'l~wc~, who ;ire thcmsclvt•s trJnsfornwd, rc,·onfigurcd vic1wrs, in rhc procc,<,s.,\ l'mci .il aspt'Ctof the new rcl:ition~hip, Chevril·r righth~ suggt."Sts,i, an enforced diSUJ1cebetween wor.k and viewer. wirhour which rhc mutu.11 facing off of the two rhat unclcrlie1,rhr 11onoo of confron1J tion wm1ld nor be pcmiblc. Third, Chevrier ,pe:tks uf a .. ,esriru11on- of-tht' 1nhlt<:111 form and says rhar the ,1rt or the. 191\o~ anJ '70 s wns 1:argd y opposed to char form. By tht' arr of rhosc de.cad~ he has in mind tht' u,;cs of phoc,,~mph)• rhat were made by rht' wn..:t-'j1tunlisr~, use" chat a1tugcrher downplnyed the :irtifoctunl or say nrcisricm,pects of tl\t' photographs themselves. t\ :; Chcvril.'rwmc s earlier in his essay:
as
Jc wM 011l y with ~he emcrgcn.:c of the Com:eprualisr nppro:1dwsof the hue 1960s tha~ the op11<1~ltio 11between ,irtlst~ usi11 g photography anJ phorogrnphers became explicit. . . . Wirh rhc dJa llcmging in the lotc I y{)os of the vci·y uorion of an arrwork, nnd the shifr in fo,·11sto idea and process, it was unclersrandahlc rhut reference w the pninrcrly o( tht' 1.;1hl e,1u as :u\ auto 11omou~ form £hould los,· tbl· ascensubjecr and the p:1radi&111 dancy they h:id cnjoyc,1since the c..-.irlies c days Clfmodern an ., when B~udclnirc, in the Salon ti<' 1846, J~~·rre
01\11 terms. -Pain1i11i; has bu t one poinr uf 1•1rw;it is exclusive and .1h"'1lu1r. ~ In the U11i1«!Stares the n:actmn :1i;:11nsLrhe don11nn111 model of d1e rablcuu form wa, cveo more .rnirrnu ed hecau~c or 1hl' :J5Ccnda.11cy or the modernist theory forged hy Clement Grt-c11he rg ru1d hi$ form.1list circle. Michael rricd'~ cs.,ay "Art and OhjccthooJ," which denounced the rhcmricaliry of MlnimaJisr sculpnm·, appc;-iredin Ar1{()rt1t11 in 1967, It hnd cornt1 111response to Rohen Morris's "No rcs 011Se1ilpt11r e," p11blished .1 year e:1rlil'r in rh~ : radict1I u11ri -illu~ionis111or Lil<'thre1i-dlnwnsio1111 I object sume journal, which used 1111
14.d
he believed was va riable, of the new '\ 1nirnr)'" forms of J'v[inimalism. "The betrnr new \vork ," Mo1'ris remarked, "cakes relatio nsbips Ollt of t'hc work ,111dmakes them a function of space, light, and the viewer~~field oF vision . . . . One is mo re aware rban before ~hm he him$d Fis cstablishi,ng .relationships as h e ap 1we htnds t he (1.hjcct frurn varivus posit ions ,1nd und er v
(The best account of rhe ~rse of phorogrnphy by concepr11 alists is Wall's m~gistcrial essay of 1995, " 'Mflrks n f lndifforencc': Aspects o.f Photography .in, or ·as, Conceprnal Arc:.''") Chc;vricr's poi{lt is thnr by ,;989, wh en his essay appeared, all rhcse issues he.longed to rhe pa st: And if, around 1970, photoi;rnphy, ,1s used by rhe Conceptua_lists, broke the_tnirr or of pail1ting- or, rat her, of rhe tab leau .. . rhe evo lmi on of a rtist ic el(plonltion and expetimerm1tionhiis, since then, 1\lrgdy restored the model that h:id previously b.:en overrnrned. Many _arrisrs, h;wing a$simjfared rhc Conceptualistt explorat ions to varying degrees, have reused the paint:e rly mocli:I and u.se photograph )', quite conscim1sly and sysren,ar.ic: ,lly, t<.>produce works that srnnd nlone und cxil)t as ''photographic painrings" . . . l 1:1;4] Polltth, th e restinuion of the ta.hleau form that Chc:vder'scssa)' signals i$ undersrood b.y him as S(>rnet hi.11 g other than a simple return to a previous state of affairs, or inc.l ecd a n atte mpt to give to photograp hy rhe prest ige of painting by 1:1s tu:ping or sharing the lartc r''S po~iti(>n on the w~ll. Rarhe1-,he .sees in the new developments an attempt "to reactivacc a thinking based on fragmencs, openness, and eontr.idi.L-rion" - the opposite Jespeccively of whc1lcnc~s, cornj,os itional clcmm:, and internal cm1sisren.cy, all of -.vhich might it)()scly lw understood as high modernist ide()ls, This i~ also r.heforce of rhe ~ratt·men t that ncirher rhe fronrJ.1 licy of the new photogrnphs nor rbeir ,rn.tonomy as an arrwork is ''suf ficient" as an nltim atc; ~lesideratur\i. rt is not hard to grasp why Chevrier insisrs on these points, aJlCIonce. aF,uih some of what he si1ysis ~urcly cQn cct as fa r as it goes . However, as sccn in th(; ptcvious chapters 011Wa ll and Strut h, issues of absorp· tion and antitheatri.:ality are plainly at stake in some of tbeir mosr charadc risrit: works (indeed Srl'llth's museum pictu1·cs, ·in 111)' re,uling, are cr.uda lly ;tbout the closure to the photographed viewers of the paindngs being looked ar, while notions of ,:sthc.:t ic autonomy are ingeniously exp lo red i11 the f\11dir.:m;r.: ~cri1:s), 1vh ich is to say t har .between rhe works in ,111 <:stion and che body of pai nting examined in Absorption and Theatrii'ttlity, Coi1rl:,ct's.Realism, and Mqnet's Modernism, as well as rhe high modernist painting and $CL11 pturc ~bampioned ag.i in.st minimalisrn/lttera lilim in "Arr and Objecrhood" and related CSSll)'S, there exists a11 affinity as imponant as it ha.s been alrrrost cvmp lete ly uiu·ecognized .3 T his i.n tL1 1·n i~ nor ti) ckny the _pertinence of Chevrier'S'claim that the new work has been "med iat ized by the use of exrrn-pa inter ly models, h~tcwgeneous with canonical art histot y;" ~rn1ot1gthose n19dds C:hevrit:lr t.:ites ''ph ilosophic11 l analysis,'' 11 ch1i111 rh~,t bc:Hs a suggestive relation to the cliscussioi1 of Wt1ll's aJ'uin rel.Hinn ro Heidegger and \'{/ircgenstein in prcvio1,1 ~ chapters, wd ' 5cinc111a ," whi ch of COUJ'SC' applies directly to Wall ;rnd Sugimow, not to mencion She1'man.
jea 11-lta n<;ots ct1av 1,u r bn 11,e " lab l!mu ro,m",
{llt)rrl as 11 .111. <11 1(lreas /;l i1sky, luc de l.'.lhay0
141:i
Finall )', th c French word tall/call ha s 110 ex act equivalen t in English. " Pictu re ce rnes close st bU I it lacks th e connorarions o f co nsrrucred ness, of being th e product of 3 11inrellccuml act, thar th e Fren ch wor d C:lrr ies.' To cite Chevrier one more time; "T he photogra phers o f toda y wh o consider the mselves an d m:lni fCSt themselves as nnis rs raking imo cons ide ration rhc public spaces in wh ich th ey exhibi t ca n no longer merely 'rake' pict ures; rhey m ust ca use the m to ex ist, co ncre tely, give th em th e weight and gravity, withi n an actu alized perceptu al sp ace, o f an 'object of rhough r' [a phrase o f Hannah A rendt'.sl ~ ( 1 20) . T his 100 is apt an d co uld serve as a ;ustificlIlion for retaining the French word - in connect ion w ith Che vrier, w ithout ita lics - in wh at follows . l~ot: roi ncidefll:rllr , Besramant e c,111OOhis ea rlr pbor ograph s o f 1'(O \ 'C'I1CC' an d north ern Spain c
-c
Tab/rall.Y.!
ln 198 I Thomas Ru(f, then still a stu de m of Bern d Becher at the Kunsrakademle in Dusseldorf. began m klng po rtrait phot ograp hs of friends and acq uain ta nces from the aClldc lllY as well as other pe rso ns with whom he came int o contac t. According to the introd ucto ry not e onthe early por tra its in his acc j curnlogue raiso nne, Ru ff useda "iew camera w ith a stu dio fb sh, All th e portr a its follo w :1 single set of protocols. Ruff "decided o n a bust po rtmir alld n mo de of re prese ntation rhnr woul d be as neutra l as pnssihlc in o rde r to foreground th e stncr's face while at th e sa me time avoiding allY psychological int erp retation ; ' th e note read s. " Every siuc r wou ld be phot ograph ed like :I plaster bust , based on Thomn s Ru ff's ass um ption tha t ph ut ogruph y shows only the surface of th ings anyway. By 19111 he had alread y defined the specifications for his plcture s: th e sitters, w enring thei r o rdina ry clothes and seated on :l 5100 1, would be photogra ph ed with a serio us, calm expression on thei r faces. There was to be no show o f feeling, like smi ling. grinning. or 'flir ting' with th e 0 I111e r;a.~1 "The people have to know wha t my port raits a re like in ord er to behave in such a wa y that the result is 0lIl' o f my portraits, ~ Ru(f has said .' No effort was made to mask or min im ize facial blemishes o f a ny SOrt . To av oid mon oto ny Ruff nltowed the sitters to choose from among different colo red backgrou nds. The initia l crop of pholOgra phs measured rwenry-four by eighteen centime ters; in t 986 he decided 10 en large so me of the portrait s " bur soon realized t har the color became tOOdominan t in la rge fOfmat , ~' Thi s led to a new series o f port ra its wi th wh ire o r off-w hite ba ckgrounds , ta ken with a view came ra thai produced a la rger nega tive th an befor e and primed on th e la rgest phOlogr;ap hic paper availa ble - .:.1 0 b)' 16 S ce ntim eters , or just und er seven (tt l high by almost five-and-a-half (eel wide (Figs. 8; an d 8..). With a handf ul of except ions early on , allthe new po rtraits were rigo rou sly fro ntal hust shore, an d the lighting was arr ang ed so as to elimina te all shado ws. w hether on faces or clothing, The effect o f un iform ity was therefore greater th an in the earlie r por traits . The se ries carne to an end in ISl9 1 when the paper was discon t inued , M o re th an his ot her relativel y ea rly serie s - the inrcriors ned the houses - the large port rait s establishe d Ru ff's reput ation 3S one of th e leading phot ogr aphe rs of his gen-
'"
w lW photography (n " lle rs lIS lUI liS never be lore
Ruff Portrait /A. Kacho/dj 196 1 , hrnmo geni ' prnc ~ss prim. 2 3.5 X r 7.8 cm trnd laser
B3 T homas 2. I OX
84
horna· Ruff, Port.rit [R. Hu/nm/; 1988. hmm ~
geni.c process print. z.4 x 18 c.: m ancl later 110 x 16
' 111
165cm
'ra tion; ven today in fact the1·eis . 111ething paradigm,u ic.about them, a sense in which_, imply pu[, t·I 'Y St:·111 to r pr · nt ru1;ilmost ne essary ph ase il'.lrbe emergence of the new l'tr ph ography.1" Ruff him elf has b n 11 orhi11 g if n.rr ·pli ·it ab m his inrenrion . Here i a cy1,l al xd1a11gefr ma 1995 int .rviewwith Stephan Dill c1m1t.h: TR: T don't give viewers :.1 chance a.nymo1e to draw ~on fo ions about the lives of the peopl e ] porti'l!Y, sn: And th at nn noys vjewe rs? Tlt: 1 don't know wliat hey want to find out ,1bout the sitter whose face they see
in front of h ·111.Do th y wanr r know d1 pe.l' n 1s Jljimeor add.res. or what tl1cy do for a living, m- d th y wanr co k11 ow ·om't hit1-' about their inner lives? What good would thar Jo? sn: uriosity gossip, admirarion -id emili.carion. Tll: Some imcs I think ir's outr geou the way p · ple treat my pori:raiI. Th y rhink you ca n just sta nd in front of tJ1cm and ma ke up a t heory. 11
I·
11
ranco,s cil!:lvrltu on Iha "tab leau Jorm";
hom1:1sru rt, nndrnas g ursk y, luc de lah ye
147
'rhc prnblcrn, RuH says in thi: ~arnc inicrvicw:
i~ thi: subjt:crive impression rhnt I have when 1 face someo11 c else. Tlinr's the trouble wich()Orrrair ~. You're living your life and rhen you gt•t to know ~wople, you likesonw more chan otht'rs, and these c111otlo11s ~ur face when you look ,lt plcrnrcs rba, depict a pecson. lo other word,, these \ensncions rhar you hnw rcg,1nli11gother~are the S.'lme when you're faced with 11 ~c.lc.1Jn picture...I don't know if-you'd coll thar n 111ix-u_p or correct behavior. You prohahl~ projecr your own life ~pcricm:c into rhe picture.,, IWhere-.1.~) !Jff yllu think in terms of projected ,;urf.u:c.~.rhcn rhl.'objL..::thas nothing to do with iranrmore. I he'rea..:11011 to the star pictures(,1001hcrscri,:<;of phorographs
Ruff bas rnac.lcJ is ~1mil;1rtn tht:ctlecc chc.> portraiLS hnvc. When p.:tiplelook ar them. they mix chem up wuh rhc rc.,1thing, holidays in M.'ljon;,'l wuh he:1ucifol\tar-~'t:lldded ~kies- or rhe houses, they lonk ar rhccurr:nnsand LI"} ' to ligure tJutwlm son of people 11,e hchrntl thfm . ... [But wh)' can't rhcyl gu up and soy, ah.1, big photogr-aph.big beJJd,rakc the picture :i:, a picture and say, thank you. Mr. Rufr. well done? [106-·J A~ Ruff has also said npropo, the ponrn11s,·•1don't hd ievc in 1hc psychologiziog portrait ,,howgraphy that my colleague.~do, rrying to capture rbc char.1crcr with a lor -0f lighr and sb3de. Thol's t1bsnl11tdysuspect to me. l tan only show rhc surfuce. \'Xlbatever goes hcyond rh:-u1s more e>r less chunct. " 12 No wonder RL1ff'sphmngr :1ph~ 11r<:ofrt:n said to be "cold," us R6gis Dunnd observed ln 1997 in an iMen:sti11 1,tcs~ri)1 : Generally the rc.:r11 arl, c:ooc1; rns rhc /lor trnlts, occ(l~ionnlly the I /m1sas or the S1art, mrcly tbc orher work s. What is mcnnt hy this? No doubt, i11 the c:isc of Pnrll'aits :ihovt nll, that they "cxp re~s" nothing, that rbcy rcvc.:-:t l nothing nbom the ir1ti1m1te pc.:rsonaliry,rhe identity, of tlu.:ir moclc.:ls. That they ceU no sw ric.:s,no anecdotes. And rbcrefore, chat the}' ~ay nothing ,thout rhe phowgrupher, uh111 11his rhougbts ordesirt's in n:lat111nro his subjects. Or mther, that hy saying norhing abuu1 a ll chat, they di!ilrly manife5t Iris indifforcn..:c,hi) bo:t,IJne,;s." 11 i\s Durand also remarks. Ruff's phorographs~are not windows opcnin_gunro chcworld; UlC>du no t st,gc a brief momcnc of Lhcworld's theater. They appear JS highly polished -urfuc1--s,through whkh u r\1piJly appc.'lrs quire-vain ro reach for '.111orherrl'.llicy•.'They art> prrfe.:t.ly a.ml mi~ ,·cl> ·rl'aliscic' and precisely bc:L11u,cQt rh1 l"C':'llism mey underLUl any attempt ro look for dut'> thnt would allow one ro go hcyond rhem" (r6- :17J,1~ For Peter Galassi, "Ruff'~ porer.msprove ma fare-thc.:-c-wcll thnt phorogrophyis equally ca1,ahlc of rCC'ordingcverythinj.;.md rcvt-almg nmhin~~ ( 1 ~,. (He ,1J~ordcr.. 10 the large pnrrraics as ~monumcmal icon~ of blankness" [2.71,)Jc i\ rdcvant t hat Ruff's portrait phut0gn1ph,; dcp1cr ,1 largely honmgl'n1:11u~ popularion 0£ fricnc.l~;1110 ,1cq1L1inranccs; at nny r:m·. norhing could he 11111n· ~lien to his purpost:' than ~truth'~ chokl.' of culruroll)' diverse ns well os malti ,µen~r:.rnon:i)r:imili('S ns tht subjects nf his fomily porrrairs (to bt discussed la Chilpter S!.'vcn).1' t\.~ RuH also says, hi$ ponrnil'!, n111 ounr rn enlarged p:issporr phowgrnp hs - in fact· much of rbei.r persistent shm:k-t,dfocr nrlscs from theg ross cu111rn~r in si1.e betwt'e11 his ltH'J,;(' colun;d portra its ctnd the riny generic nnrn,. 16
148
wttv 11h olog1s ph y m,;t1or., .1•1orl n•, 1,ev,n l1,,to 1t!
All lhis is welltinclcr~wod - indeed Ruff's stra ightforwardnes s in interv iews leaves nu room for doubt as ro his intcllt·iOns. \'i/hot is perhap.~ lcs~ unJersrood - whnt in any case has not heen tvuchcd on by either Ruff or his many commenta tor~ - is thi: siJZnifi cance of 1hi.-porrrorc as a b11~i~ for Ruff's dtdslve incerv1:nti1111. The fir~t poim to he made is so ohvinus as scarce ly ro require emph.1s1~:almosr ;111 Ruff·~ portrait pht,rogrnrhs, espec1Jlly from 1986 on, arc ngorou!>lyfromal, which i~ why rh1:passporc analogy ~,1it:Sth1:m. Now. faces se~·n from the from fare the viewer; indeed Ir is hard w thin!- of another 111mirthar L~cap:ible of rhemari1;ing focingncss with co1111 ,nra ble force and exp licitness. IJur this is nor ro ~.iy rhot mosr frontn l porrrairs, wlwrher painccntr·ived 11bsunccuf ~ocial and psychologic::a l cues throws the weight· of the picrurl! prcdscly there, This i,1 rurn gives ri~c tc• 11singularly ~rrung effect of l'onfrontarion and clisruncing ot wich ch_ecablc:111form. rbe ~orr Chevrier in hi~ e~I)' a~-soci:1H·~ Differently put, the nhs1rncring .iml h~posmrizing ol facmgncss in Ruff's porrraini plou: 1hosc works linnly 1111hc orbir of painnng. For it is a crucial a\pcc1 of =I pau11ing (tht• .lominam form iit painring in 1he Wesrsramng Jroand L6oo tf not earlier) rhat itS producrs hang on a wnll and face rhc1r ht:h()ldc~, who typically ~r:rnd facing rhem in o relationship of something like mutual refl~-non; the front.ii portr:u r a~ a suhgcm e mnkes rhitt relation~hip mil)• more perspicuous than it ocherwise WOLtld he. Yer che connrctio n hclweeu faces and pait1ting~is even closer rhn11this suggi:~rs:rakc•ntogether they are wirho ut qucstirnl t.111: two mosr conccntrr.1te dly expn·ssive "sarfa ce~•· hum:111beings (al lt·ns1 in Wesrem cull·ure~) encounre1· in rhe cours,· nf their Lives, rhc tW (> "s urfoco.~• · whose claim on tl1e virwc1•is most inrcn~ivc and undeniahlt: and dw presence "within " or "upmt'' which of alnw st invisibly mmutc differences Is registered by him or her with the grcnrc.\l .1cutc1WS\.1• Wirh rC<;f1C1.'t to faces rh is is whr we effortlessly recognric different 111dividualsand rl..,pond insn nrnvdy t0 the mol>cfleeting cxpn·ss1on of keliag in n frimil,ar countenance, while with rcspecr to painrin[t ,his is wb) ,r i.'>possible for cx-p1:r1cnccd muscmn~ocrs - persons wh,1 arc not connnis:.curs - to rcCo!(ilitean alm~t nnlimiicd amounr of persona l and orhcr stylisti.: m;irkc.:rsin boch rr prcwma 1ional :ind non-rcpcescnturional works. Ami it ii. wh.,r enables Gertrude 5tci11,in her under app rccir1tcd ess.1y" Picnircs," to link th1:two, choL1ghthe further inreresr of her rcmRrks
,,wf'l•lron<;QI~ chov, ur 1111lh'3 ·1,11,101111 torm
: thorna,
rul1, nndreas
gur~I
v
tu~ llel11haya
i~ th:1.rthey cvi11 cc a cnmpar:ible mov<·n1cni: tow;1r
in Ruff'i;porrr.lit photographs: ng~ k:ticl p:1iatingsl wn~like Gr;id11nllygctring more and morc familiar wirh oil p.11111i g,min~ gradun lly moce nnd lllorc fomilinr wich foct'Sai. )'C'IU look very hMd :n w me of them nod you l,>ok very harJ :11 ,\II uf them and }OU do .111of tbi~ very often. Faces gradually cdl you wmerbrng, tht•ri, is no doubt :thour 1ha1 .l.\ yott grow more and morc familiar with any nnd :ill fuc1..-s und so it 15 with oil pain cin~. The re ult \v:b 1h,H in a way I ~lowly knew wh:u Jn 011 paincing i-. nm.Igrndu:illy I rcali1-eJa<;I h:id already found ouc very often du, rhere is a relatio n hcrwccn anything that 1s painted nnd th e paiming of it. And gr:idnally I rc.,li:,,eda:. I had found very often that rhc rcl:irion W:t!> so 111 !>pt:ak nobody's husincss. The rclarion bcrwect1the oil p:11111ini; nnd the thing pL1lnr1:clwns really nobody 's hu~ines~. It could be the oil painting's hllsinc~sbm was poi111 1.'CI 1r was acruallr for the purpos e u( rhc oil p:iinting niter tlw oil 1l11i111ing 1 css. ~ no t th~·oil pninting's business and so it wa~ nobody's husi11
The mov ement is from d,c ,in:ilngy hcrwcen faces and oil pnimings (b~tw1;:e 11finding one's wny nrti und both), co rhc rccogniriou that oil pninrfngs - rcprescnmrio11 nl onesnitiou that thar rela· bear so111 c sor r of rclarion ro what rhcy depicr. ro th<:further r11cog tio11i~ irrdl•vn nt ro an cni;agcmrm with the oil 1miming ns an oil painring. which is whar ~rein nicam, by saying that the rd.,tion was nuhod(s husiness, nor even rhnr uf the finished oil p,,intiug . ( l am not endorsing this-view, only ,harncrerr~ ng it.) For Rufi, the N.'<-'l,gn 11io11 ,; seem TOh.Jvc-occurred m reverse order htll 1h.: cud rcsuJt i~ mui:h rhc same. ~J u~cd to ":TYrhar rhc 11kture has an auronomo\15 c,i~ tt.>nceap:m from what 11 reprc,c ntS, or thar ic :icqu,rc,; ;i lift' of itS own," he rcm:irk~ in the conversation with Stephan Oillt'muth cared c:irl1cr. ~ M.l ) lw when 1 said 1h;n, I mc:mr thmki11gabout how you make pu:turcs, but the rcnlity ts srill rberc anywa)' because there re.illy was ~omeunc sining in frm11of th e camcrn when rhc picrurc was 1:ikc11, So now, do we have nuton· tht' Name bccii11sL' o( Ruff's omy?" ( 1o~- i,)1" This is acurc, but rhc end result is 11111r.:h deterniim1dn11in nil his early scdcs - '' Portraits," '' Houses,'' 11Srnrs" - m work ngnlnst the ~r.iin o f his i.11hjccc 111atr er: m dcpsychologizc faces, to t'1·car rhc house~ as men>shells, to prcst:nr minute S(·cti011s of Lhc Southern sky in tlw mosr dernched :1-t1dobjective manne r po:..~iolc. A fun her dimension of dw topic i\ his10ri1.-al.As I show in M,met's ,\foden11s111. the ponrni r as 11 ~cnrc, aod morl' hmndly rhe mode of :1ddrcs.sro the vicwer th.11I have been calling fo<.ingnes:s,playt•d a cnu:ral role not onl) in M:111c1 · epc,clw p:iinrmg\ of the I l<6oi, h111 m tbe work of tho..c of his conr-t'mporarics I tl1ink o( :is ,onsLi1111111g with him rhe Gcncr.111onof 1863 - marnly Henri fJn tin-1.. ..irour, Jomes ~kNc1 1l Whistler, a nd Alphon-.e Legro..,. Th e picrori,11manjfcsro of that gmer.11i1111 is Fanrin's ll w1111g<' ta DclarroLY( 11164), a rromal grou p portrnir depicnng, :,moni:.urhers, aU four painrc~ 1usr namt-d, with fl p:iinred and fr-Jmt-dportrait of Delncrni", whn had recently die
1!i0
why µho1001111>hy
1111 ,1tets-as art ,1s •1ov
85
l!du unrd M ance, l'mtrcilt of Victori11t'Meure!ll, 1 Rr,1. O il on ei.111vt1b, ,13 x 43 cm. Museum o/
Fine Arts, Soi.ton
traits in the ordinary, vemacuh1r ~enloeof rhc term, rhnc something like ,1 r:1dic:.1li1nrion of the portrait in the inter~, of focingness mkes place. with deci:sivc import for subsequent pninring. What set the stage for that dcvclopmenr was rhe ultimate fo,lurc of rhe Dider otian project of dcnring or neutmlizing the prescrll!cof the beholder,whether through 1hc clnssic srrareg)' of absorbing the depicted pc:rsonages within the pnindng so a~ to achieve the mecaph)•Sic:,11 illusion of their complete unawarenCSl>of heing beheld, or 1hro ugh lhc very differenr 11,e.1J1s by which Courbet, Mnnet's immediate predecessor, sought hyperbolically m pni111hi111 sclf into his canvases, llll effort which, if it could have succeeded (needless to s<,y it could noc), would hnvc removed him as first beholder or paintcr-hcholdcr from before the pninting. ln ocher worcl~, by 1860 the sl1preme fiction, ndvocoted hy D•idcror, tlrnr pninrings are not mado.:to be beheld cou ld no longer be susrnini.;d.Whac took ics pince i11Mnncr's art was a new acknowledgment rhar paintings were inckcd made to be beheld, an acknowlcdgmcnr thar l describe {i11Mmret's Modenrism ) in cem1S,of an attempt to rnnkc not iusr roch paincing a~ a whulc bur every bfr of its surface - cv,i:rybrushsrroke, so to speak- face the hcholder as nc, er before. This is what it means to speak of ;1 rndicnli1.·uion of rhc (froncally facing) pomair, and as 111the c.':\Seof Ruff what was required was a shift of emphasi~ from considerations of p,ych olog)' or social idenricy, wl1it:h wouJd have worked ngains1 that mdicali1.arion, w somerbi ng more c11com1,a~s111g, surfacc-oricnced, in d1at scn~c absrrncr. (Maner's hrilli.1111 and scrik-ing Portr,,it of Victorine Me11ren/f 1862.; Fig. 8 s1is the "pare" porrrair by him thar mosr exemplifies rhis. l should ::idd that striking11 css ns well as facingncss be.came a major dcs1dcrnrum for M.anc11111dhis generarion.) Ruff's phrnse for thar so111 erhi11 g is "die pictur e a~ o picture,"
111a11 f1<111r;o,s chevnor on l hti "tflhl8dU 101111", thomos ruff .inclroas 911rsiy, lu<. cfolahdye
161
IUi
Thomas RH f House N,: J J,
1988.
,hromog ·ni proccs. prim.
1S
x
2.3 9
cm
and of our. e · km t be ·rune renown ·cl a~·the painl' r wh m re rlrnn tin} ' od1 ~ pioneered a rcvolutionar on e n with "rh pair ting a, a p:iiinting" whi h ililtim rune to be glossed 111t ·rm · hmh of th mat ·riolicy of pi m'm and the flan, ·ss o{ the supp ort . The latt r is the "form Ii ·t" or Grce11brgian inrcrpretari .on, which in Manet's M dcmhn I • rgu • i an ilhholl'ic:.11pr j lion ba k onto Manet art from 1he persp ' ·ri · of (rnpr •ssioni.m ,Ind ·u c. or 1110v ·ml!nrs.J al •o st1ggcsrrhar Nfancr 111the 18 o · was in (Hll"1dt of th('!tabl cm, 11nclcr sto d as th• :n 1tithesis t the Rea Ii. r j urb r-Jike mor C(W or fr.agm nt ¥ ithout knowing i11 achra11 ·' act l)r wlrnt that· , ould in olv . Althou h this is not qumt wl m Chevrii.!r m. , n. h c, bl au, ic pr id . a "rt!ri'r reason F.orrct:ii11ingtha t t rm i11subsequ nt di,·cussions of r ">rt ·rap I tion from h vrier's Cll, :l,
f do 1tot wi h to drm t lo · an an.-ilog}' b •rwccn Maner and Ruff or between their re 'P" ·tiv.: histori al ·ir ·umstnnc s. ·1fowcv r, it is sugg ·sci · c to ay th lt..:at rhar aerrw J ci ive juncm r . in the hi l'Ory o.f modern pictorial art - th,c rise f mod,rnisr painting (m; i1 :1111 to h • k.now11 in d1c 1M60 and the ·m·1 ·~ence f larg·-s ',le ,1r plioc graphy iri the late T97os .mnd'80 - th e portrai t or porm1i -tablew (n t ·rm I u e
in Mau ,,, Mod 'rnism) became a vehi ·le of 1tu1jor an-1bition, one mor over that requir ·d a certain blocking r evn atio.nof fo11Hhlrkio
'162
t
i a ~,ll 1· rsuasive, wbm nl ut ch id • ri rhat the ''Hou · ·s," 111p~uti ·ul.ar
wl1y pil o logra 1 hv 11~i11 rs n!l ar as
I
v r before
87 Thomas Ruff, 18h 12. 111/- 2.0 , l')!):t, Chromogcnic
pmcc~, prim.
l (iO X 181! Clll
those phowgraph s in rhe series rha1 dcpic1 fa~ndes pa,·allt.•I to rhc picr1Jrcplnne (Fig. 86), mi~hr bc una logiicd - perver~cly, so ro speak- wi1h ccn:iin works hy C6mnnc? (What is pcrver,e :ihour the relation i~ summed up in Ruff's remark ro Thomas Wulffen thar in rhe .rn:hirccrurnl photogr:iph~ "rhe picrurc q:im ;u the heitinning w1chche Ontground. 1hen it has lO go srraighr inro tf1c vcrtic:tl. and then there's a backgrow1d. The re musm'r be anr1hing d1~turbing in the middle" (961- pred<,cl> · the :ireoa of Ch,nnc\ mcm determined painterly acn\'ity.) Also, that tlu· "Stnrs" (Fig. 87), large pho1ogr:iphs made from ncgm1v<,~of 1he Southern sk)' purchased from an obsen•arory, might he unJcrsroodagain, perverselr - in relation to lmpressiomsm? (N iglu morifs instead of darlig ht ones, and clc,pite a certai n all-overnc» a comp lete:absi:nce of surfaces.) And that the ~ Altered l'orcr.1ics, tt in whic h rwo fronrnl photographs of cliffcrcmpersons nrc superimposed upon nm: .ino d, cr, h:ive a v;:igucly Annly[ic Cubisr nir?zo And tht1t the "N udes·· (J-'ig.88) adnprcd from images on pornographic internet sires - hnve something F::rnvc or pcrhnps
,a 1n llaricois chev11e1,111llrn •1abloau lorm
1ho11rns,u11 ilndreas gu,~I v luc i.Jelahave
153
88 Thom.,~ Ruff, 1111des tl/)14, 2001.
Chro111oi:cnic process prinr with diascc.
11\.1. x I
r 2 cm
German cxp rcssionisr about them, :u least as concerns their often garish co lor? Also, thar rhc .. Machines" recall Leger?Also, thar Ruff's reccni enlarged pixel photos (Fig. 89}, based on blocks of eigh t-b)·-eighr pixels chat arc unreadable rcpresenc.11ionnll)'at dose range but begin m make scn~c at a di~tnncc, recall the poinrillist strncnm: of ncoimpressionism? 11 And so on. I do not ~uggcst chat Ruff himself thinks about chose wries in such tcmu. or rhnr the associations I have just named arc m be taken ns scriousl>·~ that betwct'n the ..Porrmjts" and Manet's paintings of 1hr 186os. Yer, consider these proposals ns loosely as one wishe
why pho1our11phymatters as art as oev.,, bofore
89 ThomAsRuff, jpcg 11to2,2 0 06
.
Chromng enic proces s prinr w ith dia sec. 242.6 x 1 84.8 cm
dipped by Ruff from newspapers and reproduced twice tbeir origin.al size, wirh no caption or accompanying news sto ry ro specify their meaning, can be related to one of the cenrral problems of hisrory painting in the second half of the eighteenth cc11t11ry: the a l canvases by providing the need co secure rhe instantaneous intelligibility of i11divid11 beholder with advance knowledge of their subject matter (ideally, ;:itany ratc).22 In contrast, the absence of ;:iny rcxnrnl frame in the " Newspaper Phocogi:aphs" is meant to .crc roo I 1tm not sugdisclose the residual LntclUgibiliry of the images in themselves. F-T gesting that Ruff was awnrc of the hisrnrical resonances of his project. Yet the reso· nances are there, which is part ly why the projcc.:tdocs not see111 merely quixot ic.
Jean-frani;o,s chevne r on the "tobleau form"; thomas ruti . andreas gu rsky, luc de lahaye
155
unday 1rnUers, iiss fd rf oll ·crior, o per om, < f dif-
orU1c ·rmn , 11h
o doub1 l'his h. d
njun ·tum with th
90
156
nJrca,. Gu
und,1) '
Ir ii/er ,
v pl oto r ,p
D,,C'llur(Arr/Wrl, 1~
n tters a
• "hromo •c111 p,roce.s.! print.
6 X 6 1 cm
·ming
91
i\ndrt':ls Gursky, Kl,111sc11pass . 19ll.;. Chromogcnicprocess print. 92 x RI mi
conccnrrarion of the most coru.picuous among rhem on 1he rurplanc ju!.1hfnng off m chc right of che middle of the picrure (1he "focher~ seared on his bicycle m rhe righr of the two young boys i~ pcrh::ip~g,ui ng through a pair of binoculars) - coO\'cys the mong impression char tht.!o nluokers are unaw::ircof rhe phorogrnphcr's prcscncl!(and by implicarion rhc viewer's). Thi~ is of course a rn1clirionnl nntirhc:itric:al motif, ns in Chorclin's Yu1111,11, S1ttde11t Dr111oi11g, gla nced ar in connection wirh Wall's Adrian Wl(f/kl!r, or Gericatilr's R(f(/ of tlie M1!d11 s11:rnd "Adelphi Wharf." Need less ro say, if S,wd ay SlrCJ llers, Diissdd"rf Airport were unique in Cursky's oeuvre in these respects, ir would scarcely be worrh 1he :men rion givt:n it- bur dw opposite: is tr ue. Another work of rbc s.imc y<--ar,K/t11IS{mpass ( 1984: Fig. 91) is of1e11l."itcd ::iscrucial in hi~ development. According co Gursk), he rook 1hc photogra ph ar 1hc n..-ques[of ::i companion while ,·acatiomng in w111erlnnd.··Six momhs l:ucr, when he enlarged the nt:g,1ti\e,~ Peter G::il.:is_,i writes, he ~wa, cxcired ro find ~Llttcred acroSl>the land.scape chc tiny figures of hikers whose prc.>senc1• rhc phorogr::ipher,unlike his camcr::i,hnd failed to rcgistcr at rhc 1irnc. I le rhus recliscovcrcclone of rhc oldest, simplest, ::imlmost reward11res o f photography- rhc pnricnr ddecrnti on of clctnils roo small, too im:idcning pl1:11s
1ean-lran<;o1schev11e1on 1he "lllbleau
tom,·.
1ho111nnru1t arid1eas gursl·y, luc delahavo
157
rnl, or ton overwhelming in their inexhaustible specificity t(>have been noticed, ler al1iJ1~ pondcrc•d, at rhe moment of c~posurc" (:?.2. - 3), G;'dassigol's un tu r:cm,uk: "The effoi:t is ,ill rhe more seductive when, as in Gursky's Kla11se11J111ss, rhe phowgraphcr wasnlr1mdy remote froin d1e seen<.,wli~,seantlike ,,ctt)r~ crn1set1ue11rlyse,:111 :ill rhe more pttr):lQ$eful be.:ause bli$sfu1Jyun,,ware of the eye drnt t'egards L.licm"(2';1), All rhis is fine as fhr ~s ir goc~ hut I nt ro go farther - by 11nw the reader will have :inridpated me- :tlld suggesr th:11the tiny tigurt:S'"111 , nwMenc.ssbcinJ.(beheld is bas(ll 1w1 on any int11irivnQll our• part of their .sccmlng engrossment· 11 1 wlrnt 1'11cy are dning (.tlwy 11rctoo mimrte for rhatl, or even 011their uricmation rclatil'I' 10 the camera (it 1)1inlly rnartcrs \\1bethti.r rht:y are rurned nway from us or not), hue. siinply- more fui)datnen , r;illy - of how disranr from the camera they appe11r to be. Tlrn1·is, rhe tt:c:h11ology of the rclephoro lens, !'01?,erher wid, rhc ability of th<'color film co record c:· hinl$C'lfas a double ctt1phosison rhc rnicrosco1,icand r.nacrc)scopic 11spccrsof rhc picn1re; as Gursky wrircs in a com:sp(ltldenc1:of r 998,
w,~
IMJy pictures really an·
becoming incre.isingly formal ,111d~bsrract. A visual strltC,ttrne app(•:.irsI'<>Jom in:.ircthe real cvcnis sllbwn 111my pictures. I suhj 11g,llerhe real situ11~ rion co Ill) ' artistic concepr of rhc picture . ... You never 111>ti-:e arbicr:Jryderails ju my work. On a formal le. el, c.:ou1H lcss i11terrehrrcJ micro and 11111cr(1Stt'Llcni res al'C/wovtm mgerhcr, dctcrmi11ed by :rn ov1:1·, tll ot'ganls:ul,,nal ,,,·i11 ciple. A 0lo~cd microcosm which, thank s to my ,Hsn111cednrcitudc rnw111·d my subjccr, :illows rhc viewer to re.COB · nise dw hin1:1<: $ 1ltat hol
1!l8
why phn1<> q1,1iihy mr.nn, ~
1s Jrt , ,~
111,11111 li11roro
91. Andreas Gur$kr. ri5111.'rml!11, Miilbom, il.d. R1J,r, r9!19.Chromogrnicproces~prim. r-5 x :.12.
cm
These remarks rd er most fully to his pictures of the 1990s (and ::ifrcr), in which "abst ract" co11 s iclcrntions come increasingly ro the fon.:, hut their relevance to works such ns 1hosc I have been i.:011 $idcring is also clcnr. Anol'lwr fcllture of the la1:rer is thnt in a ll of theq11hc phocogrnph has been tnkcn from :1 point of view loc::m:da r some considerable height nhove the scc.:n csY A four1h picture i11gPnol, Rali11ge11 ( 1987; Pig. 93), oae of Gurl.k)", de.fining from 1hc 1980s, Swi111111 works of that decade, exemplifies 1.bcapproac h. Trshows a communit) swimming pool, shot from above ac an oblique angle ro the horizon. The pool itself, which c·,,:tends beyond the l.-dgcof the picture tu the right. is irregularly ,hapcd, adding co rhe rnrerest of the 11101.if (to me. the shape rccnlb those of Fr-Jnk tella's eccenrric polygon pai111ings of 1966). The water appear; light turquoise, and 111rhe foreground rhe pool is bordered by a ,,atio of differenr-si1cd n·crnngular ciles. A few dozen swimmers, ,;ccmrngly nll youn11,disport chemselves in rhc water; orhcrs lounge on benches or ledges or simply srand :iround; while on 11 large grassy expanse beyond the pool mtmerous sunbath ers lie on towels or blankets , scand miking, or ot herwise relax . Beyond rhc gr.is:. ;m : trees, and nhnvc the t rees one glimpses a nanow strip of sky. 0 11c ,nigbr Lmag ine, fo-:cclwit h
Jean han<;o1schttv11 t>1011Iha 1/"lbleautorm", thomas ru lt, a11d•E'a« gurs l y, luc d1lahave 0
159
93
Andreas Gursky, Swi111111i11g Poul, Rati11 gc11,L9 87, Cbrornogcnic process print, ro7.5 x 13 1 c,n
such a photogra ph in isolarion from any other of his works, that Gursky's inrercst was soc.:iologic.: al: rhis is how you11 g Gcrma11 men ;;ind women at a certain place and time rela te ro one anot her a nd to their surroundings with respec.: t to the institution of rhc pub lic swimming poo l. The macroscopic aspecr would rhen refer ro the institution as such (and beyond rhar ro the culrnre of which it is a pa rt), the mic.: roscopic to the minute parti culars of rhc behavior of several dozen individuals. The focr char the latter appear obliviou s ro th e photo gr.iph er's pres ence would thu s functio n as o Further gu:1ranccc or the reliability of the picture as a socio logical document. (On ce notic ed, th e coup le who sit absorbcd in conversation on the second bench from the ldt at the bocrom brings tbe theme of unawar eness ro a particu lar focus,) There may be more than a grain of truth i11such a reading, especially as regards various pictures of the 1980s. Howevet', far more imporrnnt than considera tions of this sort is the viewer's feeling of rc11 rni11in g wholly
160
why pl1otogrophy rno1tors as an as novor botoro
'J•I
1\nc.lrl'.ISGur,ky, 'fokyP Stock Exc/11111,11,•, , 990. Chromugcnic proces~ print.
1 88
x 230 cm
ouu.h.lc rhc pro.ceedrngsthe picture dcp1crs- chc feeling, 111 pur ir srrongly, clut he or ~he i, M~·vcrcd- (from here on, no quoca11on marks) nor 1u~tfrom che doing, uf the swimmer~ .1nJ ,unbarhers hut abo from the image itself, whid1 in rhar sense is formall) and onrologic.111) • com1m:hen:.ivc and complete, however radically open to 1•inv it m:iy also he (more on this openness ro view shortly). Or c.:t,nsider :1110 1hcr, lirn.:r picnirc by Gurbky, Tokyu Stoel~ £xd1,111Re ( 1 yyo; Fig. 94), seen by Cnlnssi as 111nrkin g :1 new ph:isc in his arc. Fm 011<.: rhi11g,rhc subjc<.: [ signa led a bur!(coning imcrcsr in contemporary themes; for annrh cr, rhe picrurc itsclf introduced a new "image model," to use Galnssi's phmse, according ro which "t he aloof vanrngt' point 11mlsmall figurci. pcn.istccl, but chc crowd now filled the frame in a dl'nM: mass from 1..'Cl&e to t'dgc- (2.ll). (Formally. it was a mo,·e tow:ird all-ovcrnC\\.) In addition. chou~h C,.11:u,si docl>not mcmion it, rhe rrnders' absorption in their rransacr,ons, which lwrc :md there 1i. fer,cnt bur on the wholt!'tends roward uniformil) J.'>doc., their dress; more on this 100 inn momenc), quietly underscores rhc l'icwcr'$ conviction rh:u they arc unnwarc of bemg photo~raphcJ. (So for rhar matter dol '\ 1he blurrin~ of v.1ri<,usfigures rownrd the bonom of rhc picrurt.'.) Of 1his and stmilnr works - moH· hrnndly, of die " level of nbsrracrion i·ow:m l which nll of Gu,·sky's m:Jrurr picrnrcs iilt'ivc" - Galassi
uan fr.,n, o,
hl!!vllt!• on the
tat loau lorm·
thom11, ru1·, and
101
writt:s, '·Th e a in.1is Ni ohlit·crah: the co11~i11 gc11c:ic s of perspecrive, so thar the suliject appears ro present itself wirhour rhe agency or inrerfenmec o( :in observt:r; and to selci:it ao(l shape the view so that it is not ,1pan or :in as_pcctbm a perfectly sclf•conraincd who le, co rresponding ro a mental pict ure or concept" (30). (l 'his (clares to ~h«r998 remarks by Gur~ky a ltcady cited.) Gursky bin'lseHhas s:iiJ , " l sta nd at a dista11ce,lil~e a person who comes from another wodd," 18and indeed several of bjs cort1mtntato.u ~ have rukcn up the figun: of ''.mother wor ld'' as a means rJf character izing die rypic11J i111p r<%sto11nrnde by his art .i• (Compi1re Schw,tn,for on W~U's Adria11Walker.) Yh 1\0 one has been quire as emphatic as Galnssi in rhe pe11nlc imare paragrnp h of his catalogue cs~iiy,whcrc he writes:
The diverse currenrn that Aow into Gursky's wor k cm..rgc a~ tbc co hcrt n~ p icture of a world. 'r'here is no place for us in that wo rld. Banished from its com1J1and iag, sym • metFies, we iuc consig ned to contempl ate its wholeness from witho ut. We ni >W .sru(ly its derails :ir our leisure. We may be begL1ilec l or repelled by the goxge.ous spectacle. Wt rmw ,marvel at its scn.)1 1c imliffcl'cncc. We m,iy cvcn. eli:ct <)urselvcs to slt in judgJnent upon it 1 but we will never become pai:ticipanrs. l,p ,111'
011ct'agai11 I w,,m io dr.1wan obvious implicacio n from Gafassi's remarks, t1ne he seeOJ'. not r'\) rc:cognir.,: is there-- but of C()11r~c Gursky ru<>may not· recog1)i7,Cthat· rhis is the o nwlogical implication of his procedures- namely rhar the metaphor of a1wuhcr, St!pa· r;1tc world, a wor ld· rhnt' has norhing to do with the l'icwcr, from which he or .sheis, effec;tively banis hed, is ;:ir1 annth eatd c.1] mwiphor pcrEe~ ,ly con$istcrit with [)1clC[(lt's writings l)n thea Ler and pn_inting and, more IOl)sd y, with 111yc1·irique of minirnalisn,/ [i,r. esalism in ''Art ~UldOb]ecrhoocl'i (nor t6 menti on WlttgenstcU1'sextr(ld of 1930). Tris aL50,l have sugge~ted, wbar is mode visible in different terms in the strnngest of Stturh1s 111u ~eum photographs, which otherwise have almost n0thi11gi11con1111 cm wirh Gur$ky'swork . Put more stl'()nglt - these are my views now, noc Galassi's - I see Glll'sky's bi~hly inventive and original OC'11v re, likr,:those of Wa ll <1ndSrrnrh, as 111>1rkin g a rcsumpli(ln not so much :ifter as across a minimalist and pOHminlm,1listinterregnum, of rne andthe· Mdca l impccus, first, of the Didc1·otii111 tradition chat Aourished berween about 17ss irnd the advent of Man et jnst over n centur y l;1tcl', and second, of the pa rricuhir version of that tt11tlitio11- the r0it1tctpretntio11 of it - that issued in the high rnodetJlist painfing and s.,;uJphU'cof the 1950s and ' 6os ch.amp:ioned in '' Arr and Objcctbood" and relattd essays. J sholl have more to sny a hour the histo rical developlilenr such a reading implies Jarer {lll in this book. However, t am 11ot )'Ct clone .ca11va.ssing the fei1tures of Cvrsky's art that tend wward ch.is end. So fa r l h,wc mnched on rhc unawareness of G11r.sky's l111rn~n suhject.,<:tohcing beheld; 0 11 hL ~ pent hrinr for viewing them frClm behind (Gursky ro Gomer in 19Q8: ''I believe rhat thcrc'$ a lsfJ a Ct:rrnin fpnn of i1bstn1c1 ·io11in mr e11rly hmdscapes: for CKn mplt::, l often show hurnan ngur es from bd1ind and thus th e lambcape as ohsc:rved 't-hl'o~1gh a second lens" I1xl); on his ob~ession with disrnnce (ft0111the same cor:responde11c e: "Th e camera's enormo us distance from these ti~ures 111 ea11s that they become dc; and t,n his preference for views frnm above. ln this last con11eciJ1dividualised" ID:JJ t·iqn, G,1lassi's ncutc tlbservntion q11ott:d c11rlicr th:H Gnr.sky ch11ractcrisricnlly seeks "ti)
16,2
oblii:erate the ·c nring ·n ·i ·s of perspective, so time the subject appear tt> pr •s ·nt its ·If without the flg n y r int rference of an obs rver" should h· stressed; os Rupert Pfab pllt s it, "be cau w n ·vcr g ·t to . c · wh ere the phorographer is lo atecl, the act of sc ·ing is. expressly emphasized. ".1 1 T he crucial point, with which l ag.ree, is that for all their unu ualness with respect to what is nnrmaHy thou he of ;l po'nt of view, ti l'. :"l{_t ual cff ct of many of Gursky's pic:tmes is somd1ow to divest the laue1· con ept f implying an ucttrnl l catio - a parti ulaf pol rllLll:was o upi ·d physi ·ally by H1· pholograp her and char we as view r · ar - I ·d to q · ·upy imaginativ ly in wm. A sp ·ta ular cas' 111 p
._5
An Ir •a
,ursl .y Sa!u11 , r990 . Chrorno genic 1n-octss print . r 88 x
21. 6
cm
Je,n fr nr,oi · clie vrier u11Lhe " L1c1 IJlea11form". 1hornas n1H, .inclreas gu rsky, luc delahaye
163
{,
16'1
mJ l',l"
(
,ur~~ ,
fl l'I
fo r,
I
~
I,
Chrim111~ ·11i •
Nhy ri111109rAphv m
rr "'
I rint.
l ,4
t r• ,1. 111as 1cvor h lore
i..2.(, , il'1
9~
Aodrc:1~<..ursky, Atl1111ta,nN6, Chromogenic proce;.\ pnnt. 186 >
n:m-J but also "holly unfettered gaze. hoth di)tanced and inr.imau:. With the elision of both photogrophcr and viewer ai. implicit perce1m1al.1nchors, the picture i\ free ro pursue truly "absunct" end~, whe re "abstrac tion'' \tands not simply for 1ht• subordination of subject martcr ro compos itional principles, nor for ,1 r:rnge of formnl nnalogics herwccn indjvidual picnircs :111dwell-known works of a hsr.n1c1 pninring and sculprurc, bur rnthcr for the picrur·c's exclusive prcoccupntion with irs own " inner" purp oses, whatever they mny he.:- nnd they arc most ofwn heterogeneous, 111i x('(I. (All this might be tho ught of as ;i rad icnlizarion of the to•bc-sccnness cliscussccl ln previous drn prcrs.)
At thi~ pninr I wane to com ment briefly on seven aJdinonal featttrcs of Gursk)"s pictures th.ir bear din.'Ctl}'on Ill) ' ba~ic daim that they•. ,long with the work of Woll, Struth.
a!> Sugimmo. ,1nd Bus-urnnnre (I am e>.empting Sherman ap.irr from her carlill~t so:rie!>), well as other phorographcrs scill 10 OCdiscussed. hclung t0 a renewed nnd re\•iscd anr.itJleJtrknl rradirion. 1) Theomost obviouslr relevant of those fcarurcs 1s Gur.k) \ mcrcasmg recourse, starring in the early 1990s, to digitall)' mampubr.ing hi~ images, a process that has rcsulred in a nnmlwr of his most famou~ "orks, i11clucli11gParis. Mo11tpamnsse( 199 3 ), Pradt1I (1996; Fig. 96), Atla11ta( 1996; Fii;. 97), Untitled V ( 1997), Chicago Bot1rd 11(Trade ( r 997), T1111 es Squm·e ( 1997), ond J{hi11eJJ ( 1 y99; Fig. 98). The extent of thl' manipu · lation vnrics from work co work, b111 in all c,1ses rbcn: is n cnnsequenr loosening of the
joan fra11~01scho11rloron tho "tableau wrm"
1horn, 1s ruff. ondreas g,trsky luc dt!l.i~av,•
165
q'
nd
G11 ~L.• R#mre "·
I.,., .
mmog ·m. rr .
rrim. 1.07
36
111
rkl
or · ju m ·ired , r
t
\ h Ji ,m f ~o . u h pl:marion he.re. 'h. t matrl'r!. t m • ar~\1111 ·nt, hor e e i th•.n rh fC/i.l!ltingimagei- or' imrin i all f1 t, ar I . t n t in rhd •ntir •ry rl • r c:or I of il!l thing thn1 • m id have I · •n ·een in the r ·al wor l 11 :1 hum:111 ob:, ,. ,r or ·in fo •d a me ·fl.mi al r · rding i11s1 rumc rH; rhc luos ·ning,of inidc·i a lit i rn ;ur 'ky"a c 1uh•, lcnr f n e er-in f' h any rigin. r)' p •r · ptu el • 11
II I ·ncl
•111.,.
t11r ·; in
99 Andre,,~ Gur~ky. llappy \ i.11/1')' I, 1995. Chromogcmc process pnnt .
2:!.6
x 186
cm
Scl,iµol (d:1tcd r99 4 but phorogrnphcd c;irlier), art empt y runwa y is seen throug h a floor-to-ceiling gin.~ wall, presunrnhly in a waiting area (the slightly blurred toil of an nirliner can just be glilllpscd exiting cbe picmrc at rhe extreme right. and 1herc ace also faint rcflccnons of the waiting are:i itself m rhe gianr glass panes); and in Happy V1dl1')'I (1995; Fig. 99), a view of Hong Kong, :rn urban land~cape is seen from an elevated vantage poim through a currainlike metallic scri1:n,which significnmly is in shaq,er foc11~than nny orhcr item in the picture. Thc11there is che spccrocula r Aut obnh'II,
rean 1ranc;o15chev11or on the •1all,f'.l11uform•. thomas roll, arid,eas gursky, luc delanJve
167
i8
~
--~~
1
. --··
-
oo AnclrcnsGursky, A11tobnlm, Mc//111,11111, 19y3 . Chrnmogenic process prinr. 186 x i.:i.6cm
Fig. 1 oo), a Strongly downw ard view onto a field dott ed wirh blackand-whire cows; the horizontal bands ,,r e stripes " painted on the glass siding [of the autobahn overpass! to mark its presence and w discourage drivers froni being overly distrncrcd by rhe landscape'' (Galassi, 37) - hence the b:rnds' subtle narrowing and dark:1ge. The severing effect of the hands, and more genening tow:1rclthe bottom of the i111 erally of the viewer's uncertaimy as to how 1·0 understand his or her implied siruation (loo king downward through the ).llasssiding), could scarcely be more emphatic. 1r, There are also two impressive picmn.:s of buildings: Hon g l( ong 1111d SINmghai Bank, Hong L
w hy photograptl y maHers as an as nove, before
1o I
Andreas Gursky, Stnle11ill e, llli11 ois,
:z.002. ,
Chro111c Jgc11i c process prini. 2.08 x 307 cm
(nnd fur ther ems us loos e from rhe sce ne as such). Perh aps Gurs ky's mo sr ex trem e state · men t in this vein is the more rcccnr State-ville, Illinois (2.0 02. ; r ig. r o r ), a picture of the panopricon -like interior of a prison, in whi ch th e se verin g of the viewer from th e pr isoners, some of whom can be seen in their cells, is all bur Litera lly spelled out, (There is not a hint of voyeurism in tbe::se:: las t images; th e picwrc's point of view, if itc, in he called diat, is in no w ay privileged: what is seen ofthe o ffice worke rs is perfectly ordinary, rhe actions of che members o f the Bundestag an: pretty rnm:h incompn::hensiblc, aud chc viewer is given no more rhan pa rtia l glimpses of th e priso ners. T hat so me of che prison ers seem poss ihl.)' awar e of rhc phnt og r;.iph cr, c,r at :my rat e of the presen ce of som eon e in di e imp lied ce ntrn l space, is not felt to estab lish a con nection betw ee n the view er a nd th e scene as a w ho le.) 3) Gur sky 's use of what Ga lassi ca lls th e diptych form is also to th e point . Class ie example s includ e Cairo Diptych (1992.), Schiesser (1991), and Hong Kong Stock Exchange, Diptych (1994; Fig. 102) . Galassi also im:lu
1e,rn-lra119ois chevrier on 1110"tab leall lon n' ': thom as ruff, andreas gur sky, luG dolahaye
169
d,,
1
-Ii· hrum
cni ~ p oc ,; pmn.
m ro
((11 ;,,~ /I IJ,:• liutt m )
·m. i,roc
rrmt. :r.o
). Hon
_\ p.oin, rhL i n m,u c :iml h ·11ful hm ir stop · h rt f pcd ying tit • 11lri111a t · si rnHiof Gursky's inv ndm,: Lh w, y i1, whi ·h rhc li.nal Jipt ·h ,ib. olu I • •,rcr chc
70
w
v p'1010g
p
w m, n rs
n.. ,ll I
I'
n
vor t !0 1e
lli
:rn
TO-!
I
11Jr 'J ,
I i.:n
4) Iii many of Gursky's pil:tures pe<>ple are shnwn nb~<.)rb cd in whM they ;ire doing (Ind h;;:1ic ,:e as 11uawa rc of rlw presc11 ce of die photograp lwr (and by implicarion the viewer). I norcd versions of this ln cad)' works s uch as Sm1dcl)' Str()flers, Diiss<'ldl.?r( Airport, J1is lrcrm,m, Miilheim 11;.d, Ruhr, a.nEI Sw immin g Poo l, J{atingen (see Figs, 90, 92 , 93 ), bnt b eca use the figures in the 6rst a i:e depit:tcd from behind a nd those in the sc<.:t>i1d nnd third Fro111a .considerable di stal 1ce (also from above), the theme of absot p• tion bai:ely comes .1cross as s uch. lt is mlu 'C palrahl ,y present in W<1tks suoh as 1bllyo Stoel~Ji,xdwn,11. e (J.990), Siemens, Kai·lsruhe (J99 i; Fig. 105 ),. ri w 1J1mi ssio11cdirnag\: in s, working m::1t eriwl1icb one s1.:cst1urneruus workers scMcd at tables nmid t1'<1lleys, rec:1 11ls, .ind supply cribles spiraling frorn tl1e c:eiHng, and Nha 7iw ,g, Vietnam (2004; Fig. 106 ), :1 verri.:al c~m1posirio11 , slwr typically from 11hovc, of a large, o pen focmry inte• rior in which a few hun~lred Vietnamese wom co in orange company shi.r ls sil o r squat on the grom,d weaving ch~1irs 1u1d ha~kets out of smiw. Ln rhe J·asr 0£ these, only one .f:igtLrels $h0\VIJ apparently look iJJg up row:.ird rhc c:rnwr:i (she is by 11< ) mea1\s easy tO fiml); r·he <~rhers are all benr upon their tasks, an ostensllily antitheatrical structl 1re of an almost dasska l sort. (Wi,:sense, Joukirt.g nr the Nh ,1 Trnng picture, rhat it bas been digita lly nhmipufoted, though we do nor koow how - a fomilhlr t'xperiencl< before Gursky's irnagco.) What I w;rnt ro srress,, however, i.~ 1ha1absoi·prion in Gursky is co11 s.i'sreL1 t.ly " IIJc"' or 111 ech,1t1ical; nowlwrc is it pcrwi vt:d m imply rhc least. inw::irdness or psyc.hi, d~prh ou dw p:1r1of his human subjeccs.37 'J'his is particularly evi dem m Siemens, Rarlii·i'ihe:fnwiilch- thc workers, alr.hough by no means 1,iddcn from sight, 11re easy ro -miss- Oilce seen, mor eover, .they are hard ro keep in view as active fo<.:torsin the c;ompC)sirion. fostead. rb:ey blend i1Jtuthe mnchinery, ..1.s if part (>f it.1~ In Nh t, Trang, Vietnam the visual cmp ha$iS, i11.die a bsence of mad1inery, foils on cl1e women, but their s he er m 1111ber , the repctitl.ous ness of their uniform shii·ts and black pooytai ls, as well as t•be view from above, have a s imi lady lhtteniJ1g: effet: r, as du es the division o f the co,opn· sition luru J1orizoural r.um1s by ii sll(;Cc~siou of wi1·es c~rrying flmwescenr lighting. lr mighr therefore see111 rempcing.to thl 11k of Gursky "~ seeking to u11derscorc rhc dchurn,111i z.ing ,1spcc1:sof certain forms of work/' but J rhink this would be <•ff-key. Instead I take his flnttenin~ 0f ,1bso1'ptiun to he ll noth cr ~i.gn of the consi~tcnc}' with which his ~-rt ni~ists or indeed. repudiat es all identification by the viewer with dw huma n ~uhictts of his im;:igcs- th(: projcer of si:vering call~ for not hing less. A relared theme is that of the ~eparotc wo rld of animals, as in Chidw1.s , Kr.cfeld (J.98y), ,i srraighrphutugroph .oF chickeris .and roosters in a largl' f..:nc;1,: J yal'J, ar1d Gredey (2.002), an aerial view of a vast grid of open pens cu11tainJng hundr eds of h ead of cattle; sw.:h 1111i111als ill Gursky's art appcc1r imn:11.: rscd in 1'11t:i'r lives even rnure flatly :rnd non-1:01111m1n icatingly than -rhe ~;em~ns workers. 5) For SlHnt: dni, : now co111 111 cntaw rs o n Gursky's ·ar r hnve noted his interest in .subjects - s uc:1 1 as rlw Sienm1s plllnr :xt K~rlsn,hc, t)1c Tokyo, Chic:xgo, ,;n1dHon g KoHg swck c.,x c hanges, che Hon gko ng and Shanghai B,mk building in Hon g Kong, and the coo lly lit mod ernist shelves lined with PrndHshot:s or Nike .rneake rs - rhat he.long to the social and econo mic phenomenon known as .glob<1ti zation. As in tlw .:,1~(·of his 1.1 Sc of Jii,itiiMi~l.n, I ha\
'173
,05
nJI"\:
i11r-.'· ...
rn
uh1r:i.:.t - tbc Tok
ntit.
p m 1lar pl ··e m
174
, or, J\ndr~~~ Gursky, Nim Trf/11)1,\licl11n111 , 2004.
Chron,oj:\cllic prncess prim ,
l\l ,~
x
107 c 111
(above arid {acing page) 18 x 2.59 cm
10 7
Andreas Gur ky, Stockholder Meetiu , Diptych
2.001 .
Chromogenic proce s prim . Eacb pll.11el
Diptych (2.oor Fig. ro7) a monumenta l double image in whi h group of co rporate leader from ome of G rmany ' large t corporations it at long table · or dai e th at are pre ented a if uspended in front of or partly upporced b an immeose mass of granite o ered with snow, At the bot:tom of the two images an odd ly spectra l audience unfornmately turned away from the viewer, look up roward the heights. T he logo of the corporations (Luft hansa, Daimler Chry ler Bayer, Volk wagen iemens, and so on) Aoar aga inst the ky while the nam of all tbe ex cutive appear before the lat ter on plagues. Not urpi:i ingly perhaps Stockholder Meeting, Diptych wa one f the few utrighr failures fn Gur ky' retro pe ti e exhibition f 100 • 6) Or consid r a ingle enigmati work, U11titled Xll (r) ( 1.999; Fig. I08), a doe-up photograph of a page of printed German prose. The page is "from' a famous book 1 Robert Musi l's unfinished masterpiece Der Mann ohne Eigenschaft.en (Th e Man without Qualities· r92.3-42), a book already mention ed in connection wich Bu tamance Tableaux in Chapter One and v hicb, in more than one re pect mak e intriguing reading in relation to recent photography; fore ample ici easy m imagine rhe appeal to Gursky ine) of the title of (or to Thoma Demand, whose work will be di en sed in Chapter
176
why pholo~ranhy mat ers as art as never be ore
n in \•olwm: 1 . ly
r
ud reali : P
merely , - \ • . cry fe v m •mhe of hi t r et u ien e ould have
en•
anQO
vrie
o
u for
o as ruff. an ea gurs
• uc det l\ave
77
10 R
.'\nrl, ·a
lm,l y, 11/itlcd
steps that he d id. Thus r.hc Germa n (or German-reading) viewer - the work's implicil' audience - who start s o ut reading che page will find himself or herself subtly bur repeatedly alienated from it: .is if t he force field of reading was not co be undone bu1· o nly subver ted, or as i.fGucsky's aim i1J rhjs instance was a kind of severed reading rhar continuously compelled the viewer to rent:gotiat e his or her relation to the page, and thereby 4 tO rhc picture. ) The absence of all proper names from Gursky's fabrjcared page is a further gesrure in this direction, as if mrn,es as sucb threatened to pr ovide occasions, however rninimfll, for rcadcrly idencification. More bwa d ly, che ta d ically iron ic, hcm:c a ffectively clistanciJ1g, to ne of M usil's novel - o r at any rate of its first cwo sections (more tban seven hund red piigcs in the English tra nslation), before the introductio n of the prot agonisr Ulrich's ro9 Barnett Newmun, O n e11ie111 1 , 1948. Oil on sister Agath e, with whom he engages in an extraor • canvas ,rnd oil on masking tape on canvas. 69.2. x 4 1.2 dina ry (a nd for the mosr part non-physical) love c111.The Museum of Modern Arc, New York. Gift of affair - made T/Je Man wilh Oul Q uali ties the perfect Ann alee Nc w rn:ll1, 199 1 object of such an cx-periment. 44 7) One more topic remains 1:0 be touched on, the 1·elation ol: Gursky's pictures ro abstract pa incing and sc11l pt11re. This too has been exhaustively discussed by his comrncnrntors, who have repeacedly called a ttention to certain obvious associntions: for examp le berween Gursky's penchant for a ll-overness in works such as Toky o Sto ck Ex change, Klitschko , and Chicago Hoard of Trade (among other images) a nd Jackson Po llock's all-over drip pa intings of 1·94 7- 50 ; between Uulitled 1 ( t 993 ), a picw~e of the gray carpc1 on rhc gro und floor of the DLisseldo rf Kunstha lle taken from a heighL of :ibou1 two and a half feet nncl Gerha rd Richter's gray monochro me paintings of r 96 8 and afrer; between l'rada I and even more Prada 11 ( i:997), a la rgely digital!)' pro duced image of three empt )', white, coldly illLU n inated display spaces "s tacked " one a bove the other, and va rious minimal sculptur es (more accurately, "s pecific objects") by Donald Judd ; and between J{hi11e fl (see Fig. 98) , in which a computer was used to remove unwa nted structur es on rhc for side of the river and so yield the relatively a bsrracc image we sec, :ind Barnett Newman's O nem enl I ( 1 948; Fig. 109 ). Other works by Gursky, such as Times Sq11are and /-/011g Kong Stock Excha nge, Dipt ych (see Pig. ro:i.), are inconceiva ble without the precedent of amb itious (a nd I wou ld say American) a bstract painting of the lace r9 4os and after. 111;idclition
1nan•fr11nG0 1s cllevrier011the ''ta bleau fo 1m 1' , I homos 111ft, Rndrnas g11rs~v.luc de lalrnye
17S
tirm t 19
don
rs a
111
Andre:~s (;ursky,
l{ i:s1111 1r
20 5.5 cm
cured, almost poincillisr-seeming surfaces c.:ompan:ck>scly wiLhthe bncto11Ho-cop,lighrco-dar k perspective recession - 11lso the rexwr ed charncter - of the ciirpeted Aoor in U111 :i1/ed I. (Con1p,1risons with Olil's ki arc also gcr111 ,1nc for Untitled II LT993J ;,ind Untitled I I l I r996j.) Mor e broadly, the uncompromising fronraliry of many of Gursky's pictmcs, including chose, like rhe Prada images, char are rourinely linked wirh minimalism, recalls norhing so much as the sheer abstrnct facingness of Louis's ''Unfurlcd s," ii quality intimately linked co wh,H in '' Art :ind Objccthnod " I call their presentness (as oppo sed to the theatrical presence of the minimalist/literalist object). I leave it to the reader to decide whether between Louis's " Unfurleds" - for examp le, Alpha-Pi (196 0; see Fig. 41) - and Gursky's Atlanta and Times Square there exists ,1 further affinity of co111 positio11. 8) Finall)', a few senLences abo ur a pborogra ph unlike any other in Gursky's oeuvre, Restaurt.1 111 , St Moritz ( 199 1; rig. 111), ,l strnighrforward, Fairly close-range depicrion of families and young people se.ued ar wooden rabies in a dining hall at the famous ski resort. Hcyond the diners, many nf whom have only a glass of beer o.r n borrle of soda in front of them, arc what one takes to be soaring windows - in c.:ffccta glass wall inter-
1e11nfranco,s chevr ler on tho "tab leau lorm"; ·1homas ruff , andreas gursky, luc de lahaye
181
spersed with metallic supporcs- floodcJ witb feuturclcs~ white lil,1111 , a ra
... . l uc Oelahayc, born in 1962, is a Fre11d1photographer who began his career as a photojournalist. in p.irricular a war pborog.rapher for Ncwsu•eck :ind s'lmilar poblicarions, and wem on co cnJO)' grear su..:cessin char field, wiomng the Robert C.1pagold medal rw1ce (in 1993 and 100:1.) and che l'rix Nierct- (in 2.002.). At some po int in the eady 1990s, however, he hcgon co cbofc nr the cons1r11intsof pborojoumalism and to explore various arti~tic possibilities for which there were no precedents in w.hat he hnd hitherco done. SP for example he made (0 1· had made) a series l)f piccutes 1)f homeless Parisi:111S by :isking c,tch tti have his vr en· her photc1b'TRph rake1t :tlnnc in a photo bom:h while Delahnye deliber:udy looked .swny.This led to a further proiecc, a seri!.'l> of hlack-aml-whue_ port.rairs mollt.!un the M1:1rowirh a hidden camera. A ~dt.'Ctiooof chcsc, ninery in an, were published ;15 a book with the utle L'Autre in 19~9. Stlll :1nmhcr project in,olvecf tr.iveling for four mo111h~during the winter of t996 from Moscow to Vladivostok, and phorographinl! in garish color people living ruosdy ~llfr)' lfves in squalid conditions; a hook ga1.heri11gn selection nf chose phot M, Wi11te1·1 ·cisL',came out in 2000. I ~hall bi:it!llyconsider ~he Me.ere,pnrrrnit s in L'A11tr1 1 i11com1ecl'io11with rht' problc.m.1 tif ..:bnteJUporar y porrra il photography In Chapter Seven, hue I wanr here Lo say somerhi11gabout Odahaye's l(ltust venture, a :.cries of mostly vanoromic, l.tc~c-scaJe (roughly eighr by four foet) color phmog(;lphs of subjects mken from the im:ige repertoire of photojournalism buc rrc-.1tedin a manner that could nnt diverge further from photojourna li\11cnonn:,. The earlu:st work:, of this fY!k J.nc from 1.001; ~incc then he has made onl) ' a limired numhcr of photogr:iphs that meet rhe ~-tan dards he has ser for him~clf (an exhihition ar La Maison Rouge in Pari~ in late 1.ooscomprise d only ,cvenrccn works). ~H As this dcscrlprio,, S1)ggcsrs, whoc_Dd 11haye bas do1H·i11bis 1Jew pmje-:r is play subject marter ag;1ins1format ,rnd nll thar goes wi1h it. Thus he seeks ~ubjecrs of il sort rhttt would ordinnrily belong ro nis e::1.rlicrprncricc as a phoro/ournalisr- a dead T.ilil>an fi~hrer lying in a Jirch O,:ig. 1 t?.), the bombing ofTnlihan positmns m Afghani,mn br nn American 1\ -sl. (fig. 1 13 ). a squad of Northern Alliance Fighrer$ :idvane1ng m J mountainous l:ind~cape, the Jcnin Refugee Camp on the \Xlcsr l\nnk after ..:omh::it bccween rhc Jla lcsrinian&and the Israelis (Fig. r 14). Slobodun Nrtlusevicabout ro he ll'ie.d in The Hague, :i unit of American M ;irines warily standing guard in front of a p;irtly destroyed building in a suburb of Baghdad follr day~ heforc rhe city was taken (Fig.
why pho109r11phym:mer• as art a& never belore
1 12
I ,ll C Delahaye, 1"a/iba11, 2001.
Digita l chro mogcnil: pro cess prin t.
11 1
x z; 7 c 111
the Sccurit)' Council at rhe U N 011 the occasion of Colin Powell's speech claiming thar Traq possessed weapons of m;iss destruction, and a "power" lunch hosted by Pervez Musharrnf, President of Pakistan, with the American finnncier-philanthropist George Soros among his guests, at the Wor ld Economic Forum in D::ivos, Switzerland in 2004 (Fig . .n6), co name eight. But instead of shooting eacb at dose range with a lightweight hnnd-bekl camera in pursuit of highly dr,1matic, compositionally arresting, a_ndinstantly lcfl,ible frngmems of la.rger situat ions - the phot ojournaliscic norm - he emplo)'s pcrso11alized, large-format, frequently panonimic camerns in order co include vast!)' more of che scene before him in terms both of lateral extension and of sheer quantity of visual information. Also, by print ing his photographs at large scale, he ensures that, at normal viewing dist,ince, that infonmition comes close to enveloping rhe viewer. For rhe mosr part he works with individual phorographs, tho ugh in two instances - the MusharrafSoros lunch and a much less orderly scene of a press conference at a meeting of the OPEC oil ministers in Vienna - he digitally combined different aspects of multipk shots taken from a single vantage point, shifting figures from one part of the composition to anothe1·,substitutin g gestures, eliminating unwant ed persons and objects, a11dso on, co arrive at the final images, which looked at closely give no indication of having been manipulated. T he pho cographs that resulr, as Quencin Bajac has renwrked, invcJlvc fl balance of opposing forces.49So for example there is in all of rhem a strong sense of distance, even wirhdrawal , on the part of the photograp her; in more tha n half, the dista nce is literal (it is striking, for instance, how often one's gaze extends to the far horizon); in oth er 1 1 5),
Jea n- I ranc;ols chevrie r on the " tab leau ror111":Lhomas I u II, andra as gursky, luc clolRhaye
183
1 13
Luc Delaha ye, U.S.80111/Jiu g 1111Tolib1111 (' osi ti
200
1.
Chromogcnic process prim. , 1 z x 2.38cm
works in which rhe primal'y sul>jccr is 1t1oreproximate what comes aCl'()SSis a srrong impression of deliberate 11on-eng:1gcmenr, not, one feds, in the inreresrs of rcperrorial "o bjcctiviry" so much as in pursuit o f an artisric - ultimately an onto logicnl - ideal or allowing the picrurc in all irs densiry both or reference and of color ro come into being as if of its own accord. "T here is :i real ambiguity," Delalrnyc has said, "I am cold and clt;rached, su fficicmly invisible because sufficiently insigniRcanr, and rbat is how I arrive nr a full presence to rhings, and a simple nml direcL relation to the real. That idea, in my work, is central. ,,~o This me.ins thaL the viewer quickly becomes aware that a basic proroco l nf rhesc images rules our pn.:dsely rhe sorr of fears of close-up capture - of fosr· s, vivid momcnrnry juxrnpositions of moving events, exrremc gesturt:s a nd 1:111otion persons and things - rhnr Ont.!associates wirh photojournali sm :it its bravura best. RaLhc:r , the phot ographs in their sheer breadth aml det:iil extend :in invit:uio11ro rhe viewer to approac h closely, to peer intently ac one o.r another portion of rhe picrorial field, in short w become engrossed or indeed immersed in prolonged nncl inrimntc conrc111pl.uionof all Lhnrthe image offers 1·0 be seen. At che same rime, the viewer is given
why phOIO!J1aplly 111t1 lte 1s ;is art as 11ever before
cr4 Luc Dda huyc, Ja11i11 Rc/11 ,:ec Camp,
115
2001 ,
Chromoi.cnic pro cess print r t r
Lui: Dclnhnyc, llll .~l1darl II, 2.003. Chro111ogc 11ic colCJ r prinr.
11
·1 x 240 cm
X 2J9
cm
, 1t,
Luc Dclnhnyc, A Lun cb
a1
th e Belvarferc, :r.004.
Digital cl1ro11 1ogcnic process print.
1J 5
x
2 9 0 c 111
distant explosions off to the right); in Jenin Refugee Cam/) to try to grasp the relation of the hnlf-demolishcd camp to the peaceful-seeming distant landscape in which it rests; in Baghdad LI to perceive the Marines' anxiety and to wonder as they do (but nor exactly "with '' rhem) from which direction danger is likely to come; and iu A Lun ch at. the Belvedere w recognize Mush:1rr:1fand Soros and then by empathic looking ro "activate" the discreet but palpable dramn mking place berwc<:n chem (Musharraf speaking, his left hand conveying a ccrrnin tension, Soros looking down with an almost wirhdrnwn expression l'IS he fingers something on the rnblccloth, the fact that Soros of all those at the rnble docs not wear a tic, the complementary impression of contai11ed energy in Musharraf, and so on). This in turn is why the viewer tends ro feel, at least mornenrnrily, that d1c dernils he or she comes to invest with significance arc discovered by him or her rarher drnn delivered personally by the photographer. Yer because rhe viewer also knows that this is nor the case, the cumulative effecr of those derails is ro underscore the aura of arr. (Art of a different sort came additionally into play in the 111:ik ing of the Davos fum:h and 0 1•1,c meeting plwtographs, l'IS already mentioned.) An obvious rerm of comparison is with rhc rcconstrucrive "n ear documentary" csthctic of Jeff Wall. Even more telling, perhaps, is the conrrnst between Dclaliaye's panornmic pictures and the work of Gursky, whose large-scale and often fonrasticall)' derailed images put a similar premium on sheer visibility bur which, I have rricd ro show, are deliberately and ingeniously severed from any corporeally iouiginablc relation ro photographer or viewer -so mething that, in my experience, is not at all true of Dclahayc's images. More precisely, distance in Gursky tends ro be ~bsolute, nor, as in Deln-
186
why pl1otog1aphy niatte 1s as art as never befo10
hnye, the dialectical other to prox·imity and immersion, a proximity and immersio11th:;it in the tirst il.1stanceis thaL of the phorographc;t hfo,sc:lf. 1.n Ddah.aye's words:
I wam to show the evenr at the very morncnr it hikes plai;:e.... My. body musr be 1111chc )rcd to the ground and to seek rhe best point of view, without a ny.visual taboos . Bur then, at the beart of rhc evenr, my efforr is 1·0 tlisappcar, r introduce ,1 tlisrnnce char border s on indifference, The v.ism-11 rcsuJt ttan slares a more essential presence m things }~nd to tbe world. IDbeing transpare nt, I redu ce the distance between th1:-evenr .tlnd the spectat c'lr. I've idwoys wnrkt:tl that way, but in an intuitive way. With History 1Delahaye's n~me for his project in 2 003] 1 formalize rbat prncess.5' 1t is as though Delalrnye's panorami c pictu.res, antith!.'tically-to Gursky's work, aspire in rhe e11dto yield an imaginative expe.cience near ly like merger with the world ·- au ttspirar.ion that may well strike a wholly original note in contemporary photography .
.A few addition .ii thoughts. IJ1,t946 Clement Greenberg reviewed an exhib ition of photo· graphs by Edward Weston. The review begins: "PhotQgraphy is t he mo st transparent of overed by man. It is probably for that reason thM it the an 1nedi1.1msdt:viscd or diJ1c
proves so difficult to make the photo graph trnnscend its a lmost inevitable function as documenr .and act as W<>1 'k o.f art as well.».12 B)' "tra nsparent' ' Green berg me.int both thM plwrograp hy is capable of e.xtrl':me feats of depictive realism nod that althon~h rhe phmog raphic a1tifact bas a surfocci (ir is, in a sense, all sw·face), the viewer tends incvitnbly to louk " through" or, more accurnrcly, "past'' th,,r surface to the dcp[ctio11 ;,is such. This second point is in sharp contra st wjrh paintlDg, whose materia l surface is n:Otjust @cutely pr esent to the viewer's awa rc 1iess (it is "npaqu e" rather than tr::inspar· l:lllt) but is also avallab le to the painte r to be ernphasized, artic ulim!tl, and the1:natized in an infinite number of w:1.ys; the invention of collai;e aroulld ·L9n only L'attfied .a te11 dency that had been at work for cent uri es. Tbu s it rnighL be said th;it one important funcrion of the rableau form has bcet1to counterncr or coL1J peusate for the rranspa.reuce of 1\1c. photographi c su.rfaG: e by keeping the viewer at a disr:ince from the latter no~ i11s1 · physically (and of cou rse; the v.iewer is alsJ 978 and an interview w irh Greenberg by-James F~urc Walker, At one point Greenberg notes how when Pict Mondr ian "opened up" the middle of his pictures
Jea11 - fr1111qolschevr lar
0 11
thf:l "t ab leau fo rm" : thoni as ru ff, andrea~ 9µ1sky , luc cJe lalWy!il
18)
~
th H i ·, w!1 ·n he ·ired hi. ·olorcd r wng l .s co nrd the dgcs of rhc ·:m n , I · viu. the middle o the pi tur, up •11- the pi~tur inv. ri. bl • ·u cecd ·cl• "1rt. •• h. r \ s hi r 1:1 • c;1li m~ \ chat
h. Jr l1.
rhc
88
trnnsparence means also rhat rhe material surface is put out of play as a bearer of pictorial mca11i 11i:;,a sig11ific:1111: loss and one whose ultimate implications rclllain ro be assessed. " !Touch I is rhe eros specific to painting," I hnvc alre:idy quored Wall as remarking." Or :is Thomas Demand observed as he and I srood rnpr in admirncion of the pa int handling in Courbet's sublilllc pict11rc of a breaking wave in the Alce N:.itionalgalcrie in Berlin (Fig. :rr7), "T har is whar we c:.innot do."
rr8
Thoma~ Srruth. The Hirose Family, Hirnshimt1, 1987. Gelatin silver print. 39 x 54 cm; 68 x 84 cm framed
portraits by thomas struth, rineke dijkstra, patrick faigenbaum, luc delahay~, and roland fischer; douglas gordon and philippe parreno's film zidane
7
Starring in the !are 1980s Thomas Struth, whose museum pictures were discussed in Chapter Five, has made rhirry-two portraits of familif'S, the mo~t recent in :2.005. 1 [ shall begin hy considering rbree of the earliest {and srill the best known): The Hirose Family, tiiroshima (T987; Fig. r c8); The Smit/; Family, Fife (1989; Fig. r 19); and The Bemstein Family. Miindersbach (r990; Fig. c20). The tir<;t i<;in black-and-white while the other rwo are in color but structurally all three are similar: between eight and ten member~ of a i;inglc famjJy, ranging in age from young children ro older adults (there are no you11g children in The Smith Famil')', however), sit or stand facing the camera (and the photo~rapher? - the answer to rhar question will turn our tn mam:r). The setrings are domesric. The Hirose family ,irs Jammed together on a sofo; a tabletop piled with hooks and pieces of paper fills rhe right foreground of the image (slightly out of focus bec:wse near the picture plane); co the left one sees part of a desk, also piled with books and papers, and some gh.tss-fronted bookcases; to the rear a lamp and telephone resr on a cable but attcnrion is caprured by several African sculptures, one a mask hanging on rhe wall, and to the left of the mask ,1 framed painting of a masklike head in a :.urnewhat cu hist style. To the right rear one looks past an open Joor inm another room. The Smirb family too appears at home; father, mother, and one son (I assume) sit in :irmch:iirs while five others {two men, rhree women -sons and
po11ra1ts !>}' stnith,
tJ11~. stra, laigenbaum,
de/ahaye, and fischer; gordon and p,irr0no's
.:1dant::
191
1 19 fhnma~ Struch, The Smith FL1mi/y,Fife, 1 y89. C:hnimC>genicprocess prim. 100.8 x 126. 3 cm; 104.8 x 1 29.7 cm framed
point of entry is Strurh's remark, quoted in Ann Goldstei11's essay, "Portraits of SelfReflection," in rhe catalogue of Struth 's 2002. retrospective exhibition: "'The portrair is rhe subject matrer in photography where the prob lems of the media !why rhe plural?! are the most visible.' '' 1 Go ldstein continues (basing her remarks on a convru~ation with rhe art ist): ''For him, those problems begin with the realiry of purring a person in franc of a camera, and the complex dynamics rhat rake place between the sitter, the photo grapher, and the spectator" (168) . Struth and Goldstein between rhem make it sound as if rhe portrait presents unique difhculc1es for the photographer, which may well be true, but something of rhe sort has been felt to hold for painting as well. In mid-eighteenth-century France, for example, the portrait was a questionable genre in the eyes of many an cncics. As I remark in Absorption and T/Jeatricality,a frequent objection was rhat portrairure required the exercise merely of mechanical skills rather than of the pictoria l imagination. "But there was," I su~ge,;t, srill another source of critical misgiving- the inherent rheatricaliry of the genre. More nakedly ,rnd as it were cate~orically than rhe convent ions of any other genre, those of the porn-air call for exhibiting a subject, the sitter, m the public gaze; put another way, the basic action depicted in a portrait i::.the sitter 's presentation of himself or
192
whv
JJho10grar)l1y
111a11ers ;is ~rt
as never l)efo 1
12 0
Thornns Stru1h, Tin Bemstein Family. Miindersl,ach, c:111; , 08 x 1 _ H cm framed
1990.
Chrorno~enic rrncess rrinr.
76. 5 x L04
herself to be beheld. It follows chat the portrait as a genre was singularly ill equipped
ro comrly with rhc dcntanJ that a painting negate or neutralize the presence of the beholc.ler, a demand tbat ... became a matter of urgent, if for the most part less than fully conscious, concern for Frern.:hart critics during these years. 1 go on ro show how 111 certain tases painters soughr ro overcome this limitation by depicting persons in a portrait as absorbed in thought or action; by rhe same token, Didcror in 1 767 c;harply criticized Louis-Michel Van Loo's portrait of him for irs air of coquetry, which he explained jo terms of rhe presence in the room o.t the engaging Mme Van Loo while he was being painted. What would have been best, Diderot wrote, would have been to leave him alone "'anc.l aban
portrait"
by struth
d·1~stra ia1genbn1.,rn de lahayP., and t1scher
r10rdo11;ind parreno'c, z,cJant'!
193
u I Walker Evans, Alabama Te11a111 Parmer Wl1fe{i\llia Mi.1e Burroughs/, r9 ;6. Gc l:mn silver print . .?.0.9 x q.4 cm. The i\tletropo liran Museum of Art, New York, Purchase, 1.001 Benefir Fund, 1.001 (1.001 .41 5)
of being beheld, which is what Diderot meant when be insisted in the Entret,ens sur le Fils ,wturel ( 1757} and Discours de la poesie dramatique (1758), his revolutionary early cexts on the theater, on che need to treat cbe beholder as if he did not exist. 4 As has been mentioned more than once, naturalness so understood has also been a photograph.ic ideal, based on the belief thar a person who is caprured unawares - who does not know he or she is being photographed -will reveal the "truth'' about himself or herself whereas a sitter who is conscious of the camera will at once alter and thus falsify bis or her mode of self-presentation, as Barthes in Camera Lttcida
194
why f)horograp l1y 11rntters as art as never before
1 22
Augusr SanJer. Pastry Cook ,
1928. Gebtin ~ilver print. From
Penple of the Twentieth Century
fic:ulties and embarrassments that that has been undersrood to involve. So for example Walker Evans, in his portraits of tenant farmers ao
portraits
lly s11utti, cJqf ,Ira, fa1genbaum, de lahaye, and t.sche r, ~101..ion,nrl rarreno's
zidane
nutted ro a rigorou~Jy fronr,il and centered - in thar sense portrait-like - approach to rhcir subject matter, not persons bur rather industrial strucrures of various kinds. Like Snnclt:r'ssystematic portrayals of members of different professions, the Bechi:rs· pictures a.re rypological in intent, though in Chapter Ten I sha ll rry co show that ,;uch a formulation barely scratches che ,;urface of the .Bechers' achievement . Struth 's portraits of families arc someth ing else again but- as ha:. always been recognized - the importance ro hi-; art of rhe B1ccher'-'reaching :;inclexampk• can .<:carcelyhe overestimated. "The profession depends so much upon the relations rhe photographer establishes wirh tht.' people he's photographing, rhar a false relationship, a wrong word or amtt1Je, can ruin everything," Henri Cartier-Bresson ha-. ..aid. ·'When the subject is in any way uneasy, che personaliry goes away where rhe camera can'r reach ir. There are no systems, for each ca:-e is individual and demands char we be unobrrusive, though we musr be ilt close range.''- Cartier-13resson was not referring specifically to ponrairs but his remarks apply to rhem wirh a vengeance; if che phorographer's aim is unobtrusiveness, how is that to be acbieved with.in a situation that explicitly faces off photographer and sirrer? 1lere are the seeps Srruth rakes in order co malke his family portraits: 1) As he explains in a -1990 discussion with Benjamin Buchloh, he photographs only families or persons he knows and likes.11 Arbu, roo famously "befriended" persons whom she met and wanted ro photograph, bu1t thar seems to have meant merely rhar she somehow won their trusc and thus was allowed to photograph them, l)ften in their homes (none of the sitters in her best-known image~ is 1.:.aughtunaware~}.~ Her inrent1011swere photographic from the outset, and chere ts no suggestion eirher in rhe secondary literature or in her own statements that her connections with most of her subjects outlasred the making of the image. In Sr-ruth'scase, in contrast, the friendships or aqunintance-.hips come first and the photographs follow ),1rer- indeed Struch tells Buehloh thar "]mlany of rhe photographs were discussed as l ong as two ye;1rsbeforehand'' (29). Thefirst rwo photographs cited earlier seem to have been maJe more or less a~ mementoes after Srruth srayed with the fa111ilie,in Hiroshim ,1 and fife. HI 2) The actual triggering of rhe shutter i:- thus only a final stage of a much longer process. In many cases, perhaps even all, rhe process involves extensive discussions with rhe sitters, presumably dealing with rhe question of exactly how they wish to be portrayed. The idea seems ro be not just to put the sitters at their c<1sebur as much as possible n> engage them as collabor,Hors in the making of the porrrait (Buchloh interview, 29).
3) When rhe time come~ for the actual sboO!'ing, a room or pJace is chosen, presumahl >1by rhc family jointly wirh ~u·urh, who then asks them to dispose themse lves as rhey like before rhe lens of his camera. More precisely, he shows rhem rhe limits of the picmre field and invire1:ithen, ro arrange rhemselves within rbose limits (Buchloh interview, 19). In an interview of 1 994, discussrng rhe family portraits, Mark Gisbomne asks ~truth, ·' Are these h);ure-; ever posed?" To which Struth answers, "No. I decide upon the Iimirations of the frame, them I tell [hem to pose wh1:rever thev like wirhin rhe frame'' (8). Tnnrher words, the circumstances are such char a certain element of posing is inevitable (Barthes in Camem L11cidaholds this to be true of photography generally), bm as a po1nr of prim:iple the sitters are not posed h>1S,rruth.
v,,1,y p l1
neve, hetNe
-1) Equallv important,
it seem~, Strntb does not stand behind rbe camera bur ro one
side. J le asks his sirrerc; to look nr the camera, not
::it
him. Ac; he l'xpbins
ro Buchloh:
There is ... a difference in mak111gJ rortrair wirh a large negative-format, with a focu'ling-screcn, where the photographer stands next to ~111J not behind the camera. The portrayed don 'r foll into illusion that the~· are looking ar the phorographcr. The individuals heing photographeJ look inro rhe lens and know exactly whar it means to be phorographed: that in rhis puracul.::ir momenr they proiecr a mirror-image, without acrua lly st'eing themselves. j3ol (for Buchloh, a rigidly Adorno-ec;que critic, "the rradirion of the reprcsenrarion lin paimingl of the individual subject is obsolete,'' though he grams , seemingly with regret, thJt ''somehow 1r LS •mil possible to produce portraits with rhotography" l3 r J.L' The question i., how.) Th e idea ~t'em1, to be rhar by <:repping to one <;jde in rhis way Strurh effectively removes himself from the process - after all, projecting a mirror image i1, something ooe does by oneself, typica!Jy in condirions of pnvacy. Narnrnlly this cannor be taken literally; there is nn way for Struth to absent himself from the enrire scene . Yet ir t·videnrly matters to Strurb to fed char he personally is not the object of hi!, sitters' fronral gazes. 'i) Struth Jelibcrntely chooses to prolong the expmure rimes of the shots of his families as mm :h as b feasible. This too emerges in the interview wirh BuchJoh. "The exposure i..,very long," Strurh exph1ins, sometimes up to one second- even in a case l.ikc the Japanese fami ly Hirose, where there were 9 people in the sitting. Normall}' you would rhink it's pr~1ctically impossible, that it is at rbe limit of the photographic process. But it works when rhe people perceivl' this process a1, their own. Once Lhey understand that it'!> going ro be rht'ir photograph, rheir own rmage, they manage to sir still one full seconJ. Orhcrwi.,e, they move. It's practicall y a form of con .c:ciousness about the mirror -image, the question ing of rht self, well, who am I? L~ol This recalls Walter Flcnjamin\ famou::. description of early pnrrrnit photographs, in which the slnwnc.s11of the plate necessitated similarly long exposures. "The procedure itself c<1uscd the suhi1.·ct ro focus his life in the moment rarher rhan hurrying on pasr it; during the considerable period of the exposure, the <;ubject (as it were) grew into rhe picture, in the 11harpt:stcontrast with appearances in a snapshot," Benjamin remarks in "Little Hisrory of Photography. " 1~ Closer ro home, there is the example of Sander , whose ponrair work, Struth says to Buchloh, "was only possible through the particular wny he inrcracte
nonr, 11t
1i~· stru1l1
ClqkSlr
lri1tJertl),1ur11 11r.l.-1hr1v"' and 11.,cri,:;r
aoro(,n anrJ nar,,~no's z1na11A
can he read and is visible. 1 know this from experience, as l often presenr the photos ro several people and with certainty nearly everyone agi:ees and says, I find thi!. or that shot the best. When r present chem wirh forty negatives of a ten-person family, they practically always decidt upon the same rwo negatives rhat I would choose'' (31). 13 The result of aU these measures has been felt by commentators co shift the balanc e between the phbrographer and his subjects in a decisive manner. Thus Masanori Ichikawa writes: "The foremost achievement in Strmh 's rortraits should be attribuccd to rhe models." 14 (This is in effect whar Struth said to Buch lob about Sander's portrait photographs.) More broadly, Peter SchjeldahJ observes: "Struth's faimiJy porrrairs vivify an approach char extends ro citic~ and forests. That approach is a revelation of rhe conditions in and on which a given subject exists in the world. Thi! picture belongs to the subjecr. In a way that counts, the suhject authors the picture." 15 Tbis too cannot be taken literally burro the extent that it is imagined robe tru e, the plnoto~rapher cannot be accused of exhibiting his sitters, which is ro say that one major source of rheatricaliz.ation is avoided. But the association between Struth's family photographs and the issue of anrithearricality is far closer then these remarks su~gesr. Here it will be helpful ro consider an extended commenrary oa Srrurb's portraits by Charles Wylie, chid organizer of the :2002 retrospecrivc exhibitio n; I shou ld say at rhc outset that my aim in citing Wylie is to use his commentary to help clarify che issues that concern me. Wylie writes: The idea of families, of how one's place in the world is determined by one's place in the archirecmre of family, prompted Struth's second series [after his early hlack-and whire ciryscapesj. Citing nis own family's photo albums as .;in initial spur, in the mid1 980s Struth pictured groups of family members ananged in domestic settings that brought out t he innate psychological intensity present whenever a family gathers. Srruth ·s families are clearly relate
why photo9r1:1ohv rmitters as art as never before
of all these figures -awareness of tbe arti,;;t raking their portrait, of the fact that rhey arc a SLLbjectto be looked at, and, by extension, of their place in the world once the :-.butter has fallen. Perhaps we as viewers are meant to take this awareness with us after we have finished looking at Struth's intense subjects, aml focus an equally intense 1.:oncentratioo, not merely visual, on those we know and don't know, and on those ' we embrace and rho!.e we avoid. 11 For Wylie, as (he believes} for Strurh, families are inherently psychologically incense emities, and Srrurh 's photographs bring chat out in a singularly focussed way. They do rhis, Wylie suggests, by making available to the viewer a wealth cif relationships, at once
of affinity and difference, thar for one re;1son or another are nowhere near as salient in ordinary life. (This last point may be me rather than Wylie, who concludes by suggesting that we
"Suppose there were a law of acsrherics rhat said rhar faces in a painring have to he ,imilar. Now I point to two people and say to someone 'Use these as models for your picture; they are similar':· ix Wirrgenstein 's gist, 1 take it, is char rhere would be :.omerhin?, ahsurd in this, precisely because a painter is nor lj_mired in what he can paint hy hi:- choice of models. Yet not only would it not be absurd for a photographer to proceed in that way, it is hard to see how else he or she could produce the desired result. This points up an ontological difference between pa.indogs and photographs, as does another ctration, this one from an editorial aside by Melchior Grin1m, an astute critic of paint111g in his own righr, from Diderot's Saln11of r763, where Grimm says of the portraitist Jean -Man.· Nattier (by chen a relic of an earlier pictorial regime), "All his porrrairs 19 resemble one another, one believes one is always seeing the same figure." More broadly, dose resemblance between persons in painted portraits is inbercnrly dubious in that it invariably strikes the viewer as a mannerism of rhe painter, ra 1cher than as a veristic report un che appearance of the persons themselves. (Not that it ii, impossible for a painter ro report a<.:<.:urarelyon family likeness; bur the painting or paintings rhar result will be powerless to pcrc;uade the viewer immediately rhar such likeness is grounded in reality rather than in the painter's habits of seeing and depicting.) The opposite is rrue of re<.emblance in photograpl1s, which in comparison with p:lin1rings '-trike the viewer a, mechanically faithful to rhe reality they ostensibly depict; this has begun to change with the advent of digitization, bur the basic distinction still holds.
r,ort1<11 1s bv s1t1Jll 1, rl1J\.:S11a, fa,yenbaum.
•Jt>lahaye and f1sche1. gordon aml parreno's zidane
1~9
Another remark hr \'<'ittgenstein in the same volume also bears on the topic: "Suppose we were ti) meet people who all had the same facial features: we should not know where we were with them'' (29c). 10 This is nor quire true of our relacion ro Srruth's family pictures, but for me at least there is a momenr of disorientation every time l take in the strength of family resemblance among his subjects within a single photograpb (again, rhe Bernstein one is an extreme case). Almost immediately, however, that sense of di'>orienration is counceracted by a recognition of countless small and large differences of physiognomy, expression, sex, age, dress, and demeanor among tbe various sirten,, ::is well as by an appreciation, which comes about more slow ly hut in the end is deci~ive, of rhe wlle<.:tive~tyle of presentation of the family group as a whole. Further, one's appreciation of char collective style is made much more acute when twn or more nf the family phorographs are presenred in close conjunction to each other on a gallery wall or in a catalogue. So for example Norman Bryson in 1 990 contrasted the Hirose and Smith fomiljes, noting how In the presence of tht' camera, the family in Hiroshima foll!, um, a closely inrerrelared group, with rhe heads of the women and children forming a single, unbroken wave, flanked by the higher-placed males, as though the feeling of the family as a group rhar supports and sustains aU its members existed in no particular conflict with its internal sense of ranking according to gender and senioriry. The family in Fife, by contrast, falls into a relatively scattered and individuated pattern, with no apparent Jramati.zation of age or gender in terms of the figures' placement (central/margina l, standing/seared). Ir i,; as if each sitter were ,;urrounded by an invisible cocoon of personal space, extending quire far from the body, within wl1ich he or she presents a relatively autonomous and free-standing -.ubjecrivity.1 1
Bryson's observations are shrewd, bur they stop well shon of Wylie's claim that each of Struth's family groups "must he read in irs entirety, and each family member placed by position, poi:;mre,gesture, ancl facrnl expression in the complex interweaving of emotion, gesture, and facial expression we all encounrer in relation co our own families." No viewer could successfully do wh;:ir Wylie c.lemanJs; Bryson is surely correct when he insists thac the "quasi-nove listic'' approach raken in his comparison of the Hirose and Smith families quickly reaches its limits (130), For two reasons: the first is informational - there i!>so mu<.:hone does nm know and no phorograph could convey; 12 the second is -:rrucrural, owing co the unresolvable conflict r>erween rhe viewer's empathic engagemenr with individual family members on the one hand and his or her larger response co and inrerprctation of rhe family grour as a who le on the other. The viewer's attention is divided berween the rwo, it shuttles continually from one ro the other ,is ,,.,ell as from one member of rhe family group to another, without the least possibility of completely inregraring the various individuals in their p:micularity into the larger unit. To my mind, the special magnetism of the best farnjly portraits owes mu<.:hco Srrnrh's handling of that confl ict. Whereas in those family portraits where for one reason or another the conllicr is muted-such as The Shimada Family, Yamaguchi (1986), in which only six persons, apparently comprising three genernrions, are perhaps roo artfully distribur-edacross a Japanese garden complete with mossy rucb, flowering bushes, and a water-
?00
whv rlio10,J1<11>hY malt!'!I"
rl" r1rl ,1s nti.ve, before
Thomas 5truth, The Consolandi Family, M,la11, 1996. Chronriogenic process print. no x L35cm, 148 x 1 7 1 cm framed r2'1
fall, and The Consolandi Family, Milan (r996; Fig. r 1.3), in which an elegant modern apartment competes on equal terms with its well-dressed occupants - the rota! impact, while for from negligihle, falls short of the almost hypnotic force of the three portraits I began this chapter by describing. Another factor is the strength and perspicuousness of color, whicb tends ro u1still its own order of pictorial simultaneity, without relation to the individual, the group, or the conflict between the two: a llthough of my three exemplary photographs only rhe Hirose Farnily is in b lack and white, in none of the three i~ color as salient a~ it is in the Shimada and Consolandi portraits; the nearest they come is the Bernstein phowgraph, but there the main role of color is ro serve the rheme of family resemblance by making visib le the blonde hair of most of tht.: sitters. (Tn a struc turally different ponrait of an older married coup le, the justly admiJ·ed Eleo11orand Giles Robertsull, Edinburgh I t987; Fig. J 24J, the slighrly our-of -focu s warm plum wallpaper in the middle ground is vital to the overa ll effect, provicli11g an affective frame for the physically separated but obviously well-matched pair. ln general, though, l think it is fair to say that the family porrraits as such work best when color is minimized Y )
purtra 1ts by str1Jth, dqf stra, fa1genbauni, delA~1ave, and f1sche r, nordon and parreno's zidane
20 1
124 Thomas Strmb, Eleonor a11dGiles Rnbertso11,Edinburgh, 1987. Chromogenic proces~ print. 41.5 x 59 cm; 68 x 86 cm frame
Farther on Wylie says rhat we ''arc allowed ro ponde r a group of individuals whose relationships are essenrially ung-uardcd, open ro our examination,'' and connects that supposed openness with che fact that "the sub jects are fuJly aware of rhem selves and conscious of how they present themselves to the camera (and for the image) '' though, in a way that is typical of commentaries nn Strurh's work, he does nor explain exactly how the second enables the fuse. Instead he underscores the theme of awareness by dairning chat it and nothing else is ''the hallmark of all these figures- awareness of the artist taking their porrrair, of the fact chat th ey are a subject to be looked ar, and, by exte nsion, of their place in the world once the shutter has fa llen" (r51-2). It is not hard to see why someone caught up in the ostensible logic of fronral address might wish co :;a)' chi:,;- but nor is it hard to sec how and where sw.:h a claim goes astray. (Nor ro mention the additional suggestion that "perhaps we are meant to rake [the sitters'] awareness wirh us" and apply it within om own lives IT52). There is something about photography that encourages this so rt of well-meant moralism. 24 } Let me try to clarify matters by noting the active presence in ~truth's famjly photographs of two complementary axes. Th e first lies wholly within the picture and is essentially lateral; I think of it as the axis of family relarionships, which in the case of Strurh's family portraits includes both che play of physical resemblance and difference Wylie
202
why phorography
matters as art as never berore
poinrs to and the la_rger, at once cultural and personal styles of self-presentation Bryson associares with the Hirose and Smith families respecrively. The second axis is orthogonal to tbe hr1;r anrinction, we now consider the family portraits as a group, we recognize at once that the axis of family relationships ic; marked by unawareness or oubli de soi (or rather by ,;everal kinds of unawareness} while tJ1e axis of address is indeed marked by an awareness of bejng phomgraphed (but thar awareness itself has a more complex structure than is often a!.sumed). Not on ly chat: rhe two contrasting modo Iities - self-awareness and linawareness, to pur them that way round - are functionally relatehip:. is precisely the axis of ab:,orpt1on, while rhe axi:-.of address is themarized br the open tahle drawer and the two cards facing- the beholder, the operative fiction being that the boy, since he is caught up in the firsr, is oblivious to tbe second. 1n the most ('Ompclling of Srruth 's family portrairs equivalent lateral relationships, equally under the sign of unawareness, are elicited not by closing out the hcholder bttt by the subjects i_nthe phorop;raphs directly addressing the camera. The result in each case is thus a rour de force of anrithearricc1l art despite rhc overall frontality of tbc image, which one might have thought would militate strongly :1ga1nst such an outcome. Or r:irher it is Strurh's creative resraging of the frontal dispusitif by means o f the vanous measure~ summJrized earlier rhat nor only divests that disposit,f
203
r 25
Thoma~ Struth, The Richter Ft1111ily. Cologne, 2002.
Chromogenic process print. 97 x '·F·5 cm; r 3 0 x 174. 5 cm framed
of rheacrica l connotations bur actually makes it serve rhe interests of the overcoming of theatricality. Such a conclusion is not fundamentally ar odds with the passages 1 have cited from Wylie, Bryson, Ichikawa, and Schjcldahl. On the contrary, my sense is tbar the family porrraits have been universally admired large ly on the strength of their antirheatri<.:al qualities - indeed that these works, like those of rhe other photographers featured in this book, have been the vehicle of a serious return to antitheatrical values as well as of a resurgence, on the part not just of critics such as those just mentioned bur also of a sizable portion of the artgoing public, of antithearrical sensibility- all this, however, with almost no general awareness drnt anything of the sort has been going
on. 2 Two more family phorographs are word1 glancing at before moving on. In The Richter Family, Diisseldor( (2002; Fig . 1 25), a superb ly intense picrure of the artist Gerhard Richter, bis wife, young son, and daughter, the impression Richter conveys not only of crackling self-awareness bur also of a wariness of delivering himself up to rhc camera
204
wl1y pi,otograpl,y
rr1,:Hlel:; ii~ <'H1as never llefor.,.
r 26 Thomas ~truth, The 110 x 157.2 cm framed
Martill-Mason Family. Diisseldnrf,
1.001. Chromogcnic process print. 97 x 1 25 .2 cm;
could scarcely be more palpable. Yet iris impossible ro imag1ne that all four sirrers could be more vividly "present" to the camera, first individually, rhen in pairs (father/daughrer, morher/son), rhen -spanning the gap in the middle of the composinon - as an almost musical unit (a chord). What gives this picture its special eclar, however, is the courageous stance of the boy, who faces the camera like a small gunfighter, his hands at his sides as if at the ready. The contrast in this regard wich his seated farhcr is touching, as is - in context- rhe physical resemblance between son and mother, whjch becomes more strik ing rhe longer and closer one looks. (The photograph is in color bur irs feeling is of black-an
por11a11s by s111ith. d11kslra, fa1genbaum
cJefal1ay1:;,anrl f1sche1
gordon 'ind parre ,,o·s z1dane
205
sort of emotional access, or sense of overa ll inrelligibiliry., f had come ro associate with his suongest works in rhis genre. 1 said as much to Struth, and, co my surprise, he was delighted: my difficulties, he explained, sremmed from the fact rhe Martin -Mason family i!'.a "mixed" one. Only the you11gesr daughter ar the right is the child of borh parents; the dark-haired daughter at the left is the father's child by a previous marriage, while th~ Jong-haired blonde girl next co her is che mother's child also by a previous marriage. The blonde gir l's gesture of placi.ng her hands on the thighs of her half-sister and her srep-fa th er was thus a moving and probably unconscious action of fami lial integration. Ln other words, the lateral family relationships in th e Marrin-Mason pictun~ are more complex and divided rhan those in the other photographs I have conside red , so much so th.it no uninformed viewer could be expected ro work them out; in particular, it seems to me, the reb rion s of biological resemblance are inscrutable. (In addition the family is nearer the camera than in the other photographs we have looked at, which gives the viewer less psychic ''space" in which to appraise what is going on.) What pleased Struth was that I ha
Rincke Dijkstra, a Dutch photographer, was born in 19 59 and studied phorography in Amsrerdam. 1s H er early career was as a commercial porrrait photographer, bur in 1992 she began ro make a series of large color photographs of pre- or early adolescent bo)'s and girls in swimming suits oo heaches in the United Scares, Belgium, Great Britain, Poland, Ukraine, and Croatia. These quickly attracted attention and remain her bestknown works; they nre tided simply by place names anti rhe dares on which they were taken -for example, Kolnbrzeg, Poland, }11/y 26. r992 (Fig. 127), Odessa. Ukraine, August../-, T')')J (Fig . 12.8), and He/, Poland, August n. I!J98 (Fig. c29), to cite three representative picnires. The basic idea behind a ll of them is simple and bas been c,cplained by Dijkstra in vaxious interviews. She npproached potential sitters and asked for permission to phorograph them; if they agreed she placed her 4 x 5-inch camera on a tripod and arranged atldirional lighting as well; they then adopted a sranding pose, more or less of their own choosing, with the sea - out of focus in the photographs vi-.ihle behind rhem; what mattered was that each sitter concentrated on the actual situation for as long as it took Dijkstra to make the three or four phorograpbs she usually shot (" If they are not 1..'.0ncemrating, l cannot photograph them," she has s:iid). 2" Her
'.W6
why photogr 11,hv 1T1<1rtersbS
"'
t as n,.:iver be for~
:-
Rineke Dijkstra, Kolobrzeg, Pola11d,}11/y .:.6, 1992, ic proces~ print. 1 2. 1 >
~ ~- Ch mmogen
r .l-8 Rinekc D1ijkstra, Odessa, Ukra/1/e, August ../, 199 3 , 1993. Chromog1:nic prnccs~ print. t50 x 1 2.6 cm
approach differs from Srrurh 's in that her subjects are strangers a nJ she prefers single figures or at most units of two or three per sons ro larger groups. She shares with him ,1 commitment to the frontal pose and to rhe protocol that the subject before the lens should he fully aware of being photographed. And ljke Struth (in my reading of him) , she uses the fronral pose and fact of her subjects' awareness, which in her work amounts often to sclf-consciousnes:., a!> a means of drawing attention to aspects of their behavior thar escape conscious conrrol. Dijkstra's classic statement about her approach occurs in a 2.001 interview with Jessica Morgan. Morgan says: " Tt strikes me that what you are interested in captu ring in your subject~ is nor a neutral lack of interest in the camera but rather the liminal, traosfor mative momenr between self -consciousness and a lack thereof." Dijkstra replies: Lt's like wbar Diane Arbus said, you are looking for the "gap berween intention and effect ." People dunk thnt they present themselves one way, but rhey cannot help but show something else as well. Ir's impossible to hav e ever)'thin g under contro l. But when I try to photograph somebody, especially with the full body, it always make s
portraits
by strulh
r!1Jkstrc. t 11wnt,a111n. il elatwye, and l1sc;l1er gordon a11d narrenr,s
z,dane
207
them wonder "oh, whar am I going to do with 111yhands, etc." And 1 think, retrospectively, l really used rhat more or less in the beach photos. 10 Arbus's famous remarks read in their entirety: Fverybody has that thing where they need ro look one way bur they come out looking ~rnother way and thar's what peop le observe. You see someone on the street and essenrially what you notice ahout them is the flaw. It's just extraordinary that we should have been given these pecL1l iarities. And, nm coorenr with what we were given, we create a whole other set. Our whole guise is like giving a sign to rhe world to think of us in a certain way but rhcrc's a poinr between what you want people to know about you and what you can't help people knowing about you. And that has ro do with what I've alway,; called the gap between intention and effect. I mean if you ,cru tinize reality c.:losclyenot1gh, if in !)Orneway you really, really get to it, it becomes fan tastic . You know it reaUy is totally fantastic rbat we look like this and you sometimes see that very clearly in a photograph. Something is irnnic in the world and it bas to do with the fact that what you intend never comes our like you intend it. 11
In Arbus's practice this led to a kind of photography, large ly based on the frontal pose , that commentators have often found troubling precisely because of her consuming inreresr in her subject::..· "flaw:/' and more broadly her fascination with sitters ~he herself called "freaks'' -dwarfs, mrnsvesrires clothed and naked, a female stripper with naked breasts in her dressing room, a human pincushion, a Jewish giant at home wirh his parents in the Bronx, rern.rded people di!)porring themselves in a field. 12 The charge, briefly put, has been that Arbus typically exploired her sitters by using photography to reveal aspecrs of the latter's appearance rhat they could not have imagined wou ld make the 1mprcs!)ion on others that those aspects inevitably do. "A large part of the mystery of Arhus's photographs lies in what they suggest ahout how her subjects felt nfrer con senting to be photographed," Sontag wrires in On Photography. '·Do rhey see rhemc;elves, the viewer wonders, like that? Do they kncnv how grorc.<,qt1ethey are? It seems as iJ tbey don't" (35-6). Sontag strongly disapproves of such an approach, in the first place because it "makels] .1 compassionate response feel irrelevant" (.p) - cbe viewer is being invited nor to empathize or commiserate bur merely to look with equanimity (wirhout blinking, Sontag also says} - anto understand that it is intrinsic to her approach that <;uchquestions t1rose in the first place and have persisted to this day. That is, her pre-
208
w 1,v Pllotoqrapry
matte•s as art as never be-tore
11.9 llinekc Dijk!.rra, lief, Pnlt111tl, A1tJ!,11st
12.
199g, 1998. Chromogenic proce\~ print. 145 x 117cm
occupation witb ·•flaws'' and ''freaks," and wirh "the gap between intention and effect" with respect to her choice of sitters, has meant thar viewers of her work are in effect invited, one might say solicited, by the photographs to cake a stand with respect to the ethics of portraying her sirrers as she did. Adam Phillips puts rhis <;lightly differently. "What is tru ly odd about Arbus's work is not her subject-matter," he writes, "but how difficult it is to conceive of not talking about it in p~ychological terms. And l don't mean, as an ;~ltcmative to this, talking technically. The difficulry is ro look at Arbus's photographs without trying ro imagine what might be going on inside her subjects ... " 11 Imagining what might be going on inside her subjects at the moment of being phorographed necessarily implies imagining how each one understood his or her role in rhar situation. And that in turn inevitably implies trying ro imagine - and ultimately judging- what was going on in Arbus at that momem as well. ~~ My thought is that one can acknowlcdgC' this chain of implication vvhile neverthdess resisting the call for judgment, which threaten!-. to reduce her work roan ethical conundrum. Dijkstra ha s made it dear that Arbus was the most decisive influence on ber work. Wha r l wanr to emphasize - my reason for dwelling on Arb us - is not so much rbat there cxisrc; an a ffioity between their respective approaches but r.uher that alcbough Dijkstra too is fascinated by the impossibility of her subjects' "hav [ing] euerything under control," her choice of sitters - not bizarre characters or c;trange-looking children or ''freaks" of any stamp bur, in the series mentioned, young and appealing beachgoers in different parts of the world - has meant that the overall impression produced hy her work has nothing of the ethical difficulties raised by Arbus's. So for example the slender, almost breasrless girl in a striped bikini in He/, Poland looks straight ahead a::.a breeze lifts srrands of her lighr brown hair~ her hands hang awkwardly ar her sides (just as Dijksrra snys), nnd one notices the tension of her pose as she stands with her shoulders squared and her right hip higher than her lefr; furthermore, as one scrntinizes her body one observes the small mole just above her bikini as well as rhe flesh-colored band-aid panly covering her navel, among other details. In Kolohrzcg, Pola11dthe girl in a light green one-piece swimming suit strikes a different pose, tilts her head ro rhe left, and resrs one hand awkwardly on her thigh; this time one notes the ,;[ighr knocking of her knees, a few blemishes on a shin, the sand that parrl y coats her roes and feet, the partial lining or "unJergarmenr" beneath the lower portion of her suit. As for the ta 11,skinny, somewhat rigid boy in a red suit in Odessa, Ukrnine - but rhere is no need to multiply descriptions. What matters is that all the features a11d derails one observes - all the awkwardnesse~, vulnerabilities, blemishes, physi1.:al idiosyncrasies, odcLitiesof costume, and
so on - belong co a realm of outward
appearance and inadvertent expressiveness of which the young beachgoers themselves a re necessarily unaware, concentrating as they are on the l.'amera, or perhaps on Dijkstra as she stands behind or perhaps a longside it waiting for the precise instanr to release rbe shutter. Yet there is nor the slightest queshaving taken advanrage of her subjects; on the contrary, tion as ro the photographer one sense_,;Dijkstrn's affection for them, a certain tenderness precisely as regnr
210
w ily ph•.nogra(lt
v n1aner s e1sar l ;i5 never before
inrrusion. The flat, fronta I style she has adopred from ber German conremporaries is respectful of the strangers she encounrers and asks ro pose; ir allows rbem to gather themselves to the task of projecti11g their half -formed selves against the nJes of time and culrure.'' 1" Grund berg's remarks poinr to certain crucia l stylistic and technical differences between the two bodies of work, above all that Dijkstra in rhis series depicts her subjL'<:tsat full lengrh and at a common distance from rhe camern; that she works in color -a~opposed ro Arbus's dramatic bl::ick-and-w hite (try to imagine the boy in the Odessa photograph with his pale reddish skin in black -and-white - rhe photograph wt1uld be meaningless); and perhaps most important, that her phorograrhs are both large - the figures seem life-si'l.e - and visualized from the outset with their desrinarion on the wall in mind (in the sense discussed in Chapter Six), a mode of presentation that imposes a certain
portr;itrs
t,y strulh
d11kstra, /aigen!Jaum, t /~lahaye , and flscher,
go1cic>r1and PiHrenc,·s ,."11ir1ne
211
r 30 Rincke Dijkstra, Ted,,, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. May
1 6, L 99-t, 1 99+
Chrumogenic proce~s print. 153 x 12yc111
psychologically about ber subjects but rather the gap itself, rhe way in which her subjects' awareness of being photographed nor only coexists with but positively foregrounds, makes visible to the camera, hence co the viewer, a range of feat1Jre~ that are not "under control." Put slightly differently, her reason for preferring children and adolescenrs - after the beach series she wenr om ro photograph young adults as wt::11(see below) - is chat rheir psyches, or rather the interface between their psyches and rhcir bodies, is still fundamentally "open,'' not yet marked hy the de.finiteness of adulthood. M y further suggestion of course is that that interest, indeed Dijkstra's entire way of pro ceeding, is on the side of antitheatricality, unct:ir't~ciousncss of the sort l have been discussing lining up with the value of absorbe,real or apparent forgetting of one's audience, in Diderot 's esthetics. "0 combien l'homme qui pense le plus est
212
wl1y photography
matters as art as never belore
,
131 Riockc Dijkstra, Amit. Gola11i Brigade. Elyaqim, fsrael. May 26, 1999, 1999. Chromogeuic color print.
181
x 153 cm
encore automate" - 0 how much the man who chinks the most is nevertheless an automaton - Diderot wrote in 17 5 8, 18 and al rho ugh the anritherical but complernenrary structure of awareness and unconsciousness that l have claimed ro find in Struth's fami ly photographs and Dijkstra's beach series wa~ nor one that painting in his time was capable of devising, rhe core idea behind rhar structure, which is to say the values it serves, could nor be more Diderorian in spirit. 19 Subsequent series of photographs by Dijkstra include three naked or a ll but naked women holding babies taken shortly after giving birth (Fig. 1 :,o); roreros phorographed at close range immediarely following bullfights (therefore disshcvelcd and spatte red wirh blood); young Israeli men holding the powerful weapons they have just fired for rhe first time (Fig. 1 3 r); a young en listee, Olivier, at various stages in his first years in the French
1nrtra1ts by strutl1. d1Jkstra fa1gen1Jaurn 11elahaye, and f1scl1er, go rrlon an(1 parreno's
z1rlane
213
11ureign Legion; and a child asylum seeker, Almerisa, at irregular interval:, as she g.rows into young woman11ood. (The list is not exhaustive.) ln ,ti! these series Dijkstra's concern has been subdy different from the one in play in the beach series. '' I look for specific sitter.:;apart- little details, like a certain gesture or gaze," she remarks things that ser
mr
ro Sarn.h Douglas.
I often find these in um:onscious moments, when rhey are not thinking about their pose. I photographed bullfighters after the fight, mothers jusr after giving birth, and male Israeli ~oldiers after a shooting exercise. When I was doing commis~ioned portraits, 1 found it very difficult to relate to my sitters' self images; 1 feel it is more inreresri.ng when peopl<:>show things that are beyond their controL I look for something authentic, something spe..:ial. I try to strike a balance between what people wane to -;how, anJ what they show in spire of themselves, what Diane Arbus called "the gap between intention and effect,'' the tension hetween reserve and openness, between hiding and revealing. Bur never divulging their secrets. 178-9 I fhe interest in self-revelation is consranr, as is the refusal to embarrass her sitters, but in all these serie~ the ide::i is that Dijkstra's subjects - unlike her bds on beaches- have been at lea~r temporarily marked by the experiences they have undergone (in the rhoco graphs of Alrnerisa by rhe move to the Netherlands as weU as by her maturing as a yo ung woman). Tvvo further poincs. Fi.rst, we have seen rhat Barthes in Camera Lucida holds that "what fountls the nature of Photography is the Pose," 4 ri and goes on to express a sweeping predilection for photographs of person s who look direcrly into the camera- as Barrhes puts it, "fwbo look] me straight 111 the eye" (11 I). J have argued thar this is cons1stenr with Barthes's antirhearricalism in that only if photography is understood to be fundamentally theatrical, which is what it means to claim that it is founded in and hr the Pose, does it offer the possibility, at least on the plane of theory, of being rendered antithearrical, as opposed ro its being merely non- or untheatrical. Herc is Barthes's theoretical "solution" to rhe problem: "One might say rhat the Photograph 5eparates attention from perception, and yield~ up nnJy the former, even if it is impos s ible without the latter ... " ( 111) - which is to say that his "solution'' is nothing of the kind. Whereas the '>tructures of awarcnes::. and unconsciousness l have ascribed to ';truth's and Dijkstra's photographic portraits represent a genuine ''solution" -or at leasr two serious responses - to the problem of por.ing. One would like to know what Barthcs woul
214
wny 1,IHJ1ograph~ matiers as art as never berrnic
My aim so far in this chapter has been ro show how two imp0rtant
recent bodies of portrait work, Strutb's family photographs and Dijkstra's beach series, belong ro the larger photographic regime that it is the overall aim of chis book to elucidate. Jn the pages that remain f shall briefly consider in rhat light three other groups of photographic portraits (in a somewhat broad sense of the term) and a recent film: Patrick Faigenb:wm's black -and-white picture5 of husrs of Roman empero rs (with a sideglance at Hi.rosru Sug1moro·s phorographs of waxwork historical figures); Luc Delahaye's l.J\utre, a phorobook of black-and-white candid shots of passengers on the Paris Merro; Roland Fischer's close-up color portraits of mun ks and nuns; and Douglas Gordon an J Philippe 1 Portrait. Jlarreno's full-lengrh film, Zidnne: A Trve11tieth-Ce11t11r) Faigenbaum, a French photographer born in 1954, Jives and works in Paris. He is essentially a portraitist, aoJ is roday probably best known for two superb early series of black-and-white photographs of aristocratic Italian families in rheir palazzi, the first taken in Venice, Florence, and Rome in 1983-7 and the second in Naples between r989 an
portra its by struth, dq~stra , fa,genbaum
de lahaye, and f1sche r. gordon and pa,reno·s 211-Jane
215
Villa Medici in 1987. What makes the photographs ,uresting in the present context is that Faigenbaum chose to photograph the busts ar extremely dose range, thereby not only eliminating all evic.lcnce of their c,etting but also concentrating exclusively on the heads and faces, with here and there a neck. (Tf one did not know that these were busts - sculptural portraits cut off below the shoulders - one coulc.l not cell it from the photographs.} The result-considerations of lighring, film speed, and exposure time, as well as rhe actual printing of che photographs, played viral roles in rh.is as well - is something new in my experience. Jn the first place, rhe photographs faithfully record the present condition of the busts as nearly two thousand-year-old material artifacts; at che c,amc rime, the cumulative effect of the closeness, cropping, lighting, printing, and so on
216
why pl otograplly
matters as art as nAver before
r32. (facing page) Patrick Faigenbaum, Del Drago Family, t987. Gelatin silver prinr. 50 x 48.5 cm
13 3 (left) Patrick Faigenbaum, Augustus, 1986. Gelatin silver print. 57.5 x 44 cm
has heen to infuse the images themselves with a note of human interiority - what l earlier ca lled mindedness - alto gether foreign to the imperial bust as an artistic genre, were one viewing these in their room at the Capitoline rather than through the mediwn of Faigenbaum 's photographs. Take, for example, Augustus (Fig. c3 3 ), with its missing nose, battered chin and lower lip, blemished surface, blank open eyes (no irises or pupils, though in other pictured busts there are such), and forehead almost wholly cropped by the photographer: how many photographs of actual persons can one bring to mind that offer so intimate, intense, and unguarded an expressive communication to rbe viewer, a communica rion all the more poignant for its seeming restraint and also because one simu ltaneous ly registers the fact that the foce belongs nor to an actua l person bur to a
portraits
by suuth, d11kstrc:1fa,genbaum,
delahaye
anr:I f,scher,
gordon and parre no's z1dane
217
marble image and rhat one is therefore authorized, indeed actively encouraged , co gaze one's fill - co give oneself to the imaginary connection without the smallest risk of imperrinence or intrusiveness on the one side or defensiveness or embarrassment on the other. (lt is hard to believe, in the grip of the photograph, that this is the great Augustus, victor of Actium, supreme polfrician of his age, officially a god.) Orher photographs- Julius Caesar (Fig. 134), the thoughtful face with its repaired nose and forehead shrouded in darkness; Salcmine (fig. 135), widespread diverging eyes full of indefinable feeling; Caracalla (Fig. r 36), as if lost in violent thought; Gordien JIJ (Fig. , 3 7); and Titus (Fig. 138)- have different expressive valences but are equally instances of the same artistic tour
218
why photography mat1ers as art as never before
(facinl!, p,1ge left) P:mick f-a1genbaum, ]ulms Caesar, 1986. Gelatin silver print. 57.5 x 48 cm 1H
5 (/tzw1K page rig/Jt) Patrick raigcnbaum, 1986. Gel.Hin silver pnnr. 57.5 x 48 cm 1J
136 (left) P,Hrick ra igcnba um, Caracalla, silver print. 50., x 4 1 cm
1
Salomne,
~8<-\.Gelatin
1 n (beluit• left) Parnck Faigenhaum, Gordien Ill, r98c;. Gelatin silwr print. 49 x 40 cm
t 38 (below right) Pamck Fa,gcnbaum, Gelatin silver print. 48 x 19 cm
Titus,
r986.
139 Hiroshi Sugimoto, Jmie Seymour, 1999.
Gelatin silver pcinr. 14'} X I r9.4 C\11, Negative R,~
Henry vm and his wives in Madame Tussaud's waxwork museum in London ( 1999: Fig. 139) , a set of images that I see as ingeniously themarizing the effigies' absellce of subjectivity,
scene: All che subjects are either three-quarter view or in protile. Very few of the figures are looking :1ryou directly. One wonders why rhey appear co be avoiding eye contact with the viewer? Frum the three-quarter view, cbe viewer feels as if he or she is invisible and able to investigate this powerful person wicbout confrontation. Nor looking into rhe eyes of someone in a different class or static)n. That's probahly the police thing to
clo.,j,j
220
wl\y photog,aphy
111atlers as art as never beforn
Obviously I chink class difference aod politeness are not the issue here - hut I also do nnc want ro makl· too much in this connecrion of Sugimoro's waxwork images, which for all their charactenst1c perfection hick the unexpectedness of Faigenhaum's photographs.
The second body of portrait work l want to glance ar here is Luc Ddahaye'.s L4utre, a hook of ninety candid shms of fellow passengers taken with a bidden camera on the Pa ris Merro between t995 and r997 (che book appeared in r~99; Figs. 140 and 141). 4 ' "Controlling the shmrer from his pock er," one commentator ha:. written, ''he quietly rook each photograph precisely the same way of whoevt:r entered his frame as the doors of the subway came ro a dose .... He said aboll[ his prorocol that 'ir was a type of nihilism, a zero poinr chat I couldn't do any le...,sthan.' " 4~ The ohvinus precedent, as Delahaye SLLrelyknew, was Walker Evans'c: famous '·Suhway Portraits" of r938-41, tinally cnllected in the volume Ma11y Are Cnl/ed4 - (see Figs. 55 and 58): starting in the winter of 1938, Evans, often au :nmpanicd by his friend Helen Levitt, a first-rare photo grapher in her own right, roO much the private self of his subject/>a<;the 1mcomoo11s self: the self that is only perceived hr a stranger in passing, the self that never appears in the batliroom mirror but can sometimes be glimpsed in ::i plate -glass shop window, before you recognize rbe reflectjon as yuur own. For Fvans, the enforced proximity and the mesmerizing tedium of the subway offered a "dream 'locarion' for any portrait phorographer weary of rhe studio ::ind of the horrors of v;u1irr ... Thl' gtiard is down and the mask i~ off: even mon:: than when in lone bedrooms (where rhere are mirrors), people's faces arc in naked repose down in the subwa y." I 108-9, emphasi5 in original] Delahaye would have: been sympathetic to sucb thoughts, but only up to a poinr; at any rate, his images differ signific ,rntly from Evans\ exnmple. Whereas Evans'<.subjects sir acro~s the central aisle from him and are variously framed from one shot ro another, Delahaye's photographs appear ro have been taken ar close range - also slightly from below - with his subjects' hea
pc,1tra,1s tJ\· ztru!I,
cliJk<;trn fa1genbr111n1. dtJlahaye. ancJ i1sch,-.r, g;'l1don and par•eno's
::1dane
22 1
L'Autre as a book bas a !>harply different character from Many Are Called. The cumulative effect as one turns its pages and confronts its ninety portraits - each on rhe righthand page, facing a page of shiny black - is claustrophobic in its intensity: the extreme proximit y of Delahaye's subjects and the sameness o( rhe compositional schema throw into relief nor only rhe physiognomic, racial, and age diversity of the individual riders bur equally rheir uniform determination, as it comes to seem, ro absent themselves as much as possible from rheir immediate circumsrances. This appears to hnve been what Delahaye intended, along wirh a further aspiration to approach as near as possible co a negation or, ro use his rerm, a "zero point" of authorial presence, Jespite what he musr have realized would be the viewer's (the page-turner's) constant awareness of Delaha)'e's sec.:retagenl'.y in the making of rhe pictures. Thu s the photographer in a brief preamble to bis book alludes to "chat non-aggression pact we all subscribe to: the pro hibition against looking ar others." He continues: "Apart from rhe odd illicit glance, you keep staring at the wa ll. We are very much alone in thl'se public places and there's violence in rhis calm acceptance of a closed world. 1 am sitting in Front of someone to record his image, the form of evidence, but just like him 1 too stare into the distance and feign absence. 1 cry to be like him. It's al l a sham, a necessary lie, lasting long enough to rake a picture. " 4 '' Faces on rhe Metro, in orber words, including Delahaye's, arc so m:rny masks of blankness - they are. one mighr say, faces on hold - and parr of rhe distinction of L'Autre is chat ir obsessively records rhar fact. Now, my purpose in introducing Delahaye's L'Autre at this juncture is both to call artenrion to a compelling achievement J.nd co use rhe comparison with £vans to under score the 5hifr of emphasis rhat I rake to be characteristic of what has happened in art photography during rhe past few decades. Two points in particular are worth stressing. First, the comparison exemplifies a general turning away from the antithearrical ideal in its original or strictly Di for ch.is turning away are many, bur perhaps the most interesting is that given by Barthes in Camera Lucido, where he deprecates the practice of capturing persons unaware of being photographed on the grounds that doing- so amounts to nothing more than a certain sort of performance on the part of the Operator (the photographer). Second, whar one finds in Delahaye's photographs in T.'Autre is at once an acknow ledgmenr of the untenableness, as of rhe mid-1990s, of the "Snbway Portraits" paradigm - Delahciye's subjects, not jusr individually bur in their very repetitiveness, their structural similarity from one photograph to the ne>.t, appear painfully aware of their exposure co the gaze of the Orher, chough not ro that of tlw camera (which however threatens by its e.x.--rreme proximity ro violate their fragile psycl1Jc space) - ,md an attempt to themacize that awareness as a collective if ultimately doomed aspiration mward psychic absence, an aspiranon which, Delahaye's remarks suggest, is shared hy rhe photographer . ("More t:han anything l wish to Jisappear," he has said a hour his work, ' 1 :in avowal that bears also on the panoramic pictures discussed in Chapter Six.) ln orher words, Delahaye's project in L'A11tre is consistent ""ith whar
222
wlw ,, 1,nto~ 1r:-1r)hy n1atter"' a~ 1ri ,1•. neVf'( beto re
qo
Luc Delahaye, from L'Autre (r999)
141
Luc Delahaye, from L'Autre (1999)
l have described, in the first place in conne<.:tion with Jeff Wall's practice in works such as Adrian Walker and Mor11i11gCleaning, as a combination of an acknow ledgment of to-be-seennes" and a resolve, against the odds, not to succumb ro theatricality. By acknowledgment of ro-be-seenncss in rhis context I refer not only to the Metro-riders' subscript ion to the ''non-aggression pact" to which Delahaye's preamble alludes hut also to the ro le played by the phorobook as such - the rurning of the pages underscoring a ,;ense of the photographs' repetitiveness - in the view ing of Delahaye's portraits.
One last group of works to be considered is the German photographer Roland Fischer's se ries of large-sea le, frontal, close-up color portraits of monks and nuns in their coifs an
µort,ans
by s11uth d•1kstra fa1g<.lnbaum, clelahaye. ,md t1scher
gordon and parreno's
z,dane
223
1 42 Roland Fischer, Untitled. Nuns and Monks (N3 I ), 1984. Chromogenic process prinr. 181..9 x 1 30.8 cm
One mighr chink char the work of Roland Fischer, who has photographed monks and other religions persons lmoniales] in Benedictine monasteries all across Europe, [has for its aim] the very image of aurhencicity, not simply of the individuals phorographed, but by means of them of a life entire ly consecrated to a faith. And, in a certain manner, fiscber's photographs stay close to a traditional photographic aspi ration, which is to seize beings and things in their true presence, their being-there [leur et1'elaJ.The subjects themselves, in the present ca:.e, are in a sense already prepared, since they are, by a life of ascesis and renunciation, divested of everything superfluous, as i_finwardly purified and emptied out feuide].And it is doubtless chat involuntary coincidence with the phorographic image (reinforced by the framing of the face beneath the coif or the hood, irs frame) which has interested Fischer. ' 2
why phorograpby
maners as art as never before
143 Roland Fischer, U11titled, Nuns and Mnnks (No1), r984. Chromogenic proces~ print. r 8::?..9x t ,o.8 cm
The implicat ion seems co be chat what Fischer 's religious sitters truly, deeply are is manifest in their faces in a way that m}1kesthem ideal photographic subjects. Thus Durand goes on ro describe them (the monks and nuns themselves, it appears) as "transparent signs, fragile icon:,, places of passage and of exchange as rnucb as of the divine presence as of the gaze, between an infinite depth and an absolute evidence and litera liry" (rn). To which it should he added that in rhe painting and etching of Manet's generation, as in earlier European painting generally, monks and nuns were almost always depicted absorbed in prayer or medirntion (or as in etchings by Manet's contemporaries Edouard Moyse and Alphonse Legros, in playing cellos). "All etchers slhould frequent cloisters," the critic Pnul de Saint-Vicror wrote in r863,
ponra,ts
by s1,un,
d 1kstra, Ia,genhaum,
delahaye
arid tischer
9ordon ,ind p,me:110 s z,dane
225
there rhey would find what their capricious and freedom-loving needle seeks: picmresque tarters, cbaracrerisric heads, interiors shot through with light and shadow, mystery nnd strangeness .... The Cart!JUsit111 Playing a Cello by Morse [sic: EdouarJ Moy1:.el 1.smodelt:
Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parrcno's film, Zidane: A Twenty-First Century Purtrait ( 2.006), was manting- ninery-minute movie; the sound track, also heterogeneous, combines rhe Spanish commentator's relevised accounr of the game
144 fi~n still from Zida11e:A
2
rst Century Portrait, by Douglas Gortlon and Philippe Parreno,
2.006
(which runs intermittently through the film, giving ic a narrative spine), crowd noise, sounds of contact from the field, hard hrcathing, music by rhe Scottish band Mugwai, and silence. At several points statements hy Zidane appear in subtitles. The viewer follows not the march per se but number 5, Zidane, from beginning to (almost the) end, though at a few crucial juncrnres - once when he is knocked down and later, after Zidane defianrly dribbles past defenders an
porna 11s by s t1111h,d11kstra. fa1genbau1n, delahave. a11d risctier,
gordc,n and parro.~nb·sz1dane
227
r4,
Film ~rill from Zida11e:A 2ISt Century Portrait, b) Dougla~ Gordon and Phjlippe Parreno,
-2.006
simply that the film was a biopic or whether it had some deeper resonance. 1 hoped the latter was the tase , and when J saw the film Ill) ' hopes were fulfiJJed. Jn a shore joint c;tarement about their project., Gordon and Parreno refer to portraits by Velazquez and Goya in the Prado, but identify Andy Warhol's real-time film portraits of &iends and other V"isicorsto the Factor y as rhe "direct source for the pl>rtrair that we hope to painr. "'' This is doubtless true, but girasping the significance of Zidane also requires viewing it against the background of the issues I have been tracing in the present chapter and, more broadly, in this book. First and most obviously, Zidane himself is depicted as wholly absorbed throughout almost the entire film (Figs. 144-6). What absorb& him, namrally, is rhe march, which requires the keenest imaginable attention from start to finish and in addition ca lls forth the mosr intense and concentrated physical effor1r on his part, nor continuously - he conserves his energy whenever possible - bur in explosive bursts and sallies that are nearly impossib le ro follow as they unfold. Lndeed Zidane's dazzling and unerring footwork, hi~ astonishing control of the ball, and bis instantaneous decision-making a ll exemplify his seemingly unremitting focus on the game even as they combine co keep the viewer perceptually on edge, as does the sheer violence of his high-speed physical encounters with riva l players as rhey rry co srrip him of rhc bail or the ocher way round (the miking of the sound of chose encounrers adds greatly to their vividness). Another facror in all th.is is Zidane's physiognomy, not just its leanness and roughness, emblematized by his balding, greying, closely cropped skull, but its basic impassiveness (his expression barely changes afrer his brilliant cross results in a goal), wh_icb adds co the impression of an inner ferocity chat, it rums out, could scarcely he more phorogenic. (To say that the
228
why photography
m
T.j.6
Film srill from Zid,me: A 21st Ce11/11ry Portrait, by Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parreno,
2.006
sevenreen cameras --love" Zidane is an understatement.) Through almost a!J the march thar impassiveness gives way on ly once, late on, when he c;hares a joke wirb Roberto Carlos: the effecr is marvelous, a sudden lightening, bur according w Gordon (in conversation) that was the nne moment that Zidane did not appreciate when he was shown rhe film. He seemed to himself to have lost concentration and that annoyed him. 1n short J sec Zidane as belonging, first, to the absorptive current or tradition that I have cried to show, in Absorption ,111d Theatricality and subsequent books, has played a central a role in the evolution of modern art, and second, to rhe revisionary adaptation of absorptive strategies on the part of Srrurh, Dijkstra, Faigenbaum, Debhaye, and Fischer (among ochers I have ool considered) 111the interest of coming to grips with the ongoing problem of porrrairure (see Srrurh's remarks to Ann Goldstein cited earlier in this chapter). Cruci:1lly, however, Zidane's absorption in the match with Villareal is nor depicred as invo lving rbe comp lementary unawareness of everyrhing ocher rhan rbe focus of his absorption - which until recenrly has meant an unawareness of being beheldrhar has been rhe hallmark of absorptive depicrion from Chardin and Greuze down a lmost to the presenr. On the contrary, a major part of the conceptua l brilliance of Zidmre consists in rhe fact that its protagonist's sustained feat of absorption is depicted as taking place before an immediate audience of eighty thousand spectators, with mj]Jions more watching via TV. Thus throughout tbc film rhere jc; the unmistakable implication that Zidane himself 1 as we see him, could not be other than acutely aware that literally unrold numhers of viewers have rheis eyes on hjm. (He knows too thar seventeen movie cameras are following his every move. At the same time, we also feel that he has no way of kn owing that we in particular are looking un. In any case, tbis is the
portr,11ts by srn 1th rJql-.:sna, largenb;,;,um delahaye.
a11d tiscl1cr
g(11don and parrano':,.
z1da11e
229
realm of ''ro-be-seenness" with a vengeani:e .) Yet the viewer 's conviction of rhe great athlete's tota l engagement in the match is not thereby undermined. Instead, the film lays hare a hirherto unrhematized relationship bcrwee 1n absorption and beholding- more precisely, between the persuasive representation of absorption and the apparent consciousnes,; of being beheld - in the context of :art, a relationship which is no longer simply one of opposirion or antithesis, as it was throughout the absorptive craclirion until recently, hut inswad allows a gliding and i1ndeed ::to overlap berween the two. (In Struth 's family portraits and Dijkstra's photogrnphs of adolescents on beaches absorption in being photographed gives rise t<>palpable effects of cmhli de soi, which is to say that in their work the traditional antithesis is dispbced but not undone.) Furthermore, not only does Zida,,e lay bare that new relationship, it goes on to explore it, in the 1-irstplace, by the repeated foregrmrndi ng of the filmic and TV appararus (mainly by shots of the game as mediated by television monitors, including at least one hlack-and-white monitor in the trailer outside the stadium) as well as by one brief .. climb" to the upper reaches of the stadium, whence the camera plunges down to the field; in the second by sequences involving Zid::111ehimself, as when the camera apparently follows his gaze up co the '>tadiLLmlights or ro the scoreboard (0-1 against Real) hefore returning to the match, or when it draws us close ro his face, then blurs his fearurcs as ir brings the previously indistinct crowd be)'ond him into sharp focus before zeroing in on him once more (the effect is to suggest Zidane's shifting consciousness of the "rheatrical'' aspects of his situation)/h and in the third, even more explicitly, b)' means of some of the handful of remarks hr Zidane that are reported in rhe form of st1btitles. ·'When you step onto the field," Zidane is quoteJ as saying at one point, "you hear the crowd, you feel its presence. There is sound, the sound of noise." Then: "When you are immersed in the march, you don't really hear the crowd. At rhe same time you can almosr choose what you want ro bear. You. are never alone.'' Then: "l can hear someone shift around in his sear. I can hear someone cough . I can hear someone speak to the person next to him. 1 can imagine that l hear rhe ticking of a watch." And then: ''When things go badly, one is perhaps more attentive ro the reactions of the public. When rhey don't go "veil, one fee.ls less co111.:entn1redand more inclined to hear the insulr s, the whistles. One begins ro have negative rhoughrs, sometimes one want!> to forget ... " All tht:se remarh-whicb we read avidly, grateful for a glimpse of Zidane's inner life:- are set off by the sound track, in par6cular by haunting stretches of music thar at rhese moments consist m,1inl)' of a repetitive, harmonic plui:king, sometime<; with crowd noise in rbe background. Above tbe titles or during the ''silences" between sratemems we follow Zidane, sometimes in action, sometimes walking or standing srill, ar momen~ in extreme close up, hooded gaze focussed offscrecn, sweat dripping as he waits for the play to surge hack in his direction. rrom time to rime he spits. He wipes his face with his arm or sleeve. He scratches his head behind his left ear. Now and rhen be barks "Hey" or "Aie" or raises one arm asking for the ball. We are also given repeated shoes of his legs and feet, including close-ups thtat reveal him scuffing the toes of his dc<1tS against the rurf as he walks along-why does he do chat? His gait becomes intimateJy familiar to us by the end of tl1e film. (Somewhere in rhc ne1ghhorhood is Robert
1 30
wnv ph01ogrnf}hy rnat1Ars as arl as neve1 betore
Rresson's magnificent A11 H,1sarcl.8,1/tlnmtr f r966J.) The overa ll effect of subtitlei,, c;ound track, and images ic;intensely "subjective," and underscores the already powerful impre::.sion of Zidane\. capacity for stillness - one might say the imp ression of his psychk apartnes~, his faithfolneMi tO hi!>own Achille.:;-like singularity- at the heart of the general combat. (There are -:ome things more important than the Trojan War, as a friend put it apropos the famous head -bntt. r) As for the suhtirles themselves, l am of course greatly struck by the fol'.'t that Gordon and Parreno make a poiot nf ZiJane's consciousness of the crowd, which suggests rhar rhey recognize, explicitly or otherwise, rhat this is the crucial issue, artistically and ourologica lly, raised by rheir "portrait." Beyond that there 1s the (to me hurning) question of bow exactly to underscand Zidane's account of his own douhle consciousness, if that i:. whar it is: on the one hand, immersed in the game he does not really hear the crowd; on tht· ocher, at the st111teti111e,he cc1n''almost choose" what he wanrs to ht'ar and indeed can go so for as ro imagine - extraordinary thought- the ticking of a warch. What is dear is that the 1.econd term in his double consciousnei.s is not exactly distraction, absorption's traditional other - albeit di~traction itself, in the mode of reverie, cao he a kinJ of absorption. (A potential source of distraction in the form of running illuminareJ advertisements for various firms and proJucts just beyond the sidelines of tht· field ii. intermittently in view rhroughour the tilrn.) Rather, it almost seems another form, another channel, of absorption, a psychic counter-movement, reaching fanmsmatic kngths (the ticking of that watch!), to his sense of exposure to the crowd's unpredictable, divided, at Limes hostile atteorions. Not that such a counter-movement is ::ilways avail .iblc: when things go badly, Zidane'~ concenrrarion flags, he bears insults and whistles, sometimes he wanrs ro •·for~ec." ( Another extraordinary thought: dnes he mean w forget what he 1s there to do? Bur "forgetting'' is also a traditional way of describing an ah~orbed person's unawareness of his or her surroundings. Can he me,u1 both? ·'You don't necessarily remember a match as an experience in 'real timl·:" he is quoted as saying. ''My memories of marches are fragmented.'' Like the film itself? Gordon and Parreno probab ly think so; they give us the last rwo quotations twice. And what is che relation of imagining rhe ticking of a w:uch to that fragmenting of rime? ) ln focr a flagging of concenrrarion becomes visible toward the end of the march: one cannot help noticing what appear like signs of exasperation, culminating in a seemingly gr::1t11itous :md, as at the W<>rldCup, a wholly unexpected ::ict 0£ violence that calls forth another red card. "On o'est 1amais seu l" ("You are never alone'·)- whatever else Z1dc111emay be, it 1s a compe lling portrayal of that condition, which in this instance comes across a-. a sratt: nf mindedness that is almost unremittingly intense and at rhe same time seems <;omebow bare or minimal, as if lacking in deprh . (Here too "Achilles-like" seems the right epithet.) What is not made explicit by the film - how rnulJ ir have been? - is just how represt'ncative of our epoch the makers of the film imagine thar condition to be.'x ln closing, it occurs to me that Zidane's remarks about the crowd are in the register of hearing- as if even in the worst circumstances his visual attention remain,; 011 the game. For Gordon and Parreno, Zidane represents an atrempr to make a film that would helong at once ro the wodd of popular entertainment - sports on TV, notably- and ro
231
that of galleries, museums, art . 5'' ln my view they have succeeded, and what is characteristic of Gordon's work to date (I do not know Parreno's well enough to speak of ir) is rhar arristie ~m:cess turns out to have gone hand in hand with deep theoretical and philosophical interest.
* There is more ro rhe philosophical i1Jreresr of
L.1da11eth::in 1 h.ive suggesred. Two lines o~ thought pre,ent themselves. 1-irsr, with respect ro the issue of worldhood. there 1s the implication char Zidanc's absorbed conscwusne!ts, for all its
The ~econJ ~ou1ce of phiJosophicaJ imeresr wc,rch noting concerns the question a"' LO whether human percepnon 1s inherently "cnncepruru·· m 1rs content. This has heen a topic ot contention between John McDowell, who is ,:onvinced rhar ,c is, and Hubcrr L. Drerfus, who .argue~ on phenomenologica l gr01111d~that it is nm. A represen tative paragraph from McDowell\ Mind and World (Cambridge, Mass., .md London, [994) reads:
"hareness'' and narrowness of focu~. nevertheless opens upon (Heidegger would say "discloses") a shared world - in ocher words, thar rhe film is not u1 .1ny sense a ~rudy tll solipsism (in the usu.ii under,tandmg of the term ). Thi~, l rake it, 1, ont' mea111ngof the sequence of tourteen extremely r have been UJ·gingthat we must cc,nceive expehrief, extremely diverse news dips from differenr riences as srares or occurrences in which capac part~ of the world during rhe shnrr hal~ime mcs that hclong ro spontaneity are in play in hrea.k: ~uch as a puppet show fearuring a Bnb actualtzat1ons of recepriviry. Expenences have Marie)' figutt' on a beach in Braztl, the dcsrrucrhrir conrent by virtue of the focr char conccp tion of homes by flnoding in Serbia-Montenegro, tunl capacirics arc operanve in rhem, and char Elian Gnn1.alez speaking 011 Cuban TV, rhe sale means capacities that genuinely helong to rhe vi:1 eBay of a l1tesizc X-wmg tighter frorn rhe understanding: it is essential to 1rhe1rbeing the movie St,.1r W.zrs. the space ship "Voya~er" C'1paciries chey Jrc rhar rhey can lhe e-x11loircdin recording plasma wave ~minds at the solar wiml a.:civl:' and pmenrially self-cririca I rhinking. Bur termination boundary. a reading marathon marwhen thc~e capacities come into play 111 expeking the four-hundredth anniversary of the pubrience, the experiencing subject i.s,passive, acred licarion of Don Q11ixute, the issuing of a rn.•w on by independent reality. \X!Jien experience ~eries of video games, the explosion of a car bomb makes conceptual content av:tih1hle to 0ne, rh.H in Na1af, Jr::iq (a hysundcr 1s wearing a hlack i:, itself one's sensibility in operar.ion, nonmderJersey bearing the mLmber 5 and the name standin~ puning a construc-tion on ~ome pre"Zid,rnc" in white), the death of the Briiish actor co11ceprual deliverances of sensibility. At lease S1r John .\1ill .\, the first s1ghri11g1n twenty years with "ourer experience." cunceprual conrent ii. of an ivory-billed woodpecker, the close of the cilreae implicitly co11cepLould remember tbjs extraordinary day a ... t.f it were a walk in a park"). Toward the end among tl/a/ ,:mdpermeated by mindednes$ [emphasis in original!;' Dreyfus contends char "if Ian!expert d1e news dip$ are .ilso rwo unassigned ··sratccoper is to rem.am 1n flow, J1e mu~t respond rnencs ": " My snn had a fever this mornmg" and " [ had something to do roday." Ir is nor entirely directly to the sohcirnnon w1thot11.nrrcndmg to cle,H what w m::ike of all rhis- rhe ··statements" the object doing the soliciting [Dre)lfus's example in particular arc hard ro interpret- but rhe unexi!oa doorknoh on a Joor that we rea,ch for without pecred opening up of the lilm m a global perconsciously perceiving it as we le·:ive a rooml, spective, or rather to the simulraneirr o t multiple There i~ no rlace in the phenomen ,olog) of ~kilJful action for conLeptu:.11mi.n
ny
l.J2
wl1y pltotuQraphy
matter:; :is art as never before
knuw about rhe doorknob; the example comes trom 1\llcrl<"a11 -Ponry, and Orcyfu, claims that rccem research bacb 1tup . Brn consider Zinedinc Z1dan1::.an "expert coper" and a mastn of rt:maining "in flow'' if chcrc ever was une: 011 the strength of Gordon ,md Pa.rreno's film, would om· really wish ro say rhar the grear arhlere'~ participation in rhe march appears lo confirm Dreyfus's ~rriccures? That Zidane's rescless scanning of thl' action on rhe field, his calling for d1e ball and rapid disrrihurion of 1c ,vhrn it arnves. his conservation of hi~ forct:s ar every valid opportunity, his sudden recognirion th,lt somerhing can he made of a rapiJly unfolding siruarion-as when he lmlliandy dribbb m the lefr o f rhc.:Villareal goal before delivering rhe cross mar RoaaJdo heads in - and in general his unflagging yet also v11negated responsiveness to rbe ebb aad flow of the ~ame. all unequivocally bespeak an involvemcnr with rhc match that abso lurely precludes ..:onceprual cc,nrent of an) ~
porua1ts by Strlith
tions 1s no. Rather, f rake: Z1da111! to be a smt-,'11larly perspicuous example of what it might look Ji_keto an ideally sirnarcd observer (011e "c:on~tructed" by the nlmf for experience, perception, and "coping" of tht: mnsr insr:intanet>as and r~ourcefol kind to he "permeared by mindedness" in McDowell's .sense of the phrase. (The remark~ h} Dreyfus come from an unpub lished essay, ''The Hcrurn of the Myth of the Menral," part of an exchange with McDowell rhar begins wirh On:yfus's APA Pacific Division Presidenrial Address, ''Overcoming tbe Myth uf rhe Menral: How Ph ilosopher5 Can Profit from rhc Phenomenology 1;il Everyday Expertise," Pl'u·
ceedings and Addresses of the Americ,111P/Jilrisophrc.tl Assvdt1tro11,no. 79 (NO\'ember !005 ): -17-65. McDowe ll rephes in "What Myth?"; Dreyfus responds in turn 111 "The Return of the
Myrh of the Menral"; . and McDoweU comes balk briefly in ''Re~ronse to Dreyfus." The fast three tcx:t.Swill he published in a fucure volume oi /11q11h)•. 1 should add rhat 11c0CJwell',;views 0J1 cn11ceprual c:1pJc1tie!, 111perception have been contesred by others bcsiJes Dreyfus; my comments in this note are not an attempt to assess McDowell's argume::nts comprehen~ively, bur Gordon and Parreno', , Zid,me does !,eem ro me co bear on rhe above ex,change. l
d1Jkstra , fa1genl)aum. delahaye- ,;nd i1scfle1
gordon and parrnno's -::,dane
233
147 Jeff Wall, Mimic, 1982 . Transparency in lightbox. 198 x 228.5 cm
street photography
revisited:
jeff wa ll , beat streuli, philip-lorca dicorcia
8
In x982 Jeff wall made Mimic (Fig. r 47), one of his best -known photographs . The setting is a street in Vancouver, which recedes into the distance toward the left -ha nd edge of the picture. Three persons are shown walking more or less directly toward the camera : on the left, nearest the cmb, a young Asian man in a short -sleeved shirt and dark gray trousers, and on the r ight a couple, a young Caucasian man with dark unkempt hair and a mousta'che and beard, wearing a T-shirt and an open denim vest (in an interview 1 shal l cite, Wall describes him as a "lumpenproletarian"), who holds the hand of a heavy-thjghed young Caucas.ian woman in shor ts, heels, and a waistless top. The action of the picture consists in a gesture of mimicry (hence the title) in which the bearded man raises a finger to the corne r of his eye so as to mock the "slanted" eyes of the Asian man. The exact relativ e position s of the three figures are important, as are th e dir ections of their gazes. The couple have not quite drawn abreast of th e Asian man, who may be conscious of their proximity (the woman in particular gives the impression that the couple have been walking faster than he) but who on close looking seems not to be in a position to take in th e hostil e gesture; he glances toward his left (our right) as if at something off-picture, and his expression, which perhaps betrays a certain tension, is in the end unreadable. (There is something strong ly cinematic in Mimic, as Wall would freely acknowledge; one's sense is of a fleeting moment in a more compl ex narrative.) The woman, a half- step behind her companion, squints as she looks straight ahead into strong sunlight, and appears oblivious not only to th e action of her companion bur perhaps to the presence of the Asian man. As for the bearded aggressor, he looks toward his targ et as he raises his finger to his eye; his entire demeanor bespeaks hostility, and it is to him and his gesture and facial expression that the viewer's attention returns again and again. Wall's Mimic is an early example of his career-long interest in reviving what Baudelair e called "the painting of modem life" - la peinture de la vie 1noderne. In fact a major composit ional source was surely certain pictures by Caillebotte, notably Paris Street, Rainy Day (1877), the canvas in $truth's Art Institute of Chicago 2, and Le Pont de /'Euro pe (c. 1876), both of which give evidence of Caillebo tte 's interest in the photography of his time . Mimic is also characteristic of Wall's engagement in his art of the r98os wit h social issues (itself an interpretation of Baud elaire's rubric) , in this case the accepta nce or non-acceptance of "for eigne rs," as the bearded man would doubtless regard his Asian cont emporary. (This hardly exhausts the social dimension of th e picture,
str eet photography rev isited: jeff wall , beat str eu li, phtlip-lorca dicorc,a
235
148 Gar ry Winogrand, Hollywood Boulevard, Los Ange les, 1969. Gelatin silver print. 27.9 x 35.5 cm
as will be seen.) A further aspe ct of Wall's thinking, one of particular interest to this chapter, concerns the relation of Mimic to the conventions and trad itions of street photo graphy . ln for example the work of Carcie r-Bresso n and Winogrand, two of the most famous practitioners of th e genre, the photographer walks the city streets, mingl es with crowds, plunge s int o politica l ra llies or attend s parties or news confer ences, armed with a lightweight 3 5-mm camera and shoots what he sees all around him. More often than not, the persons in such pictures appear unaware of being photographed, as does Wall's three some, or the sub jects of Walker Evans's "Su bway Portraits" (not strictly speaki ng street photographs but cons istent with the esthetic; see Figs. 5 5, 58), 1 or th e dozen or so persons of widely disparate status in Winogrand's Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles ( c969; Fig. q8), a parti cularly brilli a nt instan ce of his art. (Winog rand, usuall y considered the pr eemi nent Amer ican street photo grapher o f the r9 6os a nd '70s , wou ld have been acutely present in Wall's 1rund in 1982. 2) In an important essay of 2001 on recent street photography Ru ssell Ferguson remarks that Wall's depiction of a "decisive moment" in Mimic seems " perhaps too go od to be tru e," but at once adds that "many stre et photographers hav e managed to captu re such moments . " 3 (The moment depicted in Hollywood Boulevard is ext raordinary, as is the play of sha dow s and reflections; the tilt of the camera, a signature Winogrand device, emphas izes the fleetingness of the concatenation of eleme nts. Th e phrase "dec isive moment" is of course Cart ier-Bresso n's. 4 ) Yet, as Ferguson goes on co say, Mimic, Jjke almost all Wal l's pictures featuring persons,
236
why photography
matters as art as never before
is nor the produce of a brillianr, athle tic, split-second fear of reportage but rat her was delibera tely staged - cast , choreographed, reh earsed, and shot over and over again in pursuit of rhe perfect image. Ferguson w rites : Consisting of a backlit tran sparency mo re tha n six feet wide, Mimic deliberat ely inflates the small incident it depicts to the sca le and presence traditionally associated w ith the most amb itiou s painting. Wall makes it clea r that despite its anti-pictor ial rhetoric, the tradition of street photography does indeed ha ve a spec ific vocabulary establis hed enoug h for him to be abl e to use it alongs ide that of other traditions of representation, suc h as h istory painting. "I am nor necessa rily inter ested in different subjects in an," Wa ll has sa id, " but I am int erested in different types of pictur e." Parr of his achievement is to allow the viewe r to under stand that the scene is not a uthen tic in the traditional sense of street photogr aphy yet at the same rim e to accept it as fund ament a lly truthful neverthe less, a doub le consciousness unavai lab le to straight document ary. r16] I am not sure what "fu nd amentally truthful " mean s in this context , but rather than press the point I want to cite som e furth er rem arks by Wall, from a r98 5 inter view with Els Barents. " In my pictures," Wall states , " ther e is a lot of non -gesturing, or very small, compulsive gesturing, what I ca ll 'micro-gesture' ." He cont inues: Th e men 's gestu res in No or Mimic are micro -gestures . These ar e gestu res whi ch seem auromatic, mechanica l, or compulsi ve. Th ey well up from somewhere deep ly socia l, somewh ere 1 don't pr imarily identif y wit h the individu al's unc onscio us as such . Th e abusive white lump enpro letarian in Mimi c, for exa mp le, is making a gesture, pulli ng up his eyelid in a mimesis of the Ori ental eye . In my dr ama tiza tion of it for myse lf, I tho ught of it happenin g so quickly that nobody in the picture is rea lly aware of it. The white man's gestur e is welling up with incr edible rapidity from his ow n persona lity, and he h asn't a ny contro l over the exp ression. It h as an automatic, compulsiv e character .... When thi s particular type of man undergoes certain kinds of stress, stim ulation, or provocat ion, this kind of thing emerg es. I don' t chink it's accidental; it's determined by the socia l totality, but it has to come out of an individual body. 5 Th ere is a polit ical cla im here , a theo ry about the relation of certa in sorts of spont aneous aggressive micro-gestures to the social and political totality of late cap ital ism . But what I want to emphas ize is, first, Wall's notion that the micro-g estur es he has in mind are auto matic, mechanjca l, compulsive, which is to say that not only are th ey no r p ositively willed by th e persons who enact them, ther e is also a sense in which th e latter are (to say the least) not fully conscious of wha t th ey hav e don e; and secon d, that in Wa ll's account the aggressive micro -gesture in Mimic is so fleeting, it happ ens so quickly, thar "no on e in th e picture is reall y awa re of it" - and indeed , as I have rem arked , neith er the Asian ma n or the caucasian woman seems to registe r ir in any way. In other words, what int erest s me is th e wa y in which the appea l to the soc ia l is simu ltaneously an engagement with a strin gent and original ideal of antitheatricality. I began
street photography revisited . Jett wall. beat strellh, ph1ilp-lo1ca d1corc1a
237
Chapter Two by discussing Wall's Adrian Walker, a deliberatel y absor pti ve imag e, and went on in Chapter Three to consider his involvement during th e 1990s and after with the pictorial mode he ca lls near documentary, defined as images "that claim to be a plausible account of, or a report on, what the events depicted are like, or were like, when they passed without being photographed." Toward the end of Chapte r Three I br iefly surveyed a range of mostly recent work that in different ways may be understood as seeking (up to a point) to deny or neutralize the viewer's presence: for examp le, by depicting figures leaving a room or a campsite or walking dir ectly away from the viewer, or by virtue of a degree of darkness that almost defies seeing into, or by mobilizing the motif of blindn ess, hence unawareness of being viewed, with extraordinary force (more on that later in this chapter). Wa ll's 1985 remarks on Mimic show that a concern with antitheatrical values goes back earlier, as if that picture is idea lly to be unde rstood as making visible, henc e accessib le to analysis, a distinctly modern kind of micro-gesture that in crucial respects would otherwise escape sustained attention. (I am putt ing matt ers this way to indicate that although the Asian man and th e woman in the pictur e seem unaware of the micro -gesture in quest ion, the latter is surely not to be understood as invisible other than to the camera . But it is imagined by Wall as so fleeting and min imal as to be all but invisible, as well as una vailable to the consciousness of the man making it.) For me personally, I feel compe lled to add, the sheer perspicuou sness, not to mention th e fixity, of the bearded man's aggressive gesture works against the notions of fleetingness and automatic ity with which Wall would have us associate it, with the result that I see Mimic more predominantly in the register of the to-be-seen than Wall, or Wall in 198 5, would ha ve me do. It is important to rem ember, though, that throughout the French pictoria l tradition between Greuze and Manet (or, slightly later, Caillebotte) the issue of antitheatricality was fundamentally unstab le and unre so lvable , never more so than when a work sought to achieve antitheatrical ends throu gh the depiction of a more or less transitory "moment" in an action, as in Mimic, rather tha n of temporally protracted absorptive states as such, as in Adrian Walker, After "Invisible Man," and Morning Cleaning. This is not the place for even a capsu le history of street photo graphy in the 195 0s and aftet~ a genre made possible by th e invention and refinement of the lightweight, rap id-firing Leica starting in the mid- 19 2os as well as by the availability of high-speed film, but suffice it to say (others, including Ferguson, have said it befo re me) that alth oug h the 19 50s and '6os saw the flour ishing of major figures like Robert Frank, William Klein, and th e early Winogrand, at some point durin g those years the standard conventions of the genre began to show considerab le strain . A ma jor aspect of the strain precisely concerned the question of theatricality, or say the linked issues of the awareness or non-awarenes s of being photographed on the part of the subjects, and the implied presence, not just to those subjects but in the very fabric of the photograph, of the photographer him self (or herself). So for example William Klein, whose Gun 2, New York (19 55) is illustrated in Camera Lucida, 6 said much later of his approach dur ing the first half of the 19 50s, "I was very consciously trying to do the opposite of what CartierBresson was doing. H e did pictures withou t interv ening. H e was like the invisible
238
why photography
matters as art as never before
camera. 1 wanted to be visible in the biggest way possible ... I saw the book I wanted to do as a tabloid gone berserk, gross, grainy, over-inked, with a brutal layou t, bullhorn headlin es. " 7 In fact Gun 2, New York depicts a trio of children of different ages facing the camera at close range; what gives the photograph its plot is an older girl, cut off below the shoulders, who hold s a toy gun to the smi ling boy 's head, the visual drama of the cut signaling a delib erate choice on the part of the artist. Starting around 1960, Winogrand added his own copious oeuvre to the street photography tradition; by far the bulk of his work captures persons unaware of being photographed. Indeed as Fran Leibowitz writes in a short "Conv ersa tion " on his art, "Most people who walk throu gh a city ignore it. This is how most people bear a city. And what most peopl e are especially, particularly, ignoring are the other people. In a sense, this conscious, constant, relentless, ignoring of other people is the primar y experience of living in a city. " 8 It is also, Leibowitz implies , Winogrand's abiding theme, which is to say that his subjects' unawarenes s of the photographer is merely on e index of a more global state of mind. At the same time, Winogrand did not hesitate to photograph persons who could not but have noticed him, if only because he stood directl y in their paths and shot at fairly close range. Yet he seems to have done this so quickly and unobtrusive ly as to forestall all sense of posing on the part of his subjects. (Jeffrey Fraenkel: "If someone perceived that he or she was being photographed, Garry by that time would a lmost always be finished. When they noticed, his demeanor was such that his subjects rar ely felt ill-used ." 9 ) In another sense, his genius for capturing persons in off-balance mom ents and postures , the sheer uncon ventio nalit y of his wide-angle, multi-figure compositions, the eviden t attraction he felt - how ever fleetingly- to many of th e women who turn up in them (one of his projects was called Women are Beautiful), and his pr edilection for camera angles dramaticall y tilted left or right relati ve to the ground plane, all call attention to the photograp her's artistry, or rather to the sudd enness, unexpectedness, and stylishnes s of his myriad intervent ion s, which is partly why Ferguson groups him with Klein and the Japanese photographer Daido Moriyama as figures who "have all cultivated an over tly confro ntation a l style in much of their work" (13) . As Ferguson also notes, by the late 1970s Winogrand seemed to have reached the end of a certain line. "He had always expose d a lot of film," Ferguson writ es, "but towards the end of his life, afte r he moved to Los Angeles in 1978, he shot incessan tly, usually without even lookin g at the results. It is hard not to read some metaphorical parallels between his decline into obsessive, repetiti ve shoo tin g and a broad declin e in the vit ality of the genre overa ll. It was beginning to seem more and more difficult to make pictures th at were not pictures that everybody knew already, especially when dir ect engagement with the depicted had become so devalued" (14). 10 (Presu mab ly th is is a reference to the crit ical backlash against Arbus's practic e of "befriendin g" her sub jects.) Winogrand died in 1984, but already in 1980 Barthes in Camera Lu cida had come out stron gly agains t the basic street photo graphy convention of captur ing subjec ts without their knowledge on the grounds that such a feat on the part of the photographer was too blatantly a performance for his (antith eatr ica l) tastes . How ever, Barth es's prefer ence for facing figures scarcely amoun ted in itself to a viab le alternativ e approac h (Klein's
street photography
revisited:
j eff wall, beat streuli,
phil ip-lorca dicorc ia
239
aggressively self-declaring work, by no means all of which featured such figures, belonged to a distinctly earlier mom ent ), any more th an Lee Friedland er's frequ ent inclusion of his own shadow or reflection in his playful "se lf-port ra its" of the 1960s - thereby acknow ledging his presence behind the camera - pro vided a means of dealing with the larger pro blem. 11 Viewed in this con text, Wall's exp loitation of the look of str eet photogra ph y in Mimic amounte d to a new conception of the genr e, according to which th e traditiona l strat egy of capturing subjects who appear unaw are of the came ra is reasserted at the sa me time as the pictur e itself mo re or less open ly proclai ms its identit y both as a delib erate ar tistic constructi on (on the level o f depic tion) and as a n image intend ed to be hun g on the wa ll and viewed by beholders in a face-to -face relationship (on the level of artifact uality ). No t that Wall' s "so lution " has been taken up by ot her ph otogra ph ers. But starti ng in th e 1990s tw o figures in particu lar, th e Swiss pho tograph er and video-m aker Beat Streuli (born in 1957) and th e American ph otograp her Philip -Lorca diCorcia (born in 1953) , have crea ted bod ies of work tha t give a new lease on life to the centra l stree t photography conv ention of the sub jects' ob liviousnes s to being ph otog rap hed while at the same time dir ecting the viewer' s att ention as never before to th e app aratu s or technology as we ll as, in a broad er sense, to the artistic stra tegies by means of which tha t has been accomp lished. A characteri stic digita l video wor k by Streuli is called Four Tw o Screen Projections (2001 -2 ; Figs. 149-52) . Eac h of the four pa irs o f twenty- minute loo ps is set in a different city, in particular locati ons in th ose cities: The Pallasa des, Birmin gham; George Street Bus Stop, Sydney; BKK Siam Squ a re, Bangkok; a nd 8th Avenue and 3 5th Street, New York City. Streuli's proc edur e was the sa me in each case: using a sma ll, compact Sony video camera and digital video mini -tap es (nothing " profess iona l" qua lity, in other wo rds), he sho t moving crowd s or persons wa iting for a bu s or wa lking past a street corner in such a mann er th at th e viewer is left in no doubt that the subjects of the videos are una ware of being ph otographed. (Precisely where the camera is stati oned is never specified in the videos themselves.) All the videos were shot in co lor and in rea l time, and on ly later adapt ed to his a rtist ic needs; in three o f th e videos thi s entailed slowing the action to thirty-th ree percent of th e real speed, thou gh in the Bangkok pro jectio ns the or iginal tem po has been reta ined. 12 Each of th e fo ur sites yields different sorts of scenes, as follows: 1) In The Pallasades, Birmingham 05-o I -OI (2001) - the name of a major shopping stre et in Birmin gham (Engla nd) - a n endl ess tide of pedes tri ans wa lks dire ctly towa rd th e camera (in fact there is ano th er str eam wa lking away from it at the left, but the came ra is po sitioned so as to center on th e approac hing multitud es). Beca use th e pro ject ions are in slow moti on and because Streuli uses a telephoto lens we as viewers follow indi vidu al per son s for long stretches of time, and ind eed they only loom large (and go out o f focus) at th e last moment, as th ey seem about to eliminate the last bit of distance between them and the ca mera . Th e camera appears to be loca ted the other side of a cross -str eet. We have a distinct sense of the pedestrians we have been trac king stepp ing off a curb in the near for eground and some tim es pa using as if to orient th emselves before
240
why photography
matters as art as never before
149
Beat Streuli, from The Pallasades, Birm ingham [England] 05-or - oI ,
2001.
Video project ion still
moving on, and of others, appearing from off-screen, crossing our line of sight eithe r from left to right or right to left. Ther e is no sound track, or rather, the images are accompanied by silence. 2) George Street Bus Stop, Sydney or -23-or (200 1-2 ) offers, as its title suggests, a different mise-en-scene. H ere we are shown at close range a relatively limited number of individual persons waiting for a bus (we assume that that is what they are doin g), as cars, trucks, and other vehicles glide past in the middle distance and various peop le pass by at even closer range, momentarily blocking the primary target from view. The viewer is thus offered a sequence of living portraits, often cut off just below the shoulders. Here too slow motion is in force, and the impression is of the camera lingering as if appreciatively on one person and then another, each of whom remains oblivious to its gaze in fact at certain moments the camera moves, again as if on impulse , with one or anothe r person, who however never strays far. In this pair of projections the sound track is a mix of silence, traffic noises, voices, Hare Krishna chants.
st reet photog raph y rev isit ed: je ff wall , beat str eu li, ph il ip-lor ca d icorcia
241
150
Beat Streuli, from George Street Bus Stop, Sydney
01-23-01,
2001-2.
Video projection still
3) BKK Siam Square, Bangkok 03 - r2 - 02 (2002) is both similar to George Street Bus Stop in that it too depicts persons waiting, presumab ly for a bus, and different in that it featur es close -range frontal views, often of pa irs of persons in co nversation w ith each ot her (also smoking, eating snacks, mi ldly making out); in contrast, the Sydney projection s tend to focus more or less excl usively on isolat ed indi vidual s and to do so ma inly in profi le or largely from behind. Here too the sound track is active, a mix of traffic noises, mu sic, and voices, in no obv ious relation to the ima ges on the scree ns. Unlike the ot her videos, the scene has been shot in rea l time, though it ta ke s a few minutes before th is becomes evident. (Appa rently the heat that da y was so great th at further slowin g of the ima ges seemed unn ecessary .) 4) As its title suggests, 8th Avenue and 35th Street, New York City 06 - 0 2- 0 2 ( 2002 ) is set at a stree t cross ing, but un like The Pallasades we are not show n a flood of pedestr ians adva ncing toward the camera; rather, the camera is directed, at a slight angle, to wa rd one corn er of th e cross ing, and no effort is mad e to focus on individua l perso ns
242
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
151
Beat Streuli, from BKK Siam Square, Bangkok
0 3-12-02,
2002.
Video proj ectio n sti ll
- the dominant impres sion is of fixation on a particular spot, with a sort of passive registering of whoever and whatever happens to cross or occupy it. Again, the projections are in slow motion, accompanied by a lively sound track full of horn s, other traffic sounds, voices ("You see what I'm saying? They found, like, ... " rings out more than once), and - also more than once - the brilliant song of a bird, the source of which is, as with all sound s in Four Two Screen Projections, never specified.13 From time to time someone lingers on the corner but by and large pedestrians pass by in both direction s, many carrying shopping bags or similar items. Frequentl y the corner is blocked from view by the backs of people waiting to cross the street; when this happen s the camera remains unmoving, biding its time. 14 Th e antitheatrical implications of Streuli's video projections are pr etty much selfevident (it is no accident that more than one commentator has chosen the word "grace" 15 to characterize the psycho-physical state of his subjects}. Far more than could be achieved by candid photographs, the projection s convey the feeling that th e viewer is
street photography
revisited:
jeff wal l, bea t streuli,
philip-torca
dicorcia
243
r52
Beat Streuli, from 8th Avenue and 35t h Street, New York City
06 - 0 2- 02,
2002.
Video proj ection st ill
offered somet hing like unimpeded access to th eir human subjects (a statem ent that will need to be refined ); at any rat e, we get to look at th em , to study th eir fac es, expre ssion s, gestures, and clothing, often at clo se range, virtually for as long as we could wish, with a freedom never allowed to us, espec ially with regard to stran gers, in ordinary life. 16 At the sam e time, the overa ll effect of the projections is co nspicuously "warm," one might say "caring," as in Dijkstra 's beach portraits and related series: the prolongation of the camera 's engagement w ith particular individual s or alternatively the flow and, for the most part, what might be called th e ontological seamlessness of the stream of images turn out to mitigate the imp licat ion of voyeurism (as if the latt er wer e assoc iate d w ith a certain mom ent-to -mom ent sense of insecurit y on th e part of the onlook er ), as doe s the fact that we are never sho w n even trivial instance s of behav ior on th e part of Streuli's subjects that might expose them to criticism or ridicule (pres um ably the tapes are edit ed to eliminat e th ese). 17 Another factor contributing to the "warm th " of th e projections is the youth of man y of tho se depicted; w hatever can be discerne d on th eir faces it is not ma rk s of experi ence or for erunner s of mor tality (no punctum of time and de ath). And
244
why photography
matters as art as never before
beyond their youth there is also the stri king, po liti ca lly reassuring fact of th eir di versity, which is at once high lighted and minimiz ed, or say reth emati zed, by t he equally stri king fact of their common dre ss: they all speak the sartoria l lingua franca of big-brand demotic American. (A Marx ist or perhaps simply a socially ale rt commentator might wish to observe of Streu li that h e proffers a n anody ne vision of uni versa list globa lism, as if we are mean t to believe that all th ese mul ticultural popu lations in cities around th e world constitu te a single, harmonious, Bennetonized comm unity. It is a tr icky issue, one of which the art ist is aware . 18) All this is to say nothing of the effects of Streu li's use of slow motion , a fam iliar, even hackneyed device but one which per h aps ha s never been put to more ont olog ica lly productive use than in his videos. In th e first place, the slow motion in tens ifies th e viewer 's sense of revelation, of being enabl ed to observe aspects of human behavior tha t one would not, indeed cou ld not, ord inari ly see. Thi s in itself is har dly origina l (th ink of Walter Benjamin' s notion of the "optica l unconscious " 19 ), so perhaps what gives Streuli's videos their surp risingly revelatory force is the way in wh ich the slow motion com bines with the hiddenn ess of the camera an d th e use of a telephoto lens to allow th e viewer to dwell, for example, on a certa in play of facial expression tha t seems not just pr ivate (Sontag's term for the expressio ns of Evans's sitt ers in his "Su bway Portraits") but literally inaccessible to normal vision. At th e same tim e, the p lay of slowed exp ression (Wall might say of micro-exp ression) is in cruc ial resp ects felt to be unreadabl e - this at any rate is my claim - so the sense of revelation is also, inescapably, an intuition of our outsideness from th e world of Streu li's proj ection s.20 Somet hin g simil ar is tru e of what becomes of simp le wa lk ing, most pa lpab ly in Th e Pallasades, in which each indi vidual member of the oncoming stream of p edest rians appea rs cont inu ally to rise and subside in a manner tha t correspon ds not at all to our ordinary sense of th e hum an gait (obviously we psychically "correc t " for the up-down mov eme nt of our forward str ide, an d for that mat ter ordinarily fail to recog niz e it in th e locomot ion of ot hers). T he effect is rather of persons bob bing rhythmically up an d down o n th e surfa ce of a curr ent or being carri ed forward by a succession of sm all waves, wh ich is to say, first, that the walkers are rend ere d curious ly ligh t , and seco nd , that th ey appea r not so much selfmoving as mov ed by (benig n ) forces beyond themselves. 2 1 In othe r vid eos , speech seems to come to Streuli's subj ects fr om out side , an effect enha nced by t he fact that we are often not shown the person addre ssed. (Noth ing looks o dd er in slow motion tha n th e advent of speech, with its suggesti o n of mus cular movement in and arou nd the mouth and eyes before a word is spo ken. ) Both th e lightness and the "mo ved ness" are epitomized by a recurren t motif , women's ha ir being lifted in a breeze, often illumin ate d by strong sunlight (part icu larly vivid in George Street Bus Stop) . In Heinr ich van Kleist's essay "O n the Puppet Theat er " {r8ro), one of the master theoret ical texts in th e antithe atrical trad ition , Mr C., a lea din g dancer, seeks to prove to th e first-person narrator that puppets worked by strin gs have it in them to surp ass any human co mp etit or in gracefulness, not on ly by vir tu e of th eir comp lete lack of affectatio n but also because of th e actual mechanics of th eir ope rati on. Such pupp ets, C. remarks, "' have the advantage of countergravity . For th ey know nothing of the inertia of matter, which of all pro perties
street pho t ography revis ited: jeff wa l l, beat str eul i, phi lip -lorca d ico rcia
245
is th e most obstructive to the dance: for the force that lifts them into the air is greater than that which pulls them to the ground.' " 22 This is not exactly what one finds in The Pallasades and other videos of peop le on the move, but it sufficientl y evokes the almost magica l transformation of wa lkin g in Streuli's vid eos to ju stify its citation in this context. There is a lso in Kleist's essay the th eme of motion in a stra ight line giving rise to curves (2rr), wh ich might be ana logized with the revelatio n of wa lkin g straig ht ahead as a kind of wave like mov ement in th e videos . In my discussion of Jeff Wall's work in Chapter One, I called attent ion to an internal division in his art. On the one hand, starting in the early 1990s, he has ofte n depic ted absorbed persons, and more broadly has devised scenes that in one way or another may be seen as seek ing an amitheat rical relation to the viewer (thi s is tru e even of Mimic). On the other, th e conspicuousness of the lightbox apparatus, together wit h the more or less self-evident stagedness (not stag in ess, however) of many of his image s, contrib ute to w hat I ca lled th e to -be-seen ness of his pictures, which if not in conflict with th eir antitheatrica l thematics is at any rate by no means simply aligned with it. (That such to -be-seenness does not irr evocably comprom ise that thematics was suggested in Cha pter One by the terms of Sontag's adm iration of Wall's Dead Troops Talk, and of course it has been basic to everything I have had to say about his work.) My further claim has been that this internal division is character istic of advanced photographic or pictorial art at the p resent moment; I now suggest that Streuli's vid eos are a further, ingenious instanc e of this. For consider: I) Streuli's video images are in numerous respects visually crude or rough , using the terms in a non -pejorative sense. Among those respec ts are a certa in softness of focus, the glaringness of the co lor and the starkness of contrasts of light and dark (Streuli favors sh oot ing in strong sunlight), the way in which persons or vehicles passing in the near foreground loom unnaturall y large and are usually out of focus, the way in w hich such persons or vehicles seem to "shudder" past th e camera, the impre ssion they sometimes convey of a virtual tran sparen cy relati ve to the rest of the scene, and so on. (For Streu Ii, the crudeness or roughne ss - a result of his choice of equ ipment - underscores the sensual impact he wants his work to have .23) 2) In cer tain works, for exa mple Broadway/Prince Street or - 04- or (2001 - 2) and Venice Bea ch 0 9 -2 0 - 0 3 (2003), Streuli do es not hesitate to mix bla ck-a nd-white and co lor images, w ith no inbuilt ra tional e for why one or th e other should prevai l in a given projection or at a part icu lar t ime. 3) For the most part the camera is fixed, but now and th en in certain pro jections it mo ves so as to track a part icu lar individ ual. There is no way of pred icting when this w ill happen or of under sta nding in the m oment or afterward why it doe s. 4) There is no single device gove rnin g the trans ition within a projection from a concentrat ion on one person or pair of persons to a concentration on another; sometimes one sequence of images cuts to th e next sea mlessly, sometimes ima ges briefly overlap before the previous one disso lves and dis appears, and occasionally, in certain projections, th ere are black interval s of va rying leng th s of tim e. Again, no det ectable principle gove rn s these var iat ions.
246
w hy ph ot ograp hy mat t ers as art as never before
5) The soundtr ack too var ies for no a ppar ent reaso n . Sometimes a proj ection or pa rt of a projection is acco mp anied by silence; in other s sound is heard, bur never in th e works I have seen are image and sound synchroni zed . On the contrary, a relati ve ind epend ence of one from th e other is often stressed: by the fact that the sound strikes on e as nothin g more than "backgro und, " by the continuit y of the so undtra ck across abrupt transitions betw een images, by the way in w hich th e soundtr ack is sometimes on a loop that run s on a shorter cycle th a n that of th e projection. 6) Perhap s mo st import ant, a lo ng with the slow motion, Streuli's videos are project ed not singly but two or mor e at a time, more often than not on gallery walls at right ang les to one anoth er. In the origina l showi ng at the Murr ay Guy Gallery of th e works I have been discussing, the two videos for eac h of the four local es were proje cted simult aneously on tw o such wa lls, whi le other works - Broadway and Prince Street or 8th Avenue (2002), a reshootin g at th e same site shown in Figure 152 and 35t h Street n-02-02 invo lve simult aneo us proj ection s on thr ee different wa lls. This mode of split proj ection - the ima ges not merely side by side but orient ed differe ntl y as well - cont inuou sly confront s the viewe r with the need to decide whe re to look even as it compe ls the recog nition that no matt er where he or she choo ses to loo k, so methin g equally va luab le is being missed. In other words, despite what I have called the ontologi ca l seaml essness of the proj ectio ns, an element of fr ustratio n or even anxiety co lors the experiencing of Streuli's work (mor e so in some pieces than in oth ers: in th e case of thr ee-screen works, the viewer is a t all times acutely aware th at mor e is being missed than is being seen). 24 All this a mount s to a co mpr ehensiv e foregroundin g of the apparatus, and while the absorp tive au ra of the projections th emselves is not thereby called into question - ind eed we cannot be sure th at it is not enhanced, by a sense that th e depi cted subjects are going their ow n way in perfect indi fference to w hether or not we are loo kin g at them - the cumulativ e effect of th ese devices is to "fra me " th at aura in a way that forcefu lly acknow ledges it s constru ctedn ess, its to- be-seenness. I should add th at Streuli a lso make s strai ght photog rap hs of pedes tria ns in cities in both co lor and black-and -w hite, such as th ose co llecte d in his photobook , New York (Fig. 15 3 ). These too are taken w ith a telephoto lens of per sons unaware City 2000-02 of being photograp hed, even when, as sometimes happens, th ey are shown wa lking almost dir ectly toward the camera or passing it at w hat seems close range. Beca use of the natur e of the p hotog raphic medium , and also beca use one enco unt ers each image indep end entl y of all th e other s, such photograph s involve nothin g like the range of devices deployed by Streuli in th e videos to " fram e" his subj ects' ab so rption (or distra ction: as I remarked in Chapt er Four, alth ough a less deep condition it co mes to mu ch the same thin g). Yet some devices are in play. For exa mpl e, Stre uli pref ers to shoot in bright sunlight so as to produ ce stro ng effects of light-d ark co ntrast in tandem with large areas of saturated co lor, which together with the ir extreme sha rpn ess of focus give his pictu res a hyperdramatic pre sence that one instin ctively feels is at odd s with thei r ostens ible content. Thi s is especially true of a n impr essive series of pictures, in some o f which his subjects are crop ped just below the wa ist and in others at mid -chest or even above, forcin g co nfro ntat ional inti macy; moreover, the subjects, in bright illum ination ,
street photography revisited: jeff wall, beat streu li, philip-lorca dico rc1a
247
153
Beat Streu li, fro m New York City
2000
- 02 .
C hrom ogen ic process print
sta nd out against a black background that scarcely seems int elligible in " realistic " term s - and yet th e blackn ess is not th e pr oduct of digita l or oth er manipul ation. Th en, too, mor e oft en than not the sunli ght shin es dir ectly int o his subjects ' faces, cau sing them to frow n or squ int or loo k down , express ions w hich on th e on e hand suggest an inn er sta te of th oughtfuln ess or even sadn ess and on th e oth er can seem a pro du ct of t heir situ ation and nothin g more (a strat egy that also turn s up in var ious videos). In either case, howe ver, th eir unawa reness of the camera is self-evident. Another point is th at in all the photo graph s with non -black backgro unds secondar y figur es and obj ects, even on es on ly slightl y rem oved from th e figur e or figur es in the for eground , qui ckly slip out of focus , which again ca lls att ention to the ph oto gra phic appar atu s (blurr ing is not p aintin g's w ay of impl ying distance). All in all, Streuli's photo gra phs are memorab le, even admirab le, but to my mind his mo st ori ginal and comp elling w ork remain s the videos.
248
why photography
matt ers as art as never before
A similar mix of absorptive (or distra ctive) moti fs wit h a foregrounding of the appara tus, hence of to-be-see nn ess, characte rize s mu ch of th e work of th e American photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia. This is a lread y evident in the picture with whic h Pete r Galassi, one of his chief com ment ators, begins h is acco unt of diCorc ia's ac hievement , Mario (1978; Fig. 154). 1n Ga lassi's words: Philip-Lorca di Co rcia began to discover his personal ar tistic vo ice and hi s distinctive photographic method - the two are closely link ed - in the lat e 1970s. For a year or two he had been ph otograp hin g his famil y, and durin g the Christm as holidays in 1978 be made a pictu re of his bro ther Mario in the kitchen , gaz ing into the ope n refrig erator. Th e subject was utt erly ordinary but the photograph was carefu lly plann ed. Th e camera was on a tr ipod and the lighting was suppl emented by an electronic flash hidden in the refrigerator and triggered at the moment of expos ure. DiCorcia leveled the camera, adjus ted and readj usted the light ing, mad e severa l Polaroid test shot s and more than a few exposures, eac h aimin g at th e envisioned result. Eventu ally his method wo uld become more elaborate st ill, but even thi s early picture in volved a fair bit of preparation, requirin g patienc e from Mario as he played hi s hun gry self. The experiment worked, transfor ming th e prosaic incid ent into an enigma. The louver door s are like the curtain ed wings of a stage; within , everythin g welcom es our scrutin y. Adopting Mario's probin g gaze, we study the plentiful foods and trace th e chartr euse tint of th e kit chen wa ll as it loses itself in th e wrinkl es of Mario's shirt, then reappears in th e narrow gap betwe en th e refrigerato r and its open door . Anothe r open door, in the cab inet abo ve the counte r, beckons us but we cannot see inside it any more than we ca n see w hat Mario sees. Th e in exo rable descripti on of the static tabl eau is a psychological vise that tighte ns our atten tion on the unexplained drama. Look ing at a man searc hin g for a sna ck, we see a man co nfr ontin g his fa ilur es and longings.25 Again, obvio us term s of co mp ar ison for Mario, besides Streuli' s vid eos and pho tog raph s of pedestri ans, are Wall's Ad rian Walker an d Richt er's Reading (both of which it antic ipates), an d pr ecedin g tho se co untl ess absorpt ive ca nva ses going ba ck to Chardi n's House of Cards (see Fig. 22) and still ea rlier wo rk s m ainly in the Northe rn tradit ion . Our impress io n, or rath er our first impre ssion, is th at th e m an standi ng before the open refrigerator is abs orbed in wha t he is doin g (searchin g for a snack, Ga lassi suggests). Yet as wit h Wa ll's tran spa rency a nd Richt er's paintin g, or indeed Sherma n 's Untitled Film Stills of ro ughly the same tim e, an instant' s reflection suffices to rul e our th e possibility th at Mario is a cand id ph otograph, th at is, one take n wit hout t he sitter being awa re of the photo gra ph er. For o ne thin g, the latter mu st have been o nly a short distance from the standi ng ma n an d the re is no reason to think he was not in pl ain view of him as we ll. For anoth er, the set-up itself feels ar tificial: M ario stand s in th e cente r of the compositio n and sid eways to th e pictur e-plane as he gazes in to a refrigera tor th e contents of w hich, exce pt for th ose on the insid e of th e open door, cann ot be seen (but as Ga lass i rightl y o bserves, th e compos ition as a w hole we lcom es th e viewer's gaze) . This harks back to the profi le stru ctur e of Chard in's House of Cards, for exa mple , but
street photography
revis ited: jeff wal l. beat streuli,
philip-lorca
dico rc ia
249
154
Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Mario, 1978 . Kodak Ektachro me paper. 38 x 58 cm
what could plausibly be seen as a paradigm of naturalness in Pari s in the 1730s could no longer pass for that in New York or Los Angeles in 1978 - and yet I have quo ted Martin Schwand er respo ndin g to Wall's Adrian Walk er in th e forme r terms (in Chapter Two ), so perhap s my remark s should be somewhat qualified (wh at I earlier called the "magic" of absorption con tinu es to exert its po wer). Finally, th e lighting is peculia r at any rate, th ere is nothing natural about the contrast betw een th e br illiant illum ination striking Mario's face and shirtfront and the greenish cast and relative darkness of the rest of the room ; Galassi explain s how the illuminati on was produced but wha t matt ers to th e viewer is the sense of discrepanc y. The result is an image of all but explicit contradictions - absorptive-seeming but unmistak ably posed, "ut terly ordinar y" (Galassi) and qui etly bizarre , of modest dimen sion s (approx imate ly fifteen by twent ythree inches) but classically composed - and my suggestion is th at precis ely some suc h stru cture of contradiction, varied in its particulars from photo graph to ph otog raph, provides the basis of di Corc ia's artistic practice from that mom ent on. So for examp le in a series of works from the 1980s diCorcia poses persons who ostensibly are unaware of being photogr aphed in that they almo st never gaze at th e photograp her and yet their pos edn ess and absence of candor are never in doubt. Another Mario (198 1; Fig. 155) depicts the photographer's brother sandpapering a distur bingly low ceiling in a room und er renovation; Mario's gaze is directed up but the phot ograp h is taken from directly in front of him and a fairl y short distance away, with the resu lt
250
why photography
matters as art as never before
155
Philip-Lorc a diCorcia, Mario, r98r. Ektacolor print . 76 .2 x roi:.6 cm
that the viewer senses that although Mario appears nominally absorbed in his ta sk he cannot possibly be unaware of being photographed. 26 Much the same can be said of Max (1983 ), a variation on the first Mario (here the protagonist is seated in a low slingback chair as he exhales a stream of cigarette smoke from his mouth), Davide (1985), Igor (1987; Fig. 157), Auden and Emma (1989; Fig. 1 56), another Mario-like arrangement, and Teresa (1990), in each of which the sitter is portrayed as if lost in his or her own thoughts and yet there is not the slightest doubt as to the artificialness of the lighting and mise-en-scene. In Auden and Emma, for example, th e br illiant illum ination falling on the blue armchair casts the black Scottie's shadow on the side of the chair even as the dog itself gazes directly at the photographer - a sign of candor (but conveyed by an animal). Igor for its part pays humorous homage to Evans's "Subway Portrait s," but inst ead of having been shot with a hidden camera and revealing a private state of mind (acco rding to the standard account), diCo rcia' s ima ge seems palpabl y staged, th ereby und ercu tting the point of Evans's project. Igor rests his head against the Subway map behind him and looks vaguely upward, as if in a state of reverie; at the same time, the pointblankness of the mise-en-scene, the bright illuminati on that strikes his forehead and casts the shadow of his head and collar against the map , and the farther comic detail of his holding in his left hand a plastic sack containing wa ter and a goldfish, all declare the seated man 's willing participation in the mak ing of the picture. "One's interiority is not really perceivable on the surface," diCorcia
street photography
revisited : jeff wa ll, beat streuli,
ph ilip- lorca d icorcia
251
156
Philip -Lor ca diCorcia, Auden and Emma, 1989 . Ekt acolo r print. 50.8 x 6r cm
has remark ed, 27 a stateme nt th at his early portraits - if that is what th ey are - seem intent on justifying. H oweve r, it is a striking fact about those works that they do so by flirting with or at least a lludin g to the idea of absorption and/or reverie and the absorptive ideal of th e subj ect's obliviousness to being behe ld - as if their stagedness, their to-be-seenn ess, was given added point, made all th e more self-evident, by virtu e of that fact. A fundam entally different approach yields curiou sly ana logo us results in diCorcia's exper iments in street photo graphy of the first half of the 1990s (and after ). I have in mind pictur es such as Los Ange les (1993; Fig. 158 ), Ne w York (1993), and Naples (199 5), in whi ch ped estrians on city streets are cap tur ed approaching the camera, either directl y or at a slight angle. "Workin g in eight major cities including London , Rom e, Ne w York and Tokyo," Sophie Clark explain s, "diC orc ia set up a system of flash-light s in th e street and then stood several feet awa y, hidden from immediat e view. The camer a and lights were both synchroni zed to a radio signal that diCorc ia could trip whenever som eone int erest ing walked by. " 28 (It is sometimes said that the pedestrian s triggered the ta king of the ph otograph s by breaking the beam of an electric eye, but that is not the case.) In a mor e int erpreti ve vein, Clark continue s: Th e res ultin g ph otogra phs seem to offer a commentar y on the so litude of modern living, the th eatrica l lightin g spotli ghtin g just on e individual in a bu sy street, and
252
why photography
ma tters as art as never befo re
157 Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Igor , L987. Chrom ogenic proc ess pr int. 50 .8 x 6 1 cm
show ing the way in which peop le fail to relat e to one anoth er. Di scussing thi s con trad ictory noti on of so litu de within th e metrop olis, d iCorc ia comm ent ed , "the str eet does not indu ce peop le to shed their self-awa ren ess. Th ey seem to withdraw int o th emselves. They beco m e less awa re of th eir surro un dings, seeming ly los t in th emselves. Th eir image is the outward fac ing front belied by th e inwar dly gaz ing eyes. " [258] This goes beyond say ing that on e's inter iorit y is not per ceiva ble on t he su rfa ce; rather the idea seems to be that peo ple on th e str eet in big cities wear ex pr essio ns o f inten se inwar dne ss, even as th e content of th eir inn er lives is not th ereby mad e accessib le to viewers. Thi s is pre tty much the stan dard lin e on stree t photograph y of th e " un aw are" (Barches wo uld say "s urpris e") variet y, but wha t sets diCorcia 's str eet photograph s a part from earli er work in that tr adition is th e dram atic to- be-seenn ess, not to say theatrica lity, impart ed to th e image in the first pla ce by the hidde n flas hes (Ga lass i co mp ares them to " th e cr escendo of vio lins that an noun ces th e crux of a movi e's dra ma " [14] ) and in the second by a sens e of captur e, even of vio lence, that seem s to be a by-prod uct both of th e unn aturalnes s of th e flash es and of th e dispositif of instant aneo usly dep ictin g peop le as th ey app ro ac h th e cam era w ithout regard to whe th er th ey become aware of it or not. The woman with red hair in New York (1993 ) and perhaps also th e man in a topcoa t in Nap les (1995) give th e imp ress io n of just thi s instant noti cing what is going
st reet pho t ography revisited : jeff wall , beat streuli, philip -lorca dicorcia
253
,
,?
~
;-- -158
Philip -Lo rca diCorcia, Los Angel es, 1993 . Chromo genic pro cess pr int. 76 .2 x
10
r.6 cm
on, and in both cases the effect is of the came ra's indifferenc e to thei r feelings. The man with long unk empt hair and an open wi ndbr ea ker in Los Angeles (1993) appears unaw are of the camera, but there is an even grea ter sense of violence imp licit in photograp hica lly arresting him in his dissheveled state. It follows that with respect to expression the pic tures in question differ radica lly from Streuli 's videos, in whic h the hiddenness of the camera fun ctions not as a means of cap tur e but, it may seem paradoxica lly, as a medium of release . (DiCo rci a's st reet ph otos are "cold," not " warm.") H oweve r, from the point of view of the argum ent of this book, what links their respec tive projec ts - an assertion of to-be-seenness in the contex t of the issue of absorption or distraction, hence un awareness - is mo re imp ortant th an w hat secs them apart . A more co mpl ex and much admired str eetscape of the same period, N ew York (199 3; Fig. 159), take n near Times Squar e, makes this point almost prog ram matica lly. In it, Mark Stevens wr ites, DiCorcia frames severa l people in close proximity, eac h of whom appears intensely self-abso rbed. In the cent er background [I wou ld say middl e distanc e1,a blind beggar, his face illumin ated , sta res skywar d. In th e fo regroun d, a man walks ahead with his fingers touching, as if he were leading a religious procession; he is followed by a man lost in monkish concentration. To the right th ere is a street preacher and to the left, a ma n on the phone. Part of the pictu re's wit is the bea utifu lly broken rhyme estab-
254
why photography
matters as art as never before
159 Philip-Lorca diCo rcia, New York, 1993. Chromogenic pro cess print. 76.2 x ror.6 cm
lished between the preach er's mike and the man's telephone receiver . Should the two wired men be talking? New York (r993 ) has a strangely religious quality but the photographer do es not force thi s upon the viewer. 29 What Stevens calls the pictur e's religious quality is a function of the figures' self-absorption (note the adjective "monki sh"), which is to say their air of apparent obli viousne ss to being photographed (and ultimately to being seen ), though it probably also ha s somethin g to do with the blind beggar's upward tilt of the head as well as with the especially bright illumination from diCorcia's lights that strike s him from the left rear, outlining, almost haloing, the right contour of his coat in light and casting a dark shadow on th e pavement at his feet. (The sunlight, in contra st, shines down right to left. ) The beggar is also in sharper focus than any other figure , which tog ether with the lighting and his central position make s him the picture's protagonist. In Ab sorption and Theatricality I not ed th e use of the theme of blindne ss by mid - and lat e eight eenth-centur y French painters and suggested that its attractiveness to them was based on the idea that a blind person would be unaware of being beheld and hence could serve as a template for an antitheatrical state of mind. 30 And in Chapter Three I
street photography
rev isited: jef f w all, beat streu li, philip -lo rca d icorcia
255
compar ed Jeff Wa ll's Blind Window No. I and Blind Window No. 2 with Pau l Stra nd 's Blind of r9 16 (see Figs. 52-4 ), a close-up im age of a blind woma n and one of the ca no nical images in ea rly mod ernist ph otogra phy, and suggested th a t th ese too were impli cated in an antith ea trica l pro blemat ic. As Stevens impli es, the isolation of the blind beggar in diCorcia's photog rap h is fram ed by th e self-ab sor pti on (Stevens's wo rd ) of a ll th e othe r person s, th ough it is ju st possib le that the man in p ro file at th e left-han d edge of the image is look ing toward him (we noti ce on ly the ma n in pr ofile, if we do at all, after close inspection of th e image). At the sa me tim e, the picture as a who le, by virtu e of its lighti ng , its frontality, and th e brillian ce of its mise-en-scene, not to mention the gra phic w it of the park ing sign abo ve th e "m onki sh" man , is on th e side of to-b eseenn ess. (Note too the similar ity of st ructu re to Wall's Mimic of more than ten years before. On e cou ld even ima gine, in th e after math of Wa ll's breakthroug h achiev ement , th at di Co rcia's New York wa s simil ar ly cast, rehearsed, repeatedl y photog raph ed, and digitally impro ved by th e photo grap her, th oug h in fact it was not. ) Earlier in th e same art icle Stevens rema rks, "Ma n y of [diCo rcia's) pe destr ian s assume wo nderfully artless poses, as if surpri sed in a mom ent of unconsc iou s stre et th eate r " (97). In a r 999 a rticle on oth er stree t photo g raphs with multiple figure s, Andy Grundb erg wr ites: Whil e peo ple ma y be the ma in subject of th ese p ictur es, it' s th e lighting th at keeps yo u entr anced . Sun shines in most of them, but th e shadows seldom correspond to its position . Electro nic flash illumin at ion pro vides the unex pected shad ows as we ll as une xpect ed highli ghts . By han ging his flash light s on lam p po les and street signs, hidd en high and o ut side th e field of view, di Corc ia ens ures th at his relat ion to th e subj ect is indi rect. He sets up h is camera near by and wa its for his unsuspect ing actor s to p erform . Few of his p rincipal subjects seem awa re th at th ey are the centers of lenti cular att enti on, w hich th en serves to deflect the viewe r's awarene ss of th e photograph er's pr esence. As a result , we are left with images th at draw att ent ion to them selves but not the ir ma ker.3 1 Th e poses are ar tless, uncon scio us, but somehow th ea tr ical, wh ich for D idero t would be a co ntradiction in term s (the wor d "poses" itself is scar ce ly neutral with respec t to th eatri ca lity); th e per son s in the photo graph s are un awa re and unsuspec tin g but th ey are neverth eless actor s a nd w hat the y ar e said to do is perform (Did erot wo uld have a har d tim e with thi s as we ll); and th e images th at result ca ll atten tion to t hemselves thi s co uld be a definit ion of to -be-seenn ess - but not to the p ho tographer, thou gh Gru ndberg also goes on to remark that diC orcia's "autho ria l presence is by no means tran spare nt " an d conclude s by suggest ing th at it may be "pr ecisely th is inh erent cont radi ctio n - th e p ho tograp her 's simult aneo us pre sence and absence - that m akes any tid y readin g of his images so peculiar ly elusive " (83) . I take it that by now the reader has reco gnized a fami liar sta te of affa irs. Prett y mu ch th e sa me "inh ere nt co ntr ad ictio n" is rend ere d even more int ense in a late r series of ph otograp hs, heads (200 1), wh ich as its title suggests "focuses o n th e head and should ers of indi vidu als, th e str ength of th e flash bu lb blacking out the major ity of th e background informatio n " (Fig . 160) .32 No t surp risingly, given thi s descripti on, th e
256
why p hot og raphy matte r s as art as never before
c6o Philip-Lorca d iCorcia, head #5,
2000.
Chromogen ic process print.
r 2r.9
x 152.4 cm
photograph s in quest ion have much in co mmo n w ith many of those in Streu li's New York City 2 00 0 - 02 . Ind eed all the pictures in heads were taken in New York, specifically in Times Square, and once again the protagonists - captured at long distance wi th a telephoto lens - appear obliv iou s of being photographed . For the first time in diCorcia's wo rk, though, the images are larger th an lifesize, and the com bin ation of largeness of scale, extr eme light/da rk contrast, and satur ated local hu es - products of the ar tificial lighting - jux tapose d agai nst the mostly black backgro und s gives them tremendous dramatic force. "It might be possib le to read some of these pictures as actu al stage sho ts if they we re viewed sing ly and bereft of co nte xt," Luc Sante writes, "b ut for the obv iou s absorptio n of his subjec ts." He continu es:
street photography
revisi t ed : jef f wall, beat streu li, philip-lo rca dicorcia
257
Their thought s may very well define banalit y, but th e lighting, in isolating and highlighting them, in putting them unknowing on a stage for an audience of one [presumably the viewer], afflicts these thought s with an almost unbea ra ble gravity. The lighting suggests organ or theremin mu sic, suggests thunder and lightn ing, suggests th e private amusement of an extraterrestrial mast er race or the inspection tour of a deity. 33 For Vince Aletti in A rtforum, "Because the subjects of diCo rcia's larger-than-lif e head shot s are unaware that their pictur es are being taken, th ey exist in a weird sta te of grace " 34 (that word again), a remark that chimes with Sante's metaphors and Stevens's ascription of a religiou s quality to New York. This is what absorption even w hen wedded to to-be- seenness can do to commentators: trigger religious rhetoric in them. But of course the high mod ernist abstract painting and sculpture of the 1960s, which I claimed was fundamentally antitheatrical, had a similar impact on me at th e close of "Art and Objecthood." Finally, di Corcia's recent photobook, A Storybook Life (2003), gathers seventy-five color photo gra ph s of identical dim ensions (seventy-six if one include s the cover imag e) mad e between 1977 and 1999 in a sing le continuous uncaptioned sequ ence. 35 There is no discern ible narrativ e or subtext of any sort (the list of plates at the back gives only locations and dates ), no detectable principle of arrangement (the images are not in chronological order), in sh ort nothin g to guide th e reader/view er through the book other than the pictu res themselv es. This may seem to undercut the import ance of sequence but in fact a subliminal sense of sequ entiality soon becomes an active factor in one's " reading " of the whole. H ere it matte rs that the pictures appear only on th e recto of the bound pages, the white verso of th e previous page being blank excep t for the faintest pos sible indication of the numb er of the facing image (compar e the structure of Delaha ye's L' Autre ). This has the effect of concentr a ting the reader/view er's attention on each pictur e in turn and it also , after a while, gives rise to a dawning awareness, which becomes more acute as the "reading" proceeds , that while th e compositions of the individual images are fairly diverse, in only a handful of image s - four or five at mo st - does a subj ect look directly at the camer a (none more directl y than a cat). Ind eed a numb er of the most striking imag es feature persons - Coney Island (199 4; Fig. 16 1) is a case in point - who face or look point edly into th e depths of the pictur e (in fact this emerges as a kind of leitmotif of the boo k); others - includin g Mario (1981) and a few other early photogr ap hs - depict person s in obviously stag ed scenes of ostensible absorption (in one such image, Los Angeles [1990 ], a man seated on the ground and coaxing a small white dog could hardl y be nearer the camera, which was positioned near th e ground as well ); and still others show figures lying down or asleep and ther efor e seemingly disengaged from all relation to the photo graph er. The cumulative effect of turnin g slowly through the book thu s becomes to a significant degree one of registering in sequ ence a range of ways in which th e subject or subjects of a picture can avoid, or be instructed to avoid, directly engaging the camera - a basic feature of mo vies, as ha s been noted. Even the images that have no peop le in them, roughly a third of th e total, tak e on, in thi s cont ext, a self-consciously abandoned, came ra -avers ive feel. Finall y, A Story-
258
w hy pho t ography ma tters as art as never before
161
Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Coney Island , 1994 . Fro m A Storybook Life, 2003
book Life begins and end s with shot s of a beard ed man, the phot ogra ph er 's father, lying on his back w ith his eyes close d - in the first image on a bed (with th e TV on but of co urse the person on th e scree n cannot see what lies beyond th e screen ), in th e second in an open co ffin at th e fro nt of a funera l pa rlor (the camera is pos itioned towar d the rear of the roo m and to th e side, behind rows of empty cha irs). All thi s is to say th at A Storybook Life ingeniously reinvent s t he genr e of the photo boo k as an apparat us or techno logy for themat izing an an tith eatri cal relat ion between image and viewer, even as the cum ulative impr ession of th e stage dn ess of many of th e images together with th e recogniti on by the viewer of his or her active ro le in brin ging the a ntith eatri cal theme to light - by turnin g the pages, gra du ally recog nizing th e preva lence of the motif of avo idance of eye-cont act w ith the camera, increas ingly becomin g awa re of stru ctu ra l similar ities betwee n widely sepa rated images and turnin g back to check, and so on amounts to a further, un expected twist to the imperative co ncernin g to-be-seenness that I have been track ing thr oughout thi s book .
stree t photograp hy revisited:
j etf wa ll, bea t st reul i, philip -l o rca dicorcia
259
162
Thomas Demand, Archive, 1995. Chrom ogenic process print with diasec. 183.5 x 233 cm
thomas demand's allego ries of intention; "excl usion" in candida hofer, hiroshi sugimoto,
9
and thoma s struth
Thomas Dem and was born in r 964, which makes him roughly ten years younger than $truth, Ruff, and Gursky . 1 Like them he studied at the Diisseldorf academy, but unlike them his initial formation was as a sculptor , and there is an important sense in which a certain sculptural practice lies at the co re of his photography (as has oft en been said). In a catalogue essa y, Dean Sobel describes Demand's procedure as follow s, starting with the end product, the photog raph itself: "r. Thomas Demand makes large-sca le color photographs . 2. Hi s photograp hs are of life-size paper mode ls he makes himself. 3. These models are recreations of actua l p laces . 4. He bases th e mode ls on image s he obta ins from a variety of sources. " 2 This way of putting Demand 's proj ect has the virtue o f emphasizing its photographic celos, but it needs to be supplemented by an account that runs fron1 start to finish. "As a ru le, Demand begins with an image," Rosana Marcoci writes in her essay in the cata logue of tbe exhibition at tbe Musetun of Modern Art, New York, in 2005, "us uall y, although not exclusively, from a phot ograp h cu lled from the media, which he tran slates imo a three-dimensiona l life-size paper mode l. Then he cakes a picture of the model with a Swiss-made Sinar, a large-format camera with telescopic lens for enhanced reso lut ion and heighte ned verisimilitude. Contributing to the overa ll illusion of realiry, his large-scale photographs are laminated behind Plexigla s and displayed without a frame .... Thus, his phorographs are triply removed from the scenes or objects they depict . " 3 . Among the subjects Demand has ex ploited one recu rrent type has been describ ed by variou s co mmentators as th e scene of a crime (loosely speaking). 4 So for example Room (1994; Fig. 163) looks back to a ph otog raph of Hitl er's headquar ters ar R aste nbur g, East Prussia, afte1· the failed bomb attempt on his life of July 2.0, 1944; Corridor ( 1995; Fig. I65), one of his best -known works , is based on a hallway in the Milwauk ee apa rtment hous e where th e serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer lived and com.mined atrocious murd ers; Archive (1995; Fig. 162) alludes to Leni Riefenstah l's film archive, Riefensrahl having been th e maker of Triumph of the Will, the notor ious propaganda film about the Nazi Pa rry's rally in Nuremb erg in 1934; Office (1995), with scattered papers everywhere, is based on images of looted Stasi offices following tbe collapse of East Ger many in r989; Bathroom (Beau Rivage) (199 7; Fig. r66 ), another well-known image, reproduces a news photograph of a barhrub in a Geneva hotel in w l:ticb a prominent Germ a n politician was found dead und er mysterious circumstances in r987; Camping Table (r999; Fig. 167) derives from a photograph sent by th e kidnappers of Jan Philipp
thomas demand, candida heif er, hiroshi sugimoto. and thomas struth
26 1
I63
Tbomas Demand, Room, 1994. Chromogenic process print with diasec . r83.5 x 270 cm
Reemtsma in March 1996 to show thar he was still alive (rhe camping tab le was in the background of that phorograph );; Podium (2000), refers to rhe Serbian leader Slobodan Milosovic's inflammacor y speec h on June 28, 1989, the sixth- hundredth anniversary of the battle of Kosovo; Model (2000), is taken from a photograph of Hitler and his favorite architect, Albert Speer, look ing at a mode l of the German pavilion designed by Speer for the International Exposition in Pa ris in 1937; Poll (2001; Fig. 168) depicts rhc Emergency Operations Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, where a manual recount of some 425,000 ballots took p lace in 2000 in hopes of (legitimatel y) determining whether Al Gore or George W. Bush would be presidenr of the United States; 6 and Kitchen (2004) is based on a photograph of Saddam Hussein's hideout in 1Iaq. Two sho rr films also fir this pattern: Escalator (2000), a loop comprising rwenry-four srill ima ges, evokes a location near Charing Cross in London that muggers passed through before at ta cking a cou ple (and killing one of chem); and Tunnel (t999) depicts the passage through a model of the tunnel in Paris where Princess Diana died. Other specific locales reconsrructed and then pho tographed include che dormitory room in which Bill Gares created his first computer operating system (Corner f1996J); the hote l room in which L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Sciento logy, wrote Dianetics (Room I1996 ]); che office where rhe rebuilding of the ciry of Munich was planned after the Second World
262
why p1,01ography matters as art as never before
T64 Thomas Demand, Barn, 1997. Chromogcnic process prin t with diasec.
J 83.5
x .2.54cm
War (Drafting Room f1996]); the barn on Lo ng [sla nd where Hans Namuth phocograp hed Jackso n Po llock making one of his all-over drip paint ings in r950 (Barn [1997 ; Fig. 1641); and an underground room in which an Austrian miner was trapped in total darkness for almost ten days before being miracul o usly rescued (Pit [1999) ).7 ln addi tion there are works based on more o r less straightforward architectural motifs - fo r example, Staircase ( t 99 5) - and photographs that fit none of these categories, such as Studio (1997), which for a German audie nce recalls rhe set of th e popular TV show Was bin ich? (W hat's My Line? - a question char might be asked by Demand h imself); Laboratory (2000; Fig. 172), imagi ng a n anechoic chamber, used in the motor indu stry for testing engine no ise levels; Collection (2001; fig. 171), based o n photographs of the singer Engelbert Humperdinck's coJlectioo of best-selling go ld reco rds; a nd S1>ace Simulator (2003 ), a roughly ten -by-fourt een- foot image of th e device used for training American astro na uts. Fina lly, there are photograp hs based on paper simulacra of grass (Lawn 11998 1), a nd of thick foliage with lighr filtering through it (Clearing [2003; Fig. r7ol). Several points are wo rth emph asiz ing. T he first concern s Demand's choice of an image - gene rally from newspapers, media, or the internet - and even more his subsequem investigatio n of the circums tances of its produc tion. As he says in an illuminating interview with Ruedi Widmer:
chomas demand, candida hofer h1roshi sugimoto. and th omas stru th
263
You have ro have a sense of where the photo has come from. I try to find the photographer, the p ublish er, how it came to the photo agency. And I ofte n discover even more interesting photos in the process. For example this Corridor. 1 was looking for the inte rior of Jeffrey Dah mer 's apartme nt, the mass murderer who was beaten to death in prison with a broom a few years ago . H e had killed six or seven black guys. Dahmer is a nega tive American idol. 1 saw a pho to of his apartme nt on a p lane once. I tded co get hold of it and went ro Milwaukee. Everyone ro ld me char th ese photos of Dahmer's apartment didn't exist - where he had bad some of his victims in rhe shower - because the po lice had not let anyone take any pictures there. Th en I went ro rhe place the house was loca ted. Bur since the evidence had been heard, the house had been pul led down, for one thing because no one wanted to live there and, for another, because a kind of touris m was sta rring that th e city wanted to avo id at all costs. So thi s place no longer exists eit her. I found th e ph oto Later, someo ne show ed it ro me. Althoug h it's not really interesting, I saw hundreds of photos of this hallway and of the ou tside of the hou se wh ile I was trying to get hold of tbe phows. T he hallway becomes the qu intessence of the banality l was looki ng for in the apartme nt and jn the photo, but which 1 coul dn 't find. (II) A second point, stressed by almost all his comm entators, concerns the viewer's two-stage response to his photog raphs - a first stage in which the image seems cold and a bstr act but ot herw ise unexceptional, and a second stage in which the viewer senses that something {ind eed everything) is "off" or wrong, and progressively comes co recognize, from different sorts of clues, that che ostensib le subjec t of rhe image is nothing mo re nor less than a reco nstruc tion. In Fran~ois Quinton's account: When yo u look ac an image by Deman d, everyt hing seems unifo rm , regular, buc traces of their making can stil l be seen in certain areas. Each deta il gives warning: what you see is nor the reality o f what is sbo wn. This fragile con struc tion of cut and folded paper reveals its imperfectio ns. "1 don't cue our paper on pur pose so tha t you ca n see how it was cur fDemand has said j. Bur it is true char at every stage T can choose whet her or not to leave chesc visible flaws. O ver rime I have developed a more acute sense of thi s kind of sub tlety. That, maybe, is the perfectio n my efforts are direc ted at. " 8 Actually, this scarce ly ackno wledges how perspicuous th e stran geness or "off ness" of Deman d 's images ofte n is: one sees scat tered papers wit hout wr iting on them; boxes, bottles, and rubes without logos; telephones witho ut but tons or numb ers; ballo ts without names or markings; light sw itches with o ut on- off mechanisms; above all there is a comp lete absence of signs of wear an d tear or ocher ind ication s of use. (fr goes wit hout say ing tba t there ar e no persons in view.) As Deman d states: The product io n of mod els is ar the co re of a comp lex process. My wor k rea lly developed out of sculpture. The surroundi ngs that l portray are for me so mething untouched, a utopic con struction. No traces of use are visible o n their surfaces, and time seems to have come to a stop. From chis arises a paradoxica l state of inde ccr-
264
why photography matters as art as never before
165 Thomas Demand , Corridor, r995. Cbromogenic process print with diascc. L83.5 x 2.70cm
mina cy, which of course in one sense opposes the idea of momenta riness (so important to the beginn ings o f photography) but also opposes the true natu re of sculpt ure . . . . [W]hat one might be justi fie
thomas demand, cand 1da hoter, h 1rosh1 sug,moto, and t11omas srru1h
265
interested in the fact that something has entered circulation in the form of a photo. And then l want to know how far you can abstract something without the work losing its autono my ... " (u -14 ). Third, a related point, the photographs themselves, once one has grasped the constructedness of their 1·eferents, are deeply disconcerting, which I take it is what Demand means by the reference to "indeterm inacy " - what exactly is the viewer to mak e of them? (Mor:e on determinacy versus indeterminacy farther on. ) Thus Parv eeo Adams: "Con front ed by these umu flled, silent office interiors, these unpeopled rooms, these blind balconies and these frozen garages, I no longer knew what it was that r was looking at. Neither beckonin g nor sinister, these pictures couldn' t be includ ed in the world. " 10 "Demand's world is a paper world," she continues, but of course the question is whether one can speak of his photographs imaging a world ar all. Regis Durand illuminatingly characterizes "the paradoxical impression Demand's work s make on us" as follows: As pho rographs they capture some part of their subj ect's energy, its dull , obs tinate, mysterious presence. Something was there, and they are linked to this object, its name, its meaning, its history (and this is aside from the fact that what we have before us is a visual trick, a reconstruction), but nothing in these images vibrates; they do nor elicit any projected desire or presence on our part. The space is entirely saturated, without depth a nd with no hint of anyt hing outside it. Rather than looking for references to minimal arr here, we need to realise that this saturation , this slightly suffocating dullness, is at the heart of the artist's inten tions. For, beneath their varying for mal appearances, the und erlying ronalicy of these works remains the same: there is the same saturation of motifs, the same unnatural light- a light that is only meant ro give so me sense of volume to the objects wit hout suggesting any depth of field. 11 By "saturation" Durand refers co the qu ality the photograph s convey of wanting nothing from the viewer, of giving him or her no opportunity for empathic projection of any kind, indeed of contravening rhc very possibility of imaginin g any relation co the depicted scenes other than one of mere a lie11ated looking. Demand hjm self thinks of this in terms of the depiction of a certain sort of place. Demand to Widmer: I wonder - What are the key derails that have to be included to make rhe place a place [Ortl , as oppose d to a common place lAllgemeinplatzJ . J don 't want to show the desk as such , bur rather this particular desk that we have in our minds. The important thing here is bow the picture is taken. Io the bathroom fwhere the German politjcian Barsc hel diedl it is the way the bath mac is lying there. And the fact that someone is standin g there raking pictur es. It gives the viewer a sense of security. A feeling that he has nothing to do with it .. . [n J Bur of co urse this "sense of security" or "feeling chat be has nothing to do with it" is precisely a way of emo rionall y and imaginatively shu tting the viewer out- of "excl ud ing" him or her, to use the term I int roduce d apropos Busrarnante's Tableaux in Chapter One. H ere is one more exchange between Widmer and Demand:
266
why photography matters as an as never before
166
Thoma s Demand, Bathroom (Beau Rivage), 1997. Chromogenic process print with diasec.
160 x 12l. cm
So wbar has rebuilding places gor to do with re-experiencing evenrs? The funny thing is, once yo u've finished a place and you've got it right in front of you, large as life, you can go throug h it Like a computer simulation. You don't actu ally exist yourself. This sense of timelessne ss and virginity, a feeling that everyt hin g is new and unused, communicates itself ro the viewer mo ving around in chis kind of space. RW: That might have co do with the face char rebuildin g- much like cordoning off a crime scene - actually cu rs off the space of events from the space of its perception. TD: Or you might say: The subseque nt visitor 's presence is absolutely exclusive. There is no outside , there is no public sphere, there are no ot her peop le in there. There is only rhe person per se. Bur the funny thing is rhar you can still use most of your exper ience of life. Th e only thing is rhar rhe comext you train ed it in has comp letely disappeared. [r5] RW:
TD:
Demand seems co be referring (ar least at fast) co the models alone, bur his remarks also apply, making allowance for the fact char the viewer is not actually moving through the co nstructed places, co the photog raphs he makes of them. As he also says of h.is project as a w hol e, "I'm sitting in the very same media world as you arc, an d l realise char there are places that we all know bur have never set foot in. And 1 feel rhar it's a lot better to sray in these places and reinterpret what's there than to invent new rhings. It's a kind of privatisation of che pub lic world of images instead of just going along with creating more and more new images that compe te with each other ... " (14). Put sligh tly differently, Dem a nd 's project- as various wri,cers have recognized amounts to a reimagi.ning of the traditiona l link between photographs and indexica lity. " Every photograph is the result of a physical imprint transferred by light reflections onto a sensitive surfac e," Ro salind l
268
why photography
matters as art as never before
r67 Thomn s Deman d, Camping Table, I999. Chromogenic process print with dinsec. 8 5 x 58 cm
by the repea ted choice of scenes of crimes or other notable events , scenes that in their origina l (or origina lly photogr ap hed) manifestati ons inevitably bore traces of the history of those events on their surfaces. This is why the German police closely stu died the photograph of the kidnapped R eemstma for clues as to his whereabo uts. It is also why curiosity-seekers in M ilwauk ee kep t visiting the apartment house in w hich D aluner had lived, and why finally a redevelopment agency there had no reco urse but to tear the building down in order to prevent that happening . The quest ion, of co urse, is why Demand has chosen to proceed as he has done - what the artistic an d intellect ual poi nt of so labor-intensive and in obvious respects so bizarre an endeavor has been . Insistin g on the importance of the fact that Deman d started our his artistic life as a sculptor provides no satisfying answ er: why sho u ld sculptural ambition s have led to reconstruct ing already or formerly existing thin gs and places, and w hy
thom as dema nd: candida hofer, hirosh 1 sug1moto, and thomas struth
269
then go on to photograph the reconstructions? Nor, to my mind , do statements such as Marcoci's "D emand 's Bathroom points co the evasions and ultimately ro rhe failure of photography's attempt to tmderstand the violence behind the apparent ambiguity of political life" (22), or her closing claim that "Demand ensures that photography becomes a vehicle of consciousness as much as a form of testimony to seeing anew" (27). (The re is plenty more in Demand criticism in this vein.) I propose a different account of what Demand has been up to during rhe past fifteen or so years. ln "Art and Objecthood" and related essays, I drew a sha rp distinctio n between modernist painting and sculpture and the work and writings of the minimatists, or as I mainly called chem, literalisrs- Donald Judd, Robert Morris, Cad Audre, and Tony Smit h, among others. 13 To the Jireralisrs, what manered or ought to have mattered was not the relationships within a work of arr, as in high modernist painting and scu lptu re, but the relationship between the literalist work and the experiencing subject, as the latter was inv.ited to activate (and in effect co produce) that relationship over time by ent ering the space of ex hibition, approaching or moving away from or circumnavigating the ostensible work (or in the case of Carl Andre's floor pieces> walking on ir), comparing changing views of rhe work with an intellectual comprehension of its basic form, and so on. To quote Morris (as 1 did in "Arr and Objecthood"): The better new work rakes relationships out of th e work and makes them a function of space, Light, and the viewer's field of vision. The object is but one of the terms in the newer aesthetic. It is in some way more reflexive, because o ne's awareness of oneself existing in rhe same space as the work is stronger than in previous work, with its many internal relationships. One is more aware than before thar he himself is establishing relationships as he apprehends the object from various positions and Lmder varying conditions of light and spatial context. [1 53]'"* Whar mattered, in ot her words, was the sub ject's actua l, real-rime experience of the work, or rather of the total situation in which the work was encountered, a situation that, as l put it in "Ai:t and Objecthood," "virtually by definition, includes the beholder" 15 - which is also to say that to refer co the relationship in ques tion as lying "between" the work and the beholder does not quite capture the licera lisc idea (nor does "beholder" quire fit the case). The literalisr work, in other words, was by definition incomp lete without the experiencing subject, which is what l meant by characterizing such work as theatrical in the pejorative sense of the term. High modernist paintings and sculptures, in contrast, I claimed were fundamemaUy antir hear rical in that (to speak on ly somewhat metaphorically) they took no notice of the beholder, who was left to come to terms with them - to make sense of the relationships they comprised - as best he or she co uld. (Th at high modernist paintings like Morris Louis's "Unfurleds" may be said to face the beholder with extraordinary directness makes their str uctural incliffcrence to his or ber actual presence before them only the more perspicuous.) A further contrast, which in "Arr and Objecthood" remains largely implic it, concerns the fact that whereas in modernist paintings and sculptur es the constituent relationships were intended by the artist> 16 the relationship betwe en the literalist work and the
270
w hy photography matters as art as never before
exper iencing subj ect, although conditioned in a genera l way by the circum stances of exhibition, was understood by the litera lists as emph at ically not dete rmin ed by the work icseli a nd therefore as not intend ed as such by its maker. On the contrary, the pr imacy of experience in the sens e stated above meant that meaning in literalism was essenti a lly indeterminate, every subjec t's necessaril y unique reaJ-time response to a given wor k-in-a-s ituation standing on an equal footin g with every other's . 17 Viewed in th is co ntex t, che mean ing of Demand' s project comes into focus. Simply put, he a ims co rep lace the original scene of evidenti ary tra ces and marks of hum an use - or rather he aims to replace one or rno re mediatic images of such a scene- with a counter- image of sheer artistic intention , as thou gh the very bizarreness of the face th at the places and ob jects in the photograph s, despite their initial appeara nce of quotidian " reality," have a ll been constructed by the a rtist throws into conce ptual relief the dete rmining force - also the inscrutability, one might say the opacity - of the intention s behind them. Th is is what Durand 's notion of "satura tion" amounts co: Demand' s pictures are «sa tur ated " with rus intent ions, which is why they leave no room for anything else, why indeed the viewer instinctively recognizes th at he or she is called upon by rhe image to do nothing more than register rhe " madeness" o f all the objec ts on view and of the place in which the y exist. The notion of "saturation" also helps one understand why it is cru cia l that the works in question are photographs and not simp ly the models themselves (pace Dem and 's remarks to Widmer about bein g able to go through his mad e places " like a comput er simula6on "). As actual things in the world, occupying real, tnr ee-dimen sional space, D emand 's models wo uld be no more "s aturated" with his intentions than any other made thing (arr or non-art) is with th e intent ions of its mak er or makers , which is also to say that th ey would be on a par, ontologically speak ing, with d1e larger rea l-world co nt ext (the ar tist's st udio, for examp le, or a n art ga llery or museum) in which th ey were encountered. Wherea s by photographing the objects and places he has constructed (and nothing else), Demand effectiv ely replaces the real -world context with a merel y depicted one, eve ry deta il and aspect of which is exactly what he has intended it to be. So for examp le the determination in and by the photograph s of a particular point of view is in sta rk contrast with the relative inde terminacy in that regard of th e three -dimensional model considered on its own. As Demand remarks ro Alexande r Kluge : "Yo u can walk around a scu lptu re as often as you like, and with photographs - mine are very large so that, as wit h the sculptur es, you can also walk aroun d them - you have a [single, forever fixed] mome nt an d my parti cular angle o f vision. My tyra nnical condition, as it were, is that I presc ribe your vision." 18 This is bac k to Baud elaire on the superi o rity of painting co scul ptur e, quoted by Chevrier in Chap ter Six: " 'A picture ... is o nly what it wants to be; th ere is no way of looking at it fot herl than on its own term s . Paint ing has but one point of view ; it is exclusive and abso lut e.' '' Chev rier's point is that Baud elaire 's views on scuJpture in 1846 anticipate my crit ique in "Art and Objecthood " of minimalisr/litera list objecthood; asro nishi ngly, they a lso ant icipate Demaod' s pho tographic practice. A further dimension of D ema nd 's project emerge s when it is recalled that photography as a medium has traditi onall y been seen as ''weak in intentionality, " in John Berger's
t hemas demand; candi da heifer. hirosh1 sugimoto, and themas st ruth
271
phrase. 111More precisely, it has long been recognized that in the making of phorographs there is "a n irreducible discrepancy between intention and effect, " 20 or ro pur chis more simply, that a photographer docs not know exacrly what he or she has done until the phowgraph is developed. As Winogrand famously said: " 1 phorograpb to find out what some thin g will look like photographed. " 1 1 To which Lee Friedlander famous ly added: "J o nly wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. J got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary's laundry and Beau Jack , the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and seventy-eight trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photo graphy. »u As Fried land er's remarks suggest, Berger's "wea kness in intentiona lity" is correlative with an extraordinary copiousness built into the technology (the photographer in this view always gets more rhan he or she bargained for), a feature of the medium that it has been the genius of certain photographers, Friedlander among tbem, to exploit to the full. (So whatever "weak in intentionality" means, it does not preclud e photography being the vehicle of the st rongest imaginab le inte ntions on the part of gifted photographers. Ar the same time, it is precisely that feature of the oncology of the photograph that underwrites Barth es's notion of the punctum.) In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centur ies the mechanical component in photography was considered by some theorists, including important practitioners, to Rose a dire problem for ir as an an on the gro unds thar a work of arc shou ld be in every particular determined by che maker 's intentions .2 1 fn the co urse of time this ceased to be an issue, 24 in large measure beca use generations of art photographers from the mid-nineteenth century on came increas ingly to be seen as having produced pictures of the highest individuality, and of cotu·se with the advent of digitization it has become possible to make photographic images that invite being seen as wholly intended both as representation and as artifact, th us eliminating all taint of "weakness" in Berger's sense. Gursky and Ruff are the well-known figures who, mor e than any ocher, exemplify the latter development, bur it has become widespread and is likely to play an ever increasing role in arc photography in the years co com e. Demand's photographs, however, are not digitized- the ultimate effect of his work depend s on the viewer's conviction, once he or she has had time ro reflect, that the photographs are stra ight depictions of settings and objec ts that actua lly existed and that in fact were painstakingly fabricated by the artist. Only if the photog raph is taken as straight (that is, as iodexical) can the apparent madeness of the places and objec ts be taken as factua l by the viewer. To repeat a previous point in a new co ntext, Demand 's aim is nor to make a wholly intended object - in this case, a who lly digitized photograph - but rathe r to make pictures that represe11tor indeed allegorize intendedness as such, and this _turns out to require exp loiting the "weakness" of the traditional photo graphic image precisely io chat regard. An incufrion of chis sor t, r suspec t, is wbar led Demand to photograph his sculptu ra l mode ls in the first place, and it is also why, in the interview with Quinton cited earlier, he was moved to say, "At this point louce the photograph is taken], the sculpt ure is no lon ger that imporrant , but nor is the photograph .... T have never thought in terms of my work culmin ating in pure phorograpby"
272
why photography matters as art as never before
168
Th omas Demand , Poll ,
2001.
Chro mogeni c pro cess pr inr with diasec. -r8o x
260
cm
(46). What is important to Deman d is a higl1ly specific onto logica l project, whicb the raking of th e photograph brings to a conclusion. Seen in this light , Poll emerges as particularly exe mp lary o f that project in that what took place in the Emerge ncy Operations Cente r was ostensib ly a days-long attempt by the election authorities to determine the intentions of a subs tanti al number of Flori d a's voters by rhe close study of paper ballots that were assumed ro bear the traces of those intentions, in however dubious a form (the notorious " hanging chads" and the like). ln Demand's picture, however, the ballots are not just pristine bur also devo id of text, which is to say that they - like the telephone s, flashlights , folders, Post-its, and tablehke surfaces on which all these rest and befor e whi ch there is no place for workers to sit or stand - are manifestly the bearers of no int ent ions ot her tha n the artist's own. FLLr therm o re- it turns our - rh.e intentions in question must be wholly co nscious ones. This become s clea r &om the circumsta nces surrou ndin g the mak ing of another, differentl y exemplar y work, Sink ( 1997; Fig. r69 ), which originated in Demand 's imp ulse to reconstruct his own sink full of dirty dishes. "My aim," he cold Quinton, "was to make an extreme ly sim ple work - nothing spectacular, devoid of any narrative. The day 1
them as de mand: cand ida heifer. h1rosh1 sug1mote. and themas struth
273
169
Thomas Demand, Sink, r9.97. Chromogenic process pr int wirh diascc. 52. X 56.5 cm
decided to make this piece, I soon realised thar, without meaning ro, I was ending up making a rea l composit ion in my sink. l fell into my own trap . When J understood rhar l would never make a sink that was innocent eno ugh, I called a friend and said, 'Can you go to your kitchen and photograph your sink for me?' I wanced this piece to be sufficiencly devoid of signification to crea te a baJance. Sink is a precious counterpoint to my other works" (56). Demand could never make a sink that was innocent enough because he could never rule out the possibility that unconsc ious intent ions wou ld lead him to make "a rea l composition" in his sink no ma tter how strongly he co nsciously intended not to do so. Making a mod el of his ow n sink wou ld therefore have produced at best a "mixed" resu lt, whereas reco nstructing and then representing in his usua l ma nner someone else's sink meant that alJ the intentions that counted in rhe final image were under his contro l. T his is nor ro deny rhar unconscious factors could in principle
274
why photography matters as art as never before
have inAuenced the cho ice of sub,iect, the making of the model, perhaps even the (jghring of the scene and the determination of poinr of view. Perhaps even the choice of friend! And of course cou ntless intentions othe r than his own were builr into his equipment from before th e start. H owever, circu mvent ing .bis own sink in favor of his friend's put rhe emphasis squarely on consc ious processes. The resuting sma llish photograp h, a coloristic wur de force, is remarkabe for the almost spectra l play of reflections in t he gleaming inner wal ls of the sink, or rather for the integration of those reflections ia the brilliantly offhand-seeming geography of the picture as a wholc. l.S Still ot her pictures by Demand also have an exemplary charac ter, which suggests that the term may better suit his oeuvre as a wboJe rather than individual insta nces within it (the notion of allegorizing intendedness implies as much). So for example Collection alludes to the singer Enge lbert Hu mperdinck's display of his own best-selling records, phonograph records being nothing other than physica l imprinrs of sounds laid down in acrylic on some past occasion; the reconstructed record s in rhc image are rberefore to be seen as replacing those imprints with at least the suggestion of grooves made only by Demand. Converse ly, Laboratory depicts a model of an anechoic chamber, a device designed to suppress ail echoes, which is to say ro eliminate aU traces of previo us so unds , in that sense t0 achieve an absolme presentness of sound that - no doubt unintentionally on Demand's part- rec.:tllsthe theme of presentness in "Arr and Objecthood:" as if precisely that feature of the chamber made some image of it an ideal source for Demand's own trace-eliminating and, if I am right, implicitly antiliteralisr project. More simply, Clearing,a large picture of a mass of foliage with daylight angling down through it, gives rise to the viewer's recognit ion that the shape and position of every paper leaf has in the end been determin ed nor by actua l trees' an d plants' DNA (in conjunction with
170
Thomas Demand, Clea-ring,2003.
Chromogenic process print wirh diascc.
192
x 495 cm
the mas rlemand , candid a ho fer, h1rosh1 sugimolo, and l.homas s1rut r1
275
1 7r
Thomas Demand, Collection,
2.001.
Chromogenic process print with diasec. ,, 50 x
200
cm
local facrors of soi l, light , an d so on ) but rarher by the delibera te actions of the artist (in this case aided a lso by assistants), just as Constellation (2000), an image of the sky over Switze rland exactly rhree hundr ed years after the date of the opening of an exhibition of Demancl's work in Zurich, invo lves the rep lacement of a similarly objective forn1 of causa lity by the artist's intentions; a nd so on. Finally, ir will be helpful briefly to compare Dem and 's ontologically exceptional project with th at of Thomas Strurh's early, modesr -sized, exceptiona lly deta iled blackand-white photographs of streets in New York, Diisseldo rf, and other European cities, most of whic h feature centered co mpos itions based on one -point perspec tive (Figs. c735). (Struth's photographs will also have a bear ing on Can did a Hofer's pictures of interiors, to be considered shortly.) Almost from the first, Strurh's cityscapes were placed under the rubric of "unco nsciou s places, " 26 by which what seems to have been meant is char the urban scenes they depict were imagined as exerting an unconscious influence on their inhabitants - who, howeve r, are conspicuo usly absent from the photograp hs.
276
why photography
matters as art as never before
172 l' homas Demand . Labo1·atory,
200 0.
Chromogenic process print with d iasec.
180
x 268 cm
Another eq ually important feature of those works (anothe r aspecr of their " uncon scious" resonance) is that most often rbey show places or milieux whic h the viewer is invited to understand took their prese nt form through the exercise ove r time of architects', developers', and simp le builders' intent ions a nd decis ions, as well as the actions over time, for good and ill, not o nly of th e inhabita nts of those places but also, so to speak, of th e various social and eco nom ic forces that sha ped the neighbor hoods in ques tion, but whic h nevertheless convey the impress ion that each plac e or milieu as a who le was never int ended by anyo ne to be pr ecisely what it strikes the viewer of the phorograph as being. Put slightly differen tly, the places in Str uth 's ph otog raphs typ ically represent the collaging to get her of traces of multiple intenti ons, traces laid down at different , even widely disparate moments, th ereby modifying, covering, or effacing the rraces of previo us intention s, so that the scene as a wh o le presents itself as everywhere stamp ed by intention a lbeir (with a few excepcjons) not by a single or a collective intention to pro duce th e scene, th e plac e, the mi lieu as it appears to the viewer. 27 Even in
themas demand . candida hofer, h1roshl sugirnoto , and themas struth
277
17 J
Thomas Struth, Crosby Street. New York (Soho), 1978 . Gelatin silver prim. 44 x 56 cm; 64 x So cm £ramed
th ose photographs- H order Brieckenstrasse, Dortmund (1986; Fig. r76), for example, or South Lake Street Apartments 2, Chicago ( 1990; Fig. L77) - that deJ?ict a building or group of buildings th at was erected at a single moment and thus might be imagined to embody a single des ign, the viewer is made to feel that there was at chat moment no means of envisioning - th erefore of intending-what those stru ctures wou ld look like, how they ,ivould strike a sensitive, attune d viewe r, at a later date; or, a close ly related point, what subl iminal influence they would exert over time on inhabitants and passersby. In char sense Struth's early urban pictures not only exemplify the indexicaliry or trace scruc:cure traditionally assoc iated with photograp hy, they systemati cally exploi t that stru cture so as to produce an effect of heightened mean ingfulness - at once global and minutely detailed - thar at the same time refuses to be pinned down, reduced to socio logica.l or psychological commonplaces. Th e effect itself is acutely described by Peter Schjeldah l, one of Struth 's best comme nt ators, who wr ites:
278
why photography malte rs as an as neve r before
174 Th omas St rurh, Pl'i11ceRegent Street, Edinburgh, 1985. Gelatin silver print. 36 x 49 cm; 66 x 84 cm framed 175 Th omas Stru th, Diisselstrasse, Diisseldorf, r979 . Gelat in silver print. 32.7 x 38 cm; 66 x 84 cm framed
176 Thomas Srruth, I-larder Briickenstrasse, Dortmund, 19 86. Gelatin silver prim. 44 x 56 cm; 66 x 84 fram ed
177 Thomas $truth, S011thLake Street Apc1rtme11ts2, Chicago, L990. Gelatin silver print . 46 x 57 cm; 70 x 84 cm framed
We see a space of passage formed by structures eloquent with history, cultur e, time, cha nce, and vernacular use .... A conviction of meaningfulness, like a pressure in the bra in, grows on us. lt is not a matte r of anything norma lly "inte resting." The place is unremarkably, merel y real. At the same time, it seem s a rebus urgent co be read, as if it secreted evidence of a crime. We do not feel nec essari ly that the photographer knew th e secret. He is not toying with us. It is rather as if be had a Geiger counter for meanin g, whose meter happened to go crazy at this location. 28 As Schjelda hl concludes elsewhere: "Seen in Struth's way, the world is a ju mbled concretion of sometimes wond erful and so metime s horrible, a lwa ys impenetrable intentions amid which we must live. " 19 (" Always impenetr ab le" is not exactly right but one takes his point.) For Rob err Musi l in The Man Without Qualities, a work tbat bears an uncanny re lation to recent ph o tographic practice (reca ll Bustamante 's interest in the notion of "without qualiti es" or Gurs ky's re cast pag e in Untitled XII; see Fig. 108), it is precisely the marks and traces of former intentions - or, as Musil writes , "mea nings" and "op ini.ons" - as carried by urb an architecture that pr ovide definition for the otherwise formless individual. Th e following appears not in the novel proper but in "No tes for Chapters (r932../33-4r)": Building s - breathlike mass , condensa tion on surfaces that present themselves . .. Freed from connections, every impul se momentarily deforms the individual. The ind ividual, who co mes about only through expression, forms himself in the forms of society. He is violated and thus acquires surface. He is formed by the back- formations of what he ha s created. If o ne tak es away those back-formations, what remains is some thing indefinit e, unshaped. Th e wall s of rbe streets radi at e ideo logies. 30 My thou ght is that Srruth's reticent, inexplicit, bur meaning-impregnated citysca pes were a crucial element in the artistic and intellectual context within which Demand 's almost exactly a nti thetical init iative - the remova l from his subject matter of all traces of pre vious intenti ons, conscious or un consciou s, and the replaceme nt of th em with his own conscious ones - took shape .
The notion of place, fundamenta l to both Demand and early Struch, makes a link with the art of a some what o lder German photo graph er, Ca ndida Hofer. Hof er was born in 1944 a nd studied at th e Kunstakademie in Diisseldorf between r973 and 198 2, three years in the film class of Ole John, thereafter in th e photo grap hy class of Bernd Becher along with Struth, Gursky, Ruff, and ochers. [non e respect she has remained mor e faithfu l than anyone else to the Bechers' pra ctice: just as they have sysrematically pho tographed indu strial struc tures in Europe and Ameri ca, so she has, with a few brief diversions, devoted her ca reer to rhe photograp hing of sign ificant interiors - rooms - of all sort s, aJso in Europe and America . (The cities of her pictures consist of the designa-
thoma s demand, cand1da hofe 1, h1rosh1 sug ,mo to , and thomas st ruth
281
tion of the bui lding i_nwhich th e room exists, plu s th e city, plus th e numb er of th e shot made in that place.) From the firsr, Hofer has worke d in co lor ; for a long rime she inch p rint s, but starting restricted herse lf to a 35 mm camera th at resulted in 15 x in 1997 sbc began to use a 6 x 6 cm Ha sselblad that enabled her to make five-foot square photog raphs, and since 2003 she bas worked with a 4 x 5-inch view ca mera rhat has allowe d her to make even Larger images shou ld she desire to do so. Her pictures are often beaurifuJ, in an unprob lemati c sense of the word, but for a long rime 1 cou ld nor quite see how her work belonged to the larg er ar gume nt of this book , if in fact it did. Then one da y, en route to :::tnexhibi tion of recent photograp hs by her ac th e Sonnabend Gallery in New York , I had a sudde n insight. Befor e relating char insigh t, l want to glance at three representative phorographs from differem momencs in Hofer's ca reer. In Museo Civico Vicenza II (1988; Fig. 178), an early work, the camera is situat ed almos t dir ectly oppos ite and at a conside rable distance fro m a corner of a large room . On the left -hand wall hang thr ee dark Renaissance or seventee nth-c entury paintings (more pr ecisely, we are show n two suc h pajn ti11gsand parr of a third); we see mainl y thei r shape s, whic h sugges r that rhe two upper picrures, with ro1rnded upper hal ves, orig in ally belonged ro anoth er room, probably in a church or refectory . To th e right of the lowest of rhe three pictures th ere is a dar k woode n door w ith glass pane ls set in a han dsome molding, an d to rhe right of rbe d oo r and a foot or so from rhe wall a large cent uries-o ld globe sits in a glass showcase with a woode n base. A few feet ro the right a sma ller globe rests in a case with wooden legs. The right- hand
221
282
why photography matters as art as never before
1 78
(facing page)
Candida Hofer,M11seo Clvico Vicem,a IL, 1988. Chromogenic process prinr. 38 x 57 cm
179 (left) Candida
Hofer, Ne11e Nationalgalerie Berlin \11I, 2001. Chromoge ni c process print. 152. x 152t 'm
wall is dominated by nvo rows of windows, high ones below and smaller ones above; the window s are cove red with gauzy curtains and are filled with light, the wh.ire radiance of which, dissolvi ng all detail of the windows' internal st ructure, cesrifics to the duration of the exposure required to make the photograph (the actual interior, one gra dually realizes, must have been rather dark). Toward the top of the picture is glimpsed a bit of coffered ceili ng, and the bottom third of the image, more or less, is tak en up by a warm brownish polished marble floor thar gleams with reflected light from the windows. (The reflecdon s, namrall y, are oriented relative to the posit ion of the camera, but note how patc hes of light from the windows fall on the floor at a differenr angle, incidentall y revealing th e internal struc tur e of th e windows thtlt is otherwise invisible.) Finally, low on the right-hand wa ll, between th e windows, are whar appear to be modern heaters, which is to say that the photographer has made no efforr ro disguise the h.istorically composite nature of the room irself. Another cha racterisric work, Nett e Nationalgalerie Berlin V 11(200 r ; Fig. 179 ), depicts the entra nce floor of M ies van der Rohe's museum of modern art in Berli n. Th e sq uar e format bespeaks the Ha sse lblad ca mera wirh which it was taken, and the point of view, parallel co che rear mainly glass wall, therefore yielding a sense of one-poi nt perspective (as in Struth 's early street scenes), is typical of H ofer 's late r work. Again, the exposure seems to have been relatively long: thu s the trees a nd buildings beyo nd the tran sparent rear wall are largely bleached our, and the reflections of light from the inlaid srone floor chat occupies the bottom half of the picrurc are sufficient ly intense to all bur dissolve
-thomas deman d ; candida hoter, hi rosh1 sug1moto 1 and thornas struth
283
rhe more distant portion of the floor plane. A ceiling wirb reced ing supports and slender red crossbars rakes up much of the upper half of the composirion. ln the middle distance and to rhe left of center a broad greenish-gray marb le column - more like an abbre viated freesta nding wall - connects floor and ceiling; immediate ly in front of the column sit two Barcelona chairs and a small bench; and roughly halfway between the column and the camera the re extends from left co right a row of Barcelona benches in a repeating patter n (the last of rhe benches is cue off by the right -hand edge of the picture). Also nea r the right-hand edge is a wooden structu re, the function of wh ich the viewe r can on ly guess at. A more recent work, Ca' Do/fin Venezia I (2003; Fig. 180), depicts a marvelously ornate, tho ugh rat her compact, salone in a Venetian palazzo. Ir seems to be a room in which performances of some sort a re held (whet her this was its original use is nor clear); at any rate, the photog raph has been taken from a slightly elevated view point - as if from a stage or ra ised platform - and once again the rear wa ll, wich three rococo-style mirror inserts, is parallel to the picture plane. O nce agai n, roo, the compos ition is rigoro usly centered: the viewer looks down at approxima tely ten rows of reddjshupholstered chairs, divided left and righ t into rwo banks of sears, with a polished wooden floor visib le betwee n them, as weU as up at a frescoed, shallow ly concave ceiling from which hang cwo spectacular ly ornate white crys ta l chandeliers beari ng long artificial cand les (with electric bulbs at their tips). Toward th e rear of the room two call windows bor dered by red drapes allow lighr ro flood the scene and, as in che other works, rhe dw-arion of the exposure has led to a bleaching out of rhc windows themselves. Ow ing to tbe central position of the camera, the windows are reflected in the farthest righ t mirror on the rear wall. In anothe r of Hofer's Venetian palazzo phocographs, Palazzo Zenobio Venezia fTl (2003 ), rhe photographer and her came ra are actually imaged in one of the mirrors on the rear wall, but in the present work this is nor the case. 11 Un like Museo Civico Vice11zaII and Nette Nationalgalerie Berlin Vll, both of ,vhich make a point of compositional spareness, Ca' Do/fin Venezia I is replete with sens uous detail, the richness of whic h, one soon comes to feel, goes far beyond the ability of the un aided eye to register and enjoy. T hese three works by no means encapsulate rhc range of Hofer's interiors, but they prov ide a basis for discussion. One way to begin that discuss ion is by noting cha r all Hofe r's commentators have remarked on the absence of people from her interiors. (ln fact that absence is not tota l; for examp le, BNF Paris XX l1998j, a view of the peri odicals read ing room in the former Bibliorheque Nationale on the rue de Ric helieu, dep icts researchers sitt ing at rabies and before microfilm projection mach ines; bur it is an except ion, and in the end the effect of the picture is nor essentially di fferent from that of all those without huma n prese nce.) Jndced a 2005 retrospective exhib ition of H<>fer's phocographs bears the title "Architecture of Absence," a p hrase meant co aUude bot h co the absence of perso ns and to someth ing more encompassing - an "abs tracting" effect that Ma ry-Kay Lombino, one of the ex hibition's curators, associates with the idea of giving "blankness an emotiona l plenitude" (a phrase used by the pho tographer Ura Barth co describe her own projecc). 32 Hofe r's masterly treatme nt of light plays a key role in chis, as Lombino recognizes . She adds: "However, Hofer not only reveals these rwo
284
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
180
Candida Hofer, Ca' Dolfiu Venezia I,
2.003.
Chromogenic process print. 152. x r7r cm
qualities" - blankness and light - "in her reductive images of vacant, minimal room s, but also in her more baroque pictures o f rooms adorned with plentiful details and num erous identical objects, which m ight o rdin aril y conflict with the idea of blankness and pose a compos itional challenge. Hofer overcomes th is obstacle by emphasizing che symmetry and alignment inherent in her subjects, creating works chat embody at once both abunda nce and empti ness" (25). Lombi no also remarks on Hofcr 's eradication of clutter "in the name of achieving complete clarity and evoking detached tranquility" (26). In the sa me sp irit, Cons tance W. Glenn, another of che curators, writes that th e square-
thomas dem and, cand,da heifer. hi ros ht sug1moto, and 1homas struth
285
picture format that Hofer added to her reperto ire in r994 " has bad the effect of emphasizing the et hereal qui etude of her spaces - a quietude that defies the usual weight of arc hitectural detail." 33 Not ions suc h as detached tranquility and ethereal quietu de ar e related to the effect of distance, another charact eristic of her art , as we have seen. And beyond all th ese qualities is the ove rriding question of the viewer's relation co the photographic image, by which I mean the question as to what extent and in what sense the viewer is either invite d to "e nt er'' the depicted room o r prevented from doing so in spite of tbe clarity of the mise-en-scene. What makes this a tricky question to answer is, first, d1at all of Hofer's images are unqualified ly ope n to the viewer's gaze - there is no feeling of things being hidden from view, while the use of a wide-a ngle lens, the overa ll sharpness of focus, and the sheer duration of the exposure mea n that the viewer is enabl ed ro see much mo re and in greater derail tha n wou Id be possible if he or she were looking ar the room itself (as I have already suggested). And second, that the rooms are full of objects meant for human use - rabies, cha irs, benches, doorways, ramps, light sources, card files, books, flighrs of sta irs, and so on. A third potentially inviting facto r is the historical speci ficity of many of her subjects, which the viewer rightly understands as co nnoting a particular style of life: the orig inal social world o f Mies's mu seum was nor rhe same as chat of the Ca' Dolfin, and neid1er had much in common with rbe social world or worlds evoked in Mu seo Civico Vicenza II. In chat respect, Hofer's ph otog raphs might seem to offer access to vanished realms of expe r ience. Nevertheless, I want ro claim that the viewer feels himself or. herself ro be rigo rou sly "exclu ded" (from now on I shall drop the quotation marks) from Hofer's int erio rs excep t as regards the sense of sight operating in an almost wholly disemb odi ed mode. Despite the fact that the actual interiors are self-evidently places that in coun tless ways are phenomenologica lly keyed to th e act ivities of incarnate human beings, th e viewer of her photographs is noc led to respond ernpathica lly to those keys (more than the bare minim um , so to spea k) - to imagine being seared in rbe Ca' Do lfin's chairs or ncgor iaring that br oad e>..'J)anseof floor in th e Musco Civico o r the Neue Narionalgalerie - but rather is i11duced to survey the pictures in question with a blend of heightened visual alertn ess and all but explici t bodily decachmenc. A picture chat drives thi s home with almost didactic intent is Ballett zentrum Hamburg {IT (20or; Fig. r81), with its single functiona l chair- the ba llet teacher's? - placed in selfconta ined iso lation in the middle of a large practice room. It is not a cha i1·one imagines oneself approaching, muc h less seated in. Ar the same time, the interiors th emselves strike th e viewer as w1quesrionab ly actual, compre hens ible, ac least at first glance continuous with his or her own exper iential realm. (What I am crying to convey is that the viewer's sense of exclus ion from the spaces in H ofer's photographs is nowhere near as radical as the sense of "sever ing" that I have associated with Gursky's art. No r for that matter do her photographs act ively repulse tbc viewer in the mann er of Busramanr e's Tableaux, or make a poinr of their own "saturation" in that of Demand 's pictures. Perhaps it is simply that they cont inua lly find means ro emp hasize their "opticaliry," to use a term from my crit icism of rhe I96os that Jeff Wall has recently app lied to his own
286
why phot ography mane rs as an as never be fore
10\
Candida Hofer, Ballettzentrum Hamburg 111, 2.oor. Chrnmogen ic process pr int. 152cm 181
T 52.
x
photographs .34 ) Thus when Lambino remarks that Hofer's images "revea l only the traces of those activi ties foui1d embedded in the details of the work " (24), everything depends on what she means by "traces" and "embedded ." On the one hand, the individual room s are indeed, as she suggests, almost always treated as "places for socia l and cultural encounters and vital interchanges" (2 4 ); on the other hand, even in a photograph like Museo Civico Vicenza Tl which in a certain sense contain s the evidence of diiferent sets of intentions (Mus il's "meanings" and "opinions") - those that went into the making of the paintings and globes, those char went into the initial construction of the building, those that went into the design of the modern museum - there is nothing whatever of the conspicuous trace srrucrure - the mater ial evidence of wear an d rear, of years of ha rd
thomas de mand. cand1da hofer. h1rosh1sug,moto, and them as struth
287
use, of continuous habitation, alteration, and deterioration -found in Strutb's early stree tscapes, for examp le. This too militates agai n st imagining other than a strictly visua l exploration of th e depicte d place. 3s The insig ht with respect to H.ofer's photographs diat I mentioned above concerns, to begin with , the fact th at in " Art and Objecthood" 1 drew attent ion to the importance to min imalist/literalist theory and practic e of the placement of a given work in a particu lar sort of inte rior space. In Morris's words (quoted by me}: For the space of the room itself is a struc tur ing factor both in its cu bic shape and in terms of the kind of compression different sized and proportioned rooms can effect upon th e object-subject terms . [Morris is imagining the su bject - the viewer - encoun ter ing liceralist work within a cubic gallery space.] That the space of the room becomes of such importance does not mean that an environmental situat ion is being established. The coral space is hopefull y altered in certain desired ways by the presence of the object. le is not contr o lled in the sense of being ordered by an aggregate of objects or by some shap i11gof th e space surrounding the viewer. [154 ]36
In my gloss: The object, not the beholder, mu st rema in the center or focus of the sirnat ion , but the situation itse lf belongs to the beholder - it is his situa tion. Or as Morris has remarked , "l wish to emp hasize that things are in a space with oneself, rathe r than ... rtha t] one is in a space sur rounded by things." Again, there is no clear or hard distinct ion between the two stares of affairs: one is, after all, always surrounde d by th_ings. But th e things th at are litera list work s of arr mu st some how confr ont the beholder - they must, one might almost say, be placed not jusr in his space bur in his way . .. Ir 54, emphasis in or iginal] This is where the room - the galle ry int er ior - comes in as the ideal arena for the par ticu lar sort of confronta tion "Art and Objecrhood " sought to analyze, a confrontation in which, as has already been remarked, the literalist object itself is in effect replaced by the embodied subject's ongo ing and in principle open-ended experience not on ly of that obje ct but a lso of rhe cocal sit uati on in whic h the subject finds himself or herself by virtue simp ly of entering the room (163). "The concept o f a room is, mostly clandestin ely, important to literalist art and theory," I remarked in a footnote. "In fact, it can often be substituted for the word 'space' in the latter: somethin g is sa id to be in my space if it is in th e sa me room with me (and if it is placed so rhac I can hard ly fail co notice it)" (p. 170 n. I4}. Along the same lines, tho ugh not at all cr itically of minimalism, Dan Gra ham wrote in 1985: While American " Pop" art of th e ear ly r96os referr ed to the surrounding media world of cultura l information as framework, "Minimal" art work of the middle through lare I9 6os wou ld seem co be referring to the ga llery 's interior cube as the ult imate contextual frame of reference or support for rhe work. This reference was only com -
288
why phot ography matters as art as never before
positional; in place of a compositional reading interior to the work, the gallery would compose the art's formal structure in relation to the gallery's interior architectura l structure. That the work wa s eq uated to the architectural cont a iner tend ed to literalize it; both the architectural conta iner and th e work contained withjn were meant to be seen as no n-illusion istic, neutra l and objectively factual - that is, as simply material. Th e gal lery functioned literally as part of the art. 37 (From my point of view such an acco unt , wh ile tru e as far as ir goes, fails to mention , no doubt beca use it takes for granted, the primacy of the expe riencing subject. } Graha m's observat ions are bound to str ike the informed reader as re calling nor just "Art and Objecthood" but another text as well: Brian O 'Doh erty's Inside the Whi te Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, a short book compris ing four essays the first thr ee of which first ap peared in Artforum in I976. O 'Dohe rty's thesis is that the white cube of the mod ern gallery inter ior has played a fund a ment al, albeit for the most pa rt unacknowledged, role in the development of modernist painting a nd sculpt ure (and beyond these, of minimalism). "T he history of modernism is intimately framed by that space," he writes early on: ro ]r rather the hisrory of modern art can be correlated wit h changes in that space and in the way we see it. We have now reached a point where we see no t the art but the space first. (A cliche of the age is to ejac ulate over the space on enrer ing a ga llery.) An image com es ro mind of a whit e, ideal spa ce that, more than any single picture, may be the arche typal image of twent ieth century art ; it clari fies itself thr ough a process of historical inevitability usually atta ched to the art it conra ins.38 Two further paragraphs are a lso relevant: A gallery is construc ted along laws as rigoro us as those for buildi ng a medieval ch urch . The outsi de world must not come in., so win dows are usually sealed off. Walls are painted white. Th e ceiling becomes the sourc e of light. Th e wooden floor is poUshed so that you click along clinically, or carpeted so that you pad sow1dlessly, resting the feet wh ile the eyes have ac the wall. The art is free, as the saying used to go, "to rake on its own life." The discreet desk may be the 011lypiece of furnitur e. In this con text a stand ing ashtray becomes a lmost a sacred objec t, just as the firehose in a modern museum looks not like a firehose but an aesthetic conundrum. Modernism's transposition of percept io n from life to formal values is comp lete. This, of course, is one of modernism's faral diseases. Unshadowed, white, clean, artificia l - the space is devoted to the technology of aesthetics. Works of art are mounted, hung, scattered for study. Their ungrubby SLtrfaces are untouched by time a nd ics vicissirndes. Art ex ists in a kin d of eternity of display, and though there is lots of "per iod" (late mod ern), there is no rime. Th is eterni ty gives the gallery a limbolike status; one has co have died already to be there. Indeed the presence of that odd piece of furniture, your own body, seems super -flo us, an intrusion. The space offers the thought that wh ile eyes and mind s are welcome, space-occ upying bodies are not - or are tolerated on ly as kinesthet ic manneqwns for fur ther
thomas demand; candida heifer, hiroshi sugimoto, and thomas struth
289
L82
Ca ndid a Hofer, DHFK Leipzig IV, r99r. Chrom ogcnic process print. 38 x 57 cm
study . This Cartesian paradox is reinforced by one of the icons of our visual cultur e: the installation shoe, sans figures. Herc at last the spectator, oneself, is eliminated. You are ther e without being there - one of the major services provided for art by its old antagonist, photography. T he installation shot is a metaphor for the gallery space. In it an ideal is fulfilled as Strongl y as in a Salon painting in the 1830s. I 15] Perha ps it is already clear where my argument is tending. I suggest that a fundamental poinc of reference for Hofer' s p hotographs of interiors, whether or not sht: is aware of it, is the modernist galle ry space, which her pictures at once allude to and critique in severa l highly specific respects. On the side of a llusion there is not only the emptiness of Hofer's interiors and the transcendent clarity with which they are depicted, but also what Glenn describes as "her reticent but richly nuanced ha ndling of co lor, characterized by a compelling use of the range of white (19, emphasis added). As Glenn aptly remarks: [H ofer] chooses to let white define a great many of her compositions, from the most subtle contrasts illuminating archi tectura l detail or refining perception of the space, to the motifs highlighted by emphasizing repetitive forms, such as row upon row of spotless library reading tables. Look closely at the images as a whole. Th e overwhelming effect is that of being tonall) ' pale, suff used with light. In one portion -
290
why photography matters as art as never before
usually slightly more or less than ha lf of the compos ition - white dominates, balanced by the darkness of th e contras tin g area, which is often lightened by reflection. I19l Glenn's observations perfectly fit the picture s by Hofer I have looked at, as well as numerous others, early and late , such as DHFK Leipzig IV (r99r; Fig. r82), Schindler House Los Angeles Vf/ (2000; Fig. L83), and th e spectacular Ca' Rezzonico Venezia I (2003; Fig. 184), thre e images of w idely different types of interiors which nevertheless belong to a single colorisr ic sensibility. No doubt H ofer's predi lection for white rooms (and white light ) has temperamental roots. The fact remains rhar the strong ly white ronality of her art harks back to the pristine whiteness of the modernist gallery, as does what might be ca lled the rracelessness of her interiors (note the "u ngrubb y" surfaces of the modernist works of art chat O'Doherty characterized as "untouched by time and its vicissitudes"). On the side of critique are other conspicuous features of H ofer's photographs. For one thing, the interiors themselves are not literall y featur eless but more often than not are highly detailed and richly articu lated; for anot her, the windows are not sealed off so that the outside world cannot enter but rather are crucial and consp icuous sources of bri!Lanc illumination; and for a thi rd, the emphas is in her photog raphs is only occasiona lly on t83 x
192
Candida H ofer, Schindler House Los Angeles VIL, 2000. cm
Chromogeoic process print.
T 52
lho mas demand; candida hofer. h1roshi sugi molo, and them as struth
29 1
t84
Candida Hofer, Ca' Rezzonico Venezia l,
200 3 .
Chrornogenic process print . 15-z.x
18
r cm
tbe walls, which more often than not are subordinated to the floors, ceilings, lighting, and various objects such as tables, chairs, bookshelves, mi;;rnrs, windows, lamps, statues, and the like. More broadly, the "t imelessness" - also rhe placelessness39 - of the modern gallery space is contradicted by the historical and geographical specificity of her diverse, carefully chosen locales. A further issue concerns the status of the viewer, and her e, preci sely with respect co minima lism, O 'Do herty's insistence that rhe modernist gall e ry is antipathetic to the embodied subject undergoe s a certain modification. In his words:
292
why pho tograp hy matt ers as art as never before
ln the late sixries and sevent ies, Eye and Spectat or (rhe latte r being a vestige or ghost of the fully embodied subjecrl negot iate some tra nsactions. Min ima l o bjects o ften provoke d perceptions orhe r than the visual. T hough what was there instant ly declared itse lf ro the eye, it had to be checked: othe rwise, what was the point of threedimensio naliry? There are rwo kinds of time h ere: the eye ap p rehended rhe objecr at once, like paint ing, then th e body bore rhe eye a round it. This prompted a feedback between expectation co nfirmed (checking) a11d hir herro subl iminal bo dily sensat io n . Eye and Spectator were not fused bur cooperated for the occas io n. T he finely tun ed Eye was impressed with some residual dara from its abandoned body (che kines thet ics of gravity, tracking, ere.) The Specraror's other senses, a lways there in the raw, were infused w ith some of rhe Eye's fine discriminations. The Eye u rges rhe body aro und to provide it w ith in formation - the body becomes a data-gatherer. There is heavy traffic in bot h directions o n this senso ry highway - betwee n sensation concep tualized and concept actualized. In th is unstab le rapproche ment lie the orig ins of perceptual scenarios, performance, and Body Arr. I50-52] l have reservations about chis as a paraphrase of the minimalist/literalist project (the notion of "c hecking," th e two kinds of time, the body "bearing" the eye), just as l do not share O'Doherry's view cha r in modern ist painting before minimalism the body seemed "superfluous, an intr usion " (the w hole distinctio n that runs throug hout his book betwee n Eye and Spectator seems ro me forced, as does rhe claim rbac "o ne has to have died already" ro be in the modernis t gallery space). Yet O'Do herry a nd I agree that minimalism addressed itself to bodily experience in a new way, and here the difference between the minima list/litera list room (as discussed in "Arr and Objecthood") and Hofer's interio rs, with th eir calc ulated exclusion of the viewer, is indeed intense. The ubiquitousness of reflections in Hofer's pictu res, per haps most dramatically exemplified by DHFK Leipzig JV with its high ly po lished gym nasi um floor reflecting rbe g lare fro m rows of windows through which light floods the vast interior (here too the glare is played off aga inst the actual fall of daylight from uppe r right to lower left), also works aga inst die minimalist idea even more strong ly than aga inst the modernist one, for the simple reason that rbe floor as such - as the grow1d of the embodied viewer's movements and an importa nt context for the placement of ind ivid ual objects - plays a more emphat ic role in min imalism than it docs in mode rnism (just imag ine tr ying to come to ter ms with one of Carl Andre's metal square pieces staged on that gymn asium floor) . So also does Hofer's frequent choice of elevated viewpoints, which deparr radically from tbat of any possible viewer who migh t enter by foo t the actual inte rior. One last feat ttre of O'Doherty's sum mary accou nt of the mode rnist gallery space deserves not ice: hjs claim that "the installation shot, sans figures," captures something like the essence o f the mode rn ist ga llery-go ing exper ience . " Here at last th e spectato r, oneself, is eliminated" - comp letely, he seems to be saying. O bvio usly J think th is is much too extreme as a characterization of the modernist experience, but what O 'Do herty's remarks interestingly suggest- here coo l agree wirh him - is that by way of the installation shot photography effective ly excludes the viewer from the dep icted scene ("You
themas demand; cand ,da hofer, hi rosh1 sugimoto. and thomas strut h
293
are there without being there," as he puts it). In that sense, the installation shot as described by O'Doherry anticipa tes the strictly visual, beholder-excluding esthetic of Hofer's photographs of interiors, though of cvurse the latter go infinitely beyond even the most artfu.l installation shot in the explorat ion of their rich and variegated main motif.40
There is space in this drnprer for only some brief remarks about four additional bodies of work - Sugimoro's black-and-w hite ''Seascapes," which he began making in 1980 and which by now number in the hundreds; $truth's "Paradise" photog raphs of forests and jungles, made between r998 and 2.ooi; and t\vo photobooks of animals in zoos, Winogrand's The Animals (1969) and H ofer's Zoologische Garte,z (1993), which aU but demand to be compa red with each other. Of the first of Sugimoco's "Seascapes," a p hotograph of the Caribbean Sea taken in Jamaica in 1980 (Fig. 185), the artist has explained that he was on a cliff above the sea, "oot very high, probably ten meters or so above the level of the sea. The spot was practical for surveying the ocean: no boar, or yacht, or ste::imer,solely the water and the sky. Thar was what I wanted. I decided always tO keep exactly the same composit ion, with the horizon line as a fixed center; half sky, half water, nothing else. "'11 According ly he made a mark on the frame of his viewfinder in order to determine the correct posirion of the horizon line for all subsequent photographs. What this has meant is that the "Seascapes" all have the same extreme ly simple internal struct ure though they also differ considerab ly from one another depending on the lighting and weather conditions and the precise stare of the water. Indeed there are photographs in which the horizon line is invisible owing to fog or mist, but in those cases Sugimoto appears ro have ascertained where it wo uld have been and to have stuck rigorously to his formula. When one encoun ters a single "Seascape" in a gallery or museum, one is invariably struck by its quiet grande ur. For Sugimoco himself the almost identica l pictures compose a vast, open-ended series, and he prefers ro think of the viewer as being invited to compare a number of them with one another so as at once to notice small differences - by looking closely at individual images to the point of "drowning" in them - and to become increasingly aware of what rhey all have in common. 42 Another way Sugimoto has of speaking of the "Seascapes" as a group is in terms of an imaginative journey far back in time. In the "Seascapes," he has said, "there is no human presence. Because I try to depict the prehuman state of the landscape. It is as if r were the first man to appear on chis planet which is the earrh. The first man who lam looks around and discovers his first landscape, a marine landscape. Made solely of air and water. That is why there is no human trace. " 43 The notion of tracelessness recalls both Deman d's reconstructions (which bear traces only of the ir manufact ure) and Hofer's interiors (which although "historical" are also pristine), while the theme of the prehumao is broad ly suggestive witb respect to theatrica lity - as if the "Seascapes" are imagined by Sugimoto as depicting so many nearly identical elemental scenes that had
294
w hy photography ma ue, s as art as
never before
185 Hiroshi Sugimoto, Caribbean Sea,Jamaica, 1980. Gelatin silver prim. rr9.4 x 149.2 cm, N egative 30 1
never previously been observed by human eyes; ind eed as if, to amend slightly Sugimoco 's though r, the "or iginals" of chose scenes ha d been seen only by his camera, nor by Sugimoto himse lf, before th ey were made available as representation by means of his photographs. Both Sugimoto's remarks and m y eme nd ation are clearly ficrions but there is anothe r, more ft1J1damental sense in which the beholder and perhaps a lso the phoro graph er are exclu d ed from chc "Seasca pes." This begins to emerge if one co nsiders che relat ion of the in div idual imag es co their titles, which in all cases cons ist simply of the names bo th of the sea that the photograph depicts and of the place where it was taken. To cite three more repre sent a tive works in th e series: Sea of Japan, Rebun Island ( t996; Fig. 186); N orth Atlanti c Ocean (r996; Fig. I 87); and Black Sea, Ozu luce (r991; Fig. .c88). What
themas demand. candida hoier, h1rosh1 sug 1rnoto. and Lhomas struth
295
186 Hiroshi Sugimoto , Sea of Japan, Rebun ls/and, J996. Gelarin silver print . .u9.4 x 149.2. cm, Negarive 460 1.87 (facing page top) Hiroshi Sugimoto , North Atlantic Ocean, Cape Breto11ls/and, 1996. Gelatin silver print. u9 .4 x i49 .2 cm, Negative 464
188 (facing page bottom) Hiroshi Sugimoto , Black Sea, Ozuluce, 199 ·1. Gelatin silver print. n 9.4 x 149 .2 cm, N ega tive 366
is obvious ly striking about th ese is that the scenes in the photographs are all more o r less identical; more precisely, such differences among them as can be discerned (and as no ted earl ier, Sug imo to encourages rhe discerni11g of differe nces) have no bear ing on the question of local e. Topogr a phica lly th ere is no difference ar a ll between one "Seascape" and another: this follows from Sugimot0's decisio n ro seek rhe same elementa l motif thr ougho ut the enr ire series and to frame it identically. The titles thu s assure the viewer of someth ing chat cannot be seen - that the "Seascapes" were shot in different places. More precisely, they an nounce that the photograp her has had to trave l to different par ts of the world and set up his unwiel.dy, o ld-fash ioned apparatus above o ne shore line or another in order to take bis pictures. And w hat is crucial to grasp is that Sugimoto has done all this not so as ro show the viewer what th e places in question look like (no one
296
why photography mauers as art as never before
r89 Hiroshi Sugimoto, Mirtoan Sea, S0unio11,t990. Gelatin siJver print. n 9.4 x 149.2 cm, Negative 354
co uld recogn ize the places from the pictures or vice versa) but in order that the viewer comes to see that the photograph er has not been tak ing picrures of what they look like, understanding by th is nor some curious sort of failure but rather a deliberate, ontologically ambitious project. In other words, the "Seascapes," despite appearances, are in no sense views - a po int drummed hom e by the pictures shot at night, among the most compelling of the ser ies (Fig. r 89 ).''
"Jn Chapter One of chis book l discussed several passages on voyeurism from Yukio Mishima's The Temple of Dawn, and in the conclusion 1 shall discuss Wall's After "Spring Snow" by Yukio Mishima, a photograph based on an episode in the first novel in the tecralogy. Here, however, I want to quote a longish passage from the opening chapter of Th e Decay of the Angel, which brings The Sea of Fertility tetralogy to a close:
298
why photography maners as art as never be l ore
The sea, a nameless sea, the Mediterranean, the Japan Sea, the Bay of Suruga here before him; a rich, name less, absolute anarchy, caughr after a great struggle as something called "sea," in fact rejecting a name. As the sky clouded over, the sea fell into sulky contemplation, studded with fine nightingale-colored points. It bristled with wavethorns, like a rose branch. in the tl1orns themselves was evidence of a smooth becoming. The thorns of the sea were smooch.
As for Struth 's "Paradise " series, taken betw een 1998 and 200 1 in forests and jung les in China, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and German Bavari a (Fig. I9 0), nothing more surprisingly dem onstrates the appeal in recent art photography of the strategy of exclusion than these large an d disconcerting pictur es, almo st all of which seem to have as their aim the co nfronting of cbe viewer with scenes of impen etr ab le lushness, density, com plexity, non-different iarion. 44 Surpri singly, because throughout his career Struth ha s been the most empathic of contemp orary photographers (as both the fami ly portrai ts and the cityscapes demonstrate ), wh ich suggests that the "Paradise " photogr aphs represent a deliberate attempt to go again st his own natur al tendencies in the interest of bring ing about a differe nt, resolutely non-empathi c relat ion betw een pictur e and viewer. By and large, commentator s have under stood that they were being shut ou t of these pictures, bur what has nor been acknowledg ed is the larger artistic context in which exclus ion has emerged as a major trope for ambitious arr photography. So for example Rei Masuda writes: "It ma y be possible to identify room for thought if we really wanted ro, but,
Thre e ren. There were no ships in sight . Very stra nge. T he whole vast space was aba ndoned. Ther e were not even wings of gulls. Then a phanrom ship arose and disappe ared toward the west . The Tzu Peninsu la was shrou ded in mist. For a time ir ceased co be the lzu Peninsul a. It was the ghost of a lost peninsula . Then it disap peared entirely. 1t had becom e a fiction on a map . Ships and peni nsula alike belonged to "the absurdity of existen ce.'' They appear ed and disappeared. H ow did they differ? If the visible was the sum of being, then the sea, as long as it was not lost in mist, exis red rbcrc. Ir was heartily ready to he. A single sh ip chang ed ir all. Th e who le compo sition cha nged. With a rending of the who le pan ern of being, a ship was received by th e horizo n. An ab dicat ion was signed. A whole uni verse was thrown away. A ship cam e in sight , ro throw out the universe chat had guarded its absence. Mulriple cha nges in rhe color of the sea, mome nt by mom ent. Change s in the clouds. And the appearance of a ship . What was happenin g? What were happenings? Each insta nt brought them, mor e mome nrous than the explosion of Krakatoa. le was only that no one noti ced. We are too accustomed to the absurdity of exis tence. The loss of a universe is nor worth taking seriously. Happ enings are the signal s for endless recon struction , reorganization . Signals from a dis-
tanr bell. A ship ap pears and sers th e bell to ringin g. ln an instant the soun d makes everyrhing irs ow n. On the sea they are incessanr, the bell is forever ringing. A being. It need not be a ship . A single birter orange, appeari ng no one knows when. It is enou gh to set rhe bell ro ringi ng. Thr ee rhirty in the aft ernoon . A single bitt er orang e rep resent ed being on the Bay of Suruga. (Yukio Mishima , Tl,e Deca)• of the Angel, tr. Edward G. Seiden sticker [I 97 1; New York, L97 41, pp . 8-ro) ln Sugimoto's "Seasca pes," of course, there are no ships, no bitte r orange, ever. Nevert heless, from rhe perspective of the passage just quor ed, Sugimoto's seas , in their very sam eness - their resistance to ident ity, themari zed, I have suggested, by their tirles (or rather by rhe "fa ilure" of the rirles to capt ure any intrinsic qua lity il1 the images as such) - mighr be regarde d as so many pictures of the same " rich , namele ss, absolure anarch y, caugh t after a great strug gle as something called 'sea,' in fact rejecting a name. " As for the visible as "rhe sum of being," on e questio n might be whether it is not Sugimoro's photograph s rhar confer being on the seas, insofar as the larcer muse be und erstoo d as hav ing been "visib le" onl y ro the eye of rhe camera. In any case , a certain concordan ce between Mishima's text and Sugimoto 's photograph s seems not hing less than starrling . My thanks to Walter Benn Mi chaels for helping me think through the beho lder-excluding aspects of Sugimoro 's "Seasca pes."
thornas demand; cand,da heifer, hiroshi sug 1moto, and lhomas struth
299
faced with the overwhelming existence of che plants, we are made co feel that such incenrions can wait." 4 5 And Daniel Birnbaum: "Struth originally saw these dense textures as illegible cext, as impossible to grasp as caJligraphic writing for an untrained Westerner. Thus a zone of natural phenomena appea rs beyond the antinomies of subjectivity, a realm of raw but nor entirely alien experiences of the world of trees and planes and splendid blossoms. Pure visibility, the Aesh of the world, colorful things in rhe sun. "46 Struth himself bas said that the photographs "contain a wealth of delicately branched information, which makes it almost impossible, especially in large formats, to isolate single forms. One can spend a lot of rime in fr onr of these pictures and remain helpless in terms of knowing bow to deal with them. "'17 Srruth's own understanding of his project is characteristically "spir itual" - rhe picrnres in his view "emphasize the self" and provide occasions for meditation and interna l dialogue (r sc}. No doubt this is true, bur their deepest artistic significance lies elsewhere, in rhe charged space between photograph and viewer.
190 Thomas Strurh, Paradise 6, Daintree. Australia , 1998. Chromogenicprocess prinr. r 69.7 x 214.3 cm; r 76.7 x 22.r.3 cm framed
300
why photography matte rs as art as never be fore
19 , Ga rry W inogran d , Bronx Zoo, 1963, from The Animals, 1969. Ge latin silver print . 2.2.9 x 34.2 cm. Museum of M odern Art, New York. Pu rchase and gifr o f Barbara Schwartz. in memory of Eugene M. Schwartz
192. (below) Ca ndida HofeI, Zoologischer Garten Amsterdam fl, 1992.. C hromogcn ic process print. 26 X 46.4 cm
Fina lly, it is instru ctive to compare two slender books of photo grap hs of animals in zoos, Winogrand's The Animals (r969) 4 ~ and H ofer's Zoo /ogische Garten (1993) 49 -instructive because the contrast between the respec tive sets of images is star k, and also because that contrast belongs to the shift from a black-and-white street photography esthctic, by t969 ente ring a critical phase, to the mor e auste re and deliberate attitude keyed to effects of exclusion that I have been examin ing in this chapter (indeed Ho fer's zoo photographs hard ly q ualify as street photography in any sense). instead of Winogrand 's unexpect ed a nd often hum orou s juxta positions of onlookers and a nima ls, his tilted ground planes suggest ive of his own impul sive movem ent through the scene, and the overall impression his photographs convey of having been taken on the fly and for the most part close up (if not to rhe an imals at least to the perso ns looking at them), H ofer's
themas demand. candida hoter, hirosh1 sugimoto. and thomas st1uth
301
9 demand, hofer, and others T
1
3
4
5
6
7
Recent works on Deman d incl ude: Thomns Dem and: Pho tography, exh. cat ., with an essay by Ralph Rugo ff and a sro ry by Jul ia Fran ck (Bregenz, 100 4); Roxa na Marcoci, Thomas Demand , ex h. cat., with a sho rt story by Jeffrey Eugcnides (Ne w York, 2.005); and Th omas Dcmnnd, exh. ca r., with an essay by Beatriz Co lomina and a conversa tion berween Alexander KJuge and Th o ma s Demand (London, 1006). Dean Sobel, " Th omas Demand : Th e Basic Facts," in Th omas Demand , exh . cat . (Amsrerdam and Aspen , 2.0012.), n.p . Purth er references co this essay will be in par enth eses in th e texr. 1Vhlr,coci, " Paper Moon," in Marcod , TIJomas Demand, pp. 9-10. Furrher page referenc es to thi s essay will be in par enth eses in the texr. Sec e.g. Ruedi Widmer , " Interview with Th omas Dema nd : Building the Scene of the Crime ," Camera Austria lnt emll · tional, no. 66 Uuly t999}: 10. Th e releva nt exchange reads: Widmer: " Lee's begin ac the beginning. To begtn wirh it is an everyday place. Somethin g happens ... " Demand:" ... and thi s is some thing char is rabooed or condem n ed in society .. . ,. Widmer: ~ ... an act .. . ~ Demand: " ... exac tly. an act. And th is act is ex-pelled from its everyday contexr because it doesn't belong th ere. Becau se it produces somethi ng that influences sociery; because ir is beyond the bounds of th e general run of even rs." Widmer: ''Th en alon g co mes so meone and rak es a pictur e.•· And further on ( 1 1 ): Widmer: " Th e way you see things is som etim es referred LO as like a ·derecrive.' Whar d oes char mean? " For Dcmand's a nswer see his remark s abour Corridor, cited in the text bdow. Furth er pag e references to Widmer's inrerview will be in p:1renthcses in rhe text. For Lnrs Lerup, coo, ''Dem,rnd 's photographs often appear ... ns " reconstru ctio n of a crime scene (for examp le, Office of r995). Bur these arc scenes devoid of a ll criminnl poraphcma lia, human imprints, and accretions the y co ntain on ly suggestive residue. Demand 's scenes have been verced and san.icized ro such a degree that the crime irself is only apprecinb le in its most hein o us essence" (" Demand' s Demand ," in Thomas Dema11d [Amsterdam and Aspen!, n.p. ). See Jan Philipp Reem rsma, /11 the Cellar, trans . Carol Brown Janeway (New York, t 999), for a gripping account of th e kidnapping and his H days in captivity . Sohel writes: "Poll, like m;my of Dema nd's works, has the Look of the ahermath of a cr ime sce ne (which the accual loca tion perhaps wa~ - according to some repons, foul pla )', fro m participants such as th e ca nd ida tes' advisors and the Florida Secretar y of Sta te, ma y ha ve had an effecr on d1e recount }'' ("Thomas Demand: Th e Basic Faces." n.p. ). More recently, Demand exhibit ed at rhe Scr penrine Gallery, Lo ndon in Summer .z.006, fi,,c phocographs making a compound piece ca lled Tavern (1006), based on " an incident at a small bar opposite the railwa)' sration in Burbach , a disrricr of Saarbriickcn, where a littl e boy ... wa s suffocared wirh a cush_ion and rhcn dispo sed of in a bin -liner. His step-
8
9
10
11
12.
13
sister wa s the culprir " (Thomas Demand in "A Co nvcrsa· tion between Alexander Kluge a nd Thomas Demand,'' in Thomas Demand flondonl , p. 85). Fran~ois Quinton, " TI1cre is no Inn ocent Roo m, .. Thomas Demnnd , cxh. car. (Paris , 2.000), p. 52.. Further pnge references co thi s interview will be in parcnth e~es in the text. As Marcoci writes: " despite their illusionism , Demand 's stag ed tableaux revea l the mechanism s of their making. Minu te imperfectio ns - a pencil mark here, an exposed edge ther e, a wrinkl e in rhe paper - arc deliberat ely lefr visible . Th e lack of deraiJ ,,nd cool, uniform lightin g CX"posethe whole as a co nstrucrion. Once the>' have been ph ocograp hed, the mod els are destroyed. The resulting picrur es are convinc· ingly real and strangel y artificial" (''Paper Moon," 10). Yilma z Dziewio r, .. A Thousand Words: Th oma s Demand Talks About ' Po ll,'" Artfomm , vo l. 39 (May 2.001): 1.-15. Par vecn Adams, " Demand wirhour Desire: Th e Work of Thomas Dem and ," Portfolio: Contemporary Photography in Britain, no. 38 (Decembe r 200 3): 20. She also suggests chat the objects in Deman d 's photographs, because plainly not o bjects of desire, arc "objects as tbe )' arc, or at least as near 10 rhem as it is pos.sible ro be" (ibid., slightl y recast in the plural) . Thi s seems wrong. Regis Durnnd, ..Tra cings," in Thomas Demand (Paris), p. 1!7. See Rosa lind £. Krau ss, "N ote s on the Index: Part r," The Originality of the A11a11t-Garde111ulOther i\fodemist Mytl,s (Ca mbridg e, Ma ss., and London , 1985) , p. 203; see also ch. 6 n. 32. above. The terms icon and index ore derived fro m the wr itings of Charles Sand ers Peirce; Krauss refers to C. S. Peirce, " Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs," l'/Ji/osophic Writings of l'eirce (New York, -r955 }, p. ro 6. Nlorc rccentl)', Krau ss's views, alon g with her use of Peirce, have been criti cized by Joel Snyder in "Pointless, " in Jam es Elkins, ed. Photography Th eory (Ne w York and London, 1007), pp. 369- 400. For Wolter Benn Michaels in "Photograph s and Fossils" (ibid., p. 431), how ever. responding ro Snyder and more broadl)' ro the questioning of rhe notion of ind ex icaliry as a mark er of the photograp hic elsewhere in Elkins's vo lum e, " indexicalicy- if only in the form of a prob lem - is central to both rhe medium specificity of the photograph and, at lcasr in the lasr 2.0 years, co what Abigai l Solomon- Godeau calls rhe othe r topic of interesr ond controve rsy in this volum e, 'phocograph y's relation ro art historic.11discourse."' Michaels adds in a note: "lndex · icaliry is [centra l to the medium specificity of tbe photograph, etc.I , but Peirce probably is not. We ought to discon nect the claim that rhc disrin ctivc causal connecrion ber.vcen rhe referent o f a photo gra ph and the phot ogra ph irself is impomrnt ro the 1heory of photography from the claim that Peirce's semiotics is similarl y imp orrant. The latter claim might be true but it doesn't follow from the former'' (p. 448 ). I shall hav e more ro say nbour M.ichacls's essay in the Conclusion ro this book . See Michae l Fried, "Art nnd Obj ccthoocl" (191>7), in idem, Art and Obiecthoo d: Essnys a11d Ru11i e1us (Chicago and Londo n, 1998), pp. 148-7i . Furth er page references ro this essay will be in parenthe ses in the tex t. See als<>idem,
notes
to pages
261 - 270
385
"Shape as Form: Frank Srcll:1's Eccentric Polygons., ( 1966}, pp. 77-<,>9, and '' An lmroducrion ro my Art Criticism," esp. pp. 40-47. 14 Sec Robert Morris, "No res on Sculprure, Porr 2," in idem, Co11ti1111 011sProject Altered Daily: The \Y/riti11gs of Robert 18 Morris (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1993), p. 15. Morris's r.:ssay originally appeared in Artfomm, vol. 5 19 (Occobcr 1966): 20-23. 15 "Ar r and Objecchood, ~ p. 153. Walter Benn Mich:icls comment~ on rhis srarement as follows: "The 'virrually' here is a lirtlc misleading because, as Fried goes on to say, although the ·object, nor the beholder, muse remain che cenrer or focus of rhe siruarion,' 'the situat ion itself belongs to the beholder - it is bis situation.' The presence of the beholder is structura l rnrher rhan emp irical, since without him there is no situatio n nnd therefore no litcra lisr arr. The point here is nor a kind of general idealism, nor the idea that the obiecr comes inro existence only when the beho lder encounrers it and thercforr th:lf rhcre is some sense in which he creates ir. Although this position will quickl)· emerge as cemral ro certa in forms of lirerary cheory, in Fried's account of Minimalism, the object exists on its own all right; what depends on th<' beholder is only the exper ience. Bur, of course, the experience is everything- 1r is the experic11ceinstead of the object that Minimalism values" (T/,e Shape of the Signifier: 1967 to the F.nd vf Nistr,ry,[Princeton, N..J., and Oxford, 2004 I, p. 89, emph(lsis in original). Michacls's hook is a wideranging critique o( recent rheorerical and fictional texts all of which make the error of "thinkling) of literature lor arrJ in terms of rhe experience of rhe reader [or beholder! rather than rhe intention of the author, and lof substi turingj the question of who people are for the question of what they believe:·•(from the book jacket). 16 Proba bly rhis is mode most nearly explicit in certain remarks about the work of the British sculptor Anthony Caro. E.g.• "A charac teristic sculprurc by Caro consists, I want lO say, in chc mutual and naked juxtapositio n of the 20 I-beams, girders, cylinders, lengrhs of piping, sheer mernl, and grill rhat it comprises rather th:1n the compound of,ject th(lt rhey compose . The mutua l inflecrion of one clement by another ... is what i~ crucial ... The individual elemcnrs hesmw significance on one another precisely by virtue of their juxtaposition: ir 1s in this sense, a sense ine>ctricabl) ' involved with the concept of meaning, thar everything in Caro's art rhat is worth looking nr is in irs synrax Ifirst said br me in my 1963 introduction tO Caro's Whicechapcl exhibition! ... It is as though C:iro's sculprures essenti:1lizc meaningfulness as sue/, - as rhougb the possibility of meaning what wes:iy Md do alone makes his sculpture possible. All this, ir is hardly necessary to add, makes Caro's art a fountainh ead of anriliteralisr and :mrirheatrical sensibility" ("Art and Objecr hood ,'' pp. , 61-2, emphasis in original). r7 From "Art ,md Objecthood'': "the beholder [of a mini111alisr/lireralist work] know s himself to srand in an inderermi11:1re,open-ended - and unexacting- relation as sub;ect ro the imp:1ssive ohjecr on rhe waU or floor" ( 15 5). Tht onrirhesis between modernise determinacy and minimal- 21
386
notes to pages 270-277
ist/lireralisr (also posrmodernisr) indeterminac y is a central theme in Jennifer Ashton, From Modernism to Postmodernism. America11 Poetry a11d Theory in tin• Tiveutieth Century (Camb ridge and New York. 2005). ~ A Conversation between Ale_xander Kluge and Thomas Demand," p. 56. See John Berger and Jean Mohr, Another Way of Tctli11g (New York. 1982), p. 90. The previous sentences read: "The professional photographer tries, when raking a photograph , to choose an instant wl1ich will persuade the public viewer ro lend ir :111appropriate past ,ind future. l11e phorographer's imclligem:c or his empat hy wirh rhe subject definc.:sfor him what is appropriate. Yer unlike che storyteller or painter or accor, the phorngrapher only makes. in any one photograph, a single co11 sti111r ive choice: che choice of rhe insmnt ro br photographed. l11e photograph, compared wirh other means of communicat ion, is rhcrefore weak in inrenrionaliry" (pp. 89-90, emphasis in original). The reader will probably feel, justifiably in my view, char a phoroi,,rnpher makes far more than just one consrirurive choice in rhc act of raking a picture: he or she selecrs a subject, chooses a distance and a point of view, makes adjustmenrs for rhe lighting, often changing the speed or the opening of the shurrer, ere. (In fact we should prohab ly St(lrt further back with rhc selection of the camera and film.) Yer Berger's basic rhesis, char dlere is somcrhing in the narurc of a photograph that escapes total determination by the phot ograp he1; can still be mainrnincd. Berger's remark is cited and discussed by Walter Benn Michaels in "Accion and Accident: Photograph y and Writing," in ,dem, Tbe Gold Standard and the J.ogic of Naturalism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, r987), pp. 1.36-8. Sec a lso Michaels's essay " Phorographs and fossils, •· in Photography Tbeory, and rhe pages on photography (largely on the work of James Welling) in Tl,e Slwpe of tl,e Signifier, pp. 95-105. Michac.:ls, "Acrion and Accidenr,'' p. 1. 30. The phrase occurs in a sentence dealing with the question as to wherher or not Lily Barr in Edith Wharton's The Ho11seof Mirth meant ro kill herself when she rook a far:il overdose of chloral. '"Ir seems misraken, though, co say either that she did or that she didn't," Michaels write~. "for the whole thrust of the novel has been to insist on rhe economic, erotic, and moral charm of actions marked by an irreducible discrepancy between intention and effect." 1\1ichacls's point is rhar the same discrepancy is basic ro rhe roughl>· conremporary discourse of photograph y. Cf. Diane Arbus's remacks, quoted and discussed in Ch. 7: ''Everybody has that thing where they need to look one way bur they come our looking another wa)' and that's what people observe .... Our whole guise is like giving 3 sign to the world to think of us in a cerrnin way bur there's a point between what you wanr people ro know about you and what you can"t help people knowing about you. And l'hat has to
an opinion. By this means we recognize chat wc arc in a peculiar siwation. ror every attr ibution of meaning shows t he same doub le peculinrity: as long as it is new it makes us impatient with every opposing meaning (when red para sols are having their day, blue ones arc 'impossible' - but something similar is also true of our conv ictions); yet it is the sccoud peculiarity of every meaning that it is nevertheless given up wirh time, entirely of its own accord and just as surely, when it is no longer new. l once snid that reality does awny wirh irself. lr cou ld now be put like this: If man is for the most part only proclaiming meanings, he is never entirely and endur ingly proc laiming himself; but even if he can never completely express himself, he will try it in the most various ways, and i11 doing so acquires a history." r122.8-9] One final passage, from ch. 2.2.,helps clinch the point: While busy with all this IUlrichl wns watching the passing trolley cars, waiting for the one rJ1ar would cake him back as close as possible to the center of the town. He saw people climbing in and our of the cars, and his technically trained eye toyed distracted ly with rhe interplay of welding and casting, rolling and bolding, of engineering and hand fimshing, of historica l dcvclopmenr and the present state of the arr, which combined to make up these barracks-on -wheels l'har these people were using. "As a last step, a committee from the municipal transportation deparrment comes to the Factory and decides what kind oi wood to use as veneer, the color of rhe p,1ini, upholstery, arms on the scats and straps for srandces, ashrrays. and the uke," he thou ght idly, "and it is precisely these trivial detai Is, along with the red or green color of the exterior, and how they swing themselves up the steps and inside, that for tens of thousands of people make up whar they remember, all they experience, of all rhe genius that went inm it. This i~ what forms their character, endows it with speed or comfort; it's what makes them perceive red cars as home and blue ones as foreign, nnd adds up to that unmistakablt odor of countless details thar clings to the clothing of the cent uries." So there was no denying- and this suddenly rounded out Ulrich's main line of t hought-t hat life itself largely peters out into rrivial realities or, ro put it technically, that the power of its spiritual coefficienr is extremely small. [943- 41 It may be chat the entire line of speculation Musil ami bures to Ulrich in these and other passages would have been unth inkable before photography. 3 r Her reflection appear s in other works ns well. See Michael Diers, "A Physiognomy of Public Interiors: Otes on Candida Hofer's City Images," Candida Hofer: Hamburg (Cologne, 2.002.), pp . .ro3, -108 . 32 Mar y-Kay Lombino, "inner Orde r," in Candida Hofer : Architecture of Absence, exh. car. (Long Beach, Cal., West Palm Beach, Fla., Provo, Ut., 2.005-7), p. 2.5. Further page references to this essay will be in parentheses in the text. .n Constance Glenn, "Candida Hofer: Absence in Contcl(t/
388
notes to pages 284-294
in ibid., p. r8. Further page references to this essay will be in parent heses in rhe rext. 34 See "Post -'6os Photography and lrs Modcmisl Context: A Conversation berween JeffWall and John Robercs," in Jeff WaU, Selected Essays and Int erviews, pp. 340-4 1; J quore Wall's remarks in ch. 3, n. 41. 3 5 Cf. Julian Heynen: "W hen the people who belong to these spaces - traces of whom are seen on all sides - are nor present in the pictures, then it is as though the viewers step in and occupy the place with their gaze. While the others arc away the viewers tarr y in this place - in rhis alien place. lr is a lirrle like the situati on of a thief or a detective or anybody who has involuntarily stumbled inro someone else's terrirory. The unknown reasons for the absence of rhe orhers and their possible return rn 'their' place heighten the viewer's perceptions as the ·intruder·" (" Venice 2.003," in Cnndida Hofer/Martin Kippe11berger/Ve11edig ioo3 , cxh. car. [Venice, .1.003],p. 92). Again, everything depends on what Heynen means by traces; the idea tha t the viewer is made to feel an " intruder" seems to me right. Another commentator, w1ichael Diers, compares Hofer's interiors with those of che nineteenth-cent ury German dra ftsman and painter Adolph Menzel, one of the most empath ic .:ir tists ever ("A Physiognomy of Public Interiors," pp. 110-12.). l do nm agree. Sec in this connection Michael Fried, Menzel's
36
Realism : Ar t c111d Em bodirnent in N ineteenth- Century Berlin (Londo n and New Haven, z.002.). Morris, "Nores on Sculprure, Pare 2, " in Co11tinuo11s Project A ltered Daily, p. r6.
Dan Gra ham, "My Work for Magazine Pages: 'A Hisrory of Conceptual Arr'" (-1985), in Alexan der Alberro and Blake Stimson, eds., Conceptua l Art: A Critic"/ A11tholugy (Cambr idge, Mass., 1999), p. 4.19. 38 Brian O'Do herty, Inside the White Cube: Th e Id eology of th e Caflery Space, expanded edn. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, r999 ), p. 14, emphasis in original. Furth er references to this book will be in parentheses in rhe text. 39 "There is a peculiar uneasiness in watching arrworks attempting to establish territory but not place in the context of the placeless modem gallery" (ibid ., p. 2 7) . 40 O'Dohcrry's essays are cired in relation to" Art and Objecrhoocl" by Mark Linder, as follows: "Ln constructing his argument fin 'Arr and Objecchood'l around an opposition berween rhe words 'space' and 'room,' Fried himself 'fails to notice' the dialectical and historical relationship between the rise of the arr 'o bject' and the modern arr gallery and art museum: that is, a specific genre of architecture that Brian O'Dohercy later aJlegorized as 'd1e white cube.' Only with the emergence of the white-walled, bare, high-ceilinged art gallery as a common type of 'room ' could modernist paint ing nnd sculpture maintain the mytb of au1onomy" (Nothing Less th1111 Literal: Architecture after Minimalism !Cambridge, Mass., and London, 2.004], p. J 2.5). Linder's larger claim, which seems to me correct, is that my writings on modernism almost without exception repress the thought of archicecrure, which implicitly plays a negaove (i.e. " theatricaf') role in my criticism. 41 This is snid by Sugimoto in Contacts Hiroshi Sugim oto 37
42.
43 44
45
46 47
48 49
(2.000), a short film by Jean-Pieue Krief (tra nslation min e, from the French translati on of Sugi moto 's rem arks by Rose Ma rie Makino Fayo lle). In an arricle of 199 7, Mo nry DiPietro writes: "To get the powdery sea effect in North Atlanti c Ocean, Cape Breton Island ( 1996)," a work then on view at rhe Ga llery Koyanag i o n the G inza scrip in Tokyo, "Sugim oto h auled his American-m ade, woo den cab inet Durdo r f a nd Sons ca mera o ut to New foundland , mounted it on a Fren ch trip od, screwe d on a Ca d Zeiss lens, loade d an 8 x 10 sheet of Kodak Plus-X 12.5 ASA film and then put a 16x neutral de nsity filter o n rhe un wieldy ap paratu s co redu ce rhe film's sensitivity co well below one ASA. 'Tha r's like the speed o f 19th- cent ury film, when phorography was in vented,' he exp lains. W hen sa tisfied with rhe light and com positi on , he tripped the shu tte r and waite d one and a half hour s for the seascape image co burn itself onto the film" ("Hiroshi Sugimoto at th e Ga llery Koyanagi," http://www.assemblylanguage. com/review s/ Sugimoro.html ). Contacts Sugimoto. The French reads: "[D]es gue )'on co mmence enrrer clans les derails de l'eau, on s'y noie." Contacts Sugimoto. Twenty-five o f these photos have been gathered in Thomas Strurh , New Pictures from Paradise (Muni ch, 2002.). Rei Masllda, "A Place for Looking: The Photo g raph s by Thomas Srruth, " in Thomas Stn1th: My Portrait, exh. cat. (Tokyo and Kyoto, 2000), n.p. Daniel Birnbaum, "Paradise Reframed ," Artforum , vol. 4 0 (May 2.002.): 149. Han s Rudolf Reust, "A Thousand Word s: Thoma s Struth Talks about his 'Paradise' Series," ibid : 1 5 1. Furth er pa ge references to thi s ;irricle will be in parentheses in the te xt . Reust commen ts: "Faced with a reticent image of undifferentiat ed foli;ige, the viewer 's tho ugh ts ha ve n ow her e to turn save inwa rd . In th ese photograp hs, Struth enc ount ers th e limits of a no nd iscur sive ph otog raph y chat de-emph as izes its specific o bject th ro ugh rhe mot if" (ibid.). Garry Winogra nd, The A nimals, w ith an Afterwo rd by John Szarkows ki (19 69; New York , 2.004). Cand ida H ofer, Zoo logische Garten (M unich , r9 93).
a
10 "good" vs " bad" objecth ood: welling, the bechers, wall
2
Michael Fried, "James Welling' s Lock , 1976 , " Jame s Welling: Photographs 1974 - 19 99, ex h. cat., ed. Sarah Rogers (Co lumbu s, Oh . , Ba ltimore, Los Angel es, 2.000-or ), p. 2.6. Furth er page refere nces ro chis essay will be in parentheses in the cex r. For importa nt discuss ions of Welling's work , which mor eove r treat it in re lat ion ro issu es central to this boo k, see Wa lter Benn Mi chaels, "T he Photo gr aphi c Sur face,» in Jmnes Welling Photo graphs 19 77- 90, exh . cat. (Berne, 1990) , pp. 102.-1 3; and idem, The Shape of the Signifier: 1967 to the End of History (Princeton and O xford, 2.004), pp. 95-105. With min or changes. For the phi losop hi cal no tion of "generic" o bjects see Stanley Cave l], The Claim of Reason:
3
4
5
Wittgens tein, Skepticism, Mo ra/it)', and Tragedy (Ox ford and New York , r 979), p . 53ff. A lso Espen H amm er, Stanley Cavel/: Sk epticism, Subjectivity, and the Ordin ary (Ma lden, Ma ss., 2002), ch . 2, "Sk epti cism: Crit eria and th e Ex ternal World. " Cavell's thoug ht , ex trap o lating from the wor k of the British ph ilosop her J. L. Austin, is that skep tica l arg u ments abo ut the in ab ilit y of human beings to kno w wit h cer ta int y about rhe existence of physical objects chara cterist ically involve a notion of "ge neric objects " in a kind of neutr al space ra th er than of "specific objects" in real-world con tex ts. "W hen [generic) o bjects present themselves to the episcemolog ist," Cave l! writes, "he is not raking one as op posed to anoth er, interested in its features as peculiar to it and nothing else. H e would rather, so tO speak, have an unr ecog nizab le somet hing there if he could, an anything, a t harness. What co mes to him is an island, a body surround ed by a ir, a tiny ea rth. What is at stake for him in th e ob ject is materiality as such, externalicy altogether" (The Claim of Reason, p. 53) (its abstract literalness, we might say ). My thank s to No rron Batkin for suggesting the releva nce of th at notion to the argument of " Art and Ob jecrbood" in "T he Situat io n of Painting, " an unpubl ished paper given at a sess ion on "T he Situati on of Paintin g after Michael Fried 's Art and Object/mod" at rh.e 57th annual meering o f the Amer ican Society for Aesthe tics in Wa shin gto n, o.c. , Oc to ber 30, 1999. (The session was orga nized by Steph en Melville; the other parc icipancs we re Ric hard Mo ran a nd Howard Singerman .) In my caraJog ue essay I co nclud ed my disc uss ion o f Welling and minimalism as follow s: " Am I suggesting th at Lock therefore belo ngs ro the mode rni se tradition of ab stra ct painting and sc ulptur e championed aga inst minimalism in 'A rr and Object hoo d ?' No and yes. No , in the sense that Welling 's first seriou s wo rks belo ng ro a dist inct ly pose-minimal (and pos c-com:epcual) moment , one when ph otograp hy emerged as a veh icle of ava nt- ga rde amb ition as perh aps neve r befo re, even as it w as face d as never befor e with the prob lem o f how to de al w ith the cano nica l photogra phic achievem ents o f the pas t. And yes, in the sense that Lock impli es a rejection not only of rhe lirerali st sra nce toward ob jecthood but al so of an entir e set o f a ttitud es assoc iared with post mode rni sm th at wo uld gra nt to a rtistic activity on ly the ro les of perfo rman ce, ap p ro pri ation, dem ystificatio n, critique " ( 2.8). An indispensabl e sourc e for informat io n pertai nin g ro the Becher s and their w orking pro cedu res is Susann e Lan ge, Bemd and Hilla Becher: Life and Work, tran s. Je remy Gaines (Cambrid ge , M ass., and London, 2.007). Jn ad dition to the te xt by Lange, her book includ es importan t interviews with th e Becher s by Mic ha el Kohler, Jame s Lingw oo d, Lan ge , and Heinz- Nor bert Jo cks. " Th e Music of th e Blase Furn aces: Bern hard a nd H illa Becher in conversation w ith J ames Lingwo od ," in ibid., p . 192.. Further page refere nces ro t.his interview wi ll be in par enth eses in the cexc. Th e inter view first app ea red in Art Press, no . 2.09 (Jan uar y 1:996). Susa nn e Lange, " Bern d and Hi lla Beche r: ' Reducing O hjects ro Reta inable Propor tions,''' Bernd und Hilla
notes to pages 294-306
389
"good" versus "bad" objecthood: james we lling, bernd and hilla becher, jeff w all
10
The cenrral co ncern of rhis chap ter is objecrhood, and mos r of ir will consist of a commentary on rhe work - more pr ecisely, rhe project - of Bernd and Hilla Becher, who have already been ment ioned ofren in rhis book in connectio n wirh rhei r influe nce on younger German phorographers. However, before turning ro rhe Bcchers I wa nt ro glance briefly ar an early black -and-w hi re Pola roid by rhe Ame r ican phot ograp her J ames Welling, and ro go over so me re mark s thar I made about ir a number of years ago in an essay in rhe caralogue accompany ing an exhibition of hi s work rhar opened ar rhe Wexner Center for rhe Arrs in Colu mbu s, O hi o. The Polar oid is Lock ( 1976; Fig. 193) and ir depicts a wooden rwo-by -four plank rhar Welling had used as an impro vised lock (m ore precisely, a brace) ro his srudio door, leaning against a wa ll. In my co mm ent ary I rouch on rhe dark ronaliry of rhe image, which perhaps owes som et hin g ro rhe exam ple of Paul Stra nd and in any case compe ls rhc viewe r ro look extreme ly closely, and rhen go on ro comment on rhe way in which rhe photograp h "nor only represents bur fo regro unds and ex pr esses rhe scuffed and dent ed plank, which in rurn may be see n in this contcxr as foreg roundin g and expressing irs ow n material basis - wood, probably pine. (We arc now in the general rcrrirory of Heid egger's ' The Orig in of rhe Work of Art.' )" 1 Farther on I return co rh is rheme by noting how " rhe darkne ss of rhe picture underscores whar mighr be called rh e thingness of rhe plank , forcing th e issue of rhe plank's de nsity, its we ight , its roug hness 10 rhe rouch (alon g the edges at any rate), and evoking a correspo ndin g mood in rhe photographer/viewer (serious, rhoughr ful, concentrared)" (27 ). There follows a long passage rhar I shall quore in its entirety: Meditating on the question of thingness in chis context, I was led to revisit the notion ofobj ecchood as ir appea rs in my 1967 essay, "Arr and Objccchoo d," where iri s associated with a pejorarive norion of rheatricaliry. Briefly, I argued rhac the minimalist (or, the term I prefe rred, liceralisc) ent erprise involved the proj ection of objecrhood, characteristically in rhe form of a more or less simple three-d im ensional shape or gesralr (at the limit a hollow cube}, as a mean s of bringing about a particular so re of open-ended yet also rigo rously cont ro lled relat ions hip among rhe work in questio n, rhe embod ied viewer, and rhe gallery space within which rhe encounter berwc en t he firsr rwo was ar ranged ro rak e place. Wirhour rehearsing rh ose arguments her e, I wanr co speculate chat Welling's int erest in a s imple t wo-by-four in 1976 may well have been influenced, however indir ectly, by the minimalist intervention; indeed it is possible ro see his pl ank as a real-wo rld ana logue co rhe California m inimalist (o r posr-
"good .. versus ..bad" ob1ecthood James welling, bernd and hilla becher, jeff wa ll
303
193
James Welling, Lock, 1976.
Chromogcnic print from origina l
Polaroid. 9.52 x 7.3 cm
min imali st ) Joh n McC racken's high-gloss, "abs tract " planks leaning agai nst gallery wa lls t hat we re a featur e of the avant -ga rde scene in the late r96os and r97os . (In poin t of fact the examples of Ro bert Morris, Richard Serra, and Robert Smithson were more imp ortant for Welling personally.) But the con cern in Welling's photograph wit h th e speci ficity of this particul ar rwo-b y-four, with its individ ual histo ry and identi fying nicks and blemis hes, com es our the other side of minima lism or literalism inro t he world of real and no r "gene ric" objects, to use a philo soph ical dist inction that has t he virrn e of locating the issue of t heat ricality wit hin a larger prob lemat ic of philosop hical skept icism. (From this point of view, rhe troub le wit h Dona ld Jud d's Specific Objects was that they were never specific enough .) Anot her way of characterizi ng Welling's focus on the two-by-four might be to speak of an inter est in real as opposed to abstract litera lness or even in "good" as distinc t from "bad" objecthood, understan din g by the first term in bo t h opposi tion s qualit ies pertaining to ob jects that can only be revealed or manifeste d in and by the art of photography (no "good" objecthoo d tou t court) . [2.7]2 When I wrote this passage l never imagined t hat rhe dist inct ion betw een "good" and "bad" modes of objec tho od - un derstood as tenab le only in photograp hs, not in the wo rld at large - might be relevant to any topic I was likely to work on in the furure; rather, I took it to be a way of characterizi ng certain aspects of Welling's Lock, period. Yet t he mo re I have reflecte d on t he work of the Bechers, the more I have become con-
304
why photography matters as art as never before
vinccd rhar suc h a disrincrion , or someth ing akin to it, lies near t he heart of thei r careerlong project. So ir is ro t he Bechers, the oldest figures rreat ed in rhis book, rhar I now rurn.
Bernd and Hilla Becher were born in Germany in 193 1 an d 1934 respectively, he in Siegen an d she in Potsdam, just ou tside Berlin. ; H illa Becher (born Wobeser) learn ed rhe rudiment s of ph otogra ph y from her mor her, and wh en still very young served as an appre nt ice ro a local ph otograp her before defecting to West Germany in 1954. Bern d - who died in 2007, afte r rhis cha pter was dra fted - began by stud ying "decorative pa inting" and rhen pa inting and drawing, rhc larrer ar rhe State Acade my in Srurrga rt . In his words: I first made dra wings, etching s and paintin gs of indu stria l ob jects in rhe trad ition of the Neue Sachlic hkeit [New Obje criviry]. My reacher in Srurrgart was close ro rhis gro up in rhe !arc , 920s . Th en towards rhe end of rhe 1950s, in my nat ive region, a mining area, rhe mines began ro close, an d t hen rhe bla st furnaces began ro close. And I beca me awa re that rhcsc bu ildings were a kind of nomadic architec tur e whic h had a compara t ively sho rt life - maybe 100 years, often less, then they disappear . It seemed imporranr ro keep t hem in some way and photograp hy seemed the mos t app ropri ate way ro do rhat. 4 By 1957 both had co me ro Dlisseldorf ro study ar rhe Kun srakademie; by 1959 t hey were working togethe r, and wit hin a few years rhey arri ved, more or less, ar the typo logica l approac h rhey hav e pursued ever afte r. (They married in 1961, which is also when their studi es ca me roan end.) In 1962 and '63 rhey ma de rheir first working rrips abroad, and in 1966 a fellowship from rhe Brit ish Coun cil enab led them ro spe nd six months phor og raphin g in rhe industri a l regions of Wales and England . Thr oug hout the decades that followed they co nti nued ro trav el exte nsively throughout Europe and the Un ired Stares in sea rch of subj ect matter. In 1976 Bernd Becher was appo inted to the faculty of the Kun srakademie in Diisseldorf ro start teaching photo grap hy, whi ch until then had not been part of the curri culum; among his early studen ts were Gursky, Hofer, Ruff, and Strut h, as well as ot her no table figures not trea ted in thi s boo k (such as Axel Hiirre and Petra Wunderlic h). In the course of t he 1970s the Bechers' work was exhib ited wide ly (the ir first New York show, at Sonnabe nd , rook place in 1972) and, starri ng in 1970 w ith the pub lication of Anony mous Sculpture: A Typology of Tech110logical Struct ures bur ga inin g momentum in the late 1980 s and '90s, they bro ugh t o ur a series of remarkable books, for the most part ded icated successively ro a sing le t ype of indus t rial struc t ure. In 2004-5 a compre hensive ret rospec t ive ex hibition of the ir work was held at the Kun stsamm lung No rdrh ein-Wesrfa len in Diisseldorf, the Ce ntre Pom pidou in Paris, and the Hamb urger Bah nh of in Berlin. Their manner of proceed ing is we ll kn own . For mont hs each year, ma inly in the spring and fall when they were likeliest to find the " light ing" they requir ed - "t hat diffuse bu t
..good" versus "bad"" obJecthood: James welling. bernd and h1lla becher. Jeff wall
305
steady light un der a sligh tly clouded sky rhar keeps any shado wing, with all rhe emotion al associations suc h might evo ke, ro a minimum " 5 - they traveled to one or anot her ind ust rial sire or ot herwise pr omis ing locale (so far only in Euro pe and the Un ired Srares) and photog raphed various structures that rhey found there (Figs. 194-7). They did this at first with an old-fas hioned plate-bac k camera, using long expos ures that yielded blackand -whi re images wit h remarka ble detail and dept h of field; subse quen tly, they worked with modern large-for mat cameras, whic h are ca pable of shar per focus, and wit h finegra ined film t hat enab led t he motif to be ph orographed in a highe r resolurion. 6 (Ir is one of rhe hallmarks of rheir wor k rhar borh of rhem did everyth ing; rheir pho rographs are t herefore rhe producr of a joint efforr in rhe fullest sense of rhe rerm .7 ) From rhe srarr rhey discovered rhe virt ues of photogra phing their chosen structures from a raised vantage poinr; rhis had the double function of revea ling some t hing of rhe srrucrure's immediare surround ings and of allowing rhe st ru ctur e itself "ro appea r .. . in its full reach and free of distortio n." 8 Anot her earl y decision was to phor ograp h rhe st ructures in q uestio n as "o bject ively" as possible, by choosing as head-o n a viewpo int as cou ld be found (rhe elevated vantage point played a role in t his) and by centering rhe structu re in the im age rectangle and reduci ng the enviro ning space co a bare minimum by cropping (bur nor elimina ting ir ent irely; more on rhis fart her on ). H illa Becher to James Lingwood: " I was interested in a srraighrforw ard 19rh-cenr ury way of photograp hing an objecr. To photogra ph things frontally creares the stro ngest prese nce and you can elimina re rhe possibiliries of being too obviously sub jecrive" (194). In the same interview, Bernd Beche r com pa res rhe resulting images w irh rheir "clear outer form " to silhouerres, an intriguing assoc iat ion on several cou nt s (194) . 9 In dealing wirh more co mp lex srrnc rures or ent ire indusrr ial landscapes, more than a single phorogra ph was needed. As rhey remark ro Susanne Lange: Principally you coul d say rhar rhe object is rhere in irs ent irery and shou ld be depicted wirhour alrerarion in irs typ ica l form . Some objects have to be photographed from vario us perspect ives - a frontal view, in profile, and from an angle. Thar depends on rhe srru crural rype and irs co mpl exiry, as well as rhe co ndit ions in which the phoros are ta ken. Bur wirh some objects we have raken photos from eighr different perspectives, for example, by wa lking around rhe object and pho togra phing it at a 45-degree angle. The re are also details rhar we have pho tograp hed from the support st ructures of rhe headgear rower or photos show ing the func t ional elements of a bla st furnace. And fina lly we show some objects, for example ... in the indust rial landscapes, in t heir entire surroun ding s. Th is ap proach was followed from the very beginni ng and basica lly carri ed ou r for every group of pho tos we rook. 10 In t he decades since rhey began working toge t her, man y of the srrucrures they photo graphe d have bee n torn down, and entire indust ria l sites no longer exist as such. "Time has a differen t dimension in t his field," Bernd Becher remark s in rhe interview wirh James Lingwood already cired. "Ten years in rhis archirecru re mighr be eq uivalent to roo years in another kind of archi recrure. Ten years of sreel architecture is equivalent to 100 years in stone . Planrs are created, develope d, and abandoned very quickly, in relat ion ro eco nomic needs and circ um srances" (192). 11 A significa nt aspecr of rheir
306
why photography
matters as art as never before
194 Berndand Hilla Becher, Wiater Tower, Trier-Ehrang, Germany,1982. Black and white photograp h. 91.6 x 75.5cm framed
195 Bernd and Hilla !lecher, Cooling Tower, Zeche Vicroria Nlarhias, Essen, Germany, t963. Black and whire phorograph . 91.6 x 75 .5 cm framed
achievement was th us ro d ocument a rapidl y vanis h ing rea lm. Yet they also insisted that, in Hilla Becher's wo rds in t he Lingwood interview, "p reservation wasn't the mot ivat ion. It's a side effect " (r 92 ). (Bernd Becher, less ab so lute than his wife, imm edia tely adds that it is neverthe less " an impor ta nt point. " He goes on: " lf you visit a Go th ic ch urch , you have the poss ibilit y ro go back to its time, to the cultur e which built it . Our ph orograph s of industrial p lan ts create t he possib ility of being in this indu stria l time " f 192 J.) Another source of interest might loo sely be ca lled esth etic an d invol ves t he recog nition that, as the Bec hers pu t it in 19 69, "The o bjects th at interes t us have in common that they were co nce ived with out con sidera tio n for prop o rt io ns o r o rnamenta l structu res. Their esthetic co nsists in the fact tha t they were cre at ed w ithout esthet ic inte ntion ." 12 Or as Bernd Becher sa ys ro Ulf Erdmann Z iegler, "It's not a case o f phorog raphing everything in the world , but of pro ving that the re is a form of arc h itect u re tha t consists in essence of appa ratu s, tha t has no th ing ro do w ith design, and nothi ng ro do with a rchi tecture eithe r. They ar c enginee ring con st ructi ons wi th their own esthet ic" ( 140) . For a moment, around 1969 - 70, rhey rook up rhe norion of "anonymo us sculpture" as a
..good" versus "bad" o b1ecthood: 1ames welling. bernd and h1lla becher. Jeff wall
307
196 Bernd and Hilb Becher, Gasometer, Havercrofr, Wakefield, United Kingdom, ,997. Black and white photogrnph. 91.6 x 75.5 cm framed
197 Bernd and Hilla Becher, Blast furnace, Steubcnvill< Ohio, U.S.A., 1980. Black and wh ite phorogrnph. 91.6 · 75.5 cm framed
mea ns of presenting rheir work, bur rhey seem quick ly ro have recognized the inappropriateness of that rubri c, 13 and in genera l the idea of "provi ng" the existence in late nineteenth- and rwentierh-cenrury industrial structu res of an independent, non-designbased esthet ic stops far short of providing an adequate explanation for their tireless, decades-long acriviry. Rather, as co mmentators have nor failed ro recognize, rheir essential motivation, at least from early on, was typological. T here are two distinct aspects ro what this has turned our to mean. In the first place, they painstakingly recorded the appearance, in the sysrematic, "objective" manner discussed earlier, of a large number of particular instances of a much more restricted array of different types of structures - warer towers, cooling rowers, gasometers, winding rowers, preparation plants, gravel plants, lime kilns, gra in elevators, coal bunkers, and blast furnaces, to list the types included in their recent retrospective exhibi tion and illustrated in the volume Typologies. (They also photographed entire industrial landscapes, as Hilla Becher remarks in a srarement cired
308
why photography matters as art as never before
earlier, but such images a re a minority in their oeuvre.} In t he second place - it is above all here that their project revea ls the depth of its originality - they pro ceeded to se lect from th e ent ire corpus of their work a fairly sm all number of photograp hs (typ ically nine, twe lve, fifteen, or sixtee n, though some t imes more} of a part icular type of st ru cture and to arrange them in t hree or fou r or even five close-packed rows, one directly above the ot her (Figs. 198-2.or}. Th e overall im pressio n made by such a compound image - Lange in her recent monograp h refer s to t hese as "tab leaus" - is of a grid, bur the grid form itself was never a posiri ve desi deratu m , merely a conseque nce of rhe Bechers' dete rm inatio n to present rhe photog raph s in relat ion to one anot her as direc tly and, once again, as "o bjecrively" as possi ble. 14 Th e po int of such an arrangement is above all compara tive: the viewer is thereby invited to int ui t from rhe nine, twelve , fifteen, sixtee n or more ind ividua l instan ces t he latent "p resence" or ope ratio n of a single type and at the same rime to enjoy a heigh tened appre hensio n of th e individuali t y or unique ness of t he particular instances relat ive both to one anot her and to the latent or implied type . Often but not always, the Bechers in inte rviews em phasized th e im porta nce of the similari ty amo ng individual elements wit hin a single typo logy. "The gro up s of photo gra phs are m ore about simi lari t ies than dis t inct ions," t hey exp lained in 1974: The group is decided by t he fami ly to w hich each im age belongs. By looki ng at the photogra phs sim ultaneously, yo u sto re t he know ledge of an idea l type, which can be used the next t ime. You see the aspects wh ich rema in t he same so you un derstand a litt le more abou t the functio n of the structure. Our selections are obvious but it has taken us many years to realise t hey are obvious. W hen you first sec a group of coo ling rowers th ere are perhaps five differe nt ways to form them into relat ionships: shape, size, materials, date and area. But as t he collect ion expa nded t hese categories became very crude. Within each gro up the re ar e t he same di stinct ions and more. It is nor our select ion that is important but what t he st ructure s reach us about themselves. 11 In fact individual groupings do rend strong ly - especially on first viewing - to underscore the relative sim ilarity of the pa rticu lar instances, as for exa mp le in all th e compoun d studies of Gasometers and Cooling Towers in t heir recent retrospect ive exhibi t ion - "t he more sim ilar the constructio ns, the more co nvincing the typologies," as Zieg ler says and Bernd Becher agrees ( roo) - though every now and th en an exception is delibera tely made, with almo st co m ic results, as in the gat hering of st ru ct urall y diverse, partly for that reaso n "ant hropomo rphic "-s eeming water rowers from Belgium, France, German y, Great Britain, Italy, a nd the United States that illustrates the cover of Typo logies (Fig. 202). 16Yet what in the end ma tter s mos t , as the Bechers acknowledge mor e than once, is the inseparab ility of similarity and difference in their art . "You can very well perceive things that differ little from each ot her as individual eleme nt s, if yo u assemble t hem in groups," H illa Becher rema rk s to Zieg ler. "T he workers' houses or the w inding rowe rs (for hoist ing) look very similar, an d you co uld thi nk that they came from a produc tion series, like ca rs. Only whe n you put them beside each oth er do you see t heir ind ividu -
"good"' versus "'bad'" ob1ecthood: james welling. bernd and hilla becher, Jeff wall
309
t98 (Ibis and facing /}age) Bern d and H illa Becher, Wiater Towers, Belgium , Fra nce, Germany, Gre a t Brirain , Luxembourg, U.S.A., 1967-83 . Black and white photograp hs. Each panel 46.5 x 56.5 cm fram ed
-
, 99 Bernd an d Hilla Becher, Cooli11g Towers, Germany, 46.5 x 56.5 cm framed
1963-2001.
Blac k a nd white photographs.
Each panel
Bernd and Hilla Becher, Gasometers, Gear Britain and Germany, 1966-97. Black and white photographs. Each panel 46.5 x 56.5 cm framed
200
(this and facing 1,age) Bernd and Hilla Becher, \'l/i11di11g Towers, U.S.A., 1974-8. Black and wh ite photographs. Each panel 46 .5 x 56.5 cm framed 20 1
(this and facing page) Bernd and H illa Becher, Water Towers, Belgium, France, Germany, Grear Brirain, Iraly, U.S.A., 1970-98. Black and whire phorograp hs. Each panel 46 .5 x 56.5 cm framed 202
203 August Sander, Working S111de11ts, , 926 . Gelatin silver print. From People of the Twentieth Century
ali ry. When you approach the theme of indus t ry and every th ing that goes with it in this manne r, you make discoveries" (97-8) . 17 Two part ial analogies wit h the Bechers' typo logical prac t ice are often me nt ioned. The first is w ith the science of comparat ive mo rp ho logy of ani ma ls and plan ts, as pract iced by Linnaeus an d others in t he eighteent h and nineteent h centuries.'8 In part icular the Beche rs' em phasis on form as reve latory of function - the ir preference for "struct ures that had an inn er form rhar was reflected in t he outer appearance," as they put it 19 has its analogue in m or phological thinking, ar the same time as it ex plains their lack of inte rest in photographing certain types of co nremporary st ructures, such as nuclear energy pl ants, whose exteriors are wholly inexpressive of the act ual processes that rake place wirhin .20 (I note in passing that this is a disti nctly an t imin im alist atti tu de, the characte r ist ic mini ma list ob ject - Tony Smit h's Die [ 1962] is the arch -example - having posit ively courted an effect of m ystery w it h respect to its ho llow int erio r.") The second ana logy is close r to ho me - the Cologne photographe r Aug ust Sander's am bitious documenta ry project, start ing in , 9 10, to por tr ay a representative cross-sec tion of t he Ge rm an pop ulation by se lecti ng ind ivid ua ls from diverse wa lks of life who, when photographed, stood for, in stant iated, a wide range of t ypes (farmers, workers, artists, students, po liticians, various professions, and so on). Agains t the racist physiog nomies al rea dy preva lent in Germany, Sander emp hasized soc iological factors virt ually co the excl usion of all others . In Alfred Dob lin's wo rd s from a sho rt essay of 1929 on Sander's work : People are shaped by what they eat, by t he air and light in w hich they move, by the wo rk they do or do no r do, and also by t he peculiar ideology of their class. One can learn more abo ut t hese ideo logies ... mere ly by glancing at t he pictures in gro up 3, t hose of the wea lthy m iddle class and their ch ildren . The tensions of our t ime become
318
why photography matters as art as never before
204 August Sander, Middl e-Class Family, 1923. Gelatin silver print. From People of the Twentieth Century
clear when we compare the phot ogra ph of the wo rking st udents wit h that of t he professor and his so peaceful family, nestling con tentedl y and st ill unsuspecting [Figs. 203 and 204 ). 22 The Bechers often acknowledge d an affinity wit h Sander, bur it goes wirhour saying char there is a basic difference between his subject ma tter and rheirs, besides which Sander's project was partl y concerned wit h mak ing co ntem porary tendencies visible - as Doblin's remarks mak e clea r - in a way tha t theirs was no t .2 J Moreove r, t he individua l example , understood as repr esentativ e of its typ e, was bas ic to his pract ice, whereas the Bechers juxtapose multipl e exampl es in a sing le "tableau" in ord er to evoke the t ype. In an y case, they seem to ha ve become aw are of Sande r's work only afte r their ow n pro ject was under way. 24 Another, equ a lly instru ct ive analogy is that of the so-called co mp osite photograph , as developed and theo rized by Fran cis Galron betw een 1878 and :c888.25 Basica lly, Galton advocated superimpo sing a cert ain number of photo grap hic portraits of a circumscrib ed cohort of persons (also of thoro ughbr ed hor ses) in such a way char a somew hat blurr ed and imprecise bur nor entirely general composi te pictur e was produced as a result . (Allan Sekula: "Ea ch successive image was given a fractional expos ur e based on rhe inverse of
"good" versus "bad" obiecthood: James welling. bernd and hilla becher, 1eff wall
319
205 Co mpo site photograp h of twelve so ldiers, from 1-1.P. Bowd itch, "Arc Compos ite Photogra phs Typ ical?"
"'--•
...
...,,
..
.,......,......,
~""
1111.1• •~•-~
"-
n,• ~-••..,
,,.. ~.- ... ._
th e tota l numb er of images in the samp le. That is, if a com posite were to be made from a doze n ori gina ls, eac h wou ld receive one- t welfth of the requi red tota l expo sure. " 26) Such a pict ure, in Ga lto n's wor ds, "re pr esent s no man in parti cular, but port rays an imaginary figure possess ing the average feat ures of any gro up of men. Th ese ideal faces have a surpr ising air of reali t y. Nobody who ha s glanced at one of them for the first t ime, would do ub t its being the likeness of a living person, yet , as J have sa id, it is no such thin g; it is t he portrait of a type and not of an ind ividual. " 27 Galton's proced ure, in ot her wo rd s, was typological, and eventuall y came to take the form of a gr id of photographic po rt rai ts of indi vidual s wit h the composite portrait in the center, wh ich may app ear at first glance to bear an uncan ny if pa rt ial resem blan ce to the Bechers' ensembles (Fig. 205) . Ho wever, the differen ces betwee n Galton's gene r ic portra its and the Beche rs' typo log ies far outwe igh the similar it ies. In t he first place, Galto n's approac h require d tha t the pho tographer make a pre-selection of individ ua l cases t hat seemed to him to "clus ter towa rds a co mm on cent re," a choice t hat under the circu mstancesdea ling with faces rat her t han wit h w at er towe rs, oft en in an attemp t to identify t he type of men co nvicted of larceny (wit h and wit hout vio lence), or of Jews, or of pht hisica l an d non-pht hisical hospital populat ions - was bound to be not just sub ject ive but
320
tendenrio us. 28 (Th e very no ti on of a "co mmo n cen tre " is forei gn to the Beche rs' way of proceeding.) In the seco nd , the fact rha r Ga lron's co mpo site ph otograph s pr od uced rhe image of a type meant rha r rhe individual specimen s were o f no furt her interest - ind eed Calton held rhar the type was inevitably "be tt er look ing" than its compone nt s, "beca use the average d po rt rait of man y perso ns is free from the irreg ula rit ies rhar va riously blemish rhe looks of each of them . " 29 In contrast, the Bechers' principled insistence on seeking not ro depict bur rath er ro evoke rhe t ype has rhe conseque nce of gra nt ing special visibility ro rhe relation s of resembla nce and difference among its various instances and by implication - bur on ly by implication - between those instances and rhe type. The Bechers' t ypo logies in t heir ent iret y are thu s far mor e compell ing t ha n the Galronian composite photogra ph , quire apart from t heir vastl y greate r philosophical significance, which I am about co cons ider.
One way of broaching rhe to pic is ro recognize rhar rhe Bechers the mselves almost always speak of the subj ects of th eir photo graphs as objec ts - or, less often, things . " Ir is revea ling to note here," Armin Zweitc writes in his introdu ctory essay in Typolog ies, "rha r Bernd and Hilla Becher initially quite deliberate ly eschewed the term motif. For in th eir eyes the technica l insta llation s we re 'obj ects, not mo t ifs. The phoro is merely a subst itute for the object, iri s useless as a picture in rhe usual sense of the word.' " 30 As Bernd Becher exp lains to Z iegler, speaking of the beginning of the ir project , "We had to ma ke a certain effort wi th respec t ro rhe equipm ent. Because we told ourselves th at we wanted ro rake rhe objects with us, so ro speak. " 3 ' Th ere is some t hing almos t p rimi tive in th ese notions, and ind eed t he Beche rs have also desc ribed themselves as having "sim ply selected objects rhar cou ld be captured and were thu s t here for rhe raking . " 32 For her part, Susanne Lange' s introdu ctor y essay to the catalogue for th e 199 2 ex hibit ion enHal/en bears the sub ti tle - a quotat ion from titled Bemd 1md Hilla Becher: Hi:iuser1111d the art ists- "Red ucing Objec ts ro Retai nabl e Proportion s," and includ es the remar k char for the Bechers the photographs are "s ur roga te obj ects" (aga in, a qu otar ion ).33 In rhe present chapte r up to this point I ha ve deliberately avo ided borh terms (" obje ct " and "t hing" ), referring instead ro " indu stria l st ru ctures," pr ecisely so that I might ca ll pa rticular atte ntion when rhe rime would be right , as it now is, to the fundamen t al impo rtance of those terms to t he Bechcrs' own understanding of their proj ect . Una vo idabl y, however, I have here an d there quoted th e Bechers as using rhem: unavoidably, because a concern wit h objects - with ind ustr ial stru ctures viewed as someth ing like a "wo rld " of such ob jects - was fro m ea rly on rhe de epest stra tum o f the ir arr . What this means begins to eme rge in an interest ing exc ha nge from a t989 discussion with the Bechers and Jean-Fran(o is C hevrier, James Lingwood , and Thom as Struth: J-FC: Is it tru e that the te xt of Carl Andre publi shed in Artforum in th e 1970 s changed a lor of thin gs, rhar ir enabled peopl e ro understand your work better? lThe article, one page long with two pages of illu st ration s, appeare d in Decembe r r9 7 2; in effect ir introduced rhe wor k of rhe Bechers ro the English -speaking wo rld.]
··good" ve rsus "bad" ob1ecthood: james welling, bernd and hiIla becher, Jeff wa ll
321
HB: Yes, in rhe sense rhar rhey sim ply accepted the fact rhar you can jusr photograph an ob ject in a srraighr way, wit hout any com posit ion ... BB: •.. rhe fact rhar you can find objec ts withou t choosing any compos ition . T he ware r rowers, for instance, are like kitchen too ls ... Another important thing, which became more clea r, was rhar ou r method of photographing ob jects from a high viewpoint, made them look more rooted in the grou nd . . . TS: Why is rhis so important in relat ion ro the content? HB: These objects are fixed to rhe grou nd, the y are part of the landscape, you cou ld almost say they have roots. Oth er objecrs, like a cup or a sewing machi ne, do not have roots, but a wa rer rower is srrictly co nnected to rhe grou nd, it is not a moveable ob ject, altho ugh ir is an object which is put up only for a cert ain period of time. Thi s object is linked ro a cert ain mechan ism and to t he landscape, ro people working there and ro a soc ial network. You have ro isolate the objec t ot herwise you surrender ro chaos and confusion bur at rhe same rime , you have to show a part of irs backgro und ro show that rhis is no t a moveab le object like a cup of coffee. J -FC: ls rhis idea of t he object being rooted in t he grou nd linked in any way ro t he minimali st idea of sculptur e which is rooted in rhe groun d, which is very important for Carl Andre? BB: No, I do nor thi nk so. Ca rl was int erested in rhe idea rhat rhe object was not created by co mposition bur was defined by the sit uati on. It is abo ut t he concept of "fou nd objects," of prefabrica ted parts, like bricks or iron, wh ich are t here, which you just have ro look ar; a nd when you isolate them and put rhem rogerher an d transpo rt t hem ro another context, the y cha nge. You do nor ha ve to put them into a line [a refere nce to Andre 's Lever (1966)?), you just have ro make some order .... TS: Ir seems ro me tha t rhe renewed interest by people of my generatio n or even younge r people in your work is linked to its historical value, wh ich also makes it different from the work of minimal art ists who were mu ch more interested in arr theory ... 88 : I would like ro put it diffe rently. I would say we want to com plet e rhe world of rhings.34
Several points deserve emp hasis. r) The re is, on the face of it, some t hing more than a little surprisi ng about the Bechers' insistence, nor just in t his exchange bur in all the int erviews I have read, rhar their conce rn was always wit h photograph ing ob ject s (using the Ger man words Obiekt and Gege11stand mo re or less int erchangeab ly). For me, of cou rse, t his inevitably raises rhe questio n of the relatio n of t heir work and practise ro the issue of minima lisr/lireralisr ob jecthood as the latter notio n was develope d in "A rt and Objecrhood" as well as to the dist inct ion betwee n "good" and "bad" modes of objecrhood put forward many years later in "James Welling's Lock (197 6)." More broadl y, the pr imacy of the notion of obj ects (and ro a lesser extent, things) in virtu ally all their interviews and written texts suggests an interp reta tion of their project that is nor only typological, as rhar term is usually under stood , bur onto logical.
322
why pho tography matters as art as never before
2) The ropic of rhe relat ion of the Bechers' work ro minimalism comes up exp licitly in the discussion. This happens in co nnection wirh their (again, somewhat sur prisi ng) insistence on th e importance of photographing th eir chosen objects in a way that brings to light the fact rhat each belongs to a particular spo t of earth (also to a particu lar economic and social network) and nor another. What is surp rising about this is rhar it may seem to fly in the face of th eir equa l insistence, which being more obvious has received greater emphasis, on the importan ce of isolating the objects of their atte nti on from the objects' immed iate surroundings . As th ey srare in 1989 (the same year as the interv iew with Chevrier, Lingwood, and Struth):
One just has to select the right objects and fir them into the picture precisely, then they tell their own sto ry all by th emse lves. In other words we did nor want to change anything about rhe ob ject we were photographing, a principle that we still follow today. Only one artistic device was and is allowed, namely to ser individual objects off on their own, helping them fill the picture - something which is nor always quite in accordance with the facts as they stand where th ey are in t he midst of an arch itectonic chaos or jungle. Bur this artistic measure is simply necessary so that they can be seen and recognized in their comple te form [Kohler interview, r 88 J. The idea seems to be to eliminate any and all surplus of information about the exact circumstances, physical and other, in which a given object is embedded bur at rhe same rime to leave no doubr that the object in question, as the Bechers put it, is nor moveable like a cup or a sewi ng machine bur rarher is "strictly connected ro the ground ." (The elimination of "context" also means th at the objects in the Bcchers' photographs are nor what norma lly is meant by "si re-specific.") Ar this point Chevrier asks whether the idea of such an object is link ed "with the minimalist idea of sculpture which is rooted in the ground, which is very import ant for Ca rl Andre." Whereupon Bernd Becherrighrly, in my view - denies this on the grounds that Andre's work was nor about rootedness; on th e contrary, although having in commo n with the Bechers a desire to avoid "composition," Andre "was interested in the idea that the object ... was defined by the situation," which is also ro say by the embodi ed viewing subjec t 's open-e nd ed exper ience of that situation. (" Art and Objecrhood": "W hereas in previous a rr 'whar is ro be had from the work is located st rictly within it,' th e experience of literalisr arr is of an object in a situation - one that, virtuall y by definition, includes the beholder." 31) Put slightly differently, the objects out of which Andre mad e his pieces cou ld be and were transported from one viewing context ro another, where in effect they became, when activated by a n experiencing subject, another work of arr . Noth ing cou ld be further from the ontological status of the objects in rhe Bechers' photographs. 3) Bernd Beche r also remarks that the "found objects" - bricks, meral squares, and so on - that are the basis of Andre's art are things "which you just have ro look at." He thereby implies that the objects in his and Hilla Becher's photographs a re so methi ng other than that: as if mere lookin g, or indeed mere expe rienc ing (to use a potentially more bodily term), is nor at all th e mode of apprehension that rhe ir typologies seek to elicit. Rather, as already suggested, whar is called for is a more comparative, in that
"good" versus "bad" ob1ecthood james welling. bernd and hilla becher. 1eff wall
323
sense more discerni ng, perce ptua lly an d intel lect u a lly acute kin d of see ing, o n e that begins b y ac knowle dging rhe com mon fu nct ion o f the ob jects in question an d then p roceeds to discriminate a hos t of large and sma ll differences among them der ivin g from mul tiple and often overlapp ing facrors (ma terials used in the ir construction, nat ional or local o r period "styles," the pa rticu lar req uirements of a specific sire, a nd othe rs).
Ar this p oint I want ro adva nce a thes is rhar some readers will doub tless fin d surpr ising: name ly, that the onto logical originality of the Bechers' p rojec t can be illu minated by an appea l ro Hegel's dis t inct ion bet ween the not ions of t he "ge nu ine" or "true" infin ite and the "sp uri ous" or "bad" infinite, as p ro poun ded first in his Science of Logic (1812 -1 6) and mo re briefly in The Encyclopedia Logic (1817, 1821, and 1830). 36 For pr esent p u rposes, what is at stake in t hat dist inctio n is rhe prob lem, inh erited from Kam, of how ro spec ify the finitude o r determinateness o r (more simply) t he individuali t y of objects in a way that does no r sim ply contrast all rhe c haracte r istics that a particular ob ject a lleged ly possesses wit h all ot her possib le characterist ics that ir does n or- an endless task t hat is precisely what Hege l means by rhe "sp urious infinite. " Now, th e sheer d ifficu lty of Hege l's tho ugh t, nor ro ment ion the specialism of his language, makes select ive q uota t ion awkward. Here for example is wha t he sou n ds like on the top ic: In orde r that rhe limi t whic h is in someth ing as such sho ul d be a limita t ion, some t hing must at the same time in its own self transcend the limit, it m ust in its own self be related to the limi t as to something which is not. The determinate being of some t hing lies ine rtly indifferent, as it we re, alongside its limit . Bur somet hing only transcends its limit in so far as it is the acco mplished sublat ion of rhe lim it, is t he in-itself as nega t ively related ro it. An d since the lim it is in t he deter111inationitself as a limitatio n, some t hing transce n ds its own self. (Science of Logic, ·, 32, em phasis in or iginal) Also: [The tru e infini te], as the consumma ted return into self, the relat ion of itself ro itself, is being- but no t indeterminate, abst ract being, for it is pos ited as n ega t ing the negat ion; it is, therefore, a lso determinate being for it co n tains negatio n in gen eral and h ence de term inate ness. It is an d is there, presen t before us. It is on ly the spu rious infinite wh ich is t he beyond, bec au se it is only in the negation of rhe fin ire posited as real - as such ir is rhe abst ract, first negat ion; determ ined only as nega t ive, t he affirmation of determinate be ing is lacking in ir; rhe spurio us infinite, h eld fast as o nly negative, is even supposed to be 1101 there, is supposed to be unatt ainab le. However, ro be rhus unattainab le is not its gran deur bur its defect, whic h is at botto m the result of holding fast ro the finite as such as a merely affir111ativebeing . ... The image of t he progress ro infinity is t he straight line, at t he two lim its of which alone the infinite is, and always o nl y is w here the lin e - which is determinate being- is nor, and which goes out beyond to th is negatio n of its de term inate being, t hat is, to t he indeterm inate; t he
324
why photography matters as art as never before
image of tru e infinity, bent back into itself, becomes th e circle, t he line which has reached itself, which is closed and w holly present, w ithout beginning and end. [Science of Logic, , 48-9, emph as is in origina l] From the The Encyclopedia Logic: If we let somethi ng and other, rhc mo ments of being- there, fall as under, the resul t is that somet hi ng becomes a n othe r, and thi s othe r is itself a som ething, which, as suc h, then alters itsel f in the sa me way, and so on with ou t end . Reflect ion takes itself to have arrived here at somet hing very elevated, indeed t he most elevate d Itruth] of a ll. But t his infinite progressio n is not t he genui ne Infini te, whi ch cons ists rather in remaining at home wit h itself in its ot her, or (whe n it is exp ressed as a process) in comi ng to itself in its other . It is of great importance to grasp the conce pt of true Infinit y in an ade quate way, an d not just to stop at the spurio us infinity of the infinit e progress .
I149]. 37 Plent y of other,
equa lly impe netrabl e-seeming
passages
might be cited in thi s
connect ion. No commenta tor in recent decades has provide d m ore illumi natio n with respec t to Hegel's thou ght t han Robert Pippin, on who m I depend strong ly in what follows. As Pippin exp lains in his path breaking book Hegel 's Idealism ( 1989), Hegel mean s just the op posite of clai m ing . .. th at being ot her than som e othe r is itself a property of t he thing (in fact ... that notion is pr ecisely where t he not ion of a "spurious infinit e" em erges, since, by so co nsidering a t hing's relat ion to an ot her, we render it indeterm inatel y, or "i ndifferentl y" other than an in finit y of ot hers). Hege l means instead to insist t hat the properties immediate ly attrib uted to a t hing m ust themselves be capable of some con t ras tive work, some deter m inate way of excludi ng other prope rt ies conc retely, and so of distingu ishi ng the thi ng from ot her things that have such pro pert ies, an d th at the thou ght of imme diate Dasein [by which Hegel means ro ughly the o rdin ary way of co nceiving of objects and th eir properties ] cannot accom pl ish t his rask .38 Or again : With no m ore reflective unde rstand ing of "negat ive" dete rmi nacy, or the groun d of the co ntra sti ve effects of property possession, a t hing can on ly be said to be "indifferently" ot her t han everyt hi ng, infini tely othe r than everythi ng t hat it is not, and that is just what Hegel means by a bad or inco herent infinite. In this case, it is inco here nt because the introduction of such an infini te defea ts th e orig ina l pu rpose; a thing being infini te ly "ot her t han all it is not" offers up no determ in ing mark therewith at all. 1197! What is mu ch harder co make out is exactly how Hegel unders tands the alternative ro such a view; this is a vexed questio n (Pippin devo tes t wo intense chapters to the to pic in Hegel's Idealism) but th e alternat ive does seem to imp ly t he thought of a ki nd of ult imate "deep" relat ionality or, perh aps truer to bo t h Logics, a " deep " co nrra stiveness or
··good" versus "bad'" ob1ecthood: 1ames well,ng. bernd and h,lla becher. jell wall
325
opposit iona lity tha t is something other t han the result of conscious reflect ion on the part of hu man subjects . (For Pip pin, t he field of t hose relations, contras t s, and opp osit ions is for Hegel "ma intaine d " by such subjects "no n-empirically, co llectively, and histo rica lly."39 As he also puts it, "we are in some way [a collect ive, grea tly med iated, deeply histo rical (tempo ra lly exte nd ed) way ] responsible for such resu lts." 40 ) T his suggests that the finit ude or determ inate ness of a given ob ject is thu s in an act ive relatio n - it is "co nnected" - to an infinite number of opposed possibili t ies suc h that just those possibil ities and no othe rs are defining of that finit ude and dete rmi nate ness and vice versa (th is is do ub tless an ove rsim plification bur let it sta nd ). In Hegel's language, "Each moment !roughly, of mut ually reciprocal opposit ion] act ua lly shows that it co ntains its oppos ite wit hin itself and chat in this opposite it is united wit h itself; thu s the affirm at ive t ruth is t his immediately act ive unity, the caking toget her of both thoughts, t heir infinity - the relation to self w hich is no t imme diate but infinite" (Science of Logic, 15 2). As he also says about the finite and t he infinite, unde rstood in this sense, "this inseparability is their Notion" (ibid., 153, em pha sis in or iginal) . The question, of co ur se, is what relat ion all chis bears co t he Bechers' practise, which l grant at once has not hing to do with a pur suit of philoso phical ultimacy. But if one rakes seriously their insistence that t heir "Typologies" are of gro up s of objects, not simp ly industrial str uct ur es, it becomes possible to t hink of their project as hav ing for its aim no t the discovery of the groun d or field agains t which the photograp hed objects in ques t ion stand ou t as what t hey are (that wo uld be a kind of ult im acy}, but - more modes tly- rhe "showing" (as in Hegel's "each mo ment act ually shows") or making intui tab le of t he conditions of their intelligib ility both as the types of objects t hey instantiate - wa ter towe rs, coo ling towers, gasometers, wind ing cowers, and so on - and as the particula r instance of those types t hat the viewer is invited to recog nize each as being. Put slightl y differen tl y, the re is the sha rpest imaginab le difference betwee n the hundreds or indeed t housands of objects t hat are prese nted to us in the Bechers' "Typologies" and the "same" objects as t hey might be encountered in actual life prec isely as regards the ques t ion of their finitu de or determinateness - in ordi nary language t heir specificit y, thei r ind ividualit y. Such an object consi dered "in itself" (loose ly speaking) would in most cases be recognizable as a water cower - but in the first place t he catego ry of water towe r woul d implicitly be cont rasted with every other category of object, man-made and natura l, large and small, opaque, translucent, and transparent, solid, liquid, and gaseo us, and so on, to be encountered in the un iverse; and in the second all the specific features of tha t partic ular water tower, wh ich is to say litera lly every t hing that might be truly predicated of it, would in principle be equally impo rt ant and moreove r wo uld implicitly stand in cont rast wit h everyth ing that might be truly pr edicated of every ocher ob ject in t he universe - H egel's "spurio us" infinite again . (The water cower, one might say, woul d be a bare particular and no t hing more, and so would be every disce rn ible feature of its co nst ruct ion.) Against this, the objects dep icted in the Bechers' "Typo logies" have been made inter· nally "con t rast ive" wit h one an other by all the measures that have been noted: the isolat ion and "silho uett ing" of the individual ob jects, the consistency of the light ing, the durat ion of the exposure of the black-and-whi te film, the cho ice of an elevated view-
326
why photography
matters as art as never before
point that enab les t he object to be photographed head-on and also a llows so me (but not too much) indicatio n of its rootedness in a pa rticu lar spo t , the sameness of format and framin g, an d fina lly - cru cially- t he organ ization of nine, twelve, fifteen, sixtee n, or more photo gra ph s of a single t ype of o bject in three or four (occasio nally even five) rows wit hin a single frame so as positively to invite the sort of spo ntaneous, large ly freeform but at the same ti111 e "s tr uct ured" or " dire cted" co111parariv e ob serv at ion, based on rhe percep t ion of simila rities and differences (si111ilaririesfirst, then diffe rences), char makes of the objects in th e Bechers' ph otographs some t hing ot her than t hings "w hich you just have to loo k at" (their character ization of the "fou n d ob jects" that were t he basis of Carl And re's mini malist work). Furth erm ore, a part icular gro up of objects - a single "Typology" - is itse lf to be co m pared and co ntr asted wit h ot her groups of th e same type of ob ject; ind eed the Bechers so met im es use t he term "fam ily" ("The group is decided by the fam ily ro whic h each image belongs," they have sa id ) ro indicate a "unit " of o bjects intermed iate betwee n rhe maste r type (wa ter rowe rs, coo ling row ers, for exa mple) an d the single t ypolo gy;" and then there is the further co nt rast a mong different types of objects, and finally betwee n all or so 111 e of these and the more inclusive views o f ind ustrial lan dscapes . Ir goes wit h out say ing ch ar t he project of creating such typologies can neve r be final, both on rhe typological level and o n char o f rhe individ ual instance (and on those of the family and the group, for th at matter), which is to say that rhe pr oject is a lways - and, in princip le if not in ac tu al fact, infinite ly- open to further discoveries and arrangemen rs.42 On Hege l in this regard, Pippin writes: "The very no tion of oppos itio n begins to sugges t that a lac k of a final resol utio n is part of what Hegel wants to arg ue for, t hat a reflective (scientific or philosop hic) arremp r to 'identi fy' a ' d ifferentiating' essence is always, necessarily, indete rm inate, inco m plete on its own rer111s... " 41 The infinity at play in suc h incomp leteness is of the kind He gel calls "true" or "genuine."
In sum , I un dersta nd the Bechers' pro ject as ar botto111 ontological in intent in ways that bear a suggest ive ana logy ro Hegel's reflectio ns in bot h Logics abou t ob jects and their finitu de o r dete rm inateness. Th e individua l objects in the Bechers' "Typo logies" are finite in their specificity but (as has been seen) char finirude e111ergesas such - their "su bstan tial ind ividua lity," ro use a Hegel ian phrase, beco111esvisi ble and thinkab leagainst th e backgrou n d of the "t ru e" or "genui ne" infinit y of poss ibilities estab lished by the types, fam ilies, gro u pings, and myriad indi vid ual instances of a ll these rha t are rhe basis of their arr . Ir is in chis sen se above a ll rhar I interpre t Bernd Beche r's stat ement (in respo nse to Srruth) that "we want to comp lete the world of t hings." I ra ke this to mean nor t hat the world at large or th e more limited realm of indus t rial st ru ctures as it exists outside t he Bechers' photograp hs is to be "complete d" b y maki ng a photograp hic invento ry o f the whole of its contents (nothi ng cou ld be furthe r fro 111their project); n or even that there is still much to be learne d about a dist inct ively modern form o f life from st ud ying relatively sho rt-lived indus t ria l structures that wou ld ot herwise never be paid the close and sympa t het ic attention th ey deserve (wh ich may well be what Bernd Becher had in mind when he said what he di d );44 but rather t hat what is missing fro m th e "wo rld of thin gs" as it stand s - wh at is to be supp lied by the Bechers' typologic al "ta bleaus " - is precisely a "showing " of rhe grounds of its intelligibi lity,
.. good .. versus .. bad .. ob1ecthood
James welling. bernd and h1lla becher. jeff wall
327
which is also to say of its capacity for individ uatio n, as a world. Or, as a world, one bearing the stam p of a particular stage in history, to go part of the way toward Bernd Becher's exp ressed concerns. " In Hegel's lang uage the world must allow such determi11atenegat ions (mat erial incompati bilitie s) if concre te identifiabil ity (intelligibility, even expe rience) is to be possib le at all" (Pippin in a personal commu nicat ion). To circle back to t he brief account of James Welling's Lock with which this chapter began, l might also say that the objects in t he Bechers' typologies exem plify what I there called "goo d" object hood as agains t the "bad" objecthood that I wo uld now assoc iate with minimalism/li teralis m rat her than , as in "Art and Objecthood," "objec thood " as such. This is a distinction that was not there ro be made by me in 1967, in advance of any know ledge of rhe photographic practises th at were already br inging ir into being .45 One ot her philosophical text, a sho rt ent ry fro m Wittge nstein's pre-Tractatus Notebooks for Oc tober 7, 19r 6, is pertinent here : The work of art is rhe object seen sub specie aeternitatis; and rhe good life is the world seen sub specie aetem itatis. This is rhe connexio n between art an d eth ics. The common way of look ing at things for: mode of beho lding] sees objects as it were from our of their midst, th e view lor: beho lding] sub specie aetemit atis fro m ou tside . Such that they have rhe whole world as background. ls ir perh aps t his-that it !the latt er mod e of beh olding, or : beholding ] sees the ob ject with space an d tim e instead of i11space an d time? Each t hing mo difies the whole logical wo rld, rhe whole of logical space, so to speak. (The thou ght forces itself upon one): The thing seen sub specie aetemitatis is the thin g seen to get her with rhe whole logical space.46 Part of the deep interest of these reAecrions for me is that they look forward to the 1930 extract from Wittgens tein's Culture and Value th at I examined close ly in relation to Jeff Wall's Morning Cleaning in Chap ter Three of rhis book . There Wittgenstein mak es a fundamenta l distinction, which he does nor exp lain, betwe en the ordinary "object" (der Gege11sta11d)as ir is in itself and rhe "i ndividua l thing" (das Einzelne) as presented by a n artist , and clai ms thar on ly rhe second is truly wort hy of ou r attent ion (though who are we to regard anythi11g as beneath our attentio n ?). My thought at this ju ncture is th at rhe latter, das Einzelne, am ounts to a version of what l have been ca lling "goo d " or "genu ine" objecrhood. Wittge nstein furth er indi cates t hat das Einzelne is in effect seen sub specie aeternitatis, which whatever else it means clearly impli es that we beho ld it as if ir had noth ing to do with us, indeed as if it were in its deepest being oblivious or indiffe rent ro our existence: thi s is rhe point of his proposi ng that we imagine a curtain go ing up on a man in his room "who th inks him self uno bserve d as he engages in some quite simp le everyday act ivity," as well as his remarks about his friend Engelmann seeing his life "as God 's work of art" rath er than, so ro spea k, as his personal affai r. In the t 9 1 6 notebook entr y an eq uivalent distinctio n is draw n between seeing objects "from ou tside," "i n such a way that they have the who le worl d as backgro und ," instead of "as ir were from our of their midst. " In terms of the larger argu ment of this chapter, the first of t hese, seeing objects " from outside," shi nes fort h as a n inspired anticipatio n of the Beche rs' t ypologies, or rath er of the viewe r's "o ursideness" fro m the "w orld " of 328
why photog raphy matters as art as never before
objecrs rhey evoke (or should I say, co njur e), as opposed ro stand ing in rhe "midsr" of rhose objects as one does in ordinary life. The sense of anr icipar ion becomes even mo re compelling when one consi ders Wirrgensrein's notions of "r he whole logical wo rld " and even berrer "rhe who le of logical space" (as if rhese were ano rher way of describing whar rhe Bechers' typo logies make inrui ra ble), and rhe affinity ar once with Hegel on "rrue" or "genui ne" infinit y and with rhe Bechers' project as I have exp la ined it all bur leaps from rhe page when Wirrgensrein wr ires : "Each rhing modifies rhe who le logica l world, rhe who le of logical space, so ro spea k." And rhen concl ud es: "(The rhoughr forces irself upon one) : The rhing seen sub specie aeternitatis is rhc rhing seen toget her with rhe who le logica l space. "4 7 Ar least since Kant rhe norio n of sub specie aeternitatis has been indissocia ble from the concept of rhe work of arr , as Wirrge nsrein in , 916 begins by ackn ow ledging, and another aspect of rhe immense appeal of his no tebook entry in the prese nt co ntex t is rhat it also associates that not ion wit h considerat ions of objecthoo d, worldhoo d, an d logical space that have nothing esrheric about them, in the t rad itional sense of the wo rd. There is every reason ro rhink that when rhe Bechers firsr emb arke d on their pro ject around 1960 rhey were by no means certain that what rhey were ma king were works of arr; rarher, rhey seem simp ly to have felt co mpe lled ro follow cert ain procedu res. "O ur feeling was rhat rhe way we ph orogra ph ed t he objects was adeq uare. And that was the way we had ro do it," Bernd Becher says to Lingwoo d in rhe inte rview fro m which I have quored more rhan on ce (194). And H illa Becher rema rk s, "I was a lways ha ppy wirh the borde rline existe nce whic h our wo rks have had. For a long rime, they were just on the edge of art , and the re was a very co nst ruct ive discussion abour this bor derli ne, whether photograp hy belonged to art or the sciences" (ibid.) . O r to ph ilosophy, I may now add. One final exchange from their interview by James Lingwood is fascinat ing in this connection. Lingwoo d asks whet her the idea of p ublishing the ir photographs in books played a role in the deve lopmen t of thei r t ypologica l app roac h. H B: Th e boo k was n't at the beginni ng of the process. First we cons idered show ing single images and the n we learned abou t certain va riatio ns. The re was a par ticula r moment when we placed severa l cool ing rowers alongside eac h ot her an d somerhin g happened . BB: A kind of mu sic. You only see rhe differences betwee n the objects when they are close together, because they are some t imes very sub tle. All the objects in one family resemble each ot her, they are similar. But they also have a specia l indi viduality. And this individuality ca n only be show n if they are com para ble. J L: The comparison wit h music is a n interesting o ne. HB: Each bui lding has a pa rt icular sound . Putt ing a sequence of pho rog raphs together makes a sound. You have to be very at tent ive ro ques t ions of rone and scale and rhyt hm ... JI.: Could you compare your arrangeme nts to a pa rt icular kind of music, a music based on variat ions' IIB: Probably Bach rat her tha n Brahms - alt hough sometimes it's interes tin g to see if Brahms might be an appropria te parallel too. (193 )
..good'" versus ..bad .. ob1ecthood: 1ames welling. bernd and hilla becher, jeff wall
329
Photo gra ph y, ontology, and music, the mo st ab st ract and self-contain ed of an s, are here brou ght rogether in a single though t , o ne that has t he pow er ro return us ro t he Bechers' "Ty pol og ies" wit h an even more intense ap preciation of th e co uple 's singular achievement. 48
I wa nt ro bring thi s chapte r to a close by briefly cons idering one ad diti onal wor k, Jeff Wall's Concrete Ball (2003; Fig. 207). Thi s is a large - rou ghly 6 1/ 2 feet by 8 1/ 2 feetco lor tran spar ency of a simpl e urb a n monum ent: a con crete ball placed arop an upri ght concrete plin th decorat ed with two horizo ntal grooves - one near the rop, th e oth er an equal di stance from t he bottom - at a poin t of junctu re between a modest expan se o f lawn an d a recedin g str etch of pa vement in Wall's nat ive Vancouver. (No do ubt th e rese mb lance is co incidental , bur it is hard ro ignore th e st ru ctura l af finity - not comp lete but nevert heless strik ing - betw een Wa ll's ball on its plinth an d the Altar of Go od Fortune, a gar den monu ment designed by Goe th e in 1777 for the park at Weimar [Fig. 206 J.49) Th e im pre ssion the pictur e conveys is of a st raig ht ph otogra ph ; in pa rticular the middl e a nd far di sta nce go progress ively out of focus in a way that one associa tes with such a photo grap h, as oppo sed ro Wall's frequent use of com puter tech no logy to achie ve an evenne ss of focu s th ro ughout t he ent ire pictorial field (as in Fieldw ork, for exam ple). In fact Concrete Ball is one of th e relat ively few large works in Wall's oeuvre that he qualifies as " doc ument ar y," mean ing unprepar ed for t he camera in any way. As for th e locale, th ere is to t he left a fenced-in ar ea that m ight be some so rt of play ing field, and farth er awa y, pa rt of t he sa me com plex, th ere is unque stionabl y a playing field (for socce r ?- one ca n mak e o ut what seems ro be a socce r goal). Severa l t rees, one 206 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, nea r, others fart her away, rise from th e gra ss, and a benc h in th e left Altar of Good Fortune, 1777 . fore ground suggests th at this is a spot to be enjo yed, not simpl y w alked past. Th e sky is gra y, the pavement shi ny with recent rai n; down ed leaves are everywh ere - evide ntly it is an autum n da y. In th e dista nce one sees modern bu ildin gs, includin g, ro the left, a comm unic at ions tow er. That is pr ett y mu ch what th ere is ro say about th e contents of the image, apart from the matter of scale, whic h appears life-size in th at standin g at a reasonable distanc e from the picture (fifteen or twent y feet), one feels that t he scale of the image matches that of t he origi nal sce ne (the appar ent size of the ben ch is probably one's best guide ro the sca le of the actu al ob jects). T he question is what to make of Wall's decision ro gra nt so ordi nary a sce ne, and in pa rticula r th e mot if of the concrete ball on its plint h, th e impo rt ance conferr ed on bot h by his picture . My t hought is this: Concrete Ball may be seen in implicit cont rast to the "gene ric objects " of minimalism / litera lism, in particular to a paradigmat ic work already mentioned in passing, Tony Smit h's bla ck, six-foo t steel cube Die (1962; Fig. 208) . What
330
why photography
matters as art as never before
l07 Jeff \Xlall,Co11crete8111/,l003- Transparency in lightbox . lo4 x 260 cm
sets the sragc for the contrast is rhe fact that both works involve elementary form s - a cube in Die, a sphe re in Co11crete Ball. H oweve1~ as opp osed to Die, whose air of mystery and whose apparent hollowness I associated in "A rt and Objecthood" with an unacknowledged anthropo morphi sm, Wall's co ncrete ball - the object , no r t he pictur e seems utterly sol id (whic h may not be the case, but that is how it app ears), and the viewer has the stro ngest possib le illlpr ess ion of the act ual lllateria l in w hich it ha s been cast (no sense of mystery, only of an int ractable factici t y). (The water rowe rs in the cove r illustrat ion for Typologies cited earlier are op en ly "a nthro polllor phic," ano th er lllat te r entirely.) Whereas Die is at once indifferent to and -depe nde nt upon co nte xt - despite its size, it is precisely the sort o f moveable object t he Bechers associated w ith Carl An dr e's arr - Wall's conc rete ba ll rests on a plint h, at a part icular spot in the city of Vanco uver.
··good"" versus ""bad'" obJecthood· 1an1es welling , bernd and h1lla becher, 1eff wall
331
Tony Smith, Die, 1962/8. Steel with oiled finish. 183 x 183 x 183 cm. Nationa l Gallery of Art, Washington, o.c. Gift of the Collectors Committee
208
Moreove r, underscor ing w hat might be called the ball' s absolute siruatedness, we gl impse - in my case I belatedly came to see - near t he right -ha nd edge of Wall's photograph, in deed crop ped by that edge, a m atch ing plinth, wh ich we feel might conce ivably bear a simi lar co ncrete ball , though when we look attentive ly it becom es clear t hat such a ball wou ld extend close r ro the edge of the plint h than the pictu re suggests is the case. (In fact the right -hand plint h suppo rt s an up right light fixtur e with a ball-like glob e on rop.) In any case, t he plint h-and- ball at the cent er of Wall's ima ge, far from enjo ying in actuality the pro m inence it does t here, belongs ro a larger environmental ense mbl e th e character of which we can only guess at on t he basis of the photograp h. (Wa ll's resort to cropping in Co11creteBall is fully as artf ul as the Bechers ' career-long use of it in the ir typologies. Yet whereas they character ist ically sough t to isolate t heir objects from t he large r structur es or contexts of which the objects are ofte n a part, Wall in t his wo rk invites the viewer ro expand his or her ima gination of con text beyo nd the borders of
332
why photography
matters as art as never before
rhe image.) Anor her difference is rhar Smith's Die is what Robert Morris meant by a gesta lt ("C har ac teristic of a gesta lt is that once it is estab lished all the info rmati on about it, qua gestalt, is exhausred" 50 ); in contrast, Wall's conc rete ball, altho ugh an elementary form, is nor a gesta lt in that sense. Nor o nly can its mat eria lity and its siruarcdness nor be discounted, nor onl y are we made ro feel rhar irs somew hat rough surface wo uld be damp ro the touch, its relation to its plinth - despite the latter's recrilinea riry, nor an elementar y form - introduces furth er complications rhar ca nn ot be resolved by mere loo king: in particula r, to what extent is the ball independent of the plinth and to what extent do they belong tog ether? Ir would mak e a difference to ou r grasp of what we a re given to see if we cou ld reso lve this. Finally, Sm ith's Die is (for me in "Arr and Objecrhood ") a work of almost pure thea tricalit y, dep endin g as it does on entic ing the viewer into a kind of indeterminate, ope n-ende d situati on of which the hollow steel cube itself is only one ingred ient . In Wall's transpa rency, o n the othe r hand, the viewe r's perspective relati ve to the so lid-seemin g co ncrete ball , as well as his or her apparent distance from it, are fixed by the sheer fact of the ba ll's ha ving bee n photog ra phed (see Dema nd 's "tyranni cal co ndi tion" cited and discussed in C hap ter Nine) . More broadly, Wall's picture is what it is regardless of the "pe rfo rma nce" of the viewer, who finds himself o r herself confr onted with the chall enge of com ing ro term s w ith it - rak ing pleasure in it or no r, Wall wou ld say - simp ly as it sta nds. In othe r words, Wall's Concrete Ball is for me as near as his arr has come to an exp licit critique of minima lism/lircra lism, an d rhe ball itself, like Welling's wooden plank in Lock or rhe ob jects in the Bechers' typologies, bur perhap s more allegorica lly than either, is an examp le of what I have been ca lling "goo d " objecrhood . O r in terms of the earl ier chapte rs on Wall, ball and plinth together co mpo se a mo num ent, in Wall's urban idiom, to the "goo d" everyday .
"'good"' versus "'bad"' obiecthood
james welling, bernd and hilla becher, Jeff wal l
333
209
Jeff Wall, After "Spring Snow" by Yuki o Mish ima, chapter 34, 2000-05 . Pigmented ink jet pr int. 59 .3 x 68 .3 cm
conclusion: why photography
matters as art as never before
What do es it mean to claim that photography today - more precisely, starting in the lat e r97os - matters as art as never before? Here is what it do es not mean: it does not mean that individual photographs by Bustamante, Wall, Struth, Ruff , Gursky, Sugimoto, Delahaye, Streuli, diCorcia, Dijk stra, Faigenbaum, Fischer, Demand, Hofer , Welling, and the Bechers are better as art than photographs by Stieglitz, Strand, Rodch enko, Sander, Weston, Modotti, Kert esz, Evan s, Lan ge, Levitt, Abbott, Brassai', Sudek, Cartier-Bresson, Adams, Brandt, Wo ls, Callahan, Klein, Frank, Shomatsu, Winogrand, Avedon, and Arbus (to cite a range of twentieth-century master s). As Jeff Wall said in conversation several years ago, "I'm not sure any of us has made photographs as good as Evans' ." In what sense, th en, does photography - some photography - since the late r97os matter as art as nev er before? Part of th e answer is supp lied by Walter Benn Michaels in his essay of 2007 "P hotographs and Fossils," in which he alludes to "the debate about the ontology of art decisively inaugurated in ... 'Art and Objecthood'" and goes on to claim that " it is in photography rather than painting ... that the most fundamental qu estions about the limit s of representation and the limits of the critique of repr esentation have been raised." 1 As M ichaels also wr ites: "If ... the conflict in painting of the late I 960s wa s 'whether the painting s or objects in qu estion are experienced as paintings or objects' [a quotation from "Art and Objecthood"], the point of the photograph in the years since r967 is that it has becom e the site on which this conflict takes place" (442 ). This is said in an essay - the concluding piece in a multi-participant volume, Photography Theory, edited by Jam es Elkins, in which the supposed indexicality of photography is a hotly disputed topic - that begins by citing Sugimoto's playful yet serious comparison between fossils and photographs,2 and sets out from there to argue that " indexicality - if only in th e form of a problem - is central ... to the medium specificity of the photograph" (4 32), by which Michaels means to distinguish photograph s from, say, paintin gs precisely with respect to th e indexical or causal relation that exists between a photog raph's subject (or th e light rays reflected from that sub ject) and the photograph itself (or the film insid e the camera on wh ich the light rays entering the dark chamber through the lens fall). On the one hand, this basic feature of photographs can be taken as ra ising fundamental doubts about their status as works of art: is not a mechanically produced artifact of the sor t just described closer in essence (closer onto log ica lly) to an object than to any kind of representation? On th e other hand - th is is Michaels' s central po int- the
co nclusio n
335
very fact that this is so is what gives photography the potentia lly decisive significance for contemporary art that he and I (along with countless oth ers ) believe it has for some years possessed. Her e I need to quote him at some length:
[It is the] replac ement of the oppo sition between good art and bad art [broa dly spea king, the Kantian distinction] with the opposition betw een art and not-art [tha t is, art and objecthood] that places photography at the center of art histor y in the last ha lfcentury [a time frame that works if on e coun ts the Bechers; otherw ise the last thir ty years is mor e like it]. For the imbri cation of photo graph y's specificity as a medium for art and of th e ontological doubts about whether photography can be an a rt produces a situation in which the effort to answer the mod ernist questions - what is distincti ve about photography as an art? What makes it different from, say, painting? - produces as one possible answer the critique of mod ern ism itself [that is, the mini malist/lit era list advocacy of objecthood ]. There is an importan t sense, in other wor ds, in which the question about the painting - is it a painting or an object? - has become the question about th e photograph, not so much becaus e the photo graph ca n somehow be taken as the object it is a photograph of . .. but becau se it cannot simply be taken as a pictur e of the object it is a photo graph of. That is the p oint .. . of the fossi l. We do not exper ience the fossil as a trilobi te, but we do not exper ience it as th e picture of a trilobite either . And if we und erstand photograph s on the mode l of fossils, we cannot take for granted their status as w orks of art . To put it that way, how ever (to say that we cannot take for granted the ir status as works of art ), is to refuse both the indexophobi c and the indexophilic, to refuse the idea that because ind exicality is a false issue photographs can of course be wo rks of art and to refuse also th e idea that because photographs are essenti ally index ical they canno t be works of art (or "Art"). Indeed , the fact that Fried is no w wr iting a book on recent photo graph y gets mention ed severa l tim es in this volum e precisely because th e mid-tw entieth-centur y ob ligation of the paint er to secur e or assert the sta tu s of the painting as art and not (only) object has, for all th e reasons suggested above, devolved up on th e ph otograph er. H ence, as Fr ied hims elf says [about] Dem and, the import ance of photogr ap hers like Gursk y, Struth, H ofer, and Wall (not to mention Sugimoto, Welling, and Demand him self) ca n onl y be und erstoo d in terms of their more or less impli cit (in Wall, it is prett y explicit ) co mmitm ent to establishing (since it cannot be taken for granted ) th e photogr ap h as a representation. [442-3] 3 In thi s connection Mi chaels briefly reh earses m y reading of Demand's project of ma king photographs that are "' manif estly the bear ers of no int enti ons othe r than the artis t's own'," a ddin g, correctly, that such a project "makes sense on ly as part of the history of art photography and of art" (4 44). More broad ly, Mi chaels wr ites, "t he centrali ty of th e photo gra ph thu s emerges out of a certain crisis of th e pictur e" - th e cris is exp lo red in "Ar t and Objecthood" and relat ed essays an d develop ed in a contrary dir ection by postmodern critic s like Rosalind Kra uss, Dou glas Crimp, Craig Owen, and Abiga il Solomon-Go deau - "because it is und erstoo d already to embody that crisis" (445) . In sum: "It is precisely because there are ways in which photographs are not just repre-
336
why photography matters as art as never before
senrations that photography and the theory of photography have been so impo rtant. Indeed, we might say that it is precisely th e photograph's complicated status as a theoretical object that has made it so important in art . And it is precisely the efforts of photographers to establish them as pictures that have made photograp hy so crucia l" (445) . No one shou ld be surprised by the convergence between Mic haels's thought s on these matters and the overa ll arg ument of th e present book. Michaels and I have been close friends since the mid-197os, and du ring that time we have never ceased discussing top ics - art, literature, theory - of passionate interest to us both, as references to each other's writings in our published work attest . Specifically, "Art and Objecthood" and related essays of 1966-7 play a pivotal ro le in Michaels 's indispensable cr itical overview of the past forty years of theory and theory -related fiction, The Shape of the Signi-fier.4 However, Michaels's interest in p hotography as a topic for crit ica l and theoretica l reflection predates my own,5 and in th is area as in oth ers I have profited greatly from his matchless lucidity. What matters, in any case, is the rightnes s or wrongness of ou r views and, as regards the present book, the convincingness or unconvincingness of its deta iled accounts - its interpr etations - of the wo rk of the photographers, video-makers, and film-makers it singles out for discuss ion. As for Michaels's allusion to the fact that severa l participants in the extended conversa tion recorded in Elkins's volume refer to my being at work on a book on photography, this came about both because portions of Why Photography Matters as Art were published in Artforum, Les Cahiers du Musee national d'art moderne, and othe r places more or less as they were composed and becau se, simp ly put, nothing in my ea rlier writing had suggested that I might some day make a majo r effort in this arena . (W. J. T. Mitchell in 2005 : "W ho, aside from Michael Fried, has remained faithful to the pure promises of abstraction?" 6 It is true , I ha ve, but the n the promises are still being kept , as in the superb "monochrome" paintings of Joseph Marioni .7 ) So there has been a certain int erest, friendl y for th e mo st part, in th e outcome. More, however, needs to be said before brin ging this concl usion to a close with a reading of one last photograph . Michae ls refers to the efforts of Demand and other s, as described by me, to establish their photograp hs "as representa tions" - also, he says, "as pictures." I und erstand why he says both these things but I also think that putt ing the matte r in those terms runs certa in risks, above all that of appeari ng to imp ly that pre vious art photography some how fell short in that regard. Or indeed that th e work of many seriou s co ntemporar y ph otographers not featured in t his book -for example, Lee Fried lander (discussed br iefly in Chapter Four ), Emmit Gow in, Stephen Shore (glanced at in Chapter O ne), Cindy Sherman (ditto ), Duane Michals, Robert Adams, William Eggleston, Ed Rusch a, Lewi s Baltz, Craigie Horsfie ld, Martin Parr, Mitch Epste in, Joel Sternfeld, the late John Cop lans, Bill Hen son, Sebastiao Salgado, William Christenberry, Petra Wunderlich, Axel Hi.itte, Nan Goldin, Geoffrey James, Sally Mann , Tina Barney, Nicho las Nixon, Michael Schmidt, David Goldblatt, Sherry Levine, Jan Groover, Lou ise Law ler, Roy Arden, Suzanne Lafont, Wo lfgang Tillma ns, Ant hony Hernandez, Uta Barth, Jo hn Riddy, Vera Lutter, Lois Renn er, An-My Le (the list could go on and on) can be faulted on those gro und s. My sense is that Michaels would not want to be und er-
conclusion
337
stood as implying either of those things. Rather , I think what he would wish to say - at any rate, it is what I wish to say - is that what distinguishes all the contemporary photographers discussed more than very briefly in this book is the seriousness and in some cases (Wall's for one) the explic itn ess of their engagement w ith a particular constellation of artistic and theoretical issues all of which relate, in one way or another, to the core oppos ition between theatricality and antitheatricality as that oppo sition was formulated in "Art and Objecthood" and as it subsequently was shown by me to have been at stake in the evolution of French painting from Chardin and Greuze around the middle of the eighte enth centur y to the coming of Manet and his generation in the r 8 6os. Here let me add that the work of other contemporary photographers not mentioned in the se pages could have been shown to be compatib le with my arguments in one way or another. I am thinking, for examp le, of John Schabel, Beate Gutschow, Barbara Probst, Stephen Waddell , Ben Gest, Malerie Marder in her video At Rest (2003 ), and Anr i Sala in his video Long Sorrow (2005 ) and ot her wor ks. (The adjacency of video to photography is a feature of the present situ ation that escapes discussion in thi s book. ) Ther e are also significant bodies of work not considered in this book that might well have been included, by photographer s to wh om I devote sustained attentio n, such as Struth's hour-long video portraits and the photographs associated with his "Obdach los fotografieren Passanten" ("Homeless People Photograph Passers-by" ) project, assorted portraits and oth er studie s by Faigenbaum, Fischer 's Los Angeles portrait s, diCorcia 's instantaneous photographs of pole dancers, Sugimoto 's early pictures of natural history dioramas, "Sea of Buddha" series, and Accelerated Buddha video, Bustamante's "Some thing is Missing" composite works, Gordon's Feature Film (a two-image projected video with music ), Play Dead (a two-screen projected video ) and Deja vu (based on the noir classic, D.0.A. ), Hofer's Zwolf (photographs of the twelve casts of Rodin's Burghers of Calais in th eir respective settings ), and numerous picture s by Wall. Not that certain issues related to questions of theatricality have not been in play in earlier photography, above all those having to do with the awareness or lack of aware ness on the part of the photographic subject to the fact that he or she is being photograp hed. In Sontag's words, a lready cited more than once, "There is somet hin g on people's faces when they don't know they are being observed that never appears when they do," 8 a claim she supports by appealing to Evans's "Subway Portrait s," tak en with a hidden camera and thereby yielding photographs of persons whose "expression s are private ones, not those they would offer to the camera. " Evans himself thought of the subway series as a response to the probl em of the formal portrait, with its air of the atrica l self-presentation - though he also chose to hold off a quarter-century before presenting those photographs to the public, no doubt to protect th e feelings of his unconsenting sub jects. (When six of the "Subway Portraits" were published in Harper 's Bazaar in March 1962, Evans wrote that "the rude and impudent invasion invo lved has been carefully softened and partially mitigated by a planned passage of time. " 9 ) For his part , Barthes in Camera Lucida describes how he invariably falsifies - that is, th eatri ca lizes - him self when consciously po sing for a photograph, behavior fully in line with Sontag's maxim. More broadly, Agee in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men angu ishes at
338
why pho t ogra p hy ma tt ers as art as never before
some length about what he imagines he and Evans put Mrs Ricketts (not her real name) through when they photographed her and her threadbare family on their cabin porch. Then there is the unresolvable question of the ethics of Arbus's practise of photographing "freaks," despite her having won their trust and cooperation - the crucial question being whether th ey could possibly have understood how grotesque they were bound to appear in her photographs. The point, however, is that all these instances of apparent concern with the state of mind of the photographic subject, or indeed with questions about the ethical legitimacy of one or another photographic project, stop short of engaging the central issue for the antitheatrical tradition in both its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century and its later twentieth -century forms, namely the nature of the relationship between the picture - here the photograph - and the beholder. The comparison in Chapter Seven between Arbus and Dijkstra can be taken as paradigmati c for this difference. As seen, Dijkstra like Arbus deliberately works in the "gap between intention and effect," and has even cited Arbus's famous phra se as a gloss on her own work. Yet Dijkstra's way of proceeding seeks to minimize the viewer's awareness of her presence as an active factor in the making of the photograph, which is the opposite of what one finds in Arbus's oeuvre. Put slightly differently, it does not occur to the viewer of Dijkstra's beach series to wonder what was going on in the minds of her youthful subjects or a fortiori of the photograph er herself while the photograph s were being taken. " People think that they present themselves one way, but they cannot help but show something else as well. It's impossible to have everything under control," Dijkstra has said. 10 Doubtless Arbus would have agreed, but in Dijkstra's work, unlike Arbus's, that lack of total control emerges as a structural point , not a per sonal or psycholo gical one - as if all that her photographs reveal about their sitters is the truth of that fundamental state of affairs. The ultimate artistic significance of that state of affairs - at any rate, this is my claim - demands to be und erstood in terms of issues of self-control and oubli de soi that go back to Diderot and that were fundamental to th e absorptive or antitheatrical tradition from the outset. Another important aspect of Dijkstra's work is that the viewer sees the photograph itself, not some implied or imagined per sonal relationship between sitter and photo grapher, as the vehicle of that structural revelation. Here it clearly matters that the photo graphs in question are large and, to take up Chevrier' s notion of the "tableau form" once more, made for the wall, thereby (in his words) "s ummoning a confrontational experience on the part of the spectator that sharply contrasts with the habitual processes of appropriation and projection whereby photographic images are normally receiv ed and 'consumed.' " 11 As he also put it, "The restitution of the tableau form ... has the primary aim of restoring the distance to the object-image necessary for the confrontational experience" (n6) . To which I want to add (I said this in the introduction to the present book) that along with that developme nt - literally in the very works that constituted its taking place - issues concerning the relationship between th e photograph and the viewer standing before it became central to art photography as they had never been before. Early works by Ruff, Bustamante, and Wall, cited as a trio in this connection in Chapter One, are especially pertinent her e. Thus Ruff 's mostly frontal, antipsychologi-
conc lusion
339
cal "passport style " portraits of fellow Diisseldorf students promulgate an abstract "facingness" not qui te like anything in previous photography - a "facingness" divorced from any other function , and all the more striking with respect to Chevr ier's themes of confro nt ation and distance in that the orig inal portraits were modest in size and yet can be seen in retrospect to hav e looked forward to the monumentalization that was soon to come . A few years earlier, in another part of Europe, Bustamante's Tableaux with th eir "thankless" motifs, har sh colors, and copious uninflected visual data not only made th e leap in size with perfect sang-froid but also rigorously pursued an unpr ecedented strategy n ot just of confro ntin g and distancing but of activ ely exclud ing the beholder that turn ed o ut to anticipate ana logous developments in the art of Demand, Hofer, Sugimoto, and Struth. Turning to Wa ll, one mark er of his explicit engagement with the issue of the relationship between photograph and behold er is his ear ly involvement with Manet as a pictorial "source," as in Picture for Women (1979 ), Stereo (1980) , A Woman and Her Doctor (1980-81), and Backpack (1981-2), bas ed respective ly on Manet's Bar at the Folies-Bergere, Olympia, In the Conservatory, and The Fifer. 12 Now, Manet was the decisiv e figure in the liquidation of the Did ero tian ideal of estab lishing the ontological fiction that the beholder does not exist, that there is no one before the painting. As was mentioned in Chapter Two, that fiction was principally to be sustained by depicting figures who appeared wholly absorbed in what they were thinkin g, feeling, and doing, and who, if there were more than one of them, also appeared caught up in strong ly unified actiona l and compos itional gestal ts. In fact the Did erotian project ran into difficu lties at an early date (as the ex treme beho lder-aversive structure of the Raft of the Medusa shows), and in the work of Manet's immediate predecessor, Gustave Courbet, one discove rs a far more radical, ind eed hyperbo lic strategy with respect to the beholder , according to w hich the painter-beholder - to whom Cou r bet's operat ions are in effect limit ed - seeks to mer ge all but corporeally with the painting com ing into being under his bru sh. (If such mer ger could be achieved, the painter -beholder wou ld no longer find himself before the canvas .) Finall y, how ever, th e primordi al conventi on that paintings are mad e to be beheld could no longer be held at bay; this is th e meanin g of Man et's revolutionar y canvases of the 1860s - works such as th e Old Mu sician (1862), Dejeuner sur l'h erbe (1862-3) and Olympia (1863, ex hibited to scan dalou s effect in the Salon of 1865) - in which not only th e paintin g as a who le but so to speak every bit of the p icture surface is registe red as facing the beholder as never before . (In Manet' s Execution of M aximilian in Man nh eim [1868 -9 ], the linked issues of facingness and strikingne ss tak e on a fierce exp licitness . 13 ) Now, facing structures are exp licit in Wall's Pictur e for Women and Backpack as well as in the pure ly verbal right-hand wing of th e ori ginal Stereo diptych (th e word "ste reo " in capita l letters), 14 while A Woman and Her D octor is characterized by a stiltedne ss that one reads in terms of an a lmost comic ack nowled gment of the presence of an aud ience. (As was earlier remarked, Ruff's "passpor t-st yle" p hotographs also hark back to Manet.) A few subsequent pictures by Wall, notab ly Mimic (1982) an d No (1983), seem to allude to Gustave Ca illebott e, a seco nd -generation Imp ressioni st for whom Manet
340
why photogra ph y matte rs as art as never be fore
was important , and more broadly one gets the impression that Wall in the first five or so year s of his career aspired to ground his art in Manet and then go on from th ere, as if it might yet be possible, th anks to photography, to discover an alternativ e path toward pictorial modernit y from the one actuall y taken. 15 Ju st when Wall recogni zed that thi s was not a viable course of action is hard to say, but by 1992 in Adrian Walker he had in effect shifted his term s of reference back in time to the middle of the eighteenth centur y - to Chardin, Did erot, and my account of both in Abs orption and Th eatricality. As ha s been seen, thi s shift wa s accompanied by an overall approach Wall calls "near docu mentar y " as well as by an ex plicit concern with th e everyda y; key works in that development include After "Invisible Man ", Morning Cleaning (in my view one of Wall's masterpi eces), and Fieldwork. N ot that Wall 's "re gression " to the moment of Chardin a nd Did erot - or, in oth er works, Gericault or Courbet - was a true return, to th e extent that such a thin g was even imaginable. Rather, Wall in those and other works exploit s both th e inh erent verism of the photographic medium (which for example is able to re gister the fact that Adrian Walk er is not actually deeply absorb ed in what h e is doin g) and its ineluctable differences from natural vision (I am thinking especiall y of qu estion s of evennes s of focus and depth of field) to quietly but unmistakabl y ackn owledg e th e po sedne ss and con structedne ss of his com p ositions (Schwander 's "remo ved to anoth er sph ere of life" rhetoric notwithstanding ), an acknowl edgm ent I hav e also described as of his pictures ' to -be-seenn ess, a notion relat ed to th eatricality but not, I ha ve sugge sted, identic al with it. 16 In Chapt er Two I cited Gerhard Richter's photograph-based painting Readin g (see Fig. 23) as another in stance of the combinin g of an absorptive motif with to -beseenn ess, and in the course of the rest of this book I have repeatedly indicated version s of to -be-seenn ess in th e work of oth er photographer s; its centrality in their art has meant that th ey have no t been und er th e co ntinu al pressur e to establish th e fiction of th e beholder's ab sence or no nex istence that on th e on e hand pro vided th e int ernal dynami c of th e antith eat rica l curr ent in Fren ch p aintin g betw een Gr euze and M ane t and on th e oth er meant th at soon er or later, re gardl ess of th e ingenuit y or radi caln ess of indi vidu al "so lution s, " th e ficti on as such would becom e unsu stain able. Beyond that, what gives Wall's "r egressio n" to Ch ardin and oth ers its exempl ary significan ce is th e fact th at a numb er of oth er ph otograph ers in thi s boo k have pro duced work th at invites being seen in re lation to Did eroti a n stru cture s an d con cern s. So for exa mpl e in $truth 's unive rsally admir ed fa mily p ortr aits, his sitters' tot a l awa reness of being ph oto gra phed and ind eed th eir seemin g a bsor ption in pos ing for th e ca mera are in effect played off aga inst th eir inevitable, beca use structurall y determin ed, una warene ss with resp ect to th e lateral relation ship s amon g th em , includin g (as an intern al ide al) the relation ships of biological resembl ance that bind th e Hiros e, Smith, and Bern stein famili es to geth er into th e conspicuou sly self-encl osed entiti es th at eac h strik es us as being. As I ma ke clear in Chapt er Six , not onl y is n ot hin g qui te like thi s to be found in eighte enth-c entur y paintin g, $truth 's "so lution " to th e probl em of p ortraiture - which is to say to th e probl em of th ea tri ca liza tion it brin gs with it- is inconcei va ble out side th e medium of ph otog raph y. Yet it fully em erges as a "s olution " onl y again st the background of the Did eroti an proje ct,
concl usion
341
spe cifically includ ing th e constructio n of th e Did erotian tableau, whose opposed axes of add ress and absorption it may be seen as ha ving reinter prete d . Dijk stra's be ac h portrait s, too, pointedl y contrast her pre-adolescent subj ects' awa reness of pos ing for th e cam era with their inad vertent bodil y expressiveness, itse lf a response to the situa tion of po sing; a single sentenc e cited earlier - 0 comment l'homme qui pense le plus est encore automate - suffices to m ake the Diderotian conn ectio n clear . These are not quite the term s in whi ch to mak e se nse of th e m o tivation behind Faigenbaum' s Rom a n empero rs, Del aha ye's L'Autre, Fischer's monks and nuns (which I associated with paintin gs and etching s of monks by Legros and o th er arti sts of M anet's genera tio n), Gor d on and Parre no 's Zidane, Streuli 's videos and photo graph s, and diCo rcia's strobe- lit street photogr aph s. In all th e wo rk s just cited, however, the qu estion of the subject s' rel at ion to bein g ph otograp hed takes on a kind of imp erson a l, a lmo st abstract ur gency, and in the case of Zidane , subtitled A Twenty-First Century Portrait , the eight eenth-century backgroun d seems parti cularly relevant. Th en ther e are $truth 's cla ssic museum ph otograp hs (see Cha p ter Five), w hich I have rea d in term s of th e depi ction of un co mmuni ca tin g wo rld s, anot her Diderotian theme, key ed th ro ughout that ser ies not to th e devic e of the tableau but to th e capac ity of pho to gra ph s to accomp lish what I ha ve termed ontolog ical work. Stru th's Pergamon Mu seum phot og raphs , in contrast, sh ow mu se um goers w h o can be felt to be posing for the cam era, a form of to-be-seenness w hich, agai n, belongs excl usively to th e med ium of photography. As was not ed, this aspect of th e " Pergamon Museum" ser ies has provok ed nega tive resp on ses on th e part of critics normall y enthu sia stic about Struth 's wo rk , not beca use those criti cs are programm aticall y committed to a n antith ea tri cal esth etic but rather because they, like mos t w riter s on photo graph y, have an unr eflect ive pref eren ce for "candor " (at least with respect to cert ain kind s of subject matt er) , and mor eover assume that a view er can infallibly tell whether a person in a photog raph is or is not awa re of bein g photo grap hed . Yet photograp hy has always thrived on com plicat ing that distin ct ion in countl ess ways, as Fri edland er 's At Work images consistently demonstrat e. $trut h's "A udi ence" p hotogra ph s, in w hich the museumgoers are not po sing for th e cam era but th e imp lied presence of Mi che langelo's David and in deed the impli ed exposu re to view of th e photographer and his equipme nt "t his" sid e of the pictu re plan e are th emat ized , go still fart her tow ard exp loring the limits of the medium with respec t to th ese issues . (I mentioned in C hapter Five th at two additiona l series of museum photographs came to my attention too late to be included , but I ca n at leas t say th at Strut h 's 2005 ph o tograph s shot in th e Prado - most of th em in the large roo m that ho lds th e grea test t ourde- forc e of atmosp h eri c illu sioni stic p ainting in all art, Velazquez's Las Meninas - seem almost to ha ve been designed to co nfirm my two-worlds reading of the cla ssic museum p ictur es . In Museo de/ Prado 7, Madrid (2005 ; Fig. 210), for example, most of the viewers are ga ther ed to the left in a tight mass at a resp ectful dista nce from the canvas at the right; a sm all group of schoo lgirls in uniform are neare r to it, but at the mo men t cap tur ed by Struth th ey ar e mos tly in volved with eac h other; the pa intin g itself hangs on a recedin g wa ll and is cut off by th e top and side edges of th e photogra ph. So the re
342
why photography
matters as art as never before
21.0 Thomas Stru th, Museo def Prado 7, Madrid, 2005 . Chromogenic process print, 169 .5 x 210 .6 cm; 177 .5 x 218.6 cm framed
2u Thomas Strut h, Museo del Prado I, Madrid, 2005 . Chromoge nic process print. 157 .3 x 199 .3 cm; 199.3 x 239.3 cm framed
is not the least question of interplay between real a nd depicted persons. Yet the magisterial canvas's illusionistic force, its wo rld -likeness, so to speak, rema ins surp risin gly intact. Similarly, in Museo def Prado I, Madrid (2005; Fig. 2u ), a crow d of young schoolkids and th eir teacher(?) sit mostly on th e floor - a few are on benc hes - in front of Velazq uez's rope d-off Surrender at Breda. As one studi es the photograph, one becomes awa re of all sorts of ch arm ing, surely unscripted , consonances between indi vidua l perso nages in the paintin g and the children gat hered before it; but true to the logic of the classic p hotograp h s, the presence of th ose consonanc es on ly under scores the difference in world between the painted figures in a panoramic, war -ravaged landscape and their underage aud ience. (In the "Hermitage" series, the photograp hs, taken at close ran ge, focus on the expressions and behavior of touris ts mos tly absorbed in look ing at - and in hear ing about, through their aud io-guid es, a nd in photograp hin g with digital cameras - a single painting, Leonardo's Benoit Madonna, whic h we are not sho wn . It thu s amount s to a mor e intim ate variation on the "Aud ience" pictu res; to me it is the least ph ilosop hically arrest ing of the five series.) For their part, Gursky's large, spectacu lar, often minute ly detail ed, and increasing ly digitized photograp hs (see Chapter Six) dep loy a wide range of motif s, perspect ives, and other devices in order to sever the photograph from the behold er, a strat egy th at has no precedent in Did ero t or indeed in "Art and Obect hood," but wh ich neverthe less makes full art istic sense on ly in relat ion to the issue of th eatri ca lity, to which severing provides an unexpected response .17 So too does Delahaye's antithetic al strategy with respect t o the beholder of somet hin g like merger or immersion, which I cannot help thinking of in relation to Courbet, with the cruc ia l differ ence that whereas Courbet's rea lism is
con clusion
343
everywhere mediat ed by the embodied painter (or painter-behold er), De lahaye's project is predicated on an ideal of authorial transparency or, as he as much as says, simultaneous pr esence to and absence from th e finished work. Again, only photography makes such an ideal imaginable. (Just as only oil painting could have underw rit ten Cour bet's.) All this is part of the answer to the question of why the photo graph y considered in this book matter s as art as never before. To quote Peter Galassi on Gursky a second time: The diverse currents that flow into Gursky's work emerge as the cohe rent pictur e of a world. There is no plac e for us in that world. Banished from its comman ding symmetries , we are consigned to contemplate its wholeness from w ithout. We may study its detail s at our leisure. We may be beguiled or repelled by the gorgeo us specta cle. We may mar vel at its serene indifference. We may even elect ourselves to sit in judgment upon it, but we will never become participants. 18 Fine, but again I ask: why is thi s important? Is Galassi merel y noting a featu re of Gursky's work he finds attractive or fascinating, or do his observations have some deeper artistic significance? Put more positivel y, is not Galassi 's evocation of the "world" of Gursky's photographs implicitly antitheatrical in its emphases? If so, might it not be the case that a certain measur e of th e critical acclaim that Gursky has received ha s been gro und ed in a kind of automatic, unexamined antitheatricalism on the part of his admirers? Th e same might be asked, more or less, apropos Wall, Struth, Dijk stra, and th e others. Th ere would be no small irony in such a state of affairs, in that few if any of the commentators in question would recognize themselves in such a description. (That is what the epithet " unexa min ed " means. ) One way of characterizing my effort in this book might be to say that I have been seeking to bring the entire questio n of antithe atricality in contemporary art photography into the open as regar ds both th e works th emselves and, wherever relevant, the discours e around them. At thi s point, it becomes clear that a furth er context for the issue of antitheatricality in Wall, Struth, Dijkstra, Gursky, Delahaye, and the oth ers include s "Art an d Object hood" and other essays by me of roughly that moment, and more broadly th e crisis within and aro und high mod ernism precipitated by the advent of minimalism/literalism in the mid- 196os . This is spelled out in recent essays by Wall such as "Fram es of Referenc e" (2003) 19 and " Depiction, Object, Event" (2006 , as yet unpub lished ), but Hofer's photographs of rooms of all sorts in var ious countri es, by virt ue of being in sustained impli cit dialogue with the modernist gallery spac e as described by O'Doherty in Th e White Cube, provide visual confirmation of an unexp ected kind. More broad ly, the overarching project of exclusion in Bustamante's Tableaux (see Cha pt er One), Hofer 's rooms and zoo logical garden photographs, Sugimoto 's "Seasca pes," and Struth's "Pa radise " series (see Chapter Nine ) invites being thought of in conn ection with the mobil e and self-consciou sly " ex periencing " subject of minima lism/litera lism even as the import of that project has been to insist with renewed force on the viewer's abso lute outsideness from the works in question (no substitution of the subject 's "experience" for the work itself ). Or consider Demand's extraordinarily labor-inte nsive practice of making photo graph s that aim to depict or "bear" only his intent ions, a practi ce I have
344
why photog raphy ma tters as art as never before
read as the str ictest imaginable repudiation of the min imalist/literalist stress on indeterminacy, that is, of the notion that the meaning of a given work is simply what it turn s out to be for individual subjects. As I also argue in Chapter Nin e and as Michaels underscores in "Photograph s and Fossils," it is precis ely what Fried lander ca lls the medium's "generosity" - the fact that photographs typically depict a wealth of detail that the photograph er takin g the picture ne ver quit e perceived as such, much less intended to photograph - that makes photography an ideal vehicle for such an endeavor. Finall y, the re is the issue of objec th ood as it emerges tentatively in Welling's Lock, becomes absolutely centra l in Bernd an d Hilla Becher 's "Typo logies," and is reprised in everyday terms in Wall's Concrete Ball. I have placed the chapter devoted to the Bechers last in this book for two reasons: becaus e by doing so I could underscore the point that the organizat ion of the w hole is not chronologica l; and because the topic of objecthood, and in part icular the distinction betw een "good" and " bad" modes of objecthoo d that it now seems feasib le to draw , are sufficientl y complex to demand thei r own treatment - though as I also showed, the passage cited in that chapter from Wittgenstein 's 1914-16 Notebooks looks ahead in time to the 1930 passag e from Culture and Value that plays a decisive role in the second J eff Wa ll chapter (Chapter Three ) earlier in the book. In any case, that the issue of objecthood turns out to lie at the heart of one of th e foundational achievements of post-Second World War photography serves for me as further evidence of the pertinen ce of "Art and Objecthood " to all the work examined in this book. 20 So far l have said nothing in this conclusion abo ut Barthes's Camera Lucida, w hich in Chapter Four I interpr eted as a cons istently antitheatrical text even as I also suggested that the author was at all times less than fully awa re that this was so. There are precedents for such a state of affa irs: for example, Roger Fry's wri tings on art are everywh ere driven by a thoroughgoing anticheatrica lism of wh ich he him self is so ob livious as to allow him to condescend to Did erot , th e inventor of his mind if he but knew it. 21 Barthe s stops short of this, but his early and decisive encounter with Brecht meant that he co uld never tak e the measur e of Did erot' s art istic thought, much less recognize ho w closely certain of his own ideas resembled those of the grea t philosoph e. One further aspec t of Barthes' s text remains to be dealt with. In "Photographs and Fossils" Michaels cites my demonstration that wha t defines the crucia l notion of the punctum for Barthes is the fact that it was not seen as such by the Operator and therefore that it necessar ily r emains outside the field of th e latt er's intention s. This, Michaels goes on to argue, places the punctum squarely on th e side of minimalism/literali sm's emphasis on indeterminacy of meaning and the primac y of the experi encing sub ject .22 (The Winter Garden photograph, meanin gful on ly to Barthes him self, wou ld thu s be the perfect ant ith esis to one of Demand' s allegories of artist ic intention.) Mich aels is undoubtedl y correct, but I ne vertheless want to resist identifyin g Barthe s's po sition in Camera Lucida as literali st or th eatrical tout court for the simpl e reason that doing so would not give sufficient weight to the antitheatrical animus that runs through it from first pa ge to last, reaching a peak of near-explicitness (if I can call it that ) in th e unresolved section s on the primacy of the pose. What one finds revealed in Camera Lucida, I want to say, is the impo ssibili ty of construct ing a radica lly antith eatrical theory of pho-
co nclus ion
345
tograph y while at the sa me tim e acknowledg ing more fu lly than any pr evious writer on the topi c the inh erentl y theatrical basis of the ph otographic artifact, without that theo ry giving rise to th e sort of liter alist cons equence s to whi ch Mich aels dra ws atte ntion . ln the context of the present book , it is as if Camera Lu cida at once signa ls a new imperat ive to come to grips with the issue of theatricality and reveals the shortfa ll of theory in th at regard; w hat was needed if antithea tricality was to ente r into photo graphy in a seriou s way was a new order of artistic prac tices - a new a rt-ph otograph ic regime - and that is exactly what was being devised during the yea rs Barth es wro te his dazz ling and movin g final opus. On e last matt er to be discus sed concerns the ro le of phil osoph y throughout this boo k. I would like to think that it is essentia l, not incidental , to my argument. In Chap ters Two and Thr ee, on certa in works by Wa ll, th e appeal to H eidegger on worldhood, "ca re, " and technolo gy and to Wittgenstein (and Cavel!) on the everyday responds unless I am mistaken - to crucia l featur es of p art icular photo graphs . This not beca use Wall read the philosophers in question and so ught deliberately to make ph otogra ph s based on their thought (Wall may hav e read th em and even been impr essed by them bu t it would have stopp ed there), but rath er becau se the very term s of his undertak ing in those photographs (ab sor ption , unawar eness of the con struct of the pictur e and the necessary pr esence of the viewer, " near doc umentar y," and the everyday) as well as aspect s of their content (the Invisible Man 's profu sely furnished "hole," th e dail y mornin g labors of the window cleaner in Mie s's pavilion, the layer ing of th e trac es of everyday existence in an anthropo logica l dig, the seeming bafflement of th e workman in Untangling, a sink and a mop and pail seen from eccentric point s of view, a yo ung sap ling an d its support s, a vista of Vancouver 's busy harbor from an apartm ent window ) are such as to lea ve a seriou s interpr eter no choice but to pur sue their impli catio ns " into " the philoso phical texts in question. Or so it seems to me. (The same goes for my resort to Wittgenstein to help describe the " closur e" or "wo rld -apartne ss" of Struth's museum photograp hs.} I und erstand, of course, that oth ers might pr efer not to go that route , or to turn instead to Lacan or Deleuze or som e comparab le figur e for an appropr ia te theoretic a l discour se, in which case the qu estion is simply, wh ich reading is the most productiv e? Which one opens the mor e profound perspectives on Wall's or Struth 's endeav ors, wh ile rema ining faithful to the structu r al, contentua l, and other specifics of particu lar work s? In short wh ich one ultimat ely persuades? As to my resort to H egel, and Pippin on He gel, on "gen uin e" or " true " versus "s puriou s" or " bad" infinity and the bro ader problemati c of th e individualit y of objects an d their inn er "co ntrast ingness" with on e anoth er in his Logics as a framewo rk for und erstanding the Bechers' "Typologies," I am aware th at at first mention thi s is bound to strike man y reade rs as an unlik ely assoc iation. But aga in th e qu estion turn s out to be whether or not, tak ing farther tho ught, precisely that framework enables one to assess as never before the deep stakes of the Bechers' project , by which I mean to grasp the " inner" relati on of their "Typologies" both to th e minim alist/litera list intervent ion as charact er ized in "Art and Objecthood " and to th e onto logical concern s that continua lly surfa ce in their intervi ews (the ta lk of "obje cts," the insistence that the "o bjects" th at inter est them are not movea ble
346
why photography
matters as art as never before
ones lik e cups and sewing machines, the statem ent that th eir aim is "to complete the world of thing s," the distinction they draw betw een their work and Andre's ) but until now h ave not been given their du e. Add to all this Witt genstein's 193 0 distinct ion between das Einze lne and der Gegens tand, and his 1916 speculations about seeing objects with space and time as distin ct from in spa ce and time, and one has an extraordin arily rich conceptual matrix in terms of which to exp licate th e Becher s' remarkable deca des-lon g enterpri se. H ere let me go ju st a step further and suggest that photography so under sto od may be thou ght of as an ontological m edium, which is also to say that th e parti cular bod ies of work I hav e been discussing not on ly are illuminated by ontologi cal thought but themselves make a p ositive contribut ion to such thou ght, or at any rat e to the further und erstand ing - the elaboration, even th e deepen ing - of the phil oso phi cal texts in ques tion. As "absorption" and "worldhood " in Being and Time ar e them selves illuminated by the absorptiv e rea list tradition (in paintin g as we ll as photograph y), or as Wittgenstein's 1930 extract takes on specia l for ce when read in relation to Wall's tran spa ren cies, or as his remark s on th e inability of language to contrast with the world (to limit and set it in relief) are inter preted by Struth's mu seum photo gra phs, or as his 1916 state ment, "Each thing modifie s th e whole logica l world, the whole of logical space, so to speak ," finds a stunnin g exemplifi cation in the Bechers' "Typol ogies," o r as H egel's pa ges on the two infinitie s in his Logics are mad e new ly int elligible in the light of the Bechers' procedure s. Or indeed as H eidegger on "worldhood" and McDowell on conceptualit y find confirm ation in Gor don and Parreno' s Zidane . Finally, th e affin ity betw een Did erot and Wittgenste in suggested by th e 19 30 ex tract is of the greatest int erest even apa rt from its relevance to Wall. No doubt I am parti pris, but I feel th ere is no telling how much that conn ection w ill be worth in the long run.
Each drop of time th at flows past seems to me as precious as a sip of good wine, and I have lost almost all interest in the spat ial dim ension of thin gs. Yukio Mishim a, from his last letter to Yasunari Kawaba ta, j uly 6, I 970 23
If the worl d of data is tim eless, how ca n we spea k of it at all? Th e strea m of life, or th e stream of th e wo rld, flows o n and our proposi tions are so to speak ver ified on ly at instants. Our propositions are only verified by the present. Lu dwig W ittgens tein, Philosophical R emarks 24
I want to en d by briefly discussing one last wor k by Jeff Wall, his first non- tra nsparen t color ph oto grap h (more pr ecisely, a pigment ed inkj et print), Aft er "Spring Snow" by Yukio Mishima, chapter 34 (2000 - 05; Fig. 209 ). Th e six-year span in th e date mea ns
conc lusion
347
that construction of the set, an automobile interior , began in 2000; the photograph itself was "taken" in 2002; fine tuning by computer and the determination of picture size (a difficult decision, it turned out) took place over the next few years; and the actual printing of the photograph occurred in 200 5. ( "Spring Snow" is surprisingly sma ll, roughly 23 by 27 inches. ) Wall's catalogue raisonne reads : Spring Snow is the first novel of The Sea of Fertility, a tetra logy by Yukio Mishima (1925-1970 ). It was first published in Japan ese in 1970 [actuall y 1968]; an English translation followed in 1972 .
Spring Snow is set in the upper reaches of Tokyo society at the end of Meiji era (1868 - 1912). The modernisation of Japan , after the end of its seclusion from the outside world in the Edo period, has begun .... Mo st of the action takes place in 1912 an d 1913. Kiyoaki Matsugae, a schoolbo y, belongs to a wea lthy bourgeois family. He is being brought up in the household of th e nobleman, Count Ayakura, for the sake of his family 's social advancement . Kiyoaki is a beautiful, passionate and elegant young man caught up in the tension betwe en old and new and th e class divisions in a rapidly changing Japan. Kiyoak.i carries on an adolescent flirtati on with Ayakura's dau ghter Satoko, but when Satoko becomes engaged to be married to a royal prince, th e two realise that they are in love and begin a secret affair. With the help of Kiyoaki 's childhood friend, Shigekuni Honda, a sober upp er middl e class boy and the cent ral figure in th e tetra logy, the two lovers arrange clandestine meetings. Eventually Satoko sto ps seeing Kiyoaki after she discovers she is pregnant. She has an abortion and decides to live a secluded life in a temp le. Th e distraught Kiyoaki tries to see Satoko but is refused access to her by the abbess. Kiyoaki returns to Tokyo and dies of a flu con tr acted while waiting in the snow at th e abbey. H e is twenty years old. Chapter 34 of the novel reco unt s a secret meeting between th e lovers . Kiyoaki asks Honda to arra nge for Satoko to meet him in Kamakura, a town on the coast not far from Tokyo. Honda agrees to accompany Satoko from Tokyo during the night and to bring her back safely by dawn. From a wea lthy schoo lmate, Honda borrow s a new 1912 Ford Mod el T with a chauffeur. The car is describ ed in detail. "Itsui's car was a 1912 Ford, the new est model," Mishima writes. "It was one of th e first equipped wi th a self-starter, the recent invention tha t had eliminated the nuisance of the chauffeur having to get out each time it happened to sta ll. It was th e ordinary Model T, with a two-speed transmi ssion , painted black with a crimson line around the doors. The driver's seat was open and the rear enclosed, an arra ngement that seemed to preserve som ethin g of the air of a carriage. A speak ing tube in th e back seat led to a trumpet-shaped device next to the driver' s ear.... The car seemed altogether capa ble of making a long journ ey." Her maid Tadeshina escort s Satoko, wearing a white wes tern style summer dre ss, in a rickshaw to the waiting car. Honda escorts her to the beach where the intimate rendezvous with Kiyoaki take s place. Du ring the return journ ey Honda and Satoko engage in an intimate and int ense conversation about the affair and its likely consequences . The chapter ends with the moment depicted in Wall's photograph:
348
why photogra p hy matters as art as never befo re
"'Excuse me,' she apologi sed, 'but I think I just felt some sand in my shoe, even though I was so careful. Tade shina doesn't look after my shoes , and so if I took them off at home with sand left in them that I didn't notice, I'd be afraid of what some startl ed maid might blurt out .' "He had no idea of ho w to behave while a woman was inspecting her shoes, so he turn ed awa y and began to look out of the window with int ense concentration. "Th ey had a lready reached th e out sk irt s of Tokyo. Th e night sky had turned to a vivid dark blu e. The daw n showed the clouds spread low over the roofs of the hou ses. Though he wanted to get her home as soon as pos sible, he still felt regret that the morning light would put an end to what was probably the most extraordinary night of his life. Behind him he heard th e sound - so faint he thought he must be imagining it at first - of Satoko, pouring the sand from the shoe she had taken off. To Honda, it so unded like the most enchanting hourgla ss in the wor ld. " 25 What is at on ce clear is that although After "Spring Snow" is not at all a work in Wall's "near documentary" mode, it shar es with pictures like Adrian Walk er and Morning Cleaning the doubl e valence of absorption and to-b e-seenness. The subj ect itself is take n from a novel; the car interior, perfectly accurate in its detail s, was con struct ed from scratch for the occasion; auditions were held to find the young woman who "playe d" Satoko but in the end Wall chose someone he met through a friend; her dre ss with its sheer sleeves, delicate embroid ery, and necklin e set with tin y pearls, was sewn in London by a person deeply informed about th e period; and the picture was shot over rough ly thirt y days, about fourteen with th e young woman. Afterward, exten sive computer work was needed to collage multiple photographs into a seam less image, pre cisely control effects of lighting, and so on. All this, one might say, is on the side of to-be-seenness. Yet the overall tenor of the image is inten sely absorptive. For one thing, the young woman appears alone in the back of the car. The shadowy interior and the glimpses of "outside" that on e is given beneat h th e lar gely drawn window shades strong ly suggest that the scene tak es place at night, which adds to the sense of her isolation - as does, curiously , the gleam ing metallic speak ing tube han ging in its clamp along the inside car wa ll; the tube can be used to communicate with the dri ver, who, it is implied, inhabit s another world from th e one shown (perhaps his back or sleeve is glimpsed through the window to the left). In Mishima' s text , Kiyoaki's loyal friend Honda is seated alongside Satoko, but there is not the slightest hint in the picture that anyone else is imagin ed to be th ere. No r do es it make visua l sense to think of Honda as occupying "our" implied po sition relative to the young woman. In the novel, Mishima has Honda turn away from Satoko in embarrassment, so that th e scene as describ ed in the book is explicitl y not witnessed by its lone conceivable observer. I do not think thi s is an indiffe rent fact about the scene as far as Wall is concerned. Nor perhaps is the idea of a silence broken onl y by the th in hiss of the sand falling from Satoko's elegant, period-specific white shoe. As for the young woman herself, bending forward to mak e sure th e last grain of telltal e san d is deposited on the floor, although we viewers know she can be performing only for the camera, she strikes us - does she not? - as wholly absorbed in what she is doin g. (Th at
conclus ion
349
212 Mich elangelo Mer isi da Caravagg io, Crowning with Th orns, c. 1602-4 . O il on canvas. 127 x 166 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistor isches Mu seum, Gemald egalerie
2 13 Gustave Cour bet, Wheat Sifters, 1853-4 . Oil on canvas. 131 x 16 7 cm. Muse e des Beaux-Arts , Names
she appears thu s absorb ed exemp lifies the robu stn ess of absorp tion as a picto rial trope, its a bility to wor k its magic - to per suade the most sop histicat ed beholder of its imag in ative truth - even when the beholder kno ws very we ll that the yo ung woman in th e car is a mode l perfo rmin g absorptio n for the purposes of Wall's picture . The robustness of absor pti on and ind eed its intim ate conne ction to pictorial realism going ba ck at least to Carav aggio is a profound topic. ) Farth ermore, th e young wom an turn s - Wall has had her turn - away from the camera , w ith the result th at she is show n largely from the rear. In particul ar her profil e is almost who lly lost to view; our gaze dwells instead on her beautifully coiffured dark bro wn hair with its meta llic clasp and on her deli cate ear. (Also on the sh oe, her stockin ged foo t, the fine detai l of her dress, the meta l mesh hand bag on th e seat be hin d her. Yet our att enti on keeps return ing to her cheek, her hair, her ear.) Th is too is a trad itio nal reso urce of a bsorpt ive paintin g, as in Car avagg io's stupendou s Crowning wi th Tho rns in Vienn a (c. 1602 - 4; Fig. 212), 26 Cha rdin 's Young Student Drawi ng (see Fig. 20), or to choose a thi rd examp le mu ch closer to Wall's image for all th e differences between them , Courb et 's co loristically remarkab le W heat Sifters (18 53- 4; Fig. 21 3), in w hich a muscular young woman in co untr y dress knee ls on a canvas gro undcl oth w ith her back toward the beho lder and her profi le almo st w holly obscured as she sifts gra in throu gh a raise d sieve. In Courbet's R ealism I int erpret ed the Wheat Sifters as a "rea l allegory" of Co urbet 's pictorial enterpri se, meanin g by the latt er term not simply t he two -hand ed (bru sh- and pa lett e-hand ) act of pa intin g but also his larger, hyperb olic p roject of pa intin g him self as if corporea lly into hi s pictur es. 27 (In that sen se too th e kneeling sifter, already "emb race d " by the gro undcl ot h, is a surr ogate for th e art ist .) In view of Wall's know ledge of art history, it is by no mea ns inconceivab le th at he had the Wheat Sifters in mind when he co mpo sed After "Spring Snow", th ough
350
why photography
matters as art as never before
I can also perfectly well imagin e that he did not and that the resemblanc e between the two works derives instead from Cour bet's and Wall's engagement with not dissimilar concerns. Be this as it may, there is at once a suggestive affinity and an evident contrast not just between Cour bet's muscular farmworker and Wall's exquisite upper -class beauty (as the novel describes her and as her profil perdu leads us to imagine ) but also between the fall of sifted wheat onto the groundcloth, allegorizing the application of paint to canvas in the making of Courbet's painting, and the almost vanishingly slight trickle of sand from Satoko's shoe, allegorizing - what exactly? Perhaps the equivalent operations, involving a much less physical kind of labor, that went into the production of Wall's photograph. That is, the grains of sand in their fineness and indeed their near invisibility may perhaps be tak en as suggesting the almost pixe l-by-pixel adjustments that had to be made in the course of the final computerized perfecting of the photographic imag e. Let me be clear. I am not claimin g that Wall specifically plotted such an affinity-pluscontrast, much less the allegorical reading I hav e just put forward . Yet there can be little doubt th at Courbet, arch-realist and major figure in the French antitheatrica l tradition, has been an active factor in Wall's pictorial imagination for some time now. The Flooded Grave (1998-2000), which recalls the open grave in the immediate foreground of the Burial at Ornans, an d Still Creek, Vancouver, Winter 2003 (2003, printed in 2005), with its inevitable reference back to Courbet's Source of th e Laue paintings and relat ed works, are only two of the photographs that could be cited in support of thi s claim. Even Wall's propensity for depicting figures from the rear and moving away from the viewe r, as in Untitled (Overpass) (200 1; see Fig. 48 ) and a Woman with a Covered Tray (2003; see Fig. 49 ), have some thing Courbet -like - also Gericault- like - about them. So it is not altogether surprising to find in After "Spring Snow" an impli ed dialogue between Courbet 's and Wall's widely differ ent realisms. Some fina l observations . So far I ha ve said nothing about Mishima's tetralogy, which ever since I read it in the early 1990s has seemed to me one of the stunning literary ach ievements of the second half of the twentieth century. One theme in it, the significance of which for the overall narrative is not easy to gauge, is Honda's attraction to a doctrine associated with the Yuishiki school of Mahayana Buddhism, according to which "Beings in existence ... are annihilated from moment to mom ent, and this gives rise to time. The proc ess whe reby time is engendered from mom ent-to-moment annihilation may be likened to a row of dot s and a line. " 28 Or again, the world according to thi s doctrine is one "that lives and dies at every moment. There is no definite proof of existence in eith er past or future, and only the present instant which one can touch with one's hands and see with one's eyes is real. Such a world is unique to Maha yana Buddhi sm; realit y exists in the pre sent only, ther e being no past or future. " 29 Also: "T he true meaning of Yuishiki is that the whole of the world manifests itself now in this very instant. Yet thi s instantaneous world already dies in the same moment and simultaneously a new one appears. The world which appears one moment is transform ed in the following and thus continu es on. Everything in the entire world is alaya consciousness" (120). For it is " th e eternal alaya consciousness that discards the world one instant w ithout regr et and renews it the next" (278 ). The fact that the sand Satoko pours from
conclusion
351
her shoe sound ed to Honda "like the most enchanting hourglass in the world" is related to this theme. Reader s familiar with "Art and Objecthood" will probably have divined why the se an d similar pas sages caught my attention when I first came across them and continue to comm an d it to this day. "Art and Objecthood, " published in 1967 (Spring Snow appeared in 1968), argues for a distinction betw een high moderni st presentness, which denie s duration, and minimalist/literalist p resence, which positivel y exploit s it. Even more striking, "A rt and Obje cthood" opens with an epigraph from Perry Miller 's study of the grea t American Puritan divine, Jonathan Edwards. The epigraph reads: "Edwa rds 's journ als frequently explored and tested a meditation he seldom allowed to reach print: if all the world were annihilated, he wrote ... and a new world were freshly created, thou gh it were to exist in every particular in the same mann er as this world, it would not be th e same . Therefore, beca use th ere is continuity, which is tim e, 'it is certain with me that th e world exists anew every moment; that the existence of things every mom ent ceases and is every moment ren ewed.' The abiding assurance is that 'we every moment see the same proof of a God as we should have seen if we had seen Him crea te th e wo rld at first.' " 30 The epigraph, Jenn ifer Ashton has obser ved, asserts the prima cy of God's int ention in sustaining the world, an idea she link s with "Art and Objecthood" 's critique of min imali sm/literali sm's reliance on the viewing subje ct 's "ex peri ence " as a substitute for the intentions , the meaning s, of the artist. 3 1 Th e coincid ence betwee n alaya conscio usne ss and Edwards' s God, with respect to the notion of the annihilation and fresh creation of the world at every moment, is almost perfect, and my closin g que stion, for which I ha ve no answe r, is whether or not Wall noti ced that coinc idence when he decided to base a n ambitious photo grap h on Mi shima 's no vel. I assume he did not, but if that is so it only makes his finding in Spring Snow, an d by implication in Mishima's tetralog y as a whole, the textua l basis for one of his most hauntingly an tith eatrical pictur es all the more intriguin g.32
352
why photog raphy matters
as art as never before
jlF
\ her shoe sounded to Honda " hke the most enchanting hourglass in the world" is related ro this rheme. Rea J ers familiar with "Art and Objecthooc.l" will probably have divined wh y these and simila r passages caught my arrenrion when l first came across them an d continue to command it to this day. "Art an d Objecthood,'' published in 196 7 (Spring Snow appeared in 1968), a rgues for a disti nction between high moderni st presentn ess, which denies duration, and minimalist/lir eralist presence, which positively exp loits it. Even more st rikin g, "Art and Objeccbood" opens with a n ep igrap h fro m Perry Miller's study of the great American Puritan divine, Jonathan Edwards. Th e ep igrap h reads: "Edwa rds's jo urnal s frequently exp lo red and tested a meditation he seldom a llowed to reac h print: if all the world were annihi lated, he wrote ... and a new world were freshly created , th o ugh it were to exist in every particular: in the same manner as chis world, it wou ld nor be the sa me. Therefore, because ther e is co ntinuit y, which is time, 'i t is certain with me that the world exist s anew every mom ent; that the ex iste nce of things every moment ceases and is every moment renewed.' Th e abiding ass uranc e is that 'we every moment see th e same proof of a God as we shou ld have seen if we had see n Him create the world at first." >Jo The epigrap h, Jennifer Ashton has observe d, assert s the primacy of God's intention in sustaini ng th e world, an idea she link s with " Art and Objecthood" 's critique of min imalism/ literalism 's reliance on th e viewing subjec t's "experience" as a subs titut e for the intentions, the meanings , of the artist. 11 The coinc idence between alaya consciousness and Edw ards's God, with respect to the no tion of the annihilation and fresh crea tion of the wor ld at every moment , is almost perf ect, and my closing question, for which I hav e no answer, is whether or not Wall noticed that coinc idence when he decided to base an amb itious photograph on Mishima 's novel. l assume he did nor, bur if that is so it onl y makes hjs finding in Spring Snow, and by implication in Mishima's tetra logy as a whole, rhe textua l basis for one of his mo st ha untingl y amithear rica l pictures all th e more . . . 111tn g u10g. ~' -
352
why photog, aphy matters es a, l as never bPfor,;,
notes
hl111(London and New York, 1992), p. 51: "A g)ance lin a nar ra tive film] implies an inrcraction wirh an object. In The epithel is Mark Linder's. See Linder, Nothing Less than fact, glances ,1re so important ru narrari ng a srorr world Liter{I/:Ard11tect11re after Mi11imalism(Cambrid ge.. Ma~s., thar rhe only glance rha t 1s genera lly avoided is tl glanc:einto and London, 2004), p. 102. See also rhe discussivn of ~Arr the lens of the camera. A look into rhe camera breaks rhe and Ohjcct hoc,d" in Ja mes ,\lleyer, Minimalism: Art and diegesis because il makes the conventional reverse shm o r Polemics i11the Sixties (New Haven and Ll,ndon, 200, ), eycline march impossible. (Such a march would reveal the pp. 2.29-42.. camera itself; ics absence would be just as revealing.) " For Here 1 will mentio n rhar in a n endnore to the introdU(;a fuller trc.irmenr o f the rransgression consriruted by "a tory essay in Art and Ohiecthood l wrote: " Ir'~ noreworchy look and a voice addresst:d to rhe camera, '' also character . . . rhe extent to which photog raph y-based (or simply phoized as "a n infracrion of canonical proportio ns, an affro nt rographic ) work of rhe 1970s and after- for exa mple, tha t ro the 'pro pr r' functioning nf representation and filmic uf Cindy Shern1an, Jeff Wflll, and Gerhard [{jc hrer - has na rrarive," see Francesco C,isem, /11 side the Gni.e: The found irsclf compelled ro ndclress issu~ of beholding, ofren Fict1011Film n11d lts S/1ectatnr, rrans. Nell Andre,v with by an appea l to absorptive means and C'ffec:rs.This is a la rge Cha rles O'Brien (Bloomington and lndianapu lis. 199R). ropic" (uAn Introd uction ro my Art Criticism," Art and esp. ch. 2, ''Th e Figure of the Spectator.~ pp. 16, 17. My Obiecthoorl: Essays and Reviews [Chicago and London, rhanks to Dudley Andrew for horl1 reference~. 19981, p. 74). So I had begun to think along rhesc lines as 6 Sec Regis Durand, " lnrroduction," in G11dySherman, cxh. early as 1995-6. cat. (Paris, 13regcnz.Humbl ebaek, Berlin, 2006-7), p. 2.46. 2 rried , "An Introduction to my Arr Criti<.:i sm," p. , 1. Other essays in the cara loguc a re hr Jean-Pierre Criq11i, 3 My rhank s co Mo lly W;irnock for urging me to make thi~ who interestingly emphasizes ~herman's ''di sappe,Hancc" in point . favor of her many fi,rional self-images, and Laura Mulvey. More broadly, Ja mes Conant has argued in a series of seminars enticled "The Onto logy of a Movie World," given at rhe Humani ties Center, Johns Hopkin~ University in April 1 three beginnings e req11iremcnts for the internal coherence of 2007, that r11 Hiroshi Sugimoto in Kerry Brougher and David £ Ilion , such a -wor ld" align closely with Diderot 's acc:ount of rhe Hiroshi Sugimoto, exh. car. {Washingcon, o.c. and T1)kyo, proper fum:rioniug of drama find p:iinting in his writings of 2005-6). n.p. rhe 1750s and '6os. Cindy Sherman , The Complete Untitled N im Stills (New 2. 7 The key essay in that regard is uncloubredly Douglas York. 2003). Furrher page references ro th.is book will be Crimp's ''The Photograp hic Acrivicy of Posrmodernism," in parentheses in the rexr. firsr published in October, llll. 1 5 (Winrer 1980): y 1-1 o r . See e.g. the essays by Craig Owens, Douglas Crimp, (C,re::clhere from Burton, Cindy Slu:l'Jn{ln,pp . .:.5-37.) Ar Rosalind Krauss, et al. in Johanna Burron, ed., Ci11dy one point Crimp describes a photograp hy "that is selfShenna, ,, OCTOBER Files 6 (Camhridgc, Mass., and consciously composed, manipulat ed, fictionalized, the Lond on, 2.006); and J. M. Bernstein, Against Vo/11pt11 u11 s so-ca llcu d irt:cto1ial mod e, in which we find s uch a uh ·ur·s Bodies: L att! Modernism and the Meaning of P11i11ti11 g of phorography ::is Duane Michal s and Les Krims." He (Sranford, Cal., 2.006), pp. 253-323. continues: 4 See Michael Fried,~ Art and Ob jecthood," Art and ObiectThe scraregy of this mode is rouse the apparent veraciry hood: Essays and Reuiervs (Chicago and London, 1998 ), of phorography against itself, creating one's fictions pp. , 48- 71; Ahsorption a,1d Theatricalit)I: l't1i11tingand through 1he a ppearance nf a seamless reality into which Beholder in the Age ()( Diderot ( 1980; Chicago and has been woven a narrativl' dimension. Cindy Sherm:rn's London, 1986); Courbet's Realism (Chicago and Londtm, phorogr aphs function withi n this mode, but only in order 1990); and Manet's Modernism, or, The Faceof Painting i11 to expose an unwant ed aspec:r of tlrnr ficrion, for the the 186os (Chicago and London, r996). See also Fried, "An ficrion Sherman disclnses is the fiction of the self. Her Jnuoducrion m my Arr Criticism," Art and Obiect/Juod, phomgraph s show that the supposed autonomous and pp. 40-54 . unitar y self out nf whi.:h those other "direcrors" would See e.g. Edward Branigan, Narratwe Comprehension and
int roduction
notes to pages 1-10
353
l'rcure rheu· finions is irsdf norhing orher rhan a discon11nuuus sc::rie~t>f represenrnti
364
no tes
tn pagi: 10
way derr,1c:rs from the primacy o( rhe pose. Instead. insofar as the pose tllc.'marizesplrnmgraphy, rr:insft,rm· ing the photograph im,1 an element in rhe hisrory of the po,e (subsurning th<.'phmngraph in rhc narrative \1f its own existence), the photograph is even more rigor<>llsly subordinated ro rht: pose rhan ir would otherwise be, for the pt1Schecnmcs, in effei.:c,a criLiquc uf rhe photograph. What the photograph shows is an oh1ecr rhat has been cnlled int11 the wor ld by the exi,reni.:c of cameras; rhe pose, as pose, ca lls arrention 10 rhi, foct and criticitcs the wor ld rhe ca mera has 111nde;the l·an1crn. then, records in Sherman consists in this critique. The parndic ele111c11r her insistence that the ohjecr the came ra records is an object the c.:amcrahas made. but the srarus of the photo graph as record is asserted rather than ehallengcd by rhe pnrody. !The Sht1{Jl'1J( the ~ignificr: 19f.7 tv tl,e J:11d 4 History (l'rincewn and Oxfo rd, 2.004). pp. y 7-8, t:mphasis in original! Mi<.:h,1el~',point in rehearsing the p,1stm0Jern accoum of ')l,erm.1n's Untitled Film ~tills is to set the ,rage for a vcr)' differcnr, i.e. 111r,demis1,reading of the wnrk uf rhe phorugrapher ,l.1.mcsWdling. in whid1, as i\ lichaels r,uts it, "Welling. deploy~ the ~hape of tl1t: phorogr::iph againsr rhc shape of the objects photographed in orde r to ddear rhe camera's .ibilit}' t(1 lee us see ohjt!,tS in the \,ork l and m l:'.mploy rhosc obje..:rs instead in rhe making of photographs (ro use them like paint)'' ( 1 oo). This scnrcely does jusricr co hi~ pagc·s ()11 Welling, but my point is th,1r, in the cour5r of conrrasring Welling wit h Sherman, Michae ls perh,1ps mo much accepts the postmodern reading of her signature works - at any rare, my suggt·srion rhat the film srills bc::ar a significant rclarion ro an .rnrithearric-al problemnric concerns the photog raphs rhcmselve,, nor simply or esscnriallv the poses and disguises rhey record. · 8 In rhe 200, cira loguc raisonne of Wall"s work, one re:ids: ''The lirerarure variously describes the artist's backlit colour transparencies as ·rransp:irency in lightbox', 'cibac hromt: in lighrbox ', 'cib:1c.:hrome transparency in :iluminium', ·cibachrt>me rransparem:y in fluorescenc lighrbox', etc. The arrisr htis specifit·d rhar the rerm 't ran sparency in lighrhox' be u~ed throug hout to designate thest: works.·· And: ··The trnnspart:ncies arc made o n llfochrume Classic transpare nt 1naccrial. llfochrome was formerly known as Cibac.:hrome.'' Theodora Vischer a nd I lcid i Naef, "lntr C1ducmry Notes," }c(l W11/I:Cat,Jlo!;:ttC({,1iso1111e ,97,'l- 2 004 (Basel. 2005), p. 271. And a few pages on: "A year before completing TIie Destruyed J
'1
10
1
1
1i
13
14
Gallery in Onawa 111 1y80. Soon after, Wall Je.:-ided m withdraw the work frt•m hi~ ct)rpus" (p. 2..,5). ror an informarive Ji~cu~sion of Wall's beginning~ :is an artist, including his close relations wich his fellow artist from Vanctiuvt:r Ian Wallace, ~cc l'erer Gah1ssi. "Unorthodox," m Peter Ga lassi and Nea l l',eneua,Je(/ Wtill, exh. car. (New York. Chicago, San hancisco, 2007-R ), pp. 14-29. Jeff Wall in Vischcr a nd Naef, .fe(l Wla/1(B.1sel, 2005), p. i!! t. Furrhcr page references ro 1his hook will b, in parentheses in rhe text. 1-'ried. "Arr and Objecrhood,'' p. t64. !:Ice also !'>ranlty C.ivell, The World Viewed: Reflections 011 tile Ontology of film, enlarged edition (Cambridge, Mass., and Lnndcm, 1979), p. 90: "One impulse of phurography, a!> immediate as its impulse ro ex rend rhe visible~is to theatric;:ilize in, subjects. The photographer·s command, "Wateh the birdie!" is essentially a stage direction. One may object rhar the command is gi1•en nor to achieve the unn ;ltura lncss of thenrt·r hut precisely tl) give the impression of the natural, char j,; ro say, rhc::candid; an d that the point of the dir ectio n is nothing more than co disrract rhc subject's eyes from fronting on the camern lens. But rhis misses the point, for rhe question is exaetly why the impression of naturalness is conveyed by an essentially rhearrical technique. And why, or when, rhe cand id is missed if rbe subject t1,1rnshis eye mto the eye uf the camera." And pp. 1 1!j-19: •'Setting pictures to morion mechanically overcame what I earlier ca llccl the inherent rheatrkality of rhe (srill) photograph. The dcvclopmcnr of fast film itllowed the subjecrs of plw tographs to be rnughr unawares. beyond our or rheir conrm l. But rhey arc ncverrhelcss rt111ght;the camern holJs the last lanyard of control we wo uld forgo.'· See .Jea n-Fran i;ois Chevrier, "The t\dvenmrl'S 1Jfthe Picture Form in the Hisrory of Photography,'' rrans. Michael Gilson, orig inally publlshed 1989, cited here from Doug la~ · rlmtugra /1hy, ex h. car. (Minneapolis .1nd Los Angeles, 2.00:;-4). pp. 1,3-2.7. In the origina l French rexr Chevrier refer~ tn " la forme tableau:" for reasons rhat will become clear. l shall retain the wurd rahleau (in preference to ''pictu re'') in my citations from and discussions of hi~ essay. Ralph Ubl gave his lecture., which has not been published, in connection with Wall"s rcrrospt:ctive exhibirinn ar Sc:haulager in Basrl in rhc late ~pring of 2005. My rhanks ro Uhl for sharing his rhoughts wirh me. 51:cin panii.:ular Tlait:tT)'de::Duve's Jiscussinn of l'i cturc (nr Women in Louk, , oo Years 11(Ct111te111/J11mry Art, rrans. Simon Pleasance and Fronza Woods ( Brussels, ioo, ), pp. 24_~- 9 (rev. a nd en larged cdn. ()f rhe rrench a nd Durch VoJCi,1 oo ans d'art conte111pnr<1i11 (Brussels, 2000-01 ). l sh1Jult! ~ay, though, that f am nor pcrsw1ded by de 011vc·s ana lysis nf Manet's Bar, which precedes his account of Picture (nr \Vt/men (ihid., pp. n9-44). See Valeria Liebermann, "Annotated Caralog ue Raisonne of Works ~ince 1979," in Matthias \Vinzen, eel., Thl)111as Ruf(: , 9..,9 In the Present (New York. 2003 ). p. t 8 ;. Published in wnjunct ion with l'he exhibition "Thomas Ruff forograficren 1979-heute" (Baden-Baden. ioo1-2).
t
'i
rt>
1..,
1I!
19
20
i,
See also Erie de Chassey, Plat1t11des:u11e/Jistoire de l,1 p/Jut11graplneplat<'(Pans, ioo6). pp. 172-84. Lichermann, "Annotated Catalogue l{aisonne:· p. 18,. "Brrwcen 191!4 :ind t 9il6," she writes, "Thumas Ruff kept experimenting w1rh the ~i7.eof his Portraits ft,oking for another to rmat 111addition to the ·reducc::dreality' ut -1.4 x t8 cm. Wht:n he managed to make five prints in 1986 on the largest photo paper :iv:.iil:ihlc, he discovered rhat a com· plett'I~ nt'w ric!llre had emerged. Through rhc enlargement, tht: look :.ind expression oi the sitters was incensLfied,rnd the visual presence of the photograph became dominant. The.:pmject came ma hair 1111991 because 1he paper he had heen using was no longer in procl11ction.The new phnm paper had such a g.rear r3nge of co lor and contrast rhar ir was no longer suitab le for his portrairs." Je,111-PierreCriqui, "Bustamanrc as Photographer (Nores for nn Unfinished Portrait)," rrans. Simon Pleasance and F'ronz:i Woods, in jean-Marc 811sramm1te:oe1//Jresphotogra1dnq11cs19-1/-1999. cxh. car. (l'ari~, 199y), p. l 62. Furtht•r p,1ge references to rhis essay will be in parentheses in rhe text. Sec also rhe val1rnblc remark~ on Bustamamc\ Ttrbleaux as exemplar~ of "A.1tness" in de Chassey, I'lt1t1· 111des,pp. 1 6 3-7 1 • Taro Amaro, "lnrersecring Relationships," in Jean-Marc /J11s/(IJ11a11te: Private C1'11ssi11g, exh. car. (Yokohama, 2001.), p. t 59. Also, "ungratefu lnt:ss'' is Bustamante's word - in French /'ingratitude - in an interview hy Annick Colonna· Cesari in L'Express,June 9, 2.002. There Bustamante speaks of h:iving (in his Tt1bleauxof chelate 1970s :ind earl}' ·iios) "immersed himself in the landscapes in order to realize prints ltbat would be! calm and hard ,tr the sa111ctime .. (rrnnsl:.irion mine). See Michel Gaurhier, "Constructing an Aura, .. in Alfred J>acquemcntand Jean-Pierre Criqui, eels.,Jean-Marc 811stama11tc(J> nris. 2005). p. q . As Bustamante has remarked: "Musi l certa inly left his mark 011 111e, a Im of ,hings can be traced hack ro Tht• M,m Without Q11t1lit1es. I am rrying ro pwduce work ·without qualities"' ("fragment~ cl'un enrrerien: Jean-Marc Busrnmanre, Jan Dehbaur er Yves Gevaert," }11a11-Marc 811sta111a11tc, exh. cat. IF.indhoven, ryy3 I, p. q, quoced by Gaurhicr, p. 7,, n. 4 ). Sophie Bcrrebf, "Jean-Marc Busrnmancc: 'Ir's Crap. hur in the Right Way,· - imcrvirw. hrrp://eycsturm.c11m/feature/ ED::.n_articlc.asp?arriclc_icl=140. In the same interview, Berrebi allndcs tn Busramante·s having said "rhar Robert ~lusil's nnvcl The Mm, WlitbfJ11f Q ua/ilit1s ha~ had a long over Ihim I.'' lasrini:; in011e11ce Ulrich Loock, "Our of Focus," in je,111-Marc/311stt111i.111te (Paris, 2.00,), p. 136. rranslarion mine. "Long after their making," Jacinto Lageir:1 writes in ibid., p. 61!, "what always srrikes one in rhe Tahh•aux is the plenitude uf these images in which everything is given lfivre] nnd at rhc same time wirhdrawn. The superabunda nce of derails is in con · Oict with what one is rcmptec..ltu ca ll a v.1cancy"'("La raillc de la m.1riere,'' translarint, mine). )tephc::n Shure, U11co111111011 Narcs: The Complete Wr1rks (New York, 1004). This book also incluclt'~ an excellent e say h> Stephan Schmidr-Wulffen. "Stephen Shore's
,1,:,tes to pages 11-21
355
U11w,1m1tm Places,~ and a highly inreresting co11vers.uio11 herwccn Shore and rhe writer Lynne Tillman. 22 Hilla Bt'chrr in " ' I [is Picrure~ I lave the Qu.ilicy of a rirsr Encounter': Hilla and Bernd Becher in Conversation with Heinl Lieshrock,'' Stt!µ/JenShore: Plmtographs L!rJ1993, ed. Heim. Lieshrock (M uni ch, .1994), p. 27 . \X/h:it she says is: "I like che way he appro,1ches co lor photography . the wa)' he conceives of rhc color am J the American light, which is actually quite difticu lr, very hurd. For example, rhe struggle with rhe sky that always has ro be foug ht out i1J 25 cn lor phmograph y, at leasr in landscape- he has mastered 26 ir quire felicitously by lighting mosr of rhe objects from the side, or using this side lighting. This ha s enahh :d him to avoid that dreadfu l blue sky that always looks like il slab of stone\ and to soften the colors.'' Furt her page references ro this conversation will be in parentht'ses in rhe rext. Shore early on became friends with Hilla Becher, and the Bcchers ow ned photographs by him char were known ro the -:.7 younger German photugntphers who were rheir sn1dents. 1.1 A recent conversar1011 between Shore and rne, ro be published in a Phaidon Press volume on his ar t, includes the 1oll0w111g:
24
356
SS: One of rhc things I did at the rime l was raking lrhe Uncn111111on Nac:esl pictures was stand nein ro rhe rripod and simply look. After I had gotten a roug h idea of what I was phorographing I would look at what w,1s in fronr of me a nd literally pay attention mas m nch as J could as far back into space as I could see. And I would decide whether there. was any slight acljusrmenr I wanted to mak e. MF: 5ystemarica lly? ~s: Yes. taking into account any perceprio ns rhat came my way. Ao my moving my artencion through the scene and making any necessary adjustment ro the pit:tu rc, I dear the spac1• goLng back into t he scene for rhe viewer m move his or her attention. lf 1 o nly looked fifry feet in, then there wou ld be a wa ll rhat the viewer wou ld srnp at. One other exchange is of inrcrcst in thi s connecrion: JlL: Let's rhink for a minute abour rhe s11bjecrs in his work of the 1970s. There are a few pvrtrai rs, very few srill li(e pictures, but mainl y 1r's urba n contexts thar are characrt:ristic in his work: architecture in the ciry centers, in the suburbs, traffic scenes again and again, streets, especia lly intersections. Whar is it that crearcs rite magic in rhcse pictures? h it his specia l .lngle of vision, or is tht're a lread y snmething 111rhe subject itself that radiates uniquely?
nores rn pages 22-23
MB: Well, he J1scovercd rhesc places. Tht> inter-M.:crion is whar America is. You cou ld almosr say that outside Manhattan life intensifies precisely at the intersecrion. And he l<10ked for, and fuund, the right interst'ctions. It'~ a quesrion of artistic intelligence co find this out, to re,.:ogni.:e what ir symbo lizes. For us, our first trip~ ro Amcric:i were like a dream. You absorb the counrry like a sponge, Hke a ..:hil
a
a deeper levd, chat of the l'tt:wt:r\ perception of th e picture" ('' Co nsr rucring an Aura," p. 61 ). Thus Loock writes: "In m3ny respect s , Busramanre·s pho rographs have a paradigmati c funcLion for the whole of his work: from rite puinr uf view of their grounding in reality (in rhe double sense of their wc::ilrh of elemenrs burrowed from the real anJ of the abscnt:e in them of an imagi11ary 'penerracion of the;;gaze·), of the re,tlization of the in-itself of things foreign ro all meaning; but a lso from rhc poinr of view of the exclusion of the body, even w hen rhe latter is sometimes reintegrated, under cerrai11 condirions, in recent photograp hic works. The exclusion of th e bod y is the price that must be paid for th e rerurn ro the realiry of t he object a nd rhcrefore a lso for the refection of a modernity defined hy irs exclusive t:haracrer la double reference tu minim:11ism, 1 thLokl, To put this differently, Bustamanre opposes rhe absrracrions of minimal art, the reduction of rhe ,1bje..:r to its materia lit}', its extension, irs si ruat ed ness, co its imerat:cion wirh a generic observer-Andre's metallic carpets like sce nes to walk on, Flavm's luminous pieces like atmosphere s - in rhat he rend ers the ohjt:cl co ncrete, objective, somcrimes 111direct polemic /i ronic reference rn Judd's boxes, a ll the while divest ing it of rhe relation en the body" ("Out of Focus," pp . 140-4~, trans lation mine ). 33 for Chevrier 111 L98y, five photographers exemplified rlw esthcric seance he wished to srress: John Coplans, Hill Hen so n, C tatgit: I lorsfie lse montre , il la voit, ii ba isse les yt'ux, & que lque effort qu'elit? fasse pour actirer ses rega rd s, ii n'cn rourne plus aucun ~ur' elle. Quoiqu'c llc peneue le motif dC' la vio lence qu'i l se fait, elle ) trouve que lque chose de si cruel, qu'el le en e~t sa isic
40
.p ,p
4_,
44
45
See the photographer Brassa'rs penetrating discussion of tltt' scene i11T/Je G11er111a11tes Way in which Proust's narrator observes his beloved grandmother while she is un awa re of his presence, an act that Proui.r compa res tu that <•f "the photographer," quored later in this book, Ch. 4, n. 1 ,. Susan ~on tag, On Phnto,;raphy ( ew York, 1977 ), p. 3 ;-. Jhid., pp . .36-7. She cites rhis. then immediatel y adds in a note: "Not a n erw r, reall; ·. There is somethi11g on people 's face~ ... " See Rt,ss ell Fergu so n, .. Open Ciry: Possibiliries of rhe Street," in Kerry Broug her and Russell Ferguson, Open City: Street P/Jotogra11hs S111ce1950, exh. car. (Oxford, Salford Quays, Bilhao, Wa~hington, o.c., 2001), p. 14, as we ll as the brief disrnssion of Winogrand's ca reer in Ch. 8 be low. Susan Sontag, Regarding the Pai/I of Others ( ew York, :.003), pp. 76-7. furtht>r page refon:nces tc1 rhis bnnk will be in parentheses in the rext. According to Vischcr and Naef, /e(f \Xia/I:
Dead Trno{ls ?c1lk(A Vision After (Ill Amhush
a
2 wall, heidegge r, and absorpt ion ''Jeff Wall in Conversation with Martin Schwa11der,,. in Jeff Wall, Sc/acted Essays a11J Interviews (New York, .!.007), p. 2:;o. Orig ina.lly publis hed 1994. Wall's reference is tom)'
Absvtf)liOll and Theatrict1lity:Pn1111ing and Belmldcr i11the Age of Didernt ( 1980; Chicago and London, r~86). For mo re on Wall's engagement with my writing, bot h arr critic,11 a nd arr historical, see esp. his essay " Frames of Refere nce, " ·' Inte rview between Jeff Wall and Jean -Fram;ois C hevrier,'' and " Posr-'6os Phorography and Its Modernisr Co nrext: A Conversation berwe en Jeff Wal l and John
1,otes to page~ 23-38
357
~
4
5
6
8 9
1o
1
1
12.
358
Roberts," in Wall, Selected css,1ys and Interviews , pp. 1;1-8 1, ;13-1,9 , alltl 131-45. All three arc illustrated and Jiscussed m The Age ,if r3 Cl1ardin, t111dl·ragn11ard:Masterpieces of French \Ylattc•t111, Genre Pain/mg. ed. Colin 11aileyet al.. c--
note-; to pages 39-48
eds., Jeff Wall: C11 t,,lug11e Rairnnne 1<178-100-1 (Basel, .1.005),p. -10 1. Marrin Heidegger. Bei11gr111dTime, trans . John Macquar rit: .ind Fdward Robinson (New York and Evansron. Ill., 1962. ); further pagr nifC'rences ro this cra11slatin11 will be in p:1rcnthe~cs111the text. A more reccmt trallsl,1rio11is by Jnan Srambaug h (Albany, N. Y., r99 6); I shall present her versions of cited passages in rhe nme~. When only pnge references are given in rhe rexr to the Macquarrie .ind Rohinson cranslacinn, I sh3II also give the matching p:igcs in rhe St,Jmbaugh version. Robert 13.Pippin, ~ ·The Age of Consummare Meaningless11ess·: Heidegger," in Modem1sm as ,1 Pbilosop/11rnl l'mble111: 011 tlil' Dissatisfactions u( High r.umpea11 Culture (Oxford and MalJen, Mass., ,991), p. 119. See also Pippin's ess,1ys "O n Being Anri-Ca rresian: Hegel, Heidegger, Suhjecrivity, and Soc:iality" and uHeidcggenan Hisroriciry :ind Metaphysical Politics," in Idealism as Modernism: l-legel1t111 Vanatio11s(Cambridge, New 'fork, nnd ,'vlelbourne, 1997), pp. 375-414. [n chis (as in vario us ot her respects ) I follow Huberr L. Dreyfus's lead in his Hei11g-i11-tl1e-World: A Cnn1111c11ta,y ,,11 Heidegger's "Bei11i.:and Time, '' Di11is,u11I (C imbriclgc, Mass., and London. l'J
in the mnclc l}f simply lingering with .... 011 the hasis of rhi~ kind nf he111gmwarc..lthe world whi..:h Ice~us encounter bt'ings within the world solely in their mere outward appearanct' (eidr1s/, .tncl as a mnde of this kind of being, lonking exp lilitly ,H something thus encounrerecl is possible" (57) . 18 Scamb.wg h: ·'This objective presence of what is 1111usahle still does not J,1ckall handiness whnrsoever; rhe useful rhing th11sobjcctively present is srill not ,1thing which jusr occurs somewhere" (68). 19 See e.g. rhe discussion of "conspicuousness, obtrusivrness, .111dobstinacy" on pp. , 03-7 (Stambaugh, 69- 71). world 1Jf,wture is di~1.0 Sta mbaugh, 66: "rhe surro1111di11g covered and accessible co everyo ne. In raking care of things, nature is discovered as having some definite direction on paths, streer,. bridge~, and bui ldings." 11 Stambaugh, 70: "The references thcmsc.'Ives ,1re noc observed, rarher they are ·there ' in our heedful adjusrmenr re, rhcm. Bur in a disruf1fl(,n of reference - in being unusable for ... - the reference becomes explicit. ... This drcumspecc noticing nf the reference ro the particular whnr-for makes the wha t-for visihle and wirh it the context of rhe work, the who le 'workshop' ,ls char in which rnkmg care of things has always already been dwelling. Thc co11rexr of useful things appears not as a totality never seen before, but as a mcality chat has continually bt't!ll seen beforehand in our circumspec tion . Bur with this mralit)' wurld makes irself known." 2::. Stambaugh, 77: "World is a lready 'there' in all things at ha11d... .:.3 Srnmba ugh, 104: ·'Where space is discovered non-circumspectly by jusr looking at it. the regions of the surrounding world gee neutralized tu pure dimensions. The places and rhc totality of places of useful things at hand, which are circumspectly oriented. are reduced to a multipliciry of posirlons for random things. The spati.:iliry of innerworld ly rhings at hand thus loses its character of relev.ince. The world loses irs specific character of aro unda ess, the surrounding wurld becomes the narural wor .ld. 'The world' as a corality of useful things at hand is spatia lized tu become a connecrion of ex'tenJed things which are merely ohjecrively present. The homogeneous space of nature shows itself only when the beings we encounte r are discovered in such a way that rhe wor ldly characte r of what is at hand gers specifically Jeprived of its wor ldliness." :q It is in1ponanc co bt: clear, howevi:r, that for lkidcgger D:isein's being-in-the-world ope n$ nnco ,1 .:ommon or shared world wirh that of other Dasein. He writes! "The W(1rltl of D,1sein is a with-world. Being-in is being-wi th ochers" (155/118, quoted by Drryfus, Be111g-i11 -t/1e-World, p. t49). Neirher arc rho:great depk:tions of ahsorptio n in Western art typically images of solipsism. 25 "Whil e we thus lordin arilyl rend to think of truth as a marrer of succ:essful assert ion or well-founded claims about being, for Heidegger, rruth is a matter of rhe pre-predicative in experience. whJt originally 'lights up enrities' in chis or that way, to he then apprehended and manipulated by us. Truth is an origina l 'uneoncealmenr' (as in Plato's image.
i6
.1.7
1.8 2.9 30
11
p
33
34
35 J6 37
che ' light' it~elf and nm rhe entities illuminated hy the light ), ,111 d so 1101 che achievc111c11r of an assertion. And the w,1} in which heing 1sorigillally ·clt"ared' or 'lighred' (Being as ·presencing· IA11wcse11 J rather rhan ·srantling presence' IA11111ese11heitl, as he sometimes purs it), pre-judging so there: 1113)' be rnrities co be judged, is che ·fundamental ontological' issue for Heidegger'' (Pippin, "· Age of Consummate Meaninglessness'.·· p. 124). An inve.nrory based on a persona l commumcation from Jeff W.ill. Rolf Lauter, "Jeff Wall: f-igmes and Pl,1ces," in Lauter, ed., Jeff Wall: Figures aud Places. Selected Wlnrks(ro111;9..,.'<1000 (Mu nich, L1JnJt111,New York, 2001 ), p. 52. Further p,1ge references en chis essar will be in µ>1renchesesin rhe text. /hid., p. 51. Stambaugh, 1 14: uin terms of the phenom enon of care which we used to designate rht being of Da-seill ill general." Stambaugh translates Fiirsorge as borh ·'concern" and "solic.:irude,'' and Besorge11as "raking care·· and ''heedfulness." Bur see Dreyfus, ch. q, ''The Cart' Srrucrurc:· Being-i11the- World, pp . .:._;8-45. He writes: " Heidegger ... tries ro ward off :rn understanding of care as worr) ' or even simply prngmaric concern - rhe connorarions of the term Sorge. which in Germa n means care as in ·the cares of the world.' In a conversation with Heidegger I pointed ou t chat 'care' in English has connotations of love and caring. He responded that char was fortunate since wirh rhe term ·care' he wanted ro name the very genera l fact that 'Sein 1sehtmich an.' ro ughly. that being get~ to me. Thus a ll o nric senses of caring are tO be included as modes (If oncological ca ring" (p. 239). Jeff Wall, "A note about cleaning," in Vischcr and Naef, Jeff Wall. p. 3.93 · In Wall's t984 "A Note on J\fovie Aud ience," a co111mt:11r:1ryon his Movie A1,di1mceof , 979, he writes: "My home, Vancouver, i~ a lmiver~al ciry, that b, a late product of the developn11::ntof the world market and globa l colo nialism. lt is a ciry srrucru red in terms cif the grids of cahletelevi~i11n,nf hydroelectric a nd raw materials export, and the grid of meal real-esrnce" (originally in Jeff \Ylal/:Transparencies I London and Basel, 19R4I; reprinted in Vischrr and Naef, _/eff Wall, pp. 2.~0-82). Martin Heidegger, "T he Question Co m:crning Technology," [he Question Co11ccr11111g Technol ogy ,wd Other fasays, trans. William Lovin (New York, 1977); hereafter ''Questio n." Further p.ige references will be ill parenrhcses in the cext. In ibirl., hereafter '·Picture" ~nd "Turnin g.·· Furrhcr page rdercm:es will he in parentheses in the rext. Hub ert L. Dreyfus and J ane Rubin, "Kierkegaard, Division 11, and Larer I leidegger;· Bei11g-in-the\Vorlr/, p. 3 37. This ..compensamry'' nmc is characreriscic of Heidegger's rhought. "Bur whenever we sec something wrnngly:· Heideggt'r writes in Being and Time. "su me injunction as to tbe primordial 'idea · of rhe phenomenon is given a long with it" (Macq 11.:irrieand Rob111sun, p. 3 2.6; ~tambaugh, p. 28 1;
11,,tes to paoes 118-61
359
ciretl by Dre) •fus and Rubin, "/\ppt:n d 1x: K1t>rkega,1rd, Divisit)n 11, and l.arer Ht'idegger," Bei11g-111-the -\'(/orld, P· 3o5). 4 ,H Dreyfus .rnd Rubin, "Kierkt>gaarJ, Division 11,and Luer Heidegger,'' p. 3 37. They continue: .. rorthe early Greeks, reality was thar which ope11cditself a nd rook man inro its presenct: where it was ·beheld by what is ... ittdtttleJ and m:iintaincd within its opennes~ :111d ' in tha t way born e along by it, t() he driven nbm1t by its oppos itions and marked by irs di~cord.' l'· Pii:rure," p. , 3 1I 13111 for medieval Christians, reality was the presence of crea1ed things as finished pruJucrs whit:h were simply m he accepted, while for mutlern man, srartittg with Descarre~, realrry was made present to man by miln himself and forced tO live up m his srnndarJ s of inrclligihiliry" (337-8 ). In rht final stage of technology, they go on m say, "we rxperience everything including ourselves as resources ro be enhanced, transfo rmed, and ordered simp ly for tbe sake of grc;lter and greater efficiency•• (33 8). ee Martin HciJ eggcr, "The Orig in of rhe Work of An," Pol!fry . 1 ang11c1gc, Thought , rrans. Albert Hofsradrer (New York, 19;5 ), p. 33 and passim. Ir is a lso true rhar Hein, .wo2.). p. 159. 4 1 My thank s to Ralph Uhl for helping me think thn)ugh the rebrio n of Wall\ picture to "The Question Concerni.ng Technology" and late r Heidegger in general.
,9
3 wall. wittgenstein, and the everyday
1.
3t30
The everyday is a lso a crucia l norion in my Menu l's l~er.1 lis111:Art and E111 bodi111 e11/ i11 Ni11elee11t/J -Ce11t11r y Berlin (New Haven and London, .i.oo.i.),esp. ch. 1o , ''Time and the Everyday; Men~el a nd Kierkegaa rd's E1thcr!Or; with a Postscript on Fonrane's Effi Bries/... Theodorn Vischl!r and I leiJi Naef, eds., Je/f Wall: Ca1,1log11eRa isn1111 i 19,R-2.004 (Basel, 2005), p. 27'! . In facr only one phoro wirh figures, Pleading ( 1984 , prinrcd 1998) . falls inm rhe "doc umenra ry'" category. ~ce also Wall's remarks on "cinemato gra phy" in the essay " Frames of Reference," in Jeff Wall, Selected Essays 11nd/11ter11iews(New Ynrk, 2007) . pp. 173- 8 r (originally pub lisht'd tn Art('1rum in 2.003).
nc,11,s ro pages 61-6'1
8
J.111 Esrcp, " Picture Making Yleaning: An lnrerview with Jeff Wall," Rl'ltlge Magazine. 2003. http://www. bridgemng,1zinc.org/<> n Iine/fcttni res/are hi ve/00002 7 . php Jan Twn lir. "Tiu.' Hole Trurh: Ian Tuml1r Talks with Jeft Wall ahour The Flooded Graue:· Artfcm111 1, vol. W (Man_h 2.001): , 17. h1nh er page· referrnces ro thi~ inrc:rvrew will he in ra renrheses in the tell.t. ee Estep, "Picture Making Meaning": "Does making a 'good picrnre' h:we anyth ing tu do wid1 morality? Is qua lity linked to a picrure's ::ibiliry to pro nounce - or a lternative ly evaJt: anJ rt·main :imbiguuus lsicl- soda l, politim l, erhicaJ judgmenr"' To which Wall replies: " JI you are capable of making good pkrures it's immora l nm to do so, for what ever reasnn or excuse you might give. The other things you menrinn lrnve not hing essential to do wirh picrurt! making, in my view. The only jutlgmenrs th:11 we are concerned a hour arc aesrhetic judgmenrs ... Esrep: ··nmcan't rhesc ocher things inform aesrhetic judgmems: hismry, cultural mores, polirkst How does one maintain an autonomo us realm of rhe acsrheric, either in rheory o r in pracrin :?" Wall: "You m,,intain it hy mainta ining it prrsona lly, as an act for which you're responsible. Autono mous att has :i hisWr)' J nd :i polirics, it's not an airy position above it all t,r oursiJ t! of it all. Autonomy is a relano nship with the world." Wall also cites with approva l Grc::c:: nberg\ notion t hat "rhe meaning of a work is in the e,111:rien..:cof its forms." Robrrt Enright. "The Conso lation of Plausibility: An Interview with Jeff Wall,'' /?11rtlerCrossi11gs, nil. 19 (2.000): 51. Tht: following from \Xf:i ll's '·Th ree Thoughts on Photography" ( 1999) i~ :ilso relevant: I rhink my rel::ition with photography is changing. hir a long lime ir was necessary to contest thr classical aesrheric of photog raph y as too ahsolmely rooted in rhe idea of facr. and the factua l cl:iim maJr by photograp hy horh within and outside of arr. I accept that cbim, bur I don't think tlrnt it itself can he rhc foundation for an ac:st heric of photography, of phomgrnphy as arr. The way l d1011 g ht I could work rhrough rhar prob lem was to make photogrnphs rhat pur the: factual cl:iim in suspension, while still nearing an involvement with factuality for the viewer. ( rrir d m dt>rhis in part through empha si;ring th,; rr larions photog raph y has with u thr r picture -making arts, mainly painring and the cinema, in which the factual claim has always het:n played with in a ~ubrle, learned a nd ,oph isticatt:J way. This was what r thought of as a mimt:sis of the orher arts, somet hing rlrnr c<1uld uniquely ht:: Jone as phowg raphy. What I hegan to realiw 1~1rcr was char rhis mimesis was of cou rse raking place on rhc foundation prcwiJ cJ by photngraphy irself. Sn, slowly, it was possible co turn mward photogra phy irself, as an equal player in the mimetic game. Now I see rhe possibility of developing n mimesis cif photog raphy, as photo· grap hy. [J-=ischcra nd Naef, Jeff Wall, p. 44 1I Hubert L. Dreyfus, Bei11g-i11-1he-World: A Co111111 c111 ary on ll eideggi!rs "/3ei11ga11d Ti111t·," Div1s1011 I (Cambridge, Mass., anti London, 19\.ll ), esp. pp. 151-62.. In wha t folJows ( modifv Rob inson :ind Macquarrie's translat inn
y
1o
t
r
I.!
11
14
:iccc,rdingly. Further page references to Dreyfus'~ honk will be in pa rcnthcscs in the texr. .\lartin Heidegger, Be111gand /'i111e, rran~. John Macquar rie .111JEdward Robinson (~cw York .rnd l:vansron, Ill., 19112), p. 1114.He ..:onrinues: -These Others, moreover, a re nor definite Others. On the conrrary, ,111yOther can reprcsrnt them. Whar 1s de..:i,ive ,s just thM i11conspi..:oustlmni· 11Rtion h}' Others which has alrc11d y bee11 taken over u11,1wart!> from Dasein ,1s Being-wi1h. One belongs 10 rhc ct•s their power .... Tlte ·who' is Orhers otteself and enha11 not this one, nor thar one, nor oneself, nor some peop le, and nor the sum ot rhcm all. The 'who' is thc neurer, tht' ·0111'' /das Man/" ( 164 ). ~ee :ilso Marrin I leidegger, Being @d Time. trans. Ju:tn Stambaugh (Alhany, N. Y., 1 ~96): "T he everyday possihiliries of being of Da-sein are at rhe disposal 11f rhe whims t>f the ntht:r~. These nrhers an: nor definite others. On the contrary, any urht:r can represent rhem. What is J ecisive is only the inconspicuous duminarion bv nthcrs that Da-sein as being-with has a lready taken over una1vart:s. One bd ,1ngs tn the others oneself, and enrrenches their power.... Th e w ho is nm this one and not rhat one, nor oneself .11 1d nor S\ 11l1C a nJ nor the sum nf them all. rhe 'wh ,1' is rhe neuter, the they" (pp. 111:!-19). All emphases in qunrntinn s from Heidegger are in the original rcxr. Scamb.wgh, p. u.,: ~The self of everyda)' Do-sein is the tlu:y-self which we distinguish from the <111tlie11tic st:!f, rhe self which has exp licitly gr.ispcd im lf. As the rhey-sclf, Da-sein is dispersed in the they .md n1ust firsr tind itsdf. This dispersion cha racterizes the 'subjecr' of the kind of being which we know as hct·dful absorptio n in rht: world nearest encountered. If Da-sei11is familiar with itself as the rhcy-sdf, this a lso means rhar the rhey prcscrib1:s rht· nearest inrcrprcrarion t•f rhe world and of bring-in-tht>worlJ ." Stambaugh, p. 1! 1: "Bur since rhe phenomenon of world irself passed over in rhis absorption in rhc world, ir is replaced hy objective presence in rhe world, by rhings... !:.tarnhaugh, p. 1!.!: '' 11 itself. in irs rvay day kind of being, is wha t inirially missc~ irself and covers itself over.'' !:.ramhaugh, p. 164: "This term, which doe~ m )t expn.:ssany negarive value judi;ment, mrans that Da-se,n i~ initLally and for rhc mosr together with the 'wo rld' th:u it tokes care of. This abso rption in ... mo~tly hab rhe char:icter nf being lost in rhe publicness of the the)•, As an aur benric p0tencialiry for being a ,el f, Da-sei,1 has initially alway~ a lready fallen away from ir~elf and fallen prey ro the 'wor ld.' railing prey to the 'we)rld' means being absorbed in bcing-wirh-oneano thc:r as it ib guided hy idle ra.1lk,curiosity. and amb iguity. What we ..:3lled the inaurhenricicy nf Da-sein may now be defined more rr ccisely through rhe interpretation oi falling prey." Heidcgga's sentence (a rhetorical question) ,11 .:tunlly reads: '·What if it is only in the anricipatiott of dearh rhnt rrsn luteness, as Dasein's ,mtlnmtic rrnrh, has reachetl rhe .111the 11tic certainty which belongs to it?" Stamha 11gh, p. 2.80: '"Wha1 if resolurencss, as the a11t/J e11tic rrurh of
Dn-scin, reached rhe ct•rt.imty uut/Jem1ca//y {,e/.,11~111/!. ti) 11 0111)in rhe :rnricipation of J enth?" 15 See Dreyfus and .IJ_neRubin, "Kierkegt1ard, Division 11, .111J Later Heidegger," tn Dre},fus, 8ei11g-111-th e-Wnrld, p. J 2.2.: .. For Heidegger, 1he rra11sformario11to a urhenricity signals a rr.1nsform.irion in rhc form of my everyday activity, leaving rhe w11t1'11/ unchanged. I e11act my aurhenticity in all my ,1hsorbccl involved activity... In a n intporrant es~ay, Nancy ~. ~trucver argues rhat 1leidegger's lectures of tbe St1mmrr semester of 1924, "C ru11dbcgriffe cler ariswtc lishchen Pl11losoph1r," in~isr rhat "lifo is nor something ·wild, J eep, a nJ 1nysrical' la quvtat ion from Heidegger!, but a plenum of capac ities :ind acrions hcsr exposed, it seems, by rhetoric" ("Alhag lichkcir, 1imefu lness, m rhe Heideggerian Program," in D. Gross and A. Kt>mmann, eds., Heidegger and IU11c• t11ricIAlhany, N.Y., !.0051: 106). For Heidegger 31 chat moment, she contends, basing h imself nn Aristotle, rheroric meant studying ''l.1nguage as ir lives in Alltiiglicbkeit. Allraglichkeit is the viral rime dimension of Dasein '' ( 1 oh) . As she also puts it, "A llriiglicbkeir define~ everydayness nm ,is 'o rdinnr)" but as 'ti mefulness,' the timely charac ter of practical life: it tlesignates the continuous, if intermittent, repetitious tlemands of dai ly life, its ircrahility" ( 113). And: "in this pariicu la r lecrure series I leidegger a ttempts to recover a Greek rheroric as a n expla narnr y mode for hearing, for 1/\rismtlc'sl Rhetoric describes rite process of formation and reception of cndoxa. Since ir is rhc case chat ·das legei11lisrl die Cirundbcsrimmung drs Daseins selbst in dt'r k11nkrereWeise seines ~eins in seiner Allti:iglich keit,' and rhat rhemric is 'die Auslc.:g ung des kon kreten Dasrins, die I lermeneurik J es Daseins selbsr,' rhetoric thus focuses properly on a ll the discursive possibilities subsisting in tht 'Allti:iglichkeir J es Oast:ins.' Therefore::, a prime value of the rhetoric:tl program i~ timdu lness" (1 1 ;) . All this is lO say that the concept of 1\//tiiglichkeit in rhe lccrures on Aristotle wholly lacks the "negarivr" connotations that partly attach to it in Being and Ti111e. , 6 Dreyfus and Rubin, "Kierkegaa rd, Division 11, anJ Later f leidegger," p. 3 1 7. r 7 Robert B. Pippin, " 'Th e Age of Cons ummate Mt·aninglessnt:s~': I leidtgge r," in Moder111smas a l'hilo sophirn / Prc1blem: O n the D1ssat1sfactuJ1Ls of £urripea11 High C11lt11r c (OxforJ and MalJt::n, Mas~., 19!:H ), p. 142.. Pippin conrinues: This in rurn might have made possible a general view 1>f human tran scendence, rhe ability m tran scend or negate one's thrown siruatio n, which is not tied so abstractly w the Hrtdeggrrian norion of possibility (resolute a..:rion or 'hurling' oneself intu rhe historica l 'a by~s'), and so could have lecl to a richer and more::concrete a nalysis uf 1hc nngi n :mJ fare of mnderniry. In partic ula r, such il view. d1aL one i.-,never simply abst,rbed in a world, ur a kind of vicrim of historical prcscnci.ng, bur ab~orbcd in ::i p:.irricul,1r way that depends nn a ccn a ir1self-cc,nstrual, cnulJ have formed the basis of a view of modern rechnology mo re nuan..:ed and less hege-
1Hltes ro pages 6•1-66
361
monic rhan Heidegger\. That is, from rht.' Hegelian poi111 of view I am suggesting, it would nevt!r be possible ro spt:.lk ,irnr,ly nf ·rhe' technolo~ical event or enframing. Then, cou ld be no such thing as, simply, 'rC'chnult1gy;o r Maclumschu(t, hut only differing, historically situated, i.4 of human power and limisocially rnedi::ned C'XpericncC's talion, a technology approprrare to a C<.'r tain social and economic order, experienced within a certain et hical life. and differing trc>m a technology expre~sing ,111dfunc25 tioning within a different histurical comm uniry. jpp. 142'I I
1
Ii
19
20
2.1 2.1.
.:.3
362
Pippin·s obse rvations arC'obvio usly pertinent ro the reading of Wall's A Vieu•from ,111Apartm('nf put forward at the end of Ch. L. "Jeff Wall: New \'(fork'', press release, Marian Goodman Callery, New York (Seprember 2.0--November 2., 2002): n,p. The passage contin ues: "All ,e11m picture& jin the cur rent show ! depict mo1nents o r evcnrs from obscure, unswept corne rs of everyday life, covert ways nf o..:cupying the cicy. gesw res of concealment and refuge, shreds nf hope and ratiom1liry, traces of failure a nd guilt .. ." The lacrer pictures - including forest (2.001) and Night (Loo 1), co be discussed l,1tcr in this chapter - might be mken as depiction~ of rhe "bnd" everyday, but <1gain,in .1 sociologic.d rarher than an onto logical sense. Both essays originally appeared in Artfnmm; sec Michael Fried, Ari and Ol,;ecthood: Essaysand Reviews (Chicago and London, 1991i). Wall himself discusses "/\rt and Obiecrhood·· (and m)' subsequent hiswrical writings) in "frames of Reference" as well as in ''Post- '6os Photography and Its Modernist Co ntcx't: A Co nversation between Jeff Wall and John Roberts," in Wall, Selected Essays a/Id i1lrerviews, pp. 131--1'i See lgnas i dt: Solii-Morab, Cristian Cir ici. and Fernando Ramc,s, Mies van der Rohe: BarcelonaPaui/1011 (Barcelona, J yy 3J. My thanks tu .Stanley Ma7aroff for bringing this &rudy to my attention. Peter Carte r, "Mies van der Rohe," in The Dicl1onary of Art, ed. Jane Turner, 34 vob. (London, I9,\16), xx1: 4':I r. The choice of the sculpture "m ust have been made aL the last minute, obtaining the piece nn loan fr()m the Berlin garden in which it had already been erected" (Sol:l-Morales, Cirici, and Ramos, Mies van der Rnhe, p. Lo). On Kolbe, see Urscl Berger, Georg Kolbe: Lehen 1111d \'(/erk, with cacalogue of s..:ulptures in the Georg-Kolbe-Yluscum, Berlin (Berlin, 1990); and Ursel Berger, ed., Georg Kolbe, 1877-1947, ess:iys by Anita Belonbek Hammer, Urse] Berger, Josephine Gabler, Gudrun Gorka-Reimus, and i\rie Harrog, cxh. cal. (Berlin and Bremen, 1997-8). 111George Heard Hamilmn's words: "T he National SociaHsts approved of his technique quire as much of his subjects, and after 19n Kolbe extolled tbe virtue of healrh aod joy thruugh increasingly monumenrnl and proporrionarnly stereotyped nudes, scarcely to he distinguished frnm innumc::rableot hers. no more bur no less competent, whid, arc so consricuous a feature of German academic sculptur e. None the less suc h work .should nor be alloweJ to com:eal
notes to page~ 66-,i.!
die rhythmic invention and technical perfecrion pf hi~ l'arlier figures'" (Pai111ingand Smlpt11rcin Europe: ,H~o /tJ 19-10 , fhi: Pelican I li~wrr pf Art !London :ind Balrimore.
1967 1, p. 326). The two works (among orhers by rhc same arri~ts) were 1uxrnposed in a ~urerb ~mall ""'hibition in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1.002.. Sec Lenn Krempel, Rolf Lauter, and Jan Nicolaisen, Cmnera £li11ga:Pieter Jamse11shegegnet Jeff Wall, cxh. cat. (Frankfurt-am-Main, 2.ooL). Wall, ~Jeff Wall," intormntion leaflet. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rrnterdam .inc.ICent rum l~eelde11deKunst, Rorrerd,1m, 110. 17 (September 1996): n.p. :.6 Wall, .. Photography and Liquid l111 ellige111:e"( 1 989), in Wall, Selected F.ssaysa11d/11terv1ews, pp. 109-10. furrhcr page references to rhis essa)' will be in p;:ircnrhcses in rhe texr. 2.7 Jr remains an ope n quc~tion whether or nut, ur co what extenr, Murning Cleaning also bears some relation tu Wall\ L~liL article, "Dan Gra ham's Kammerspiel," a di~cussiun ot Graham's project Alteralio11 tn a S11l)llrba11I fo11se ! J 1178). Frnm Wall's ..:aralogue raisonne:
Wall pla.:es Dan Graham's Alteratin11project against rhe ba.:kdrop of the archite.:rure of modernism, whose three most influential tropes are the glass skyscraper as the scat of power, the rrivate villa, especially rhe glass pavilion version of i1 claborared hy Mies van dcr Ruhc, and rhe harrncks-like row houses that define the suburbs uf must American cities. Wall describes rhe glass arch itectu re of Mies van clt:r Rohe and Philip Johnson as a symbo lic form of vertiginous, asymmet rical consciousness of pt•wer a nd powerles~ness. These forms create ,..,hat Walter Benjamin called 'phanrasrnag\1rias.' Wall refi:rs to rh.is and ro Romanticism in the develnpmenr of his l'heorerical fantasy of 'vampirism,' which is the cenrr:11a~pecr of his ana lysis of Gra ha m's work. IVischcr (1J1J Nad, Jeff Wall, pp. 334-5 1
28
This is said apropos Wall's Tl,e Va111f11res' Picnic ( 1991 ). See Jdf Wall, "A Drafr for 'Da11Gra ham's K,unmcrspiel". and "Dan Grnham's Kammerspicl" in Wall, 'lelccted [ssays and Interviews, pp. , 1-29 an d 3 1--r3. Esrc·p. in "Picture Making Meaning,~ ask~: "You have rhc reputation of conrro lling so much in your work: often s1aging elaborate set-ups ro exacting degrees. What is left uncontrolled in )'Ollr work? And, do you helicve that hy exercising suc h control an arrisr can completely derermine the meaning of his or her work?" Wall replies: "[ think thi~ 'cu ntrol' idea has become a kind of cliche about my wnrk. I don't think I control anything anyone else doesn't contnil, or want to contro l. Art inherencly involves artistry. I prepare certa in ching1, carefully because l helic"e chac's what's required, Other things a re comp letely lefc to chance. An)1thing that is prepared, construc ted, or o rganized is done in order ro a llow the unpredictable 'so mething' m appear ,rnd, in appearing, co creace the real be:1t1cyof the picture, ,rny pitrure." A further i1m;,1nceof this in Morning Clct111i11g mighr well he the flc::.:ksof light rhat here and there bri lliantly ''sta r"
Afccr ,t few days of rest shoming, I determined rhat che besr proportion between rht' shadowed ancJ the brig.hr pans of rhe wall could he photographed in about ~• ~t'venminurc inrcrval, somcrimC'afrcr - a.m. (I don't remember the exact rime an)' more.) r'hat meant I had ~even minimes ro make any cxpt,~ures I needed for the overall view of the interior. I wanted the washmg of the windows ro he in progress during tht' shooring of the inrerior, anJ ~l' rhe cleane r, Akjandru . had to ~oap the glass at just the right 1110111cnr. so rhat the nwvemrnr of the soapy wate r (111the g lass would cor re~pond correctly tc> his actions. At the beginning nf che seven-minute period, Alejandro would soap the windows, just as he usu,1lly did, bur a bit more precisely and quickly. Then I would make rhe exposures I needed. He usuall>· managed to apply the soap more chan once in a ses~ion. Once the sevt:11miuutes had t'lapsed, I reseLche .:<1mern,111dbegan to photograph rhe implement Alejandro. He wns co be shown chi111gi11g on che end of his mop-srick from a sponge mop ro a squeegee in preparation for clearing the water from rhe glass. I had to focus differently on him hecause he had to be shot at a different apcrrure rh;in I'd used for cl1emain interior shots, as I exp lained ahove. I had ab~)ut rwenty minutes ro work with h,m before tl,e interior lighting ch,111gedroo much a nd the picture~ of him W(>ulc..lno l\,nger match the::other view~. I could make about fifty rakes of him in tbe twcnry minures. The shoor involved abou t a week of ccsr shooting ro work all chis o ur, and .another week go ing through all rhe rakes each c..l:iy.rl1ere was another week and a ha lf of preparation involved, so the who le shoot cook about four weeks. The digital work was done a few months later, tr1 Vancouver. Since che pie,es were fairly well made, wirh rdacively few erro rs, char work took on ly abom ren days.
the bl,1..:k,arpet. It 1s impossible for the viewer to know for certain wh,n rhrse or1girrnlly were - imperfections in the carpd, bits of dust, or 1,mnething elst' entirely. But rhC' carpel would not appear comparably lightsrruck in their ahse11cc,though it is also true that rhe brilliance of rhe flccb directly cxprcSSC'S the back-lighting of the lighr-hox medium - a dClubleness thar can seem disconcerting in rhe insranr when it is first reeognized. On the complexity of is~ues of mcalculability with respect to questions of expres~ion (in life and arr), the followi ng i, perhaps definitive: "Life's infinite variations are an essenti31 part of nur life. Anc..l o preci~ely oi the hahitual cha racter of life. Expression consists for us in inc-,1lculability.If I knew exactly how be wou lJ grimace, move, rherc wou ld be no facial express ion, no gesture. - But is that true? - l can a ftcr a ll listen aga in & again co ,, piece of music rhat I know (complete ly) by heart; & ic could even be played on a mu~i.:al box. !rs gescurcs would still rerm1ingestures fnr me a lrhongh I know all rhe time, whac co mes next. Indeed l may even be surprised again & again. (In a certai n sense.)" ( I .udwig Wirrgensrein, Crtlt11re and Value: A Selection from the Posthu111c111s Re111a111s, t:d. Georg Henrik von Wrighr wirh Helkki Nyman, rev. ed. Alois Pichler, trans. Pern Winch !Oxford, 19981, pp. 8Je-84e.) I have omitted the undt·rlining beneath several words, which the cdimrs use ro signify rhat in rhc original German manuscr1pr Wirrgensrcin had underlined them wirh a wavy line hy way of registering duubr abo ut the expressiun. ::.y Jeff Wall, perst1nal cu mmunj.:attun. I !ere is a second account by Wall of rht: making of Moming Cleanmg, in aniJther personal comm unicat ion that co nrnins more detailed inform ation abc1ucexposure timi:s and the depicrion of the cleaner, Alejandro: In Barcelona l wanted ro photograph rhe acrual process of cleaning the building :ind preparing it for rhe day. Because rhe picrure was made in the summer, in srro ng sunlight, I had to deal with the fact rhar there is o big difference in l,righmess herwcen the interior and the exterior. If I exposed for the interior, the outside would be overexposed; if L rook the exterior into account, 1he interior would be unclerexp()sed. Moreover, since the sun was shining into the building, certain pa rts of the interior were much brighter than (1thers. The black carpet seemed co need its own exposure. Also, I needed a small aperture ro keep eno ugh of the bui lding in focus in making an image nf the whole interior: thac meanr a long exposu re. Bur I co uld nor stop the movement of the mon doing the cleaning at rhac exposure ; he'd be badly blurr.:d. for these reasvns, f rcalLzedalmosr immediacely that ir would nnr be possihlc co make a good picture gerting everyching on one piece of film, and that I would h,we ro make a group of picture~ ,md assemb le thcm digitally. The photography was done berwecn; and 8 a.m. each morning. \Y/e were ready abour 6. Tlte direcr sunligh1 entered the building about 6: 1 5. Since it was low in the sky, ir lit up a ll of rhe large orange onyx wall. /\sir rose, the shadow of the roof hegan ro move down the wall.
30
ln "A Note about Cleaning" in his catalog ue ra1sonne, Wall remarks: "I've realised thar over the past few years l've made a number of pictures on or somehow related r,) tht' theme of dea ning, washing or of h11usework.There is much to say abou r dirt and washing. It is an oppnsirion like 'the rnw and the cooked.' I like things to be clean and nea t. A serenely well cared for place can be very beautiful, like the garden at the Ryoan-Ji in Kyoto, nr my darkroom when everything has been washeJ an d pu r in r,erfecr order. Bur I a lso like dirty sinks, rhc sogg} obandoned clothes l see in rhe a lley behind my studio all the time, crusted dried poo ls of liquid and all che othe r picrures1.1uethings so aki n co che spirit of phocography" (Vischer and Naef, Jeff'Wall, p. 393), Witcgenscein, Culture and Vnlue, pp. 6e--,e, emphasi5 in origina l. The passage is dared August 22., 19:;o. Again, I have omitted rhe underlining beneath several words. The Gernmn reads (divested of such 11nderlinin/!,):
[nge lmann sagte mir, wenn er zu Hause in seiner Lade vnll von seincn Manuscriptc:n krame so kiimen sic ihm $0 wundersc hon vor dass er denkc sic waren es wen den
11 o tes to pages 75- 77
363
anJcrcn Menschen gegcben n, werJen. (Das sci auch der Filll wenn er Briefc seiner vtrstorbencn Verwandren durchsehc) Wenn er sid, aber cine Ausw,,hl th1von herausgt"geben tlenkt so vcrliere die Sache jeden Reit & Wert & werJe unmoglich Ich sagte wir hacren hicr ,•incn Fall ahn lich folgcndem : Es kr.innte ni<.:htsmerkwi'1rdiger scin ab e111cnMenschen bei irg.encl einer ganz cinfachen alltiiglid1en Tiicigkeit wenn er ~fch unhcohachrer gla ubr z.usehen. Denken wir uns ein Theater, clcr Vtirhang ginge auf & wir siihen eincn Mcnschcn allcin in seinem Zimme r auf & ah gehcn, sich cine Ligarette am;i_i nden . s,ch niedersetz.en u.s.f. so dass w1r pl\'\cz.lichvon ausscn eincn Mcnschen siihen wir man sid1 son~t nie sehen kJnn; wenn wir quasi ein Kapitel eiuer Biographic mir eigcncn Augen s:ihen, - das miisste unheim lich & wunJerbar zugleich sein. Wunderbarer a ls irgcnJ ctwas was ein Oichrer auf Jer Biihnc sp iclcn oder sprec hen !assen konnte. Wir wurden Jas Leben selbst sehe11. - Aber das sehen wir ja a lle Tage & es rnachr uns nicht den mindesrcn £i ndruck! Ja, aber wir sehen cs nicht in der Perspck rive. - Sn wcnn E. seine Schriften ansic ht & sic herr lich finder (Ji e er Joch ein1.el11nicht vcroffcnrlic hcn moc hce) so sieht er scin Lt•bc11,als cin Kunsrwerk Gottcs, & a ls das isr es allerdings bcrrachrcnswcn, jedes Ld,en & Alles. Doch kann nur dcr Kiinsrler clas Ein:z.elne s1, darstellen doss es uns als Kunsrwerk erschei nr; jene Manuskriprc verlicrcn mit Rerht ihren Wert wenn man sic einzeln & tiberhaupt wenn man ~ie un11orci11xenom111en,da11s beissr u lme scbnn vorher hegeistert z11 scin, becrachrer. Das Kunstwerk ,wingr uns - sozusagc n - zu der richtigen Per~pecrive, oh ne die: Kunst aber ist tler Cegenstan d ein SrUck Narur wie jedes andre &
Directly
relt·v:rnt herP is rhP di.~rinc:rinn hPrwrrn
srring
ob jccrs "as it were: from the miJ sc of chem" and '·che view sub specie actcmitatis from outside" in rhe enrrr for October 7, 19J6 in Wittgenstein's Notebooks 191-.l-1916, ed. and trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford, r •161 ), p. s_,c. I make much of rhese antl related remarks in rek1tion w Bernd and Hilla 13echer's typological project in Ch. 10 below. In a discussion of an almost final version of rhe presenr chapter in a Wirrgcnsrcin "workshop" ar rhc University of Chicago in ove mber 1006, ir was obiecred by severa l par ticipants that my initia l, "two-world" formubrion was indceJ too stro ng as a reading ,1f Wittgenstein's extract rhor however one finally undersr.:mds his lt5c of rhe terms
364
no1es to pages 78-79
"point of view·· and "pcrspccrive," there 1s for Wingemtein onl)' on e world, rhc presenr one, which 1s !>eenin rho!>Ctltfferent liglm. This is surely nght. My thanb to David Finkelstein, James Cnnant, am l Robert Pippin for pres,ing me on this poim. Whether the)' will be happier with my "inside~/"ours1de~ disnnccion 1s anorhcr rimtrcr. }l. Martin I kidegger, ''The Thing," /'1,ctry. Lt111g11<1ge, Th1111g/Jl, rrans. Albert Hofstadrer (New York, 1971 ), pp. , 6 5-X 2. ''The Thing" was gi\ en as .1 lectu re in 19,o < tnd first puhlishec..lrhe following year. n In fact \Xlitrgcnstein refers not ro a sernnd parry hut ro a third one: as 1f he imagined the phorograph s having hccn r,1ken hy a member of a courle. Of course, rhis may simpl)' he a slip, bur possibly it is so mething more. According ro Maurice O'Co n11or Drury, who first met Wittgenstein 111 Camb rid~\!, he was visircd in Dub lin by Wittgenstein anJ his young friend Francis Skinner in 1 6 (six ye:irs after Wittgenstein wrote rhe notebook entry in quesrion). The day afrer rhc two arrived, the::little gr<,up went ro Woolworth's for 5ome purchases. "Wirrgensre in noriccJ ,ome cheap little cameras: 'What fun it W(>uld be to tale some snaps of ead, nthec,'" Drury repn rf) him as having said. "Sv he insisted on buying rhrec came ra,, one for each of us. Then he wanted to climb ru the t,,p of Nelso n's Column to view the ciry frtim there. We rook a lot of phocographs bur they didn't nrrn nut very well" ("Cn nver~ations with Wiirgenstcin," in Rus h Rhees, ed., Rccoll1'clio11sof Wittgenstein !Oxford, 1984 I, p. 137). 34 \Xlirrgcnsrc1n, C11/t 11r e ,111dValue, pp. -l-4e, _15 Susan S0nr,1g, 011 PhotoJ{ra/1hy(New York, 197;), p. 99. My remar ks about rhc supposent,~ee Tori l Moi, Henri/.: //Jsc11 ,md the Birth n( fvln
wa~ not relaxed or detac hed. He leaned tensely forward in his sear anti rarel}' cook hi~ e}rs off the screen. He hardly ever uttered comments on the episodes ol the lil111 a nd did nor like his companion ro do so. I le wished to become corallv ahsnrhed in the film 110 ,natter how trivi,tl or .1rrificial ir. was, m order n, Free his mind temporarily from the philosophica l rlwughts char rortun:d and exhausted bun. IPP· ::.7-llj
9.,
Witrgensrf'in was always exhausted by his lectures. He wns also revolc,:d by them. I le felt disgusrcd with whar he had said aud with himself. Often he would rush off tv a cinema immcdiarcly afrer rhe class ended. As tht members of the class began to move rheir chairs out ot the room he might look imploring ly at a friend and say in a low ronc, "Could you go to a Aick?'' On the way to the cinema Wittgenstein wou lJ buy a bun nr co ld po rk pie a nd munch it whi le he watched the film. I le insisted on sitting in tht very fir~r ww of scats, so that the screen would occupy his entire field of vision, irnd his mind wou ld be nirned away from the thoug hrs of the lecture and his feelingl>of n:volsi()n. Once he whispered ro me "Thi~ is like a !>hnwer hath!" His ohscrvntio n of rhe filrn
3'!
l9
40
41
lo hn King, anot her former srude nr, ccsrific~ co Wirtgen~rein 's di~t::isccfor Brirish (as opposed m America11)movies prt!cisely nn rhe grountl of their theacric;1licy: "The Mill Roae !Oxford, 19 581, paragraphs 122, 124, p. 49e): "Th e concepr of a perspic uous rcpre 5enrnrion is of funda111e11ta l significancr for us. It earmarks the form of account we give, rhe way we look nr rhings." 42 Two paragraphs Inter: "Philosop hy mfly in 110way interfere with the actua l use of lnnguage; it can in che end on ly describe it. For it ca nnot give it any foundation either. It leaves everything as it is... Witrgensrein's claim thar "[Phi losop hy] leaves everything as 1t is" is cited in Srnnlcy Cavc ll, "The World as Thin gs," Philosophy the Day after Tu1normw (Cam bridge, Mass., and London , 2005), p. 27':). Ca veil also menrions 111this connection Heidegger's ;idvocacy of .. ')erring-lie-before- us' as rhe mode of thinking tO be soug ht in s1epping back from o ur fantasies of thinking as grnsp ing the world in fixed conce pts" (ibid.). The reference i~ to trans. J. Martin Heidegger, W!hat ts Called T/Ji11ki11g?, Glenn Gray (New Yt>rk, , 968) . The imporrance of the everyday for rhc::later Wittgenstein is a major theme in Cave ll's writings: see e.g. ''Dec lining Dcdme," This New Yet U11approachab le Americ<1:Lectures a/ier £111erso 11after Wfittge/lstein (Albuq uerq ue, N .M. , 1989), pp. 2.9-75. On Louis's "Unfu rleds" see Michae l Frit
I lrnve Freely interpreted Fried's notion of opricaliry ro at le.1st <.:onnecrwith rhe perceprion of phumgraphs. The norion origin.ired wirh his experienc:t' of tht: parnrings Louis, Stella, and rhe others, but I don't think it is limited to that kind of art. Set:ing Loui~ in hit:d'~ frnme vf reference :ilso maJe it p()ssihlc m sec pictures, call them rmdirional depictiom, if you like, different ly -m see them as tipen ro the ,amc opcicalicy. Ir turns our not ro m,Hter whcrher it is a painting nr :i phorogrnph , i1 depiction nr an abstraction, Or,tical it) suggests that one does 11ornt•ed w imagine:: t1nself wa lking into or rhrough rhe spare depicted, one can exptto "<)pen J perspective" ,111rhis matter. which he Jn es as follows:
ur
This is alreadr denr in rhe e"p lana rion that Wall partakes in a thentricnl e11g11ge111e11t with his art, rhat he creates stage-Iikt' image spaces and rrears rhe actors like tibjects. But rhis exp lanario n docs nor mean th at Wall merely illustra tes 11 thcorerica l/ideo logical position, rhar his art does not nck11011Jledge its own rhearrical chara cter, that there arc no clements prcscnr in his work that might enable an intensified Cl)/1/act between work and c,bserver .incl/or rhe figures in rhe image wirh one a nothe r (corresponding to Fried's observations un Co urber's pai nting). Ir m:verthcless seems clear thac Fried's 0 bservucions ca n nor simply be rransferred ro Wall's arc. With rhe help
notes to pages 80 82
365
.....
Formalism,'' in The Tm111er Lectures 011 Hu11•1a11 Vul11 es, no. 24 (Sa lt Lake Ciry, :1.004), pp. 1-40. 5 On rhe disrim:tion ucrween see111g .ind being shown, see "lrcphen B.rnn, Tile True Vine: 011 Vis11t1/Rcprese11tatio11 a11dtbe WC! stern Traditin11(Cam brid ge and New York, 1989), pp. 43-5 a nd 89, w here he makes clear rhe relucion of that distinction to rhe reading of Diderot put forward in Absorption anrl Theatricality. Ln fact Barrhes, as we have see11, in.err~ the qualifiers ''nut stric tly" and "probably" in his initial formulation of thi s Jaw hut the passage as a whole ei.p resses nn uncerta111ty. r, A few commentators have outed this ,imple hur c.lt:c1sive po int; see e.g. Gregor Stem m rich, "'Between Exaltation an d Musing Co ntemplati on: Jeff Wal l's Resriru rion of th e Program of pci11turede la uie modeme," in Jeff Wlall:l'lmtn graphs, exh. ca r. (Vienna , 1003), p. 154: uThe /1u11ct11111 i~ ( )hviously I do nor agree wirh any such accou nt of minim a l wha1 a phorograph can show wit hour being i nren d ed hy the «rt itself, but equall} ' obvious ly I have founJ it necessary to photographer, or even being capable of being intended ... ·' liberate" or rath er adjust and revise my previous armory c/11111 in Stemmrich's further cl11im is rhot "t he re! is no /1u11 of w ncept~ .md distinctions in order m con1e m grips with the Barrhcsian sense in Wall's images Ibecause of the degree rht.' new arc p hotograp h y of Wal l rind hi s peers. of artistic contro l Wall exercises over rhcir conrenrsJ, hut .Jdf Wall, persona l communication. indeed some thin g char we mighr ca ll rhe arris1ic use of 1he lfml. idea of the p1111ct11111" (ibid.). ee a lso Naomi Schor , l·ricd, Absorption a11rlTheatricality, pp. 69-70, 145-60. ''Des ublim ation : Roland Barrhes's Aesrheti1cs," in Diana On the importance ro Evans of Srrand's 8/inrl, set' Belinda Knight, ed ., Critical Essays u11 Rola11rlBnrth•es (New York, Richardson, Walker F11ans : /\ 8iograf1by (Boston and New 2000), p. :1.28: "Like Pro usr's nwde/ei11e- and Camera (New York, 1')!,15), and J a mes H.. Me llow, Walker F.111111s Lucida is Barthes's Rccherchc - che p11nclu111 d oes nm come York, C!,199),pp. 75-6 . ln a r971 inter view wirh Paul C um under th e sway of rhc will. It esca pes the imention:iliry of mings, Evans reca lled coming across Strand's photo in an both rhe photo g rap he r anJ the spectator ... " For more on issue of Alfred Stieg litz's Camera Work in th e lare 1920s Prnust and rhe p1111ct11111, see be low. 1\lliri am Bratu Hansen, a nd rhi11ki11g, "'Thar's the stuff, that's the thin g to do''' in a recent essay, remarks chat for \'i/altcr lk ojamin in his (Richa rd so n, Walker £uans, p. 39). [ take Evans's blind .. Lierle Hi stor y of Phoco grap h y" ( 193 t) the "mecha nicall y a..:cordionist as a figure for the photo g raph e r, who shor 1negr::ipherDaucategory in whose aspec t rhe world is seen." thendey and his wife who was ro commir s11icide afrer the In rt:verse order : Roland Barrhes, Camera Lucida: Reflechirrh of their sixth child) - somerhing char was nor vis ible tions 011 Photography, trans. Richard Howard (New York , or knowab le at the rime speaks to rhe larer beholder of his , 98 1 ); idem, J,a Cha111br e clnire: Note sur la phntogrnpl,ie form of death .... It is no coinci dence thar chis particular (Pari s, 1980). Page rt:feren ces ro English and French edi$lag ing of rhe optical unc onscio u s has invited comparison tions will be in pare n theses in the::text; all t:mphases 111 quo ,' rhe acciwit h Rola nd Barrh es's nonnn of the 'punctu 111 rntions are in rhe original. Jenral mark o r dc::rail of the photograp h which 'pricks,' 1 Vicror Burgin, ·R c- rea J ing C.imf•ra L1.1c1da," in Victor srings, wounds the beho lder. " ( More on rhe p1mctu111 and oderBurgin, The £11dof /\rt Theory: Criticism and Pust111 death, too, below . See Walter Benjamin. "Littlt: Hi story of 11ity{Ifasingscoke , Hampshire, 19)!6), p. 78 . Phot ogra ph y" ( 193 J ), trans. Edmund J ephc ,orr and Kings See also Mich;1e l Fried, "Ca illcbotte' s l mp ressio nis111,''Repgs, 4 vob., tra n s. ley Shorter, vo l. 2. of Selected \'11H owa rd Eiland, and Gary Smith !Camb rid ge , Mass., :.111d i11gof lde11tityin Impressionist Paris (New Brun swick, N.J., London, 1999J. pp. 507-30.) Yet in the bulk of the secand LonJoi1, i.002), pp. 66- 1 16 ; .ind idem, "Roger Pry's ondary literature on Camera I ,ucida (or ,tr least in the bulk of rhese observa tions :rnJ .:rireria, an e nrir ely different reading of Minima l Arr rhan the one Fried himsdf sug· gesrcd in 'Arr and Objecthood' could he developed: who says rhar these works on ly illustrate a theoretical/ideolng1ca l posirion, thar rhey wou ld not imply an aclwo1uledgment of their rheauical cha rm:tcr and that rhey wou ld excl ud e an intensifie d contact between work and observer. Only when we succeed in liberating Fried' s concept\ frc)m hi~ uwn narrow app lic~won of these cor1cept, can rhey ope n up a fruitfu l perspective on co ntemporar y a rt phenomena. !"Between .Exaltarinn and Musing Co nre mplarion: Jeff Wall's Res rituriou ol rbe l'ru gra m nf /1ci11turerle la vie morleme," in Jeff W,i/1: Plwtvgraplis , ex h. cal. (Vie nna , 2001), pp. 155-6, emphasis in original I
4~ 44
45
~6
4
2.
J
4
366
norn~ to oages 84- 100
p. _p). 111an cssay on Bt:ar treuli, Vincent Kat1 write, th at Stre u Ii "eng:igl 'S in empatht:tic reSplm,e to his subjects ... p11rnur, using a te lephorn lens, snme1i111 es en sconced inRiJe a cafo, whi le phntngraphing people pas~ing outs ide. By not entering inco a personal relat1011· ship with his subjc::cr,, he ..:apmres them in their natural, unguarded ~tale .... Because Stte11li sec:-s wirhom being Sl't'n, it is almost as i( we .ire given access to th e i11tcrior mental workings nf his wa lkers. They inhabit chc momenr in which awareness and absorpt ion are seam less!)' blended" cnte11d11 est 1111e des plus (111 ,estes caus£•sdu mm,iernler to becnme and Mi,1 Fineman (New York, Sa n Francisco, Hou sto n, critica l, whid1 wi ll srill be its best way of being passionate" 2000-01), pp. 106- 19 . ('' Th e Brec htian Revolu tion ,., in Critical cssll)'S, trans. 1o See rhe discussion (1f St re uli' s video works an d photographs Richa rd H owa rd !Eva nston, Ill. , 19721, pp. 37-8) . ln a later in Ch . 8 below. article, "D ideror, 13recht, Eisenstein," Barrhe s compa res 11 usan Sonrag, 011 Plm tograf1hy (New York, 1977), p. 37, and conrrnsrs rhe thou gh t of a ll three theoris ts with respect oore. Son ta g's text rc,1ds: " Bra ssa·i Ith e great Hun ga rian ro the tab/em,, but owing to his unhistorica l ,1llegiunce to who rr y to trap photographe r! denounced photographers Bredn's rheoric5 he completely misses che antit heatrica l their subje cts off-guard, in the erroneous belief rhat so m eimport uf Dideror's v iew s. See Ba rrh es , "Diderot, Brechr, thing specia l will be revealed about thi:111" (pp . 36- ,) . To Eiset1stein," in The Responsibility of Forms: Critical Essays which she appends he r note, which l,egins: "Nor an error, 011 Music, Art, and keprese11tatio11, rra11s. Ric har where that is not th e rn~e the ,111 t1rhca 1rii:al imp lications of ,hat invis ibility have nm been pursued. --, l:..g: ~conrrasr wTOngly understood 1s one
1•,so,
11ci1&s ro pages
100- 102
:367
often have the character nf ~wnunJs" or '·rears'' in his or her garments, as was noteJ in Ch. 2. On ,1 rhemaric rather d1,in a s1ructural level, I have suggested in Ch. _l rhat blindness-as i11Kcrr6s2:s The Vi11li11ist's Time. Al1v11y,I fungary ( 1921) - is akin to absorpeion, 111that it implies the depi..-ccdfigure's unawareness of hl'ing and Theatricality, pp. 6y-70, beheld (sec Ill) ' Absc117Jtio11 14,-60, I 7 )-8), ly unintenJcJ nature of the punctwn finally, the net:t:!>Sari a mounr~ tt• a radica lization of the gi1p hcrween intention and acrion rhat Walter Benn Michae ls discusses in relation to rhe auromatic nature ,if phomgraphy in The Cold Standard 011rlthe Logic u( Natur,1'ism: A111eric,111 Uta,1111re.u the furn uf the Century (Berkeley, Los f\ngeles, London, 1ql.l7), ch. 7, "Aceion :111 d At:cidem: Phorogrnphy and Writing," pp. 215-44. ,\fore on rhis i11Ch. 'J a nd the .:onclusio11bdow. 15 Fascinatingly, Barthe~ neglects ru 1nenrion that phorogr;iphy is implicated in Prouq's epip hany. In Brassa'i's marve lous shurt hook, Pmust in tl,e Pu111er u( Photogrnpl,y, rrans. Richard Howard (Chicago and London, 2001 ). the samt: episode is rehe:used in greater derail: The narrat or SC:J)' S wirh his grandmnche r ar the Grand 1101d de Ba lbec. One duy. he surpri ses her dressed up in her fincsr clothes. She explains wirh some sarisfaction thnr ~ainr-l.oup wancs ro phomgraph her. The narramr feels "slightly irritated by rhis chi ldishness" and by Jever again could I eras!! thar painful uneasincs, 1 h:iJ been n:sponsihle for in her expression" (Sndom a11dGo117(1rmh). 1-'rani.oisesu rpri ses him in his grievi11 g contemp lation of his gra ndmoth er's photograph, but what sht' then tells him redoubles his remorse: The Jay Saint-Loup wok char photograph, the o ld lady was very ill, bur she had forbidclt'n her gr11ndsonco be told. She had merely made rhis reco111111endatio11 to Frarn;o1se: "If something happens co
368
notes to page 103
me, I want him ro h.ive
J
photogrnph ol mt•." IPP·
6,-
61 Ohvious ly the circum&tance&(>f the taking nf rhc \Xlinrcr Garden Phnrograph have norhing in .:ommnn with rhosc discovered by Prnust·s narrator. Bur might 1·here nevertheless be in chis interrextual connection rhe merest hint of ;J fantasy: time B,1rrhcs'smorhcr w,111tcdhim to han·e rhar pRrri.:ular phomgroph of her? Proust's gr:llldmorher is also dw focus o,f .:i sct'ne that exposes rhe pnrenri"I cruelry of the absorptive dispnsitif. In Brassa'i''s retelling:
The G11cm1t111tes Way doubtless affords the mos, nrngnificeni exa mple of this a-huma n vision, in which the IProustian I narrator's eye functions like a camern. ffat:k from Don.:ieres, rhe narraror, eager to sec his granclmorher, ~urr epiitiously entt' rS I he sa 1011 wherc she is reading, unaware of her grandson's arr ival. " I was there, or rather 1 was not rhcre since she didn't know it. . .. Bue of me - by rhac fugitive privilege when we have, during the brief momenr of a rerurn, rhe faculty of ~uddenly attending our uwn absence - rhere was (,nly rhe witness, the observer still wearing a har a n,J owrcoat. the srr:inger who ,s not of the house, rhe photographer who comes to 'shoor ' places that will not be seen agai n. Wh:it. quire mechanically, nccurred in my qe:. when J caught sight nf my grandmother at rha1· momi.;nt was indeed a phorogr:iph.'' ... And the narrarc,r concludes, his heart aching: " I for whom mr gran dm other wns st ill myself, I who had never seen her except within my own soul, always in the same place in the pasr, through the transparency of conr inuous and superimposed memories, suddenly, in our salon ... for the first time and 011lyfor a 1110num1,for she disap h, under rhe peared very quickly, I glimpsed 011 rhe co1L1t: l,1mp, red, heavy, anJ co,trse, ill :111dhalf as leep, her eyes wandering wild ly over her book, a feeble old woman l did not k11ow.'' lpp. 12.1-21
r6
17
Thr thvught nf thi:. episode co uld 1)nly h.ave ctmlirmeJ Bnrrhes in his clisraste for rhe itle::i of iaking 1he photo graph ic subject hy surpri se. As Barrhes nlso writes (a few pages hdore the di~covery of the Winter G,uden Phorogr::,ph): "As a living soul, I ,1m the very rnnrr.iry of Hisrory, I
1fl
1y
20
21
grt1f1by (New York, , ,,--) dist:11ss es Bcnjn111i11, whom shc ca lls "photography's mo,c importam and orig inal critic'' (p. 76) , .111dthat Bim hes lim !>ontag's book in the bihliographt ro Lll C/1a111bre claire. 22 Cf. Sontag, 011 I'hotogrnphy, p. 15: "All photographs are me111e11to mon. To rake a photograph is to p:irticipatt: in .morher person's (or thing's ) mo rtaliry, vulnerability, muta· bility. Precisely by slicing i1ut this moment and freezing it, a ll photographs testify tu rime·~ relenr less melt" and p. 69: "Phorographs stare rhe innl)cence, rhe vulnerability of live~ heading row:ird thcir own destruction, and rhis link bcrwccn plwrogrnphy and Jeath haunts ..tll photog1:ip hs of people." 13 The passagc conrinu cs: "Ar the limit, th ere is no need co represenc a body in order for me ro e:
Muther-as-G\11,d she h,1d aJd ed tha1 grnce of hcing an individu:il soul. I might !>:'I)', likt' the Prousrian ~;irraror :it his granJmnther's Je:ith: ·1 did nor insist only upon ~uffenng, hut upon respecting rhe originality of my suffering'; for this origma liry wa~ the reOection of whm was ahsulucely irre
notes to pages 103- 105
3G9
profession.ds do so). but ir requires a seconda ry at.:t1onuf l.'humm l' et la 111 nrt (Paris, 1 y70), dret.l i11the miginal knowll·dgt• or of retlrcrion .... lt is as if lthe Phowgraph (l'rench) bibliograph y. alway~ car ries its referent with irsdf ... The Photog raph Earlier in Camera Luc1da, in a passage char seems belongs ro rhat class uf lam mated c)bject~ ,\/ho~c1w11leaves srr:111gclyuur of place where ir occurs, Barrhes writes: "Yet cannot be sepa rateJ without Jcsrrc>ying thcim both (I didn't ir is not (it seems ro me) by Painting rhar Phmography yet know tha t chis smbbornness o f the Referrnr 111always ruuches arr , but hy Theater. Niepce a11d Daguerre are being there wuuk l product' the essence I w.is looking for) a lways pur a t the origm of Phorogrnphy (even if rhc larrer . •. (11 short, 1he r<.'f erent aJh crcs" (5- 6/ 16--1$). h,1s somewhat usurped the former's place); now Daguerre::, when he rook over Niepce's invention, was running a 1.8 For B::irthes,being a lnne wirh a photograp h seems above all LO have meant being alone wirh the repro duction of a phop,1nora111athc,1ter :111 imarcd by light shows and m11vemem~ tograp h in a book or magazine; hen<.:ehis remark, quoted in rhe Place du Chatcau. Tht camera obsc11ra. in shorr. has .1hnve, that in order "to perceive:rhe f"mrt11m . .. it suffices generared ar one and the same time perspective p:iinring, 1ha1 the image be IJrge enough, rhar I do not have to srudy phmogrnphy, and rhe::diorama, which are a ll three arts of it (this wou ld he no help at· a ll), rhac, gi1,c11 right there 011 the srag~ but if Photogra phy seems ro inc closer ro the the /Jt1!{e,I should receive ir right hrre in my c~•es" (.p .Theater, iri s by way of a singular intermediary (and perhap s ,17 1-2.; emphasis addc·d ). The classic srarement of the:: I am the only one who sees it): by way of Death. We know notion th.it phorogrn ph)' is destined for the page, not the the orip;in :il relation of the theat er :1ndthe <.: ult of rhe Dead: rhe first actors ~eparatet.l themselves from rhe communit y wall, is by Irving Penn in r 9 50: "The modern phowg rahy playing the role of the Dead : to m.ike oneself 11pwas to pher, having, as must creative peop le, the urge to communicate widely, is inevitab ly drawn le) rhc medium that offers designa te oneself as a body simult:rneously living and dead : him the tullest oppo rtuni ty for th:ir communicat ion. He the whitened bust of the ron:mic theater, rhe man with the thus works for publication. He ii,, in fact, .a journ:ilist .. . . p:ainred face in rhc Chinese rheaccr, rhe rice-paste makeup Fl,r the moder n phorog raphc:rthe end prodlt ct o( his efforts of rhe Jndia11 Ki!tha-Kali, rhe lapa ncsc No mask ... Now is the prinret.1page. nm t he photo graphic p(int " (quored by i1 is rhis same relation which I find in the Photograph; John Szarkowski, Photography U11tilNow, exh. cat. !New however 'lifelike' we strive m make it (and this frenzy to be Yo rk ,rnd Cleveland, Oh., 19S9- 90J, p. 2.50). lifelike can only he our mythic denial of an app rd1cnsion Cf. Proust's fundam ema l disagreeme nt with Jo hn cifdearl1). Photogra phy is a kind of primitive theater, a kind Ruskin 's a<.:counrof readi11g as a <.:rnwersationwid, men of fohlemt Vi11a11t . a figuratio n of the motionless (lnd madewiser and more interesting th,111chose one norma lly has up face bt:ue::irh which we see the dead'' (31-2./55-6) . nccasion to meet. Against Ruskin, Proust maint a ins "rhat ee in thi:; connt:ction the different views of William J. 26 Mitche ll, The L{cco11fi gured /:.ye: \lis11a/fruth 111the Postreading cannot be assimilated in rhis way ro a conversation, even with the wisesr of men; that rhe essc·ntial difference /1hotogra{lhic Era (Cambridge, M:iss., , 992); .ind Lev Manovich, ''The Parad oxes of Digita l Phorogrn phy," in l.i7. berwee11a book and J friend is nor rheir greater or lesser Wells, ed., The Photography Reader (New York, :?.003), wisdom, hut rhc manner in which we communi cate with pp. 2.40-49. For Manovich, skeptical of Mlrchell's claims them, rradin g being the exact oppo~ite 11f conver~atiun in consisting for each one nf us in having a nmher 's thought of radical rransforma rion, '·rhr logic o f the digital image !isl p::iradoxical; radically breaking wich older modes of visu,tl comn1u11icatedco us while remaining on o ur own, that i~ while continuing to en1oy the inrellecrual authority we have represenrati on while :lt rhe same rimt' reinforcing these modes . . . . The digita l image rears apar t rhe net of semiotic in snlirudc and which conversation dispels instan tly, while wdes, modes of display, and parrerns of spccrarorship in conrin111n g ro be o pen ro inspiration, with our mind yet working hard and fruitfully on itself" (Ma rcel Proust, 011 modern visual culrure - ,ind , ar rhc samr time, weaves rhis ncr even srronger. The digital image annihilate s photo · Reading, trans. John Sturrock 11-IarmonJswo rth, 19941, p. 1.6). Fartht:r 1,11 Pro uq writes nf reading as ·\ 1n intergraphy while solidifying, glorifying and immorr:ilizing rhr vention which, tho ugh coming from another , is produced phorographic. In short. rhis logic is that of pho tograph y deep inside nu rselve~, rhe impulsion of another mind cerJfter photo gra phy" (p. i.4 r ). See also Philip Rosen, Change tainly, but received in the mit.lst of o ur solirnde" (p . .BlMummified: C111ema . l {1storicity, Tln:!C11")' {Minneapolis, 200 1), ch. 8: "Ok i and New: Image, lmle-xicaliry. and HisDoes it go too for 10 ~uggcsr that such a co,nception of the Jct ,,f reading is essentia lly :1ntithearrica l? Th e French o rigtoricity in the Digital Utopia," pp. ,or-49; :ind \YI. J. T. inal of 0 11Reading, "La Lecture," appemed first as an Mitchell, " Realism and the Digital Image," in Jan Baerens .irtid e in La Rl:'11.1i ss1mcclati11e in , 905, and a year later a~ and Hilde van Gelder, eds., Critical Realism and Phnt,,the imro
,6
1
370
notes 10 pages 106- 1ori
according ro rhc most gentle pJss1v1t)', and she neither ~hows nor hiJ es herself. The possihiliry of rim 1mposs1bility dernils :111 J shatter. .ill unity, and this is love: it Jisur ganrits a ll srudied discourses, all theoretical sysrems 3nd philosop hies. They musr decide herv;een presence ,111d absence, here an d rhcre, wha t reveals and whar conceals itself. 1lere. rhere, the u111queurher. his mnrher, a ppears, that is ro say, without appearing, for the other can appear only by disappearing. And hi~ mother ·knew' how to do this so innocently, because ir is rhe 'qu.ilit( of a chilt.l's 'suul' thar he::dt:cipher~ in the pose o( his mother who is no1 n pc,smg. Psyche::withour mirror. He say, nothing more and underscores not hing" ('·Th e Dearhs ,,f Roland Barrhes;· rrans . Pascale-Anne Brault ,llld J\ll ichael N.tas, The Wlor/.:11/ JVtour11i11r; rChicago a nd London, l OO t I, p. 48.) From rhe perspective of the presenr <.: haprer, of course. rhe "poss ibility of Ian J i111possibiliry th,Jt Dt•rrida elahorates here 1s that of a qu intessent ially .1ntithea1rical artifact (phorograph, painting, sculptur e, etc.), if not of antirhcarrica liry as such . The French te)(t says o nly "c'cs r l'air ." nothing a bour the expression or rlw look, which rhe tran slator has added by way of i.:l.irification. The who le of rhe brief passage·comaining rhis phrnse reads: "Perha ps rhe air is ultimately sumerhing moral , mysteriously contributin g co the face the;:reflection of a life value? Avcdon has photographed the leadcr {Jf the American Labor Parry, Philip Rando lph (who has just died, as I write rhese lines); in rhe phurog raph, I reaJ an ,1ir of good ne,s (no impulse of power: that is certam)" ( r ro/r
30
\1
32
3:;
.i -1
:is Arh11 ~\ c-xploir.ition orher human suhjccrs? !:ice!iont:ag, On J'/m1ngraphy, pp. 32-4 8. Sec Michael hied, Ma11e1 ·s Moderms111, or, Tl,e !-ace o/ l'ai11ti11g111 11Jc 186os (Chicago and London, 1 ~c,,o). pp. 405-6 a ud passim. A rhe1nntics of facing is also at wnrk in my C11r licr wri1ing on abstract arr, as e.g. m "Mo rri& Louis·· ( t 966-7), in Ari n11dO/J1l!cthuud (pp. , oo-J , ). It will comt' up again in connccrion with Thomas Ruff'~ portra it photographs in Ch. 6. The phrase "imclligenr air" (air i111 ul/1gcnt) is nor irnlic.:i zed in 1he French. ',ee also Barrhes's lace, possibly unfini~het.l c~say, " Right in the Eyes," in The Respu11sibil,ry11{forms: Crit1c11/1:.ssays n11Musit·. Art, and Represc11/alhm. trans. Richard How,1rd (New York, 198 'i ). pp. 2., 7- 42.. "As we have s~·en apropos of J\vedon," rht: essay clo~e::~, "il i, nor excluded char ,1 pho · wgraphed sub1ect ~hould gaze ar you - i.e. gaze at rhe lens: rhe direction of rhe gale (one mighr say: its mldress) is nor pertinent in phot ogra phy. !One sees what Buthes means, buc that is not exactly his view in C11mert1l .11ridt1,where a t lcasr toward the end figures g,t:ting 0111of d,e photograph arc in effect privileged.I Bur it is so in the cinema, where it is forbidden for an acror m look ar rhc camera, i.l'., at the specrnror. I am not far from considering this ban as thl' l'lnema's distincti ve fearun:. This arr se11t'rsthe gaze: unc of us gues ar 1hr mhcr, does only rhat: tt is my right and my dury 10 gaze; the other never gazes; he ga,t:s ar everything, except me. If a single gaze from rhe screen came to rest on me, rhc wholr film would be lusr. llf true this wnulJ make 1he movies a radicalization nf rhe Diderotia n t11illea11. I l:lut this is only rhe literal rrurh. r or ic can happen thr11, on another, invisible level, rhe cr('en ... t.loes not cease gating ar me" (1.42). Barth~ chnse to excluJ e this last t.legree of comp lexity from his brief remar ks on film in Camera L11cida. Ir scarcely seems necessary tlJ givl' dera iled references to .ill rhe texts menrioneJ or implied here. St:e, however, Timot hy )cheie, "Performing Degree Ze::ro:Barthcs, Body, Theatre," Theatre }011mal. vol. l 11, no. 1. (2.000): 16 1-8 1, whid1 brings our the significance of Artaud; .Jean-Pierre Sarraz.ac, co11rs de 811r1,Jes. Com1111111 ica"Le rem ur au thearre,'' l'L1Y tio11s,Ill ). 61 ( t996 ): r T-23, an ana lysis of the vicissitudes of 3 different sort of "thearrica liry" in Barrhes's oeuvre; a nd idem, "The Invention of ·Theatricality': Rem1ding Berna rd Dnn and Roland Barrhes," SulJSt,11,ce, vol. xx'Xf, nos. 2- 3 (2002) : 52--7 1. fhere is much rhat rnighr be said about the relationship between "The Third Meaning~ l'tnd Camera L11cid11, but probabl y the mosr impon ant poinr is that rhe clements in a film still B,1rthcs associates with rhe "third " or '·obtuse" me;Jning cannor h:1vebeen intended as such by the film-maker. See Ba rrhes, "The Third Meaning: Research notes 011some £ise11 ste111stills," in T/1c lfrsf)Cmstl1ility n( Forms, pp. 4 1-62. A useful compilan on of perrinem texrs is Rola nd Ha rrhcs, 1:crits s11r le thedtre, ed. Jean-Loup Riviere (Paris, 2oo r ), with a brit:f hut excellem preface. Two items in rha t volume are parricuhirly interesting in connccrio n with this d 1aprer, "Sepe phorn 111c1d eles de Mere Cuuragt•" and "Commentaire: Preface a Brecht, Mere
note.,, to pag~s 109 I Ill
J71
'.).0
21
:.1 i3 1.4
::.5 i.6
1. 7
374
v1ewt:!rS1n I'm1theo11( 1990; not a classic museum phoro grnph but belonging ro the sr1n1t'peri\ld and included in SLruth's rc::ce111 hook) wen: arranged by the phowgrap her. Museum See Philp, ··Museum fKpedirion," in f'crgu111011 1h/~l-1lsl6 . exh. cat. (Berlin, 2004), 11.p. ln I1 hilp\ words, "'>truth c..levotC'dt·oncrerc preparatory deliber.itiuns 10 the:: positmning of individua ls. For rhis choreography, he usec..lmodeling· diagrams m prescrihe placemenrs to his c,rra5 within which tbry could codercrmine rheir positions." See Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, ·' Beholding rhe Beholder." in ibul.. n.p. Peter SchjelJahl, "Reality Click~," The Naw )'orker, May 27, .!.001., p. I 19, Michael Kimmdman, "Where Truth D.ire:. to t--.1leer Your Gaze," The New York T1111cs, February 7, 2003, p. 37, It turns ~lllt, though, rhar rha1 incident actua lly mok place cxac,ly a:. Struth phomgTaphcd ir (as Struth remarked in a pub lic discussion with Mitch Epstein and myself at the Balrimnrc Museum of Art, April 12, ioo7 ). Yet, giwn the overall siruation, there must have been an cleme111of ~posing" in Srruth' s pborographing of it even so. Lee Friedlander, Al Work (Nt'W Ymk, ::.002.). Here e.g. is Perer Galassi on Friedlander's "Factory Valleys" photo,: "All hut a few pictures isolate individuals, each Framed in the intima.:y of his or her task. We arc close enough ru talk to them bur they are oblivi11usof u ur presence" ("You Have to Change tO Sray the Same,'' in Peter Galassi, Frierlla11Jcr, ex h. cat. !New York, 1.005], p. 56) . Oblivious of our presen.:e, maybe, but whac a hout Friedlander's? Galassi writes a lso of those phocos: "A frer a long Hretch of pounding rhe public pavement la reference::to Friedlander's streer photographs!, Friedlander had discovc::rt!da way to make pictures of people he didn't know. Like Edgar Degas. who admired the young bal lerinas of his paintings as much for their discipline and g rit as for the beauty of their dancing, rhe phorographer became absorbed in rbe concentration and steady effon of people at work" (ibid.). Of a seril's of photos made at MIT of workers using co mputers, Galassi remarks: "I I lie looked .it the people who were using those inert boxes and found them no less focused in attentic)n than Ohio workers wielding machines rhaL could rake yo ur arm off' ' (ibid.). Interestingly, in view of my remarks in Ch. 4 about the rlmnati cs of "grace" in Barrhes's Camera Lucido. Galassi also says apropos the ~Fat:tory Valleys" photos that "Friedlandt"r's mastery of ,1 fur mort: agile techno logy [than Lewis Hine-sl cnahlcd him co get closer ro the unfolding aCLionand co grasp mt1re intimate!)' irs moments of grace" (ilnd.). I am nor suggesting rhaL norhing of rhe sort 1s to be fou nd in earlier photos of people osrensihly ah,orht:d in work or reading - on the conrrMy. See e.g. various photographs of industnal ·workers b>' Margaret Bourke-White, such as Making Cmddrn11s(c. 1930) and Finis/JingAirplane Cylinder /·leads ( 194 i/42 ), both illustrated in Jane Corkin, ed., Margaret B011rk11 - \'l/hite Photographs (Tornnm, r 9R8). The embarrassing truth is that the entire issue of absorption in
photography is more complex, less "pure," than it is u~u,111} made our to be_ le should be noted that Struth hirnsl'lf, in conversation with Silke Schmick!, remarkl•d rhar he had tried asking viewers in his classic museum phutogrnp hs to hold a position hm that ir had not wor.ked. " In cenain cases,·· ~he c:.iuote s him as saying, " I asked people ro stay fixed in their position, bur the effect was already lost. Those plmwgraphs don'r work, beca use phorography is S( • sensitive a medium rhar one can 'r lie i11using it" (Schmick!, I ,l!SMuse1m1 PhoJogratihs tie Thomas Stmth, p. 58, Lr:l1nslarionmine) :ioned in the cast.precisely th e genera l prin.:iple I have q11cs1 of ~onrag, Schjeldahl, and Kimmelman. T his :.uggests, hy the wa)', that Struth knew exat.:tly what he was doing when ht: pused his museumgoers in rhe Pergamon Museum photos. 2.:-l The '' Audience'' photographs were shown ,u the M:.irian Goodman Ga llery, New Yurk CiLy,April 7 to Ma y 7, 2005.
9
ro
I
1
u 11
14
6
ruff. gursky, delahaye
Jean-Franc;oi:, Chevrier. ''The Aclvenrures of rhe Picture Form in the Hisrory of Phorography (1989) ,~ rrans. Michael Gilson, in T/Je Last Picture S/Jtm•: Artists Using /11,utogroplry,1960- 1982, exh. cat., curated hy Douglas fogle (Min neapolis, Los Angeles, 2003-4). p. r 16. Further page references ro this essay will be in p;uenthese s in rhc rcxr. An abridgment of rhe essay originally pub lished in (lto-Kunst: Arbeitl!11ans T50 French and Ger man in J>h ]aliren, e ..h. t.:ar. (Srurrgart, r9>!9). Th,~ phon,graphers singled o ur by Chevrier are John Coplans, Bill Henson, Craigie Horsfield, Suzanne Lafont, and Jeff Wall. 1. I retai n the English "picture" for the Gcrrna n "Bilc..l." .3 Jeff Wall, "Frames of Referent.:e" (.z.oo~d, in Jeff Wall, Selccterl 1-ssaysnnd l11terv1 ews (New York, '.).007), p. 176 . The passage continues: " I did love l(1ok1ingat painrings, though. particularly ones done in :1 scale large enough tu be seen easi ly in :1 room. T lrnt sense of sc-ale is something I believe is one of the most precious gifts giv,en us by Westc::m painting'' (ibid.). 4 Repub lished in Wall, Selected F.ssa)'sand /11tcrv 1ews, pp. 143-68. 5 "Al111osr comp letely'' i~ an indirect reference 10 Wall; see e.g. hi~ "F rames of Reference." 6 I discus~ historical dimensions of the concept of the tableau in rclatic.m ti\ eightee::nrh-and nineteenrh- cennrrr French pajncing and criticism in my books Ahsurf1tiu11 t111d TheatrictJlity, Courbet's Realism, and Manet's Modcmis111. 7 Valeria Liebermann. "Annotated C.ataloJ!:ue Raisonne of Works since r979 ," in Matthias Winzen, ed ., Thomas Ruff: , 979 to the Pn•sent (Baden-Baden. Colo1gnc, New York, 2.003), p. 180. See a lsn rhc sccrion on Ruff's portrairs in Erfc de Chassey, Pl.1tit11des: 1111e histoire de la plmtogmphi e µlute (Paris, 2.006), pp. 1 72.-X4. l.! Quorcd by B~my Schw:1bsky, •·The End of Ohjecriviry." 011 Paper: The Jo11m11lof' l'rints, Drawings and Phvtograpli)',
1s
16
110. 1 \ 1q97): 22, c1ung for this Boris v. Barnschitsd1, the seven large-sca le portra it photographs of women Tlio111asR,,(f (Frankfurt, 1':)92.), p. 24. blown up to nine: feet high and six feet across, hung loc,se Liebermann, Annotated Catalog ue Raisc>nm\" p. 180. un rhc walls- char chc viewer encot1nttred in the lasL mom Peter Galassi writes: "Gursky has predicted that chc furure in Avec:.lon's ex hibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, will regard Ruff's series as a wuchsrone of an essential erlms New York, in 1978. "The anonymiry of the portrait s offers of rhe 191:jo s, .ind he ma} ,~ell he right" ("Gurs kr's \\7orld," a clue m cheir fuller mearnng." Janet Malcolm wrote ar the in Peter Galassi, Andreas Gursky, exh. cal. !New York. time. "These pictures of women we don't know tnvitc us ro 2001 I, p. r7). Further page reterenccs w rhis essay will he read them, to make up stories about them. An aura of the in parc::nthescs1n the text. allegorit.:al wafts out of them, as if each woman represented "That Remains m be Seen," conversation between Stephan an age and stage and manner of life" (janer Ma lcolm, "A Dillc::murhand T homas Ruff, in Tlmmas Ruff, exh. car_ eries of Proposals," Diana & Niko,,: l::.ssays011 Ph<>tu (M::ilmo, wt:Jen, 1996), p. 104. Further page reference~ to graphy jNew York, 1997 1, p. 97). "T he size t1f these porrhi, c::onver~ationwill be in parentheses in the text. traits is not incidental bULintrinsic- a n essential stylistic "Reality Sn Real !r's Unrecognizab le,'' conversation property," Malcolm also observes, a statement that might between Thomas Wulffen and Thomas Ruff, in ibid., p. 97_ also be applied to Ruff's work, bur she at once proceeds to Regis Durand, "The Secular Imagery n( Thoma, Ruff," in co ntra st Avedon's portraits with contemporaneous phmo Thomas Ru((, exh. cat. (Paris, J99 7), p. -r5. Furtl1t'r page rea list painting, which she sees as having provided ''borh referem:es to this essay will be in parentheses in the text. the ~ancrion and a satiric occasion" for his images (98) . Durand contrasrs Ruff' s arr in this regard with 011 e implicWhereas photorealisr painting 1.iboriously imitates rhe look itly based on the model of "absorption in rhe represented of photography, Avedon ''jusr by squeezing the bulb of a scene (to ust' Michael rried's term). TI11smeans assuming big camera anJ spending a few hundred bucks ar Moderthat the .scene has some kind of Jeprh, which can be spatial nage . . . can du in a day what it wou lc:.Itake a painter (rhe illusion of fore-, middle-, and background), narratwc months co achieve" (98). She conc ludes: "Avedon ld1erebyl (recoun1ing various 'incidenrs' which take place in the scene su·ips away photography's pretension to being an art and a or traverse ir), or finally l,istnric (involving a play of relacraft, saying that it is nothing bur an idea, a serit:s of pro tions wirh pn :exisring models, references, quotations, etc.)" posals about picture-raking. The show at the Met illustrates (p. r 5, emphasis in original)- As he rightly says: ''Now, this idea of phorograp hy as a mental medium, more like Thomas Ruff's phorographs seem to undercut all these math and chess than painting and drawing, and trimodels of rhe internal and external relations of the image" umphant ly 'proves' it" (98-9). Such a reading implicitly (ibid.). links Avedon's large-scale portraits tu rhe (earlier) "conAr one pnmt this led ro the charge thaL Ruff's porttaits had cep1ual.. moment in photography later anal>•zed by Wall in somethi n~ in common with the art of Socialist Realism or "Marks of Indifference," rather than ro rhc emerging indeed Nazism. As Ruff remarks to M,mhias Winzen: " I tableau form. Moreover, in my opinio n - Ma lcolm mighr was prt:try annoyed. Bur then I thougl1Lto myself: Okay, if disagree - the notion of an engagement with photorealis1 they thi nk I'm a nt'.o-Nazi, rhen I'll do portrai ts w ith sopainting has 110 direct relevance to rhC'developments disca lled 'Aryan' eyes, true -blue. After I did that, rhe critics cussed in this book. sropped talking about Na1.ism, instead l w:.is pigeonholed 17 From the vast literarurc on faces and facial expression, l in terms uf generic enginct:ring.... " ( 1oo). (The blue eyes mention on ly Georg Simmers short, brilliant ''Thr Aesrhetic were added digitally to portrairs he had aJready done and Significance of the Face," in Kure H. Wt,lff, ed., Georg the color itself was enhance d. ) Ruff's poim seems co have Si111mel.r858-19i8: A Collection of Essays. with Tm11slabeen to cal l his critics· bluff, as if ro say: if you want co see tio11sand a Bibliography (Columbus, O h., 1959), pp. 276rea l Aryans, here they are - and at rhe same time ro insi~r 81. My attention was drawn to this esS3) ' by James T. Siegel, that no faces like those ever existed, rhat the manipulated "Georg Simmel Reappears: ·The Aestheric Significance of portraits were no longc::r actual porrrairs, rhnt the phC> the Face-," Diacritics, vol. 29 (SummC'r 1999): 100- 1J· tograp hs themselves were non-photographs, as he put it ro 1 !! Gertrude Stein, "Picrnres," Lect11res111 America ( ry .35; Win:i.en in "Mo nument to the Unknown Photographer," Boston, r957), p. 79. conversation berween Matthias Winzen and Thomas Ruff, 19 As Ruff says in conversatio n with Winzen: " 111phl)tograin Thomas R11//(Ma lmo ), p. 100 . phy, you a lways have hoth the medium and the depicre::d Ruff: "The fact that the portraits have taken on thl! charsubject at the same timl'" (p. 100). acter of passport phr>rographs bas to do wir_hrhe model of 1.0 Jn effect Ruff used a picrure generating machine, rhe rhe passport photograph. The person is identified hy society Mino lta Mont~1geUnit. to combine two of his portrait ph,,via the passport photograph" ("Reality so Real Ir's Unrcctographs into a new one and rhcn made silkscreens of the ognizahlc," p. 97). See also "Mo nument to rhe Unknown result ( Liebermann, "An nora red Catalogue Raisonne," Photographer," where Ruff remarks that he "made the big, p. 2.31 ) . Sec Ruff's discussion of the Altered Portraits beautiful passport phoros to get beyond the usefulness for with Cat herine Hurzeler, "Interview with Thomas Ruff," in idt:ntilication" (p. 99). Thomas Ruf( (Ma lmo), p. 109. An interesting contrast is with the roughly contempora1r In fact, an information sheet accompanying a show of nt'w neous porrrait work of Richard Avedon, in particu lar with wo rk b)' Ruff at the David Zwirner G:illery 111New York d
notes to pages 146· 154
375
L:?.
:?.3 24
:?.5
26
1..7
Ciry in November 2.00- explic:irly compare~ the plwtn grapher·s enla rgeJ-pix.: 1 photographs w Impressionism. " Much likt: Irnpres~1onist paimings, thcse photographs require th<::"icwer m sta nd at a distance in urc..lcrto make ., visual assessment of rhe image content," ir re,u.ls. "The c..listmcrmndcs of viewing-close, mid-ronge, :mu far - inregro l to fullr processing the wo rk~, cha llenge viewers to examine thkat im11gesin the ,Ht c.:onre'l:tand the everyd:1y." Alrernarcly, or in adc..liti
notes to pages 155 1G8
nored by various wricer5, incluJin~ .Jean-Pierre Criqui in "l)11 rhe !Vklancholy of V:intogr Points (As I Leaf throu gh .111 'A lhum· by Andreas (Jursky)," P<1rke11, no. 44 ( 1995): (,5. Criqui ol~u rec0gnizes Gu rsky's predilection for depicting pcrson s unaware of being phocograplwd. :di Q\ICned in Carol ,qLtiers. ~co ncrcrc Realit y." R11hrwvrks: The Arts,){ a German Region (September 1998): .>.>· 2.9 E.g. Michel Gauthie r: '•Ii y a cntrc la photograp hie c..le : forme de distance., une monicrc de C.ursky er scs objers u11C distanciacinn. Le point de vue adopte n'apparri em pas a la rcfalice phmographiee. Pour rcprcndrc la tenninokigie de C.cnette, 011 pourrait dire quc, 11111/alis 1111ua11d1s, c'esr un poim de vue ·heterc1-diegetiq111!:' le photographc n'e~l pas en inreraction avcc cc qu'il photographic, ii n'est pas l'un des personnages du monc..lequ'i l vise'' (''Vues imprenahlt:s sur readymades: La phot ogra r,hie scl,111Andreas Gu rsky," Les cahiers du 11111s ec 11atir111al d'art 111odenu :, no. 67 [Spring •99':II: ~2.). 10 Less cogend) '· Ga la&si\ lasr par;igraph reads: "Gurskfs world, of course, is an invention. Pare of irs authority rrscs upon the 1magin;:irio11and skill with which the anise has drp loyed his creative license. The mher pa rt rl'~ts upon cht' rccognirion tha t the work eli..:icsfrom the very ohsc::rversir so reso lutely exc lt1des. It is Gursk),'s fiction, bm it is mar wor ld" (41 ). '\J Rupt:rt Pfob, ..Per..:rptio11and Communicatio n: Thoughts ,)n New Motifs by An
37
,8
s,1mc rime, it is a photograph - a window on che world which planes us where the phmographer once smod .rnd tilts uur head with his as we rake in the scene through his eres" (36 - 7). He comp.ires rhis work with Friedrich', Clmr,-hyt1rd,.m image "that locat·es the viewer in preci5cl)' one spar and no other" (37) . Is rhis true though? lei, as if Gal.1ssi has forgotten his own ear lier remarks about the way in whic h Gursky's images "obliterate the cunringencie~ of perspccri ve." An exception is Giordano Bmm, ( 1989), a pictur e of rwn men on a bench in an oc..ldsetting- sanJ in the foreground, low trees anJ bushes behind them -ap par ently deep in con· versarion. Cf. Criqui: "T he rampant beaut y nf Gursky's phorograpbs culminates in his interiors of focwrics or smc.:kcx..:hanges. That these p laces of labor, of alienation and 11( rhe most cynic.illy disc111bodiedbusiness cou lc..lprovide an opportunity for unparalldecf visual deligl1c,even ahead of '11amre; is a parac..lnxrhat will perhaps leave an as hen afrertasre. [~ur there again it's a matter of perspcc.:cive and there's 110 doubt that the hypnotic seducuveness of Mercedes. R<1s/11/t ( 1<)9_\), Gnmrlig, N1~m/1erg( 199,) or Siemens, Knrlsm/11, (1991) goes virtua lly unnoticed hy their inh:ibiranrs, who in turn would go nearly u1111nricedby us viewers, so much do chey meld imo their environment, so much do rhey Sl·cm c,1sr from 1he same compact :ind multicolored materit1l as the machines they operate a nd rhc goods tht')' product:'' ("O n rhr Melancholy of Vanragc Points," p. 65").And Alex Alberro on PTT, Rotterdam ( I '/':I 5): "Interspe rsed through our rhe tremendou s wealth of pict0rial incidenr are deinc..lividualized workers wlm become wnrinuous wirh rheir environmem, so much so that tht:y appear as in:inimatc :ind cold as the machines tht:y npcrarc'' (" Blind Ambition," Artf11ru111, vol. 39 I.January 2.001I: t 10). A~ J ulian Srall:ibrass c..lo cs: "People arc never agents, but rather insrrumrncs wh,ch react w a certain ~pace, Ji sposing themselves this way anJ tha t, invc,lunrnrily produ cing an emergent order which, ~ince it c:innm be :iccurarcly rep resented by a..:tion and JevelopmenL, is simu lated by eomposiriCJn. It is hard IQ imagine Gursky's human subject s having an inner life; they are entire ly the produce of Max Webt:r's irnn cage of lmndage" (..The Iron C1ge of Boredom," Art M()nth/y, 110. 1~9 !September J995 I: 19). See :ilso Neville Wakefield: '·finan..:e has become the admin· istra cion of monetary territory . This is Vireality, che gospt•I accord ing co Paul Virilio, where the mainrl.'n,rnce of lines of ..:ommunicario n mark nor jusr rhc new elecrronic topography bur rhe dis,1ppertrnnce of civilian space" (" ·Brasilia:' V:inishing Points," Parke/I, no. 44 I 19951: 78). Also: '·This is rhc nl!w geopo litics hascd on the commutation of places and rhfn~s. Reshaped through commercr, its geography has been rererrirorialized away from rhc physic.ii into rhc meraphys1cal vectors of rime::anc..lspace, che government of war- (80). Gurskys pictures are thus seen :1~ offering us "rhe [magc of exi le as we fall into th.: vast, denatured space of the postmoc..lem , ublime" (l.'io). Aoorher critic, Alix Oh lin, writes: "IGursky'sl buildings are scerhrough, displayLng both intcnor :inc..lexterior, bur the inte-
-I '
-P 43
,LI
40
44
rior offers littlo:concrete information. There 1s no fa.,:adeon either parl1a111enrbuilding or I long Kong hank; peopk • work busily at their dl'sks, mur sr,acl'S, rnlk to one another. Yer being able co see exactly what is going 011 inside dnes nor necessarily educate the viewer. or t·xpl:iin how polirical nr econumic systems actua lly work. You cou ld look at a phuro of the I long Kong srock exchange for hours and never spot any actual money. This doesn't represent a failure on the p:irr of rhe phocngraph; it repre sents the natu re of money in nur time" ("Andreas Gursky and thf.' Conte mporary Sublime," Art .fo11ma/, voJ. 6i fWincer :!.OOll: 2.5). On the structural invisibility of rhc modern sysrem of see David l larvey, Tl,e l.imits to Capit,,I (Oxfo rd, 611.1111.:e, 198i ); and Fredric J :1111eson, "Cult ure and Finance Tum: Selected Writings 011 the Ca pital,·· in Tl,!! C11/t11ra/ Post111odcm.1 pr enables sur readyrnadcs" (67). He also co mpar es the monumental g Kn11g Stock t-.xch1111gediptych wirh Noland's I l<>n chev rvns (69-70 ). Criqui, "On rhc Mc•lnnchol y of Vanishini:; Poinrs:· p. 65. In fact Criqui writes: "Not one of rhc111is look ing at the
,rs
45
46 47
notes to pages
173- 182
377
-18
49
50
51
p
53
54 5,
lens: a group portrait witb no photographer» (ihid.). He may be right, bur the sealed man holding a gloss of beer in the lefr fore~rnunJ i~ definitely looking in the general Jir ettioo nf the camera, which raises at least the possibility of a n encounrer of g:v,~ of a sort that is elsewhere ahsenr from Gu rsky's oeuvre, The ,\llaison Rouge exhibition was not accompanied by a cncalogue. A first sel('ction of thirteen panoramic photographs is reproduced in Luc Delahaye, History, with a short introJuctory essay by Eugenia Parry (London, 2.003). Set Quentin Bajac, "Le regard elargi: les photographies panurami4ues de Luc Delahaye," Les cahiers d11 nwsee 11ati,mald'art moder,ze, no. 91. (Summer 2.005): 28-4r. My attention w:ts firsc drawn tO Delahaye's work hy (fajac's intelligent article. Michel Guerri n, " Lm: Delahaye: Ju photorcporrer a l'arriste,'' Le Monde, November 24, 2.005. p. 26 _ Th e origin,tl French reads: "11ya une reelle ambigu'ite: je sui& froid er dcmche, assez invisible parce qu'assez insignifiant, er c'est a c.:ecompte-1:i que je parviens a une plein" presence aux choses, a une relation simple et direcre au reel. Cem.' idee, dans m\Jn travail, est cenrrale." ''Les 'tab leaux d' hisrnire' contemp latifs de Luc Delahaye,'' interview wirb Luc Dclahaye by Miche l Guerrin . Le Monrle, Mard1 3, 2003, p. r7. The rrem:h reads: "Je vt!ux montrer l'evenem.:nr au moment meme OUii a lieu .... Mon corps doit ecre ancrc au sol er chercher le meilleur poim de vue, sans rabou visucl. Mais ensuire, a u coeur de l'evenemenr, mon effort tend ii disparaitre, j'instaure une distance qui confine :i !'indifference . Le resultat visucl traduit une presenc.:eplus essendelle aux choses er au mondt:. En etanr transparent, je reduis la distance entre l'evenement et le specrntcur. j'ai toujow·s pratique ains i, mais de fai;on intuitive. Avec Histmy, je formalise ce processus.'' Of che picture of the dead T:iliban, De lahaye has said; "He wits dead a few minutes lying in a ditch. Th is is an example of fast. In my head r am rninking 011ly of the process. Do I have enoug h light? ls the distance good? Speed mo? Thi s is what allows me tt.>maiatai11an absence or distan,c w the event. If I impose myself too much, look for a certain effect, I'd miss the photo. This happened very fast; I need ro make it slow. f see the tw\) crossi ng in my mind" (quoted by Bill Sullivan, "The Real Thing: Phorographer Luc Delahaye," on Delahaye's ex hibition "History" al Ricco-Maresca Gal lery, Nrw York, 2003, htrp://www.artnet.com/magazine/fearures/sullivan/sullivan 4- 10-03.asp). Clement Greenberg, "The Ca mera's Glass Eye: Review of an Exhibition of tdward Westo11I 19461," The Collet'tcd Essaysc111d Criticis/11,4 vols., ed. John O'Brian, vol. 2, Arrogn11tPurpose, , 1145-49 (Chicago and Lo ndon, 1986), p. 60. Clement Greenberg, Late Writings, ed . Rob ert C. ~!organ (Minneapolis and London, 2.003), pp. 163-4. Michael Fried, "Ju les O litski,'' Art a11d Obiecthnnrl, pp. 1 43-4. ee Robert Enright, "The Conso lacion of Plausihiliry: An lmerview wit h Jeff Wall," BnrderCrossi11gs,no. 19 (2.000): 51.
378
notes t o pages 182-196
7
portraits: struth, dijkstra, and others
2
.,
4
5
6
7 8
9
As nf January ~007. Personnl communicai:ion from the arrist; Sm ith adds that the photographs were made of 30 families in all. See also "Struth," a conversation with Mark Gisbu urn e, Art Mo11thly, no. 17 6 (May 195,4/: 7. Further page references to this i.:onversation will be in par,enrheses in the text. (A few additional portraits appc:,u in T/Jumas Stmth: f-amilie11lebe11/FamdyLife, ex h. ~:at. !Cologne, 2008].) In T/Jnmas Strut/J 19 77 -20 0 :1., e)(h. cat. (Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. 2.002.-3), p. 168. Further page references to this essay will be in parentheses in the rexL Michael Fried, Ahsorption and Theatricality: P011ai11g and Belmlder in the Age of Diderot ( 1980; Chica.go, 1988), pp. ro9-10. Furth er page references to chis hook will be in parentheses in the text. See tht• analysis of passages from rhese texts in ibid., pp. y3-6. My larger argument is tbal Diderot's early views on the rheacer - which is to say his <:ommitmeni: to an a11titheatrica l dramaturgy- fed direi.:tly into his Salons and related writings on painring. Susan Sontag, 011 Photograf1hy (New York, 1977), p. 37. Further page references co this book will be in parentheses in the rext . The crucial passage concerns photographing the Ricketts family (not their real name) on the porch of cbeir cabin; tO Mrs. Ricketts, Agee wrote, "it was as if you and your chi ldren a nd your husband an d rhese .ochers w,ere stood there n,1ktd in front of rhe co ld absorption of the ca mera in all your shame and pitiab leness to he pried inim and laug hed at; and your eyes were wild with fury and shame and fear" (James Agee and Walker Evans, Let Us Now PraiseFamous lv!en: Tl,ree Tenant Families I L941; Boston and New York, r988I, p. 3-2.1). Agee went on to recall "Walker setting up the t('rrible srrucrure of the tripod cresred by rhe black square heavy head, dangerous as that o f a hunchback, of the camera; stoo ping beneath cloak and clloud of wickeJ cloth, and twisting butrons; a witchcraft pl'epar ing, co lder than keenest ice, a nd incalculably crue l" (p. 322.). Moreover, as the rwo daughters "let down rheir hair in haste and combed and rearrayed it . .. WaU~ermadr a picture of this; you didn't know: you th ought he was still te:.ting aro und; there you all are, rhe mot her as before a firing sq uad, rhe chilJr en sranding like colu mns of an exquis ite temple, their eyes stra ying, and behind, both girls, beat deep in the dark shadow somehow as if liste ning and as in " dance, :mending like harps rhe black Aags of rheir bair'' (ibid.). Hen ri Ca rticr- lk esson, The Mind's Eye: Writings 011 Photography nnd Phutographers (New York, 1999), p. 2ll. See " Interview between Renjamin H. D . Buehloh and Thomas Srruth,'' in Thomas Stntih, PorJ'raits, exh. car, (New York, 1990), p. 29. Further page rderences to this interview will be in parentheses in the text.. Th e sta ndard biography is Patri cia Bosworth , Diane Ar{)IIS (New York, 1984) . For a highly critica l acc:ount of Arbus's procedure see Sontag, 011 Photography, pp. 3 5-6 and f>assim.
,o
·'Ma ybe the first two family portraits tbar I rook were made from a very personal incentive, when I was staying with friends in Japan, and then following chat, a three-week 5tay in Scorland. On the last Jay l rook a phomgraph of the family as a personal memory'' (Scruth to Mark Gisbourne, "Slruch, " p. 7 ). 1 1 He adds: "l'iut rhe problem of rhe subject exists for photography in the same way i1 docs for painting." See also Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, "Portraits/Genre: Thomas Strutl1," in Tlm111c1s Stmth : Portraits (Munich, 1997), pp. t ,0-62., and the discussion of Buchloh's views in Ann Goldstein, '' Pockets of Self-Retlecrion," in Thomas Stmth 19-7-200.l, pp. I 7~ 1 • 1_:. Walter Benj.1mi11, "Little Hisrory of Ph,Jtography" (191 1), trans. Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter, vol. '.! of Selected Writings, 4 vols., trans. Rodney Livingsto11cet al., ed . Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary ~mith (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1999), p. 5 14. r 3 Buchloh replies: "But these cri teria are not eas ily identifiable. They are in part irrationa l, subconscious or aesthetic." Struth: '' Well perhaps, that's true. Of i.:uurse they are." , 4 Masanori [chikawa, " Resisting lnJi ffcrence," in Thomas Stmth - My Portrait, ex h. cat. (Tokyo and Kyoto, 2000), n.p. 15 Pcrer Schjeldahl, ·'Epiphany," Parkett, no. 51 (1997): 1<-,i!. 16 Cha rles Wylie, ''A Hisrory of Now: The Art of Thomas Srruth," in Thomas Stmth , 977-2002 . pp. 15 r.-2.. 17 Compare Barthes: "The Photograph is like olJ age: even in its sp lendor, it discarnares the face, manifests irs genetii.: t'ssence" (Camera /.ucida: Reflectio11son Photogmfihy, trans. Rkhard Howa rd [1980; New York, 191!11,p. 105 ). No doubt it i~ just a coincidence , but the 1990s saw the co mpetition ro seq uence the human genome, which ended successfully in 2oor. See Kevin Davies, Cracking the Genome: Inside the Race tn LJ,i/ock H1111u111 DNA (Baltimore a nd London , 2.001). 1!< Ludwig Wittgenstein, Last Writi11gsnn the Philosophy of Psychology, trans C. G. Luckhardt and M,t:<.imilian A. E. Aue, ed. G. H. von Wright and Heikki Nyman, ~ vols. (Chicago and London, r982.), vol. r 1 2.4e, par. r61. Further page references to this book will be in parentheses 111the rext. 19 Denis Oideror, Salulls, ed. Jean Seznec and Jean Adhemar, 4 vols., 211dedn. (Oxford, 1975), vol. 1, p. 2.06. 2.0 The trans lation reads "witltin them" instead of "wit h them". The origina l Germ,111reads: "Schon in Menschen, die sam tlich die gleichcn Gesichtszi.ige hatten, konnten wir uns nichr finden" (p. 2.9). 2.1 Norman Bryson, "T ho mas Srrurh's Nescient Porrrairurc," Pnrtl'aits(Chicago). p. 130. Further page in Thomas S1r11th: references ro this essay will be in parentheses in the text. ?.2. See Peter Schjelda.hl, "Reality Clicks," The New Yorker, May 2.7, 2002., p. 119: '' Viewing rhese pictures is like fad ng a firing sq uaJ of relaxed bur implacab le gazes. The i.:onsrellat.ion of individuals - their identities fleshed out in body language and augmenred hy details of clothing and decor suggests a wide-open hook, in which every family secret is bared. But to read rhe book would immlve ana lysis, whii.:h
2.3
24
~5
26
is reJuctive rhoughr; the range of nuance 111 thc~e pictures is irreducible and ovcrwhelmmg." for a different 1,iew of the import nf color in <;truth's family portraits see Buchloh, "Portraits/(;cnre," p. 11>2.,where ht· writes: "Th e model of subjectivity reasserted b)' th~ arri st
notes to pages
196-203
379
and appears to minimize the rhe n.'alm of the biologu:al {assuming that is what he means by the "biographical .. ~ it is not dear). l7 Thert' is, howt:ver, .mother po,~ibiliry. It c3n also happen that the strong family resemblances in cerrain \rrurh photos, mgt'rher with all rhe other factors making for internal coh.:sion, are found tn he disconcerting - as if one or ,rnorhcr fami ly pre&cnts itself as so integral and wlf-consis rent a unit as almost p(limedl)' to ··exclude" the viewer cven as the logic of absorption ,111dob liviousness l have been dt'scribing strategically mvirt!s the latrer·s dose and sympathetic scrutiny. The result is a tension rhat may nor he whar 5rruth intended but rhar hy no means hurr s the photos' ~tanding .1s works of art. My rh:mks to Rt1rh Leys .:Jnd Davit.I \Xlellhery for insisring on thi, point. Wellbery going ,n far as co adduce Cnrl ch mitt's The C,mccpt of the l'olit1cnl, with its fundamenta l opposition between friend ilnd enemy, in rhis connection. See Schmirt, 1'/JeCwtee/1t nf the Political, 1rans. <..eurge~chwab ( 1912., in German; Chicago anti London, 1996). 2.8 A basic reference work is /Vn eke Dijkstm f'nrtraits, wit h ess:1ys hy I lripsime Visser and Urs Stahcl, exh. car. {Paris, Wintcrthur, AmsterJam, 2.004- 6). l9 Claire Bishop, "Ri neke Dijkstra," Flash Art. no. ~, (Novembe r-December 1998): 88. See a lsu ''Rineke Dijkstra: The Gap between lncenrion and Effect," intcrview by Sarah Dnug las, Flash Art, no. 36 /October 2003): 7 l!. Dc,uglas: ·'Yo u have talked about a concenrracion you Jemand, of your sitte rs, and of yourself. How is your largeformat c.:amern relarcd m rhis?" Dijkstra: "The 4 x 5-inc.:h camera helps me m keep my sitters' attention, for myself anti for chem. They undersrand char it take~ longer co shoot than ;i normal camera. T hey must remain still for severa l minures during each shot. There is an inceusity aud intimacy. \Y/c arc very focu6tJ on each ocher aml the moment.~ rurther page references ro this interview will he in paren chese5 in the rexr. 30 Jessica Morgan, "lnrerview [with Rineke Dijkstra I," f
380
notes to page5 204 2 l 1
34
Commentmg on Arhu~·s ph()m Seah•d Ma11 111 ,1 nm ,md Stucki11gs, N. Y.C. ( 1967), Janet Ma lcolm write~ th:11 it '·tdb a )Wry dut leaks om of the picturt: a1nd cnrers the Qff-camcra ,irea Jm•t:tly in from of the man, ,,, here it invites u&rn imagine Arbus crouching on rhe Oo<> r (the pi<.:rureis taken from slighrly hcluw). compu lsively s1rnpp1ng rhe to over hear her speaking co him i11.1 voi<.:t! thar shucrer, ,111ry. (She says in the introductory rexr, as if paraphrasing Conrad's ,'v1arlow. 'My favorite rhing is 10 go where l've never been.' ) The close ly and ;.ympatherically ubservetl tr:insvestire i, a ~ectJnd:iry chanicr<:r in the account uf rhe journey mto Lhe interior (a~ the.' tribe 1s second:i ry to ehc anthn>po logisr in his account)" ("Arisrocrnrs," Di,ma & Niko11:t.ssays on Photography [New York, 19971, p. 1 ~ 1, emphasis in origi nal). More recently. Lo11isS,1%lrns broug ht ''A1rt and Obje.:rhood" and Avsorptin11,md Theatricality to htear on Arbus's work, sr,uing e.g. that: " lr wmild be difficulr to overem ph:isize the rhearricaliry ol Arbu s's images" (" 'Hyped on Clarity:' Diane Arbus an say she had changed her mind abo ut rhe Vinela11d picrurcs- ~he hared them now .•.. ILlookiag at rhese photographs, she saw she h::idn'l been ab le to concrol her suhjecrs. She was alsn borhered by their n1.1nifest Lndifference- rhcir failure to acknow ledge her existence, m inrerac.:t with her ur evt'n to care that she- smut.I hcfnre chem with her camera and her conscii ,usnes~. Now she felr angr)' .it them. frustrateJ to be e.xcludetl from the states of rrancelike ex:altation th:it seemed to overcome them as they played, made 1101ses, :ind w lletl about on the grass; afrer developing the contact sheers, she didn't bo1her to prim any of tlw pic.:rures.She h::id, in Ml )' case, now losr all interest in pho,tugrnphy. The medium rhat previously had served her su well no longer gave her rhe sense of being alive or in much. 'My work doesn't do ir for me an)'mure.' she ~aid rwn, weeks before her suicide, on a visit to rhe loft of two w,omen friends"
,8 39
(36).
"l felt thar rhe beach portraits were all self-poruairs," Dijkstra remarks to Doug las, in '·Rineka Dijkstra." ·'Thar moment of unease, that irnempt ro find a pose, it was a ll about me·• (p. 79). This goe:. too far, probably, bur the hasic implication seems right: of course, one c.:ouldimagine Arbus saying the same thing, in .:Jvery tlifferent spi1rit. 36 Andy Grundbt:rg, "Out of the Blue, .. Art/m11111,vo l. >5 (May 1997): 116. '17 jan Estep. "Being Open: Interview wirh Rinckc Dijk,tra,"
35
40 4,
,1I reads: "Le p<>rtrair t:St acheve lor~que je French nrig111 peux laisser mon modele ii [ui-meme, a ses pensec,, } son esprit, crnnme s'il erair che1_ lui san~ aucu11 1emnin." According ro bigenh:ium (in conversation), he read Absorptio11 and T/Jeamcality in its hench cr:rnsbcio11in the early 1990s and was srrud. hy it!> account of Didcrnt's ancirheacrical e,tht:cic. .p. i'vly reference to Horsfield is based on having seen his rerrusprcrive exhibit ion at the Funtlai;ao Calouscc Gulhenkian. Lishun, in August 2006. See Craigie I lvrsfield: Relation, exh. cat.-, ed. Catherine de Zegher (Paris, Lisbon. Svdney. :!.006-7). Horsfieltl also usual ly makt.:~a s,ng.le print of a given image and favo rs marrc surface,. 4J l.f. Caro l Armstrong's insightfu l rernarks about Andre Baiin's nncion of rhe "mummy comp lex'' in relation ro Sugimoto's waxwork portrnirs in her "from Oil co Wax 10 '>ilver: Sugimoro·s Portrait <..allery," in S11gi111nto Portraits (Berlin, iooo/. '·Ir is rhar 'nwmn,y comp lex' rhar !>ugimom's new work addresses with unc:inn)' power," she writes, "p laying on rhe continuities and discontinuitic-s herwee11the cenruries-old tradi 1i,m of the oil portrait, rhe rel,,rively modern pht!nomcnon of che wax-muse um effigy, ;111d the retrograde currency of rhe photographic srill. Indeed, Sugimoco's life-size apparitions dispute the notion that rhc 'p lastic arcs' (an nld term given new meaning here ) have lost their magica l func.:cionof immort:1li1.ing the tleatl, Narurc tells i:very secret once. Ye~, but in man she tells propl)sing instead a wc,rld of ironically incantatory likeii all rht: time, by form, attitude, gesture, mil·n, lace a nd nesses whose spe ll resides in 1·heir strange combinacon ut parts of rhe fact, ;;inJ hy the whole acrion of the machine. liveness anti morbidity'' (p. ,p); and: "the re are clues The visib le carriage or acrion of rhe individual, as resulraplenty to the 111,uerial inrervenrion of wax: 11ursizedhands ing frum hi~ nrg;;inizarion ,mJ h[s will combined, w~ ca ll that gleam oddl y- roo smooth ly. like plastic - gescures ch.H manner~. What are they b111thought enteri ng the hands signify :rnimate life and movement, while betraying rJ1eir and fctL, cont rolling the movements of the botly, and i11animacyand their frozenness, faces char seem coo still a11cl speech and behavior ... The· power of manner:, is incesmask like, and, above all, noses that despite their differences sant, - an element as unconccalable as fire. share a peculiar family resemblance, nnt che specific.:iryof the genetic trait rhar the family photograph bears, but the Cave ll <.:omments:"Emnson\ tffort of conceptua l rehahil generic quality of the mold and its orde r of mechanic;il itation constitures this marvelous essay as a major conrrin:p roduction'' (p. 51 ). butio11 to rhe ae,~thcric:. of cinema (.:Js well as to rhe +.I Tracey Bashkoff, "The Exactness c,f rhe World: A Couver aesthetics of acting. a cnincidencc hard ly merel:,,coincidens::irion wirh Hiroshi Sugimoro," in Sugimoto Portr,11ts, tal" (p. 1l7) . befort: going L)ll tO suggest (I am leaving nut p. JJ · Ir is nor dear whether ht: is referring co his photos a lot): "In Descartes the proof of thinking was rhat ir cannot or to the Holbeins on which the wax effigies are basc·ddoubr it~elf; aftcr £ml'rson tl1e proof of thinkmg i~ probably horh at once. rh:.ir ir cannot bc cvncea letl" (p. 130); and: " If the price L)f Descartes's proof of his existence was a perperual rccession 45 Luc Delah,1yc, I 'Au/re (London, 1999) . of rhe body .. . r:hc price of an Emersonian proof of my 46 Sullivan, "T he Real Thing: Phot0grapher Luc Dc lahaye~" hccp://www.artnrr.com/111agazine/feacures/sullivn11/s11llivan existence is a perpetual visibility of rhe self, a theatrica lity 4-10-03.asp. in my pr~cncc m orhers, hence ro myself. T he lmov iel 47 Walker Evans, M@)' Are Called ( 1966; New Haven .:Jnd c.:Jmera is an emh lem of pcrperual visibility. Descartes's London, loo4). self-consciousness thus cakes the form of emb:irrassmenr'' 48 Mia Fineman, "Notes from Underground: The Subwiiy (p. , 1 1). This entire secrion of Cavell's essay is pt:rtinC'lllto Portraits," in \V/alkerl:.va11s, t!xh. c.:at.,with essays by Ma ria my Jisc ussinn of Dijkstra's beach photographs; it also Morris Hambuurg, Jeff L Rosenheim, Douglas Eklund, implicitly mises the 4uestion as to why the revdatil1n of and Mia Fineman (New York, San Francisco, I lousron , unconcea labilit )' that C.well associates with film has come iooo-o, ), p. ·1oH. rurcher p.:igereferences to this es~ay will increasing !)' tu be carried out by still photography of a be in parentheses in the texr. Sec also Judith Keller, "Walker c.:rrain sort. Evan~ anJ Ma11yAre C"lled: Shooting Blind,'' History of Barthes, Caml!ra L11cida.p. 78. 1-urther page refcrrnccs co Ph,1tngra/1hy,vol. 17 (Summer ryY3): , 5 l-65. Lhis book will he in parentheses in the cext. Press n:lcasc, Ga lerie de France, Paris, rcb .. wo5. T he -I'>' Delah::iye, L'A11tre, 11.p. [)clahaye now regrets these
Neu• Art E:w1111i11cr, no. ro \July- 1\ug11st .:.oo1), p. '13· Furrher page rcference~ en chi, intervit:w will be in paren rheses in the text. Denis Didernt, ''De la poesie Jra111t1tiquc.'·Ue1wr11s1!Stlu 1tiq11es.ed. Paul Verniere (Paris, 1959), p. 2.18. My work nn Diderot and cighteenrh -cencury hi:nch painting is cited by Joanna l.owry, "Within the Horizon l)f Time: The Vitlen Work of Rinekc Dijkstra," in Rinekc Dijkstra: L11ca11,111, exh. cat. (London, 1y97 ). n.p. The same cat.1loguc contains :111interview with Dijbtra by Mariska van den ~erg i11whic h rhc artisr speaks inte restingly abour her video work in young people\ ntghtc lubs in Liverpool and Amsrcrda111. Ralph Waldo Emersun roo rnrns nut to be perti11enthere. Apropos Frank C,1pra's film Mr. Deeds Goes to Town ( 193ft), starring Gary C,nopcr, Srnnley Cavell writes: "Under cxaminatiun by rhc !movie! camer:i, a human body becomes for its inhabirJnr a held of betray:il l1lt)re rhan a ground of comm unication, .rnJ the ca111t•r11's f11rrherplnver is manifested as ir tlocuments the individu lil's sclf-consciu u, efforts to t:ontrol the body each rime it is consciuus of tht: camera's attention m it" ('' What Photography Calls Think ing." C,well 011 rill/I, ed. William Rothman IAlbany, N.Y., ioo, I, p. 1 2i>). Cave II proceeds ro quote the following ra~~agi: from Emerson's essny "Bch,wior":
no t es to pages 213-222
38 1
nm1arks, which he regards as senrimenrnl (conversarion with the artist, May ~007). In anv case, his srntcmem is followed by o ,horr rext by Jean Bumlrillard, "Poenc Transfcnmce of Siruarion:· which begins: "No-one is l<>ukingar 58 anynne else. The lens a lone 'sees,' bur ir is hu.ldt:n. What LUL' Del,,haye captures then, isn't exactly the Otht'r (J'Autre) but what remains of the Oth~r when he, the pho tographer. isn't there: the ill-assorted gazes of people who see nmhing; who arc, mosr imporranrly, not looking ,tt one another, obsesseJ as they arc with prott:cting rheir own symbolic ,pace. Hem:e this closeness and this particular distance between faces- a proxemic tcnsinn genera red h)' appre hension at seeing and being seen. Everyone is staring imo an empty spat:e beyond the person the)' art: facing. And so is the photogrnpher entire ly \lnconcerned with his object. Everyone is anonymous :ind t:ach face vanishes in real time~ (n.p.). However, J,,1ner Malcolm describe s Evans's sub je::crs as "sirring on the subway in the srnre of abstraction and isolation that gives a living face the lonk of sleep and death" 8 ("Slouching Towa rds Bethlehem PA," Diana & Nikon, p. 127). Lndet:dJohn Szarkowski observed to me in conversation tha t Evans must have singled our passengers taking long rides in order ro porrray the abstracted and at rimes somnolenr facial expressions found in his photos. Quored b)' Sullivan, ··Thl• Real Thing.'' Regis Dura nd, "La Force de ['evidence," La Rccherche p/Julogrnphique, no. 7 ( 1989): ro, trans lation mine. further page references to this essay will be in parcnrht::ses in the text. In fai:t Fischer (b. 1958) began by photographing his subjects ar half-length, "their habits forming a very impor· tam p,Ht of rhe images" (Rosa O livares, "Mystica l Sur.!. faces," in Roland Fischer: Camino, e)(h. car. [~anriago de Compostel la, Logrono, Burgos, Freising, 1.003- 4 ], p. 1.9). The frontal, close-up portraits followed and have imposed themselves as his key works of this period. See also Rola11d 3 Fischer, exh. cat., with ess:iys by Joachim Kaak and Cather ine Francb lin (Munich, 1.003). My thanks to Thierry de Duve for calling Fischer's work to ITI)' ,me nrion. Paul de Saint-Victor, "Socifae des aqua-forristes: eaux-fnrres modernes, pub lication d'oeuvres origina les et ineditcs," La 4 Presse, Apri l 27, r!i63; quoted and discussed in Michael Fried, Manet's Modernism, or, The Face of Pamting in the 11.16os(Chii;ago and London, 1996), pp. 2 5 t-2.. For an illustr:nion of Moysc's etching, see ibid., p. 1.51.,fig. 135. See also the monk with a cello in Legros's etching, Procession dans une cglise es[Jagnole(c. 1860), iJlusrrated in il,itl., p. 1.54, Fig. t36. Sec Fried, Manels Mndct11ism, pp. 2.51-61. Doug las Gordon and Philippe Parreno, "So me Nores about the Project,·• Zidane: A XXlst Century Portrait, promotiona l broc hure, n.p. A similar effecr comes about eadt rime the crowd noise rerurns at a high volume. My tha nks co Molly Warnock for her thoughts on this matter. The friend is Robert Pippin. We receive an especia lly vivid nnpression of rhis aparrness after Zidane is expelled from 6 tht" g:imt: (~ee helow) ,md is ar once ~urroun
,9
,o
51 52
53
54 55
56
5-
382
M tes to pages 222-238
mares 11she walks off the field. They do rheir h1!stto support him, 10 console him, nne of them invitrs the crowd to appl,rnd the 1::xitinghrro, but all rhe while::Zidanc seem~ indifferent to their efforts, indeed m rhe1r pre&cnce. The full English ride, Zid1me:A Twe11ty-firs1Ccntur)' Portrait, seems tn imply a certain representaciven ,ess; of course rhe French title, a translation from rhe English - Zidane: Un Portmit du 2 r siccle- goes well bt:yond that, lbur I rake the Engli&h title to be dcfinirive hert:. On rhe relation of Zida11t! to rwenty-first-cenrur) ' mass communications sec Tim (,riffin, "The Joh Changes You," Art(orttm, vol. -15 ( ep· te.'mber 2006): 336-8. According ly, 17 individual (i.e. unique) worlks have ht:en made availab le for acqui~ition: each consisrs of two sidebv-side "versions" of che ma rch, the one ar rhe left the film l havt! just described, thl' one al the right the enrire 90minure feed fn)m one nf the 17 cameras. 0
street photography revisited: wa ll, streulj, dicorcia See also mc,st of rhr workt!rs depicted in the.' , 94A "L,bor Anonymous" series of photos made hy Evans in Decroir :md six of these are illusrr.11ted in Walker pub lished in rort1111e; £vans, ex h. mt., with essays by Maria Morri ,s Hamhourg, Jeff L. Rosen heim, Doug las Eklund, and Mia Fineman ( ew York, San Francisco, Houston, 2000-01 ), car. nos. 121-6. These phmns and an accompanying group of pictures shot on the streets of Chicago nre discll!;scd by James R. Me llow, Walker Eva11s(New York, 1999), pp. -1~0-9s. See the brief discussion of Mimic in "At Home anJ Elsewhere: A Dialogue in Brussels between Jeff Wnll and Jean-Fram;ois Chevrier," in Jeff Wall, Sc>lectedessays and Interviews (New York, 2007), pp. 280-81. Russell Ferguson, ''Open Cicy: Possibi lities of rlw Stre~r,"in Kerry Brougher and Russell rerguson, Open City: 3treel Photographs Silcce r y 50, exh. cat. (Oxford, Salford Qu:iys, Bilbao, Washington, u.c., 2.001), p. 15. further page references to this essay wi ll be in parentheses in rhe tt:Xt. See Henri Cartier-Bresson, The Decisive Moment (New York, 19p). Els Barents, "Typo logy, Luminescence, f-reeJc,m: Selections from a Conwrsation with Wall" ( 198 5) in 'Wall, Selected r.ssays and lnterviews, p. 197. Wall goes on: '·UnreOected social act ion involves a regression of the individual. an accumu lating conformism. W hat is conformed to in rhis regression isn't the surface of society as much ,is its deprhs, its inner cont radictions. This regression 1s the way individuals live ch¢ truth about society without having rhat truth pass through any process of reflection . Since the regression coma ins a truth. or involuntarily exp resses one, iris a sort of inverted form of profundity'' (i/Jid.). See ;:dso Jeff Wall, "Gesrus" ( 1984), in Thierry de Duve, P1rJellc Pelenc, Boris Groys, and Jean-Franc;ois Chevrier, Jeff \Y/a/1.2.nd edn. (London and New York, 1.002.), p. 7i>. Where its rirle and dare are given as l.itlle Italy. Ne1t1York ( 1 9,4).
"Open Clry." p. , ~with I-ran i11the Crowd: The Uneasy Srreets Leibowitt," in The Mt111 of Gt1rry 'iXfi1111gra11d (~an Francisco, 1y99 ), p. 14, <:mrhasis in original. 9 Jeffrey Fraenkcl, "The Winogrand Emgma," in Man 111 thl' Croll'd. p. ro. 1o Ferguson cnntinut:s: "Just two yt::irs before his death, he purchased an eight -by-ten view camera, and m id friends he was finished with the Leica he had used for so many years. In fact he never switched to the large-format comer:i, hut the purchase irself announ,·eu one ot the directions rh,11 would later re\ ise the form" ( 1 4 ). 1 1 See Lee Friedla nder. Sl'lf J>ortr,1il (New York, 19;-o, rt.'V. edn. 1991<). By the 1970s, Jeff Wall writes in his essay "'Marks of Lndifference': Aspects of Phorogrnphy in, or as, is intrnvertc-d and parCon.:eprual Art" ( 1995), "Rep1>r1,1ge odied, man neri;tica lly, in .ispects of phoroconccprualism. The notion that an artistic;:dly significam phomgraph can any longer bc made in a direct imiracion of pho tojournalism is rejccrcd as having been hismricall)' completed by the earlier avanr-gorde and b)' the lyrical subjectivism 0f r95os arr -phorography .... The social field trnds to be abanuoned to professional photojourna lism propt:r, as if the Jesthetil" problems associated with depicting it we re nn longrr of any consequence. and photojournalism had cnrcred nm so much a pustmoderni,, p hase as a 'po~rnesrhecic' one in which it was exduJed frnm aeschcric evoluticm for a rime" (Ln WalJ, Selected fi.ssaysand /11teruiews, p. 150). Wall's essay is an indi~pensable guide to rhe developments he charts. , ! All fou r were shnwu ar the Murra)' Guy Ga llery in New York, November 2001.-.fanuary 1.00;, which is where and when I cncmrnrered Streuli's work for rhc first rime. ln all rhcse videos the proportion of im.ige widrh ro height is -1: -;. Most of the rime, Streu li phu:ed his small camcrn 011 a suppMt where it cn uld stay for the durarion of the fixedang le videos; in the George Strecr Bus Stop videos, where the.'camera tracks particular ~ubjecrs, ht' placed h,~ camera on some Blu Tack, the rubb<.!ry,putty-like pressure-sensi tive adhesive, attached to a rai ling near that ~top, which permitted a certain amo 11nt of flexibility of angle of shuoring. My thanks to Beat Srreuli for clarifying thest: and orher technica l m3tters for me. According ro Srreuli, che videos were ~hot through the window of a coffee shop, with his camt:ra on a tripod; in fact rhat is where the sound tr:ick comes from ..music and talking inside that [coffee sh,)pl" (persona l com mun icatilln). 1-I Ar rhc University t1f Massachusetts , Amherst exhibition Strculi showed a wurk with the same title but it somewhat lacer dare ( 1 1-01-02.) that was significantly different from the Murray Guy version. For ont• thing, it was projected on 1, nor 1 walls; fvr anot her, it had been edited so as ro emphasize effects of disconri nuit)', absrraction (e.g., hy dwdling on the co lored sides of passing trucks), and collage - even, :it times, unintelligibility. I found it cha llenging and impressive. 7
Willi.1111 Klein ,ired
111 Ferguson,
R "On Winog.rnnd's New York: A Convrrsation
1,
,5
Vinct'nt Kari,; ",treuli grants his ~uhjects rheir 11>1tive gra..:e rart1a lly hy the way he frnmes chem·· ("The Nt'w York Ph11rogrnrhs of Beal Strt'11li," Bct1tS1rc11li:I\Je11 1 York City 1 00 0 - 0 2 [New York and Osrfildern -R11i1, Germany. 200 :;I, p. 1.05). From the Murray (,uy Caller) ' h.111 five or ten secunds bur sometimes 111ud1longe r); occasionAlly individual images br iefly overl.1ppetl; local culor was incense as wa~ the contrnsr becween light and shadow. l he effect was of a series of ponraits of persons unaware of being phmographed and whose "inner" stare~, althoug h perft.l"tly unreadahle, were ncverthelcs~ made almost physical ly palpable m rhe viewer. Williams again; "Prese.'nted in a series of srills dissolving inw thl' ot her, eac h person seemed isolated within his or her own thoughts , rerhaps prompting a srrongcr degree of pt:rsonal identification from rhe audiencr" (ibid.). 17 As Kar1, remark s: "By nor entering into a persona l relationship with his suhjecrs. he c,1prures rhem in their natura l, unguarded St3re, Fr0m this ·omnisde nc' position, he makes significant chc,iccs. He chnosrs not to highlight people's awkward failures of compos ure but rather their gracefu l no rm;iliry" ('·New York Photographs:' p. 20,) . 18 In an interview, David Brirrain asks Streu Ii: ~ Most of y1111r picturt:s are uf young people. b that bcc,wse tht')' are rhe main ta rget group for most advertisers?"' Srreuli rep lies: "I do wke pictures main ly of young people. It's comp lex. 1\/ly ,v~>rkdoesn 't speak about individ 11.1ls (it's nor portraitun: in the m1ditiona l sense-), it tries m ~peak ahout life in general in cities in the West - which is where I live and what I understa nd. So for this r)•pe of work I need images and places wh ich a re open and mu IC>ospecific. This works better when I use young people as subjects. Publicity abo uses models who are pretty neutra l, and not o nly because it cargets yo1111g peop le. Thar's how 'pub lic images' work: open images which stand for a lor ()f other images anti prop le, which can rcOecr a lor of Jifferent pro jection s as well. On the orher hand, I also choose my subjecrs by simple human inrcresr. It was surprising though when I saw the first picrnre, rakcn in Oxford Strt:t:t ILondon, for :1 projecr commissioned by the Tate Gallt:ryJ and they were al must representative of the Jemograp hi~ nf this shopping mile. Hur r wouldn ' t mind if the pictures didn'r reflect reality in the ·politically cocrt'ct way' -1 am nut only miking about reality, ir'$ my persona l fiction of evrryday lift! as well" (''The C..rowd.'' Creative Camera, no. H7 I 1997 1: 35 ).
f"\Otes to pages
239-1-15
383
19 The crucial passage reads: "lllr is another narure whid1 speak~ tof slow motion and enlargement, revt'als tht' secreL It is th rough photography that we firsr discover rhe existe nce of this op tica l unconscious. just as we dislovcr the instinctual unconscious rhrough psychoan alysis" (W:1lcer Benjamin, •·Lierle History of Photo· nd Kingsley graphy'' ( 193 1), trans. Edmund Jephcotr >1 Shorcer. vol. :z.of Selected \Vritings. 4 vols., rrans. Rodney l .ivingsrone et al., ed. Michael \V. Jennings, How ard Eiland, ;ind Gar)' S111irl1 [Ca mbri dge, M;iss., and l.011do11,1999 J, pp. 510-12). 1.0 As Srrculi says ro Brirr.ain. "I don't believe th:u photo· graphy can get beneath the surface . As you see, rhe depth is unly surface-deep in rhe photographs. At rhc core of my work there is rhi~ eterna l hack-and-forth between being confi ned to c,ne's ow n individual iry and rhat longi ng tu be part of the orher, rhe o utside world: rhe impossibility of ever being able to ger beneath anot her person's sk in" ("The Crowd," p. 3~). Thi s was sa iJ in r':)97. before he began making videos, hut it seems un likely that his vicw~ have subsramia Ily clrnnged. 2.1 This is also true of Venice l:1each09-20 - 03 (2.003). a pair of projections of passers-by shot at tairly close range walking along rhe beach from right ro left and left to right wirh breaki11g waves (ou r of focus) in rhe middle disrance. The conjunction of the setting and rhe rhythmic rising a nd serrling of the walkers feels particularly apt. __ Heinrich von Kleist, .An Abyss Dee(I Eno11g/J:Letters of
1...j
25
2.6
:z.;
z.9
Heinrich 11cmKleist with a Selectiu11o/ Essays a11tiAnecdotes, rrans. and ed. Philip 8. Miller (New York, 198:z.), 30 p. ! 14, emphasis in original. C. goes nn ro say: "'Puppets, like elves, require the gro und only w toucl, nn, and by thar momentary ohscruc rion ro reanimate rhc spri ng of their limbs-;while we: reqnire ir ro rest on, and to recover from rhc exe rtions of the dance: a momt'nt which is dearly not dance in irself, and with which there is nothing ro be done excep t ro make ir disappear by all pos~ible means.''' Further page references to Kleisr's essay will be in parentheses in the text. 23 Beat Streuli, personal communicaciop. 2.4 In the case of the Fall :z.006 ~howing of rhe revised 8th Avenue ,111d35th Street ar the University of Massachuseru, Amherst, the physica l separation of the three projections (in a large space wirh pillars) was so radical thar it was impossible ro rake in a ll three simu ltaneously from a single posirion even if one rurned bodily in place. Also in rbat exhibirion was a recent work, l'urte de F/all(/re, Bruxelles OJ - Oil (2005 ), ser in a large ly Arab neighborhood in Brussels and depicting persons apparen rly waiting for buses. Thi~ was shown on three separate plasma screens ser against a long wall in a narr ow room. an arrangement rhat wmpc llcd the viewer ro give his or her arrenrion ro one
384
notes 10 page~ 245-25~
31
i2. 33
34
35
~creen at a rime, ,tll th e while regisrering s1LLb linun a lly thl.' fact rhar two other screens wen• s1mulr-,incously 111pl,,y. The acrion rakes plat:e 11150'1/nof normal speed, which (ir curns out) requires the l'iewer ro look hard ro ascenuin 1h,1t rhe image stream has in fact heen slowed. The strain 011 one·s arcenrion was rherefore considerable, ar the same time as the conrenr of each mumtor was ofren spellbinding. l had rhe feeling char Porte de Fla11dremight be Streuli's srrongesr work tu dare (of those I have seen). Pett:r Galassi, Philip-Lorca diCorc,a (New York. 1':)':)5), p. 5. Further page references to rbis es\ay will he in paren theses in the rexr. fhar is my claim, a nyway. But ocher views a1re pos~iblc. f.'or examp le: "A man wearing oDly sho rts sands a ceiling nf dauscrophobi..: lowness, his gesru re reOet:1:edin a d1rstcovered polygonill mirror sec on a rndiaror b,ehind him. The entire atmosphe re seem~ blam:hed, permeawd br chc whirc dusr o( his efforts, yet the light pouring i11 from rl1t: windows tn the left seems to touch encl, surf.ace as cart'fully as he himst'lf rouclws rhe ceiling. 1-/e'sfows ·ed on 11 /11 tlu• point o(sel/-forget/11/ness. To work. we remember, ism give one's arrention ro rhc objecr of labor rarher than onese lf and when I m•l.'d ro imagine myself w1)rking, I suspect my mind will conjure this image" (Barr)' chwabsky, Artfor11111 . vol. 42. !September 2.00,il: 2.58, emp hasis ad ded). Citt'd by Tan Lin in the enr ry on diCorcia in Strangers: The Pirst ICP Trie11111t1 / of f'hotugrt1JJh)•t111dVideu, exh. car. (New York, 2.003), n.p. Sophie Cla rk in Cruel and Te11der: The Real in the Tt11c11tieth-Ce11tury l'lmtograph, exh. car .. ed . Emma J)exrer and Thomns \Xlcski(Londo n a nd Co logne, 2c)o3-4), p. 2.5X. Furrher page references to her remar ks will be in parentheses i11rhe cexr. Mark Stevens, "In rhe Moment," Nell' Yem~, Ocrnber 14, 1996, p. 97. Further page references m rh1s a rt icle will be in parent heses in the rext. Michael Fried, Absorptio n ,111dTheatricality: P11i11t111g anti Beholder in the Age of Diderot (1980; Chi,:ago and London, 1986). pp. 69-70, 145-6 0. Andy Grundberg, "Street Farc,n Artfum111,vol. 37 (Febru:irr 1999): 81-3. Flrrrher page references ru ·rhis arride will he in parenrheses in t he rext. Clark in Cmel and Tender, p. ~58. Luc ~ante, "T he Planets," f'hilip-l.orcc, diCnrria: Heads (New York, -!OO 1 ). n.p. Same's essay begins: "ln these photographs the air is black, but nor because ir is nighr. The hour does not matter. The isolated subjecrs are manrled by a light that comes from :ibove, but it is not a stage lighr. Tht.:y are nor performing, they are unawa re of rhe light .... Th ey do nor know thar they a re cxpose
9
demand, hofer, and others
Recent works on J)cmantl include: Tlm111as IJemnnd: l'hotogrc1/1/,y,exh. cat., with an essay by Ralph Rugoff and 1'l a srnry by Julia Franck (Bregt'n7., :z.004); Rmiana Marcoci, Thomas Demand. e:xh. car., wirh a sho rt srnry by Jl:ffre)' Eugenidcs (New York, 2005); and Thomas Demand, exh. car., wirh an essay by Beatriz Cl!lomlna and a convcr~ation between Alexande r Kluge :ind Thomas Demand (Lon don, 2006). ::. Dean Sobel, "Thoma~ Demand: The Basic Facts," in Thomas Demand, ex h. cat. (Amsterda m a nd Aspen, 200 L:z.),n.p. Further references to rhi~ essay will be in parentheses in the rexr. 3 Marcnci, "Paper Monn," in Marcoci, rtw111t1sDemand, 9 pp. 9- 10. Furrher page references to this essay will be in parcnrhese~ in rhe rexr. 10 4 See e.g. Ruedi Widmer, "Interview with Thomas Demand: Building rht' Scl'ne of rhe Crime," Cttmera Ausll'la lntem11tio11t1l, no. 66 (July 1999): 10. The relt'v:rnt t:xcha11gereads: Widmer: " l.er's be~in ar the beginning. To hegin with it is an cvt•ryday rlace. \orncrhing happens ... " Demand:" ... and this is something rhar is rahooed or co ndemn ed 111 sociny ... " \Vidma: " ... an acr ... " Demand: " ... 11 exac rly, an act. /\nd this act is expe lled from irs everyday conrexr because lr doesn't belong rhere. Because it produces 12 somet hing that inOuences sociery; because ir is beyond rhe bound, tif the general run of events." Widmer: "Tht.:n alnng cnmes ~nmennt: and takes a picture." And furth er on ( 1 r ): Witlmer: "The way yot1 SCt'things is wmerimes rderred m as like a 'd etective.' What does rhat me:in?" For Demand's an~wer sec his remarks about Corridor, eired in the text below. furrher page references ro \Xfidmer's interview will be in pa renrheses in the text. For Lars Lerup , too, "Dema nd 's phorographs often appear ... as a reconstruction of a cri me scene (for cx:1111ple, Office of 1995 ). But these are scenes devoid of all eriminal paraphernalia, human imprint s, a nd accretionsthey contai n o nly suggestive residue. Demnnd's scenes have bet:11verrecl and san irized co such a degree that the crime itself is only appreciable in its most heinous essence'' ("Deman d 's Demand," in Thomas Demand JAmsterdam and Aspen J, n.p.). 5 See Jan Philipp Rccmrsn1:1. In the Cellar, trans. Caro l Brown Janeway (New York, 1999), for a gripping account of the kidnapping and his 11 days in capriviry. 6 Sobel writes: "Poll, ltkc many of Dcmand's works, has the look of the afterma rh of a cri me scene (which rhe ac tua l locarion perhaps was - accordi ng to sume report~, foul play, frum participants such as the candidates' atlvisor and rbe Florida Secretary of Stare. 111:1)' have haJ an effect on rhe rec<1unr)" ("T homa s Demand: The .Basic races," n.p.). , More recenr ly, Demand exhibired at the Serpentine Gallery, London in Summer 2006, five photographs making a compound pit:ce ca lled 'liwern (2006), based 1m "a n incident at 13 a sma ll bar opposire the railway srarion in Burbach, a district of Saarhri.icken, where a linle boy ... was suffocated with a cushfon and then disposed of in a bin-liner. His step-
sister was the culprit" (Th omas Dem<111d in ·' A C,mversation between Ale,cander Kluge and Thorn.ls Demand," m Thomas Demt111dJLondonl, p. S5). rranc;:ois Quincon, "There is 110 ln11ocen1Ronrn, ·· Tlw11ws Dem,md, cxh. car. (Par is, 2.000), p. 52.. Further page rcfe,~ ences ro this interview w,11be in parenrhescs in rhe text. As Marcoti writes: "despile their illusion ism, Demand's sraged tableau). revei1l rhe mech.inisms of rhcir making. Minute imperfections -a pencil mark ht're, an e.xposed edge there, a wrinkle: in the paper- are dc liberare ly left visible. The lack of detail anti cool, uniform lighting cxptise the who le as a consrructin 11. Once they have hccn phorographed. the mudels are destroyed. The resulting picrures are cnnvim;ingly real and strange ly artificial" ("Paper Moun.'' 10). Yilmaz Dziewiur, "A Thousand Words: Thomas Demand la lks About 'Po ll,'" Art(oru111,vol. 39 (May 2001): t45. Parveen Adams, "Demand without Desire: The Work uf Photography Thomas Demand," l'ort({l/10: Cu11te111por,;ry 111 Britain, no. 38 (December 2003): 1.0. %e also suggests rhar rhe objects in Dcmand's phorographs, because plainly 1101 objc•crsof desire, are "objects ns they are, o r at least as ncar to th em as it is possible to be" (ibid., slighrly recast in the plural). This seems wrong. Reg1s Durand, "Tr:icings," in Tlmnms Demand (P,1ris), p. 87. See Rosalind E. Krauss," utes ori the lnd ex: Parr 1," The Urigi1wlity uf the Ava/It-Garde anti Otha/' Modernist Myths (l.amb ridge, Mas~., an d London, r985), p. 1.03; see alsc, ch . 6 n_ 1 2. a hove. The terms icc,n and index are Jerived from the writings of Char le~ Sanders Peirce; Krauss refers ro C. S. Peirce, "Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs," Phi/cisc,f>hic Writings o/ Peirce (New York, 19 55), p. 106. More recenrly, Krauss's views, alo ng wirh her use of Peirce, have heen criticized br .Joel Snyder in ·'Po intless," in .J::1.111es Elkins, ed. Photography Theory (New York and London, :z.007), pp. 369-400. For Walter Benn Michae ls in "Phocographs and fossils'' (ibid., p. 4 32.), howe ver, responding coSnyder and more broadly to rhe questioning of the notion of index.icality as a marker of che photographic elsewlwre in Elkins's volume, "mdexicali t)' - if onl)' in the form of .1 problem - is cenrral w both the medium specificity of 1hc photograph And, at leasr in rht' last 1.0 years, to whf!r Abigail Solomon-Godeau ca lls the mher ropit: of interest and controversy in rhis vnlumc, ·photography's rek1rion to art historical disrnur~e.'" Michaels adds in a 11ote:"Indexicaltty is icenrrn l to the medium specificiry of rhe photo· grap h, ere. J. bur Peirce prohah ly is nm. We oug ht to disconnect the claim that rhe distinctive ca usal connection herween the referenr uf a phorograph and the photograph itself is important to the theory uf phorography from the claim that Peirce's semiot ics is similar ly important. The lauer claim might be true but it dt1esn'r fol11)wfrorn lhe former" (p. 448). I shall have more ro ~ay about Michaels's essay in the (c) nclusic,n tc) Lhis book. See Michael Fried. ''A rt and Objecrhood" (1967), in 1dc111, Art and Ol>j1.1ct lmnd: l:.ssays and Reuicws (Chicago nnd London, 19~8), pp. 14~-7:z.. Further page references ro rhis essay will be in pnrenrheses in Lhe text. See also ,r/1.1111,
no tes to pages 261-270
385
,4
.. Shape .1, I orm: hank licellJ ·s Ecccntm. Polygon,·· ( 1•160). pp. 77-9
,~
16
,7
(October 1966): 2.0-i,. ··An and Oh1cc:rlmod," p. 153. Walter Benn ~liducl\ comments on elm ~tatemcnt as follcms: "lhe ·virtual!}' here,~ .1little nu~lcaJ,ng bccJu,e, .1~fried ~oc~on co ~a}, Jlthough the 'ohjer t, not the beholder, muH remain the ccntt!r or focus of the ,itu:.1t1un,' 't he situatio n itself /1t'/1,ngsro th e beholder - it i, Ins situ;mon.' The pn:,,·nce of the beholder ts srrucrur:11 rather than empirical. ,incc without him there 1s no :.iruation anJ thl'rdorc no luera li,t .trt. The po,m hrre i, nnt II kimJ of ge11ernl1dt:alism, not th t: id~1 thnt the nbicct cumc,. inro cx iste111.:e only wht'n rhe beholder encounters it and therefor"" that rhere 1~ !>Otnt: .<,cn,t in which he crt!ate~ it. Although 1h1s posmon \\ ill quidd) emerge a~ <:entral Ill certJ in torrm, of literary theo ry, in Friet!'s account ot M111imalism, rlw ohjcet ex1bt~o n its own ,111 righr; what depends on the hcholJcr is onl} the experience. Hur, of c,,ursc, the experience " t·verythinl:\ - it 1s the expem·11cein, tc,1d of the ob1cct rh.11 Minimali,m vnlucb" (The Sha/Jt'of the St,ll,llt/ier: , •J67 to /I)(• f:.11dof /-11 slr11)' IPrinc c·mn, N.J. . a nd Oxford, :i.004J, p. 89, l:'.mphasi~ 111original!. Michaels·~ bnok is a w1dcrnnging .:ritique of r<:cent th<:orcncal ;ind fa:rional te,rs .111oi which nuke the error of "thinkf mg! of liter:nure Jur ~rtf in tt'rm~ nf the cxpem:nce of the reaJer Jor beholder] rather th :111rhc intention of rhe author, and fof s11hsntut rngl the qucsmm of who people arc for th<:4uestion of what the~ bclic,c•'' (trom rhe lx,ok jacker). Pmh.1hl> rh,~ i, made mo~r ne,trl) e,plic:it in cerrain remark, ahou t the wor~ of the Brin~h ~culp ror Anrhony Ca ro. E.J:\.,•·A dwracreribtic scu lptur e by Caro cnmis rs, I wanr co ~ay, in rhe murual and naked /11xtapositio11of the l-be.1ms, girders, q linders, lengrhs of piping. shret metal. .ind grill that II comprise, r:uher than the compound 11/lie!Cl that they compose. The::mulltal inflection of one clement by ,u,o rher ... ts what ,, crucia l ... The individual cle ments he!>toW :.ign,ficance on onC' another prcrm:ly by virtue of their j11xrapmit1011: It is in this sense. a sense 111cxtric.1bly involved wirh the concept of meaning. chat everything in Ca ro 's arr that" \Vorth loo king ,iris ,nit~ syntax Jfir,t said by me in m~ , 963 inrrodm:rio11 to Caro·~ \Xlhitechapcl ex hihirionl ... h i~ as though Caro's ~culpturi!!, es~enci.llize mcanmgfulness .1s such - .1s rho111,:h the po)sibilit) nf meaninl! ,vht1t we sar a11ddo a/o11emakt', hi~ sculp tur e possible_ All th b, it is h,trdl y necessary to ,Hid, 1m1kc, Cn ro's list a11d antirhea crical ~cnsiJrt a fount:tinhead of ,1111ilirera h1lit}•· ('· J\1t :tnd Ob1ectho11d," pp. 1I\ 1-1., emph,1s1s in origmal). 1-=rom"Art Jnd Objccth11od": "the hehn lder fof a minimal1\t/literali,.1 work I knows him,elf ro \t.1nd in an ,ndctcrmin.:ite, opl'll · cndcd - and une'Caccin~ - rC'l:irion as s11bwctto the impJs s,vc object on the wall or lloor- ( 1H). The .1mirhcs1\ between nmdt'rni~t Jctt'r111111.1q · .11111m1111mal-
:::J86
no10:::slo pages '270-277
1,r/lirt'rall\t (,11~0p(htmodcrni,r) 111dctcrm111acr" .1 ccntrJI theme in Jennifer A,hton. /-,01111\lmler111s111In P11st11111demis111 . A111i'rtc.111 flntJtry ,111dTl,cory m tl.tt• 111'e11t1etl, (C:im bridgc Jnd New Ynrk, !00 1 ). Ce11t11ry 1!l -A Convcr,,ttion ht, in Jn~ cmc photograph. a smgle co11sllft1t111e dmia: the choice of the in,tam w he phtitographcd. Tltt.• phorogr:iph, comi~ th erefore par ed with ocher mc,ln\ of c.:0111111unicatit1n, we,tk in 1ntcn tiunali ty'' (pp . 89-90, emphasis. in 11rigin.1I). The rradcr will pr11b.1bl) !eel, ju~rifiahly in my, iew, that a photographer make, for more rhan imt ont· constitutive g a picrure: he o r she ~elects a cho ice in thl' :ict uf 1.1t...111 ~uhjecr, dH10,ts a d 1,rnnce •.ind a point of view, makes adjustments fo r the lighri11g, ofren changing the ~peed or rhe opemng of the shutrer, ere. (In fo~t \\e shoulJ pmh:ihl> ' 5tart further hai:k \\ irh till' 5cfecrion of the cam er J .111dfilm.) Yet Bergl•r's basic th esis, thar then: i, ~omethin g 111the nature of J photograph rhat escapes total d ercrininarion by the phmogr.1pher, can sti ll be maintai111ed. lkrger·s remark ,, ~·,red :tnd discu,sec.l b} Walter Benn M1cl1Jel~ in "Action .111dAcridcnr: Phmography and Writing.~ 111idem, a11dLiu: Logic of N11111mlism( Berkeley, The GtJ!dS11111dard Los Angele,, a nd Lon dlln , 1987), pp. 236,-8. 'oee a lso ,\1ichacls\ essar ··Ph orograpbs and rossils,'' in Plmtogr,ipl,y Tlu:on•, and the pages on photograph) (large!) · on the work ot Jam e~ Welling) in The !:,/,11/11! of the Signifier, pp. 95-1 05 . !O f\1ichaels, "Action anJ Accident," p. !JO. fhe phrase occurs in a \entence dealing with che question as to whether or not I.ii> Bart 111EJith Wh.1rron's The ll1111se,,( Mtrth meant ro kill herself when she rook ., forall ovcrdnse nf c.:hloral. " It Mc:emsmisrnken, though, m 5ay either that she did or that ~he didn't," Michaels writes. "to r rhe whole rhrusr of the novel h.1s been re, 1ns1M on the econon11c, crmic . anJ moral chJrm nf acnons 1113,rkcd by an irreducible discrcpam:y between inren tinn and effct:t. " Mi.:hae l~\ point is th,11 the sa me di&crc:pancy is bastl' to the rnughl) con temporary di~course of phorography. Cf. Diane Arbu,.·s remarks, quoted ,md di~cu~wd in Ch. -: "Fvcrybody has thJt dung where they need ro look one way bur they rnmr out lookin g anmher wrty ..ind that's what people ohsen e .... Our whole gui~e is like giving a &ign to the \\'(1rld ro rl11nk of us 111a certain way but rhere'~ a point between wh.11 you wanr people ro know .,bou r you and what you can' t help people knowing ,1bolll ),Ou. /\nd that hns to do with what I've always called the gap hi;rwecn intention .rnd effect" (Dia11t•Arbus: A11Aperture Mo110gr.ipl, I 'cw York. 197 2.J, pp. 1-i ). 11 Qumed in Dennis Longwell. ed .. " ,\1onkevs ~lake che
Problem \l ore Difficult: A Colb.:uve Interview with <..arr) wardnc~s and c1v1c malaise, a ,um coral of haJ decisuln, W1nogr.1nd ... Image. ~nl. xv, no. 2. (July , 972.): -1· from the banal ·G.:rman· rhemc-park architecture tu the • • Lee l·ncdla11dt:r, "An Excess of Fac.:r,'"in The Desert ~I'm sllltpping m:ill faliade ,111duncomfortable trtt> c,f m,~placcd ( ew York. , 99A), p. 104. Citl'd hy Peter Ga lassi. "Y ou fir rrccs" (pp. 161-2) . Ultim:m:ly they believe that <;truth\ exh. c:ic. Have t•>Change ro tJ)' the Same, - 111l-riedli111drr, c,ry~cape~ are therapeutic in llltl'llt: mdivu.lua Is can restruc (\/cw York. z.oo,), p. q. ture their environnu.-nrs, and h1~phnro~ .. \en~i111..:us to our 23 See J\l1d1aels, "Acnon Jnd AcciJem," esp. pp . .!1--2.0. surroundings, encouraging us tc, li,te11 to pnrttcular cunt:\ .q An ,1vcrsimplific:mo11, en iliac .1 versio n of rhi, 1d1::i ~ur vived of .111 thllr is germanl'~ (p . 162). (nr returned) in an invcrrcd form in pll~tmoJerni,.m's val- 2.8 Perer 'ichjeldahl. "Gt,d\ Srruth," / he Village Vu,ce. March orr1arion of phorogr,tphy rh.11 pos11'1vdy aimed nor ro be 2, 1998, page number ,llegihlc. arr. -1 hus, - :Vtichacls wrircs. "1n an ,mpcirc.mc es!,ar called Z\I Pcrcr '>ch1eldahl. "l-piphan),"' /1,1rkctt, no. ~ 1 (December 'Phorography after ,\rt Phorography,' Ah1g:iil Snlomon1997): 168. Godeau co uld arg ue that plwrography had come ro 'fig ur e ~o Rohen Muoil, Tbe M,111Without Q1111/iti es, a vok, rrnn,. as a uudal rcrm 1n posrmodernism' precisely insofar as Sophie Wilkins and 13urwn Pikt• (New York, 19•H), vol. 11, ir had repudiated the ambicion to make phocograph~ "From the Posthumous Paper~." pp. 1758-':I, See abu the into works of arr and had taken instead ·an 111stru111enral remarkable pages on 1magimn~ Cod .is "rhe Etern:11 Arn~1" 1/cd approac h co the medium; .1&in Cindy Sherman's U11t1 (ch. 50, pp. tu 1-,0), including two passages thar ~ecm Film S1ills. und ers tood simp ly as phocograph11.: r~cords ol espcdri lly pertinent here: rhe arn,r's disguisrs and poses" (T/,e Shapeof the Signifier, p. 9"'-8). \l1d 1aels goes on ro rchab,lirace the d,11ms of Jrt fUlrteh, Musil'~ prm.1gomst, Wrtrl's in his d1ary:f dA CII) photography. largcl) in rerms uf :1 discussion of the work suc.:has ours, lovel>· Jnd old, with its superb arc.:hitecrur,11 uf Jame~ Welling. The reader will recall thar in Ch. 1 I ~ug st,1111p , which ov1.•r rhc co ur se of ages ha, arcsen from ge~rcd th,ir rhc posnnodern account of rhc role of photog changing tasre, is a sing le great wicnes, ro the capaci ty raph) in Sherman's U111ttledh/111Stills may well have ~old for loving and rhe 1ncapac11y for loving long. Thi: proud them \hort JS Jrt 111rhar regard. sequence of tlm city's scrucrures represent, nm onl) J 1s lmp \1rtJnt studies of che issut! of nm-compnsing 111twcnti great histor) hut al~o ::i consrant change in rhe dire.:rion crh-ccmury an includ e: Yve-A lai11 llu1s. "'-rru minski and of thnughr. Luokcd :it in thi s manne r, th e city 1~a mura Kobro: In Search of Mori varion." 111 />a111ti11J! as Model hiliry that has become a chJtn of srone and thar surveys (Ca mbrrdge, Mass., and London, 1y90 ). pp. 123-55; 1dt•111, uself differently c1 er) quJner c.:encury 111order ro he -surprise Jnd Equanimity." 111Rohen Ry1111111, exh. cat. nghr, in the end, for eternal ogcs. Its mure eloquence i~ (New York, 1990), n.p.; ide111,·'The Limit of Almosr, .. in that nf dead lips, Jnd the more enchantingly seJucrivc it Ad Rc11dmrdt, ex h. car. (New York, 1991), pp. , 1-33; is, rlw more violcncl)' it must evoke. in irs most profound idem, "1-=llsworrh Kelly in France: Anri-Composirion in !rs moment of pleasing and of expropriation. hlind resis Many Guises," m f.llsworth Kelly: The French Ye,1rs,exh. tance and horror." JI uf>--1 cat. (Washington, n.c.., 1992.J, pp. 9- 36; and H oward " ... If what we expres~ wnh word~, no matter how Singermnn, "Noncom position Effects, or rlw Process of magnificent rhcy are, is mo stly just a meaning, an Paintin g in 1970." Oxford Art }011mt1l,vol. 26 (2ooi): opinio n, then wh.u we express without worJ, ,~ a lway, 12,-50. unc. 26 In the first place h> him, c,r \I irh lus acceptance: U11co11'·Therefore I sa): Our realer). as far as tt 1s dependent scin"s Places w:is th<: title of hi, exhibi tion of hlack-andon u~, is for Lhe most part only an rxpre»irn1 of opinion, whitc ettyscapl,s that opened in Berne in 1987 before alt hough we ascribe every 1mag111:1bl e kind of importance tr:tvding to Porriku,, 1-'rankfurr-:tm-Main, ,rnd Munster; tt1 it. We may give our lives .i specific manifcMarion 111 rhr catalogue c:onta1ned essays b) Ulrich l.1K1-.~.lngo H artthe ~tones of buildrngs: ir is alway\ dvne for the sake of mann, and Friedrich ~lcschede. See also l.oock, MTh oma, a meaning we impute ro tt .... 1-ursome rime Agathe and Srn,rh: ·Unconsciou~ Places,"' l'arkelt, no. q (~p ring I have been sens iti ve to a certain haunrcJness in the 1990): 1.8-J [. empirical world. £very detail in which our ~urro unding s ·Cf. M:iri:t Morris l-l.1mbourg and Douglas Fklund, "The manift·sr rhcmselvec<,'\peak~ to u~.' le mc.,n~ ~umething. Space of H istory.· · m Thon1t1sSm,tl, , y,7 - 2002, exh. cat. Ir ~how\ 1har ir has come into being \dth ,, purpose thar (Dalla~, Los Angele~, ew York, Chicago, 2.002): "St ruth' s ,s by 110 means fleering. It is, r,1 ht: sure, onl) .in opinion, city~cape!, pre sent the prcsenr wirh past intact, in which hut it appears as n cmwicrion. It is merely .1 sudde n id ea, any give n moment is bur an accumulation of past intenti o ns but acts as if 1t wae a n unsh:tkahlc will. ... tha r c,rn be unlm:ked through phorography. Like relatives " It ,cems ro ht' willfulness, hut II enJblcs me m underposing for a group porrra,r, each structure 111the street smnd whar 1 St'e if I norc in add,ricm: llm opposinon seems possessed of rhc ~ame paradoxical mix ot autonomy between the sclf-ob,.ession th.it puffs our rhc chesr of and inccrtlependcnl 'C. In a Rom::tn piazza, :.i Jstacue of a I everything we ha ve crea ted 111 Jll its sp lendor. and lh e bishop intercedes on behalf of a rickety LJrt above rhe secret trait of being given Lip .md abandoned, which like fading lmrs of a par~ing lor .... Other space~. ~11chas rhe w1~e hegins with rhe firs, minmc, is wholh :ind com new pl.11.a 111 Dortmund, Germany, exude a St!nse of awkplete!} in agreement with my cal1111gever)'th1ng merely
,cs
notes to pages 272-2:81
387
an opinion. Ky this means we recog11i1.erhat we arc in :i peculiar )iru.niun. I-or ewry ,lltrihution of mea11ing shows the Mime double peculiarity: ;is long JS it is new it makes us impatient with ever)' oppos ing meaning (when red parnsols are hnving rheir day, hluC' ,,nes :ire 'impo ssih le' - but something simil11ris also true of our ..:onvicti11ns);rer it is the setund pcculiariry of every meaning rh.11 ir is nt!vcrrhele~, given up with rime, enrirdy of it\ own accord and just ,1s surely, when it is no longer new. I once ~aid that rea lify docs away wi rh itself. It co uld lll)W bc pvr like chis: IF man is fur the mosr pnrt only pro claiming meanings, he is never entire ly and enduringly proclaiming lrnnself; but eve;:nif he c.:annever comple tely i::xpress himself, he will rrv it in die most various ways, and in doing so acquires a history.·· I 1:.1.8-';1I
34
n
One final passage. from ch. 2..1.,helps clinch the point: While busy with a ll this l Ulrich I was watc.:hing rhe possinf. trolley cars, wairing for che one that would take him back as dose as possible to the center of rhe town. He saw peop le climbing in and out of the cars, and his rechn1cally trained eye.:toyed disrr:1c:tedlywith rhe interplay of wt:lding and casting, rollin~ and bo lding, of engint:ering and hand finishing, of historic.:al development and the presenr state of tbe arr, which combined to make up rhesc barracks-on-whee ls tlmr these peop le were using . ·'As a last srep, a committee from the municipa l rransporrntion department comes to the factor)' and dec.:ides what kind of wood to use as veneer, the color of the paint, npholster y, arms on rhe seats and strap s for sta ndees, ashtrays, and the like," he thought idly, "and it is prec.:isely rhcse trivia l derails, along with the red or green rnlor of the exterior , and how they swi ng them,elves up rhe sreps ,111dinside, that for tens of rhousands of people.:make up what they remember, a ll they expcdc nct., of a ll the gt:nins that went into it. This is what form, their characrer, endows it with speed or comfort; it's what makes them perceive red ca rs as home and blue ones as foreign, and adds up lO that unmistabble odor of counrless details that clings to the c.:lorhingof the centuries." So there was no denying-and this s udden ly rounded our Ulrich's main line nf thought - that life irscli largely peters ouc into rrivial reali ties or, to put it technical ly, that rhe powe r of irs spiriwal coefficient is extre mely small. 194 3-4 I It may be that die emire line of spec ulatio n Musil attr ibutes to Ulrich io these and ocher passages would have been unthinkab le before phorography . 31 Her rcnec.:tionappears in othe r works as well. ~cc Michael Diers, ••A Ph ysiognomy of Public Interiors: Notes on Candida Hi\fer's Ciry Images,·• Candida I li:ifer:Hamburg (Cologne, 2002), pp. 103, 108. 3.1. Mury-Kay Lombino, "Inner Order,'' in Candida lfiJ(cr: Architerture 1JfJ\i?se11a:,exh . car. (Long Beach, Cal., West P31m Beach. Fla., Provo, Ut., 1005-7), p . .1.5.Further page references ro this essay will be in parentheses in the rext. 3 _; Constance Glenn , "Cand i.la Hofer: Ab~ence in 1,nntexr."
388
notes to pages 284 - 294
36
37
38
:19
40
41
in ibid., p. 1 X. further page refert·nces m rhis essa>· will bl' in parentheses in rill' text. See ·'P(lst-' 6os Photography anti Its Modernist Contt:xt: A Conversauon herwecn Ji:ffWall and Joh11 Roberts." in lcff Wall, Sl.'lectedr.ssays a11d/111~,n •iel{IS,pp. qo-4 1; I qu<>re Wall's remarks in ch. 3, n. 4 c. Cf. JuliJn I lcynen: "When the people who belong m these spaces- rr:ices vf who m art: seen on all ~i,Jt:,- are not present in rhe p1c.:tu rf', , then it is as though th~·viewers srep in and occupy the place with their gaze. Wh:ile the others are away the viewers tarry in rhis plat·e- in this ,1licn placc. lr is a lirtle like the situation of a thid or :i detective or anybo dy who has involuntarily ~tumhlcd i:nro someone else's territl)ry. The unknown rea,on~ for rhea bsence of the others and their possible return to 'their' plac.:t•heighren the viewer's perceptions as the 'i ntrud er''' ("Venice 2003," in Candida Hii(er!M11rti11 K1f)f/l!l1'1erger/Ve11edi8 .2 0 03, exh. cat. !Venice, .1.003J, p. ')!). Again, evcr)'thing depends 1J11 whar Heynen rneJns by traces; the ide,1 thar rhc viewer is made m feel an "inrruder» seems to me riF,ht. Another commentator, Michael Diers, compa res H ofcr's interior s with those of the nineteenrh-ccntur) ' German draftsman and paimer Adolph Menrel, one of the most empat hic artisrs ever (" A Physiognomy of Public Interiors,·• p,p, 1 10-1 .1.).I do nut agree. See in rhis cn nnec11onMichael Fried, Me11zd's RPalism: J\11 and l::mlmdi111e111 in Ni11ett·e11th-Ce11t11ry Berlin (Lond on and New Haven, !002). Morris, ''Note s 011 Sculptur e, Part 2," in, Co11t1111m11s t>ro;cctAltered Daily, p. , r.. Dan Gra h,1m, ·'My Work for Mag,lline Pages: 'A H istory of Conceptua l Arr'" (1985), in A]exnnder Alherro a nd g lake Stimson, eds., Cnncepl11t1IArt: A Criti,·111Anth c1h,gy (Camhr idge, Mass., 1999), p .. p 9. Brian O'Doherty, Inside the White Cube: The lde11 lugy of the Callery Spare, expanded edn. (Berkeley. Los Angeles, London, 1999), p. 14, emphasis io origina l. Furrher references Lll rhis book will be in parentheses in the rext. "There is a pt:c.:u liar uneasiness in wa1d1ing artworks attemj)ting 10 esrab lish terriwry but nor place in rhe contc)-t of the pliH.:elessmodern ga llery" (ibid., p. 27 ). O'Doherry's essays a re cited in relation ro "Airr and Objecrhood '' by Mark Linder; as follows: "In constructing his argument !in 'Arr and Objccthood'I aro und an opposit ion between tht· words 's pace ' and ' room,' Fried himself ·fails to notice' rhe dia lectica l and hisrorica l rclati01nship between rhe rise of rhe a rt 'ob ject' and the modern art gallery :ind art 111u scum: thar is, a specitic genre olf a rchi tecture tha1 Brian O'Doherry late r a llegorized as 'the white cube.' Only with the emergence of the white -walled, bare, high-cei linged arr. gallery as .1commo n type of 'room' cou ld modernist painting and sculprur e mainrain the myrh of autonomy" (Nothing l.ess tha11 Uteral: Architecture n~er Minimalism [Camhridge, Mass., and London, 20041, p. n5). Lindcr's la rger claim. which seems to me correct, is that my writings on modcrni m a lmost wirhout excepti~,n rcprcs~ rhe thought of archite.:rure, which implicit ly plays a negative (i.e. "t heatrica l") role in my• criticism. This is said bv ~ugimoto in Cr111t<1cts I liroshi S11Jp11111t1J
\V/1ttge11stei11, Skepticism, Morality. t111dTragedy (O,.ford and Ntw York, 1979), p. 53ff. Also Espcn l lammer . Sla11/cy C,wcll: Skl'/1tids111,S11h;e.-11111ty. n11dthe Ordinary (Malden, M:1%., .1.002.),ch. 2., "Skepricism: Cri teria and the Externul World." Ca veil's thought, extrapolaring from the work of the Brirish philosopher J. L. Austin, is that skeptica l argumenrs .ihout rite inahillry of human beings to know wirh certai nty about the existence of physical objec.:tscharac.:rer· isrically involve a m,rion vf "gener ic nbjec:ts" in a kind of neutral space rather than uf ",pccific objecrs~ in rea l-world conrexrs. "When jgenericl o bjects prcsenr rhemseln•s to rhe <"pistemologisc," Ca veil writes, ·'he is not raking vne as opposed to am\t her, interested in irs fcnrures as peculiar to it and norhing else. He wot1ld ra rher, so m speak, have an unrecognizable som ething there if he co uld, an a nything, :1 rharncss. \Xl'har cn me5 en him is an island, a body surrounded by air, a tiny eart h . What is at srakr for him in rhc object 1s materin lity as such, exremali ry altogether" (The Claim Cl(Reason, p. 53 ) (its ahstrncr litera lness, we might say). My thanks ro Norton gatkin for suggesting rhe rele42 vance of that notion ro the argument of'' Arr and Ohje,;chood" in '·The Situation of Painting," an unpub lished +3 paper given at a session on ''The Situat ion of PJinring after 44 Mkhael Fried's Art nnd Objecthood" at the 57th annual mecring of the American Society for Ae;therics in 45 Washington, l'.l.c., Ocrober 30, 1999. (The session was orga11iz.edby '.:ltcphen Melville; the other parricipanrs were Ric.:hard Moran and Howa rd Singerman.) In 111) catalogue 46 essay I con clud ed my discussion of Welling and minimalism as follows: "Am I suggestin g rhat l.ock rherefort 47 belongs to the modernist trndirion uf abstract painting and sculpmr e champ ioned against minimalism in ·Art and Ohjecthuo d ?' No and yes. No, in rhc sense that Wclling's first serious works belong to a disrincrly po st-minima l (and post-conceprual) moment, one whc-n photography emerged as a vehicle qf avanr-ga rde amhition as perhaps never hdore, even ,1, ir was fac.:ed as never before with the problt-m of h0w to deal with the canonical photographic 4lj achieve ments uf the past. And yes, in the sense- rhat Lnck implies a rejection not only of rhe literalisr stance coward 4'.1 ubjecrhonJ bur a lso of ~,n entire set of ;;ittirudes assoc iated wirh posrmnJernism that wou ld graor ro a rtistic a..:rivity only the ro les of performance, ap propr iart,)n, dcmysrificn· 10 "good" vs "bad" objecthood: rion, critique" (28). we lling. the bechers, wall An indispensable source for informat ion pertaining m the Bechers and their working prucedures is Susanne Lange, Michae l Fried, "James Welling\ Lock, 1976," fames Bernd nnd I filln Bec/Ja: Life and \\'fork, trans . .Jeremy Wleffing: Photographs 1974-1 y9y, exh. car., ed. Sarah Gaines (Camh ridgc, Mass., and London, 2007). In addi rion Rogers (Co lumbu s, Oh., 8alnm\1re, Los Angeles, 2000-01 ), ro the rext hy Lange, her boc,k includes imporranr interp. 21,. Further pRgl' references tO chis essay will be in paren views wirh rhe Becher, by Mic hael Kohler, Jam es rheses in the re'>:t. for impt)rtant discussions of \Veiling's Lingwood, La nge, and Heinz-Norherr Jocks. wn rk, which moreover treat it in relation ro issues central "The Music of the Blast Furnai:es: Bernha rd and Hilla to chis book, sec Walter Bc::nnMichae ls, "The Photographic 4 Becher in conversation wit h James Lingwood," in ibid., f'hologra/)hs 1977-90, exh. cat , Surface," in jnmes Wlelli11g p. 19!. Further page references m this interview will be (Berne, 1990), pp. 102-13; and idem, The Shnpe of the Sigin parentheses in the text. The interview first appeare d in nifier: 1961 to //}(.'£11dof History (Princeton and Oxford, Ari Press, no. 2.oy (January 1991,), 2004 ), pp. 95-105. 2 With minor c.:hanges. for the philosophica l notion of 5 ~usanne Lange, "Bernd a nd I !ilia Becher: ' Red ucing Ohjecrs to Retainah lc Proportions,' n Bemd 1111d Hilla "generic" objects sec Stanley Cave lI, The Clmm u( R11as1111: (2000 ). a short film hy Jean-Pierre Kricf (rrans lation mine. translation \>fSugimnm 's rt:mnrks by Rnscfrom the Fri::11eh Marit: M,tkino Fayolle). In an ~nicle of 199 ;-, Monty DiPierro write\: "To get the powdery sea effect [n North Atl,111t1cOcea11,Cape Breton lsla11rl( 1996)," a work rhl'n 011 view ar thl' Galler) Koyanagi on rhe Ginz a strip in Tokyo, "~ugi11111t<) hauled his American-made. wooden cahinc r D11rd(Jrfand Sons came ra our to Newfou ndl and, mounred it on a French tripod, s.:rewcd on .:i Carl Zei\lt lens, loaded an ll x 10 sheer o( Kodak Plus-X 1.!5 ASA film and then pLJla l 6 X neutra l dens it·> filter on the unwie ld )' appa rarn, t(> reduce the film's scnsitivat) to well below . 'That's like rhe speed of 19th-century film, when one /1!:>A phorography was inveured,' he- exp lains. When satistied \l'ith the light and composition, he trippt:d the sh utt er and waited one and a ha lf hours for the seascape image to burn it~elf onto the film" (" I lirnshi Sugimoro ut the GalJery Koyanagi,·• hrrp://www.assemblyla nguage.com/reviews/ Sugimoto. hrinl ). Co11tncls S11gi111nto. The French reads: "IDiesque l'on commence a entrcr dans les derails de l'eau, n n s·y noie. ~ Cw 1111ctsS11gi111nto. Twenty -tivc of the~e photo~ have been gathered in Thomas Strut h, New Pictures from Paradise (M1111ich,!00.1.). Rei Masuda, "A Place for Lnnking: The Photogra phs by Thomas truth ," in Thnmns Stmth: My l'nrtrnit, exh. c;ir. (Tokyo and Kyoto, 2.000), n.p. Daniel .Birnbaum, "Paradise Refrained," /\rtfrm1111, vol. 40 (May 200.1.): 149. Hans Rud o lf Reust , ·'A Thousand Words: Th omas Struth Talks about hi~ ·Paradise' Series," ibid: 1~ 1. Further page references to this article will he in parentheses in the text. Reusr comments: ''Faced with a rericenr image of undifforentia rcd foliage, the viewer's thoughrs havi: nowhere to rurn &:.iveinward. ln rlwse phorographs, $trut h encoume rs the limits of a nondiscursivc photography that de-emp hasizes it~ specifil' objec r thr oug h the motif " (i/1id.) . Garry Winogr:rnd, The A11i111n ls, with an Afterword hy Jo hn S1.arkowski ( 1969: Nt'w York, 100 4 ). Ca ndida H ofe r, Zoolngische Ciirten (Mu nich, 199, ).
notes to pages 29,, -.3116
389
Berl,er: Hii11ser1111dJf.,l/cn (Frankfurt -am-Mam, 11;191. ), 1! p. 1.6. 6 Lange, 1b1d.,p . .1,. 'ihe connnu<.>s:"The adjusrnb1liry of the 13 camera (lilm and lc:ru.carrier!, can be alignt:d dosel> ro each rnher) cnsur~ th:n ;ill rh" lanesat the lens level and the m(1tif level remain p:1rallel. Thus, vertical lines can he kept paralld ... " For more derailed anformanon Jbout camera~ and lilm see Lange, FJerndand / Iii/a Beclm, pp. ;er:; 1. '·Bernd and Hilla Becher hnth feel commirted in equal degree to the ohj,·cts on which they focus. They do nm divide rhe labour up berwccn rhem in rhe cla<.,ical ~ense. [aLh of them es!>enn:ill>docs everything- be it ~dcccmg the motif, producing the photogrnph, or preparing rhe picture\ final presentation" (Lange, ... Reducing Objects,"' p. :.4). 14 !l Lange, i/1id., p . .17. Bernd Bl'<'.her:"If we had ro ~l'Jnd close to a given srru.:ture to photograph it, only the wide angle cnu ld take it in, r1ndonly in the picture i~ ir who lly vi~ible. You can only juuge an ohjcct as a wlwlt: when you have rhe necc~~arydisrnncc. Experience showeu that the wide-angle shot shoukl be rnken from a height hJlf thnt of rhe object, so rhar a normal view can lw achieved" (Ulf 1::.rdmann Liegler, ''The Bethers' lnJ11\trial Le\lco11," an intervie1\ with Bernd and I ltlla Bechi:r,Art m A111eric,1. ,ol. in !June .1.001.I:98). Furrhcr page rl'fcrences to rh1~1nrerv1rwwill he in p3 renthcses 111the rexr. See also Bernd Becht:r\ remarks to Mkhael Kohh:r in "Bernd and HillJ Becher in t:onver~arion with Mu:hJd Kohler." in L1nge. Bemd ,md Hillt1 Be,:l,er,p. 189. The origin::ilinterview ::tppeared in Kii11stler: Krit1sches Lex1ccm dcr Cege11111artsk1111.sr, ed. Loihar Romain anu Detlel Bluemler, no. - (Munich, 1989). 9 I :im thinking <:.g. of th~ place ot ,tlhouerre, in earlier German art, n,irably in rhc work of the Rom.1nr1carrist Philipp Orto Runge ( 1777-1 810). Sec e.g. rhe works illusrrared 111 Philipp Oreo Runge. Scbercnsdmitte, ed. Werner Hoffmann (rrankfurt-am-~laan, 1977). 10 Lange, "Bernd anJ Hilla Becher: lnuu&rrial Land~capcs," intc:rview b)' usannc Lange, in L:ingc, Bemd and Hilla Becher, p . .1.00-01. Taken from Bernd ,md Hill,1 Becher: /11d11str,,1/ Ltmdsc11pes(Cambriuge, Mass., 2002.). 1-urther p3gt references to chis interview will ht.' in parenrhest::s in rhe rext. J I Earlier: ~ All this archirecrurt: i~ nomadic, nor sacred. They are nnr builr to trJnspurt ideas or values into che future. This .m:hirecrure exists ro prodUl:e a special product, and co m~1keprofir through that production process. As soon as rh.u is no longer possible, then rhe building is abandoned. There has been nt, natural him,ry of rhe~e individual industrial forms" ( 19!). In a norher conversation wit h .JeanFra11~m~Chevrier, James l.ingwood, and Thom:i~ Struth, Bernd lkcher explaini. how he and Hilla "discovered rhac rh1s 1ndustnal world was going ro disappear, .rnd we l,3d rhe ,de::tof fixinj.\it .. .'' I lilla Bed1er: " ... There was also rhe idea that these landscapes are not for ererniry, that even 1fthe.') Jasi for fifry years rhe) change all the rime, rhat the} are nomJdit: ard11tecrures, they come and go almost ILke narure. ·1his wus interesting for us" (in Another 0/Jjectiuit)', exh. t:at. IPJm, Prato, London, r988-9j, p. 57).
390
nCTtes ;o pages 306-309
From the back cover of 8a11J er l-/1lluBec!J.,:r,cxh. cat.
(Pans, 2.004-51, my 1ran!>lario11. Sec A1tn11)•111c fik11lptttre11: E111e T)•fJ(l/og1e teclm1scl,er B.111te11 (Du~~eldorf, 197 0) . In tht.> convers.mon with Chcvm:r. Linl!wnod, and Strurh m A11·" ("The Bt•chers' lndu~rrial Le=-.it:on,''p. 94). In the inten•iew proper, Ziegler: ''When was your sysrem, your working proces~. fully in place?" Bernd Becher: "Whe·n we decided cm the typologies in sers of nine. Previously \\l' h:id had th<: phoros in square frames, so we could p,ur in square-, vcri ical- o r hori1onr:1I form:H prints." Ziegler: "Bct:ause rhe square frames neutralized the fom1ar:• Bernd Becher: ··Yes, and for this rC3S(Hl1t W3~ pos~ible to hang rwo or rhrec rows, one above the another lsicj. Ar the s:ime time, 1tcould be observed that the families of ubjccrs ibec:ime more similar.'' Bernd Becher: •·Look at rhc,c rough copies, little l'onracr prints, glued. We finJII)' arrived at the format ... ~ Hilla Becher: "One meter hy one and n half: th o~c were rhe large~t $heets of cardhoard you cou ld buy, and we used rhtm for the mounts. There was no money for framt:s then, nor even in the museums." Ziegler: '"We are lnokmg at nine cooling rowen, in vertical format which ,He stuck onto a 1 by- 1. 5 meter piece of caru." Bernd Becher: .. Yes, and this was rhe firsr winding-rower typology, where we ~till proceeucd quire unsystematicall) ', 1961 to '65. But it was pasted up afrer the 1966 trip ro England. fhere Wl're little conrnct prims on one sheer." Ziegler: "Wht:re do you sec rhe un~ysremaric elemi:nt in this stage oJ >our work?" Bernd Becher: ..They are indecu JII winding mwers, hue there are r)•pes stand ing side by side rh11tare nor really •,imiktr ro each orher. This nnl', for example, doesn't belong. ro rhe series.
.. .'' Hilla Becher: "Look, here is a type alre3d) ~ysrem· I lcim - urhert Jo..:ks, in I.Jngc, Bernd ,111dHilla Becher, atized. All winding wwer<; have' one th1ng in common: the p. Lt 5). The inrcrview orig111.11ly appeareu 1n K11nstf11ru111 form of the lerter A." Ziegler: '"In thr1r rhe verracal part of intemat//Jn.il, no. r 71 (july- t\ugusr 2004). the building 1son the righr, and the fom goes Jo" n mward 18 Lingwv()d in ~i\1u~1Lof rhe Blast Furn.1ccs": "At ,1 cenam the left.~ I hlla Bct:l1er:..Thl' shaft and the brace. Then moment you became aware of the t.'\ample of comp:iram ·e comes ,1nother aspect: whac marl'rial are the winding rowers anatnmy - Linne, for c-litrle ones with the 'hats,· w1rh rhr ,y~tem. h', a central way in which our culrure has orgaOriental -looking supcrstrucnares - there ,lre none like rhar nized information and knowledge since rhc Enlightenment" in the Ruhr, they Jre definitely 1-rench.~ Ziegler: "When did ( 194). In the conversation w1rh Chevril·r, L.ingwuou, Jnd the concept of the rypolog)' comt from? Did you borrow ir. rruch 111A11ntl,erObjeclJvt1)•, Hilb Bechn says: "The prinor invent it for youN:lves? And when did you use the term ciple of the caralogue in rh,:,nJrural science~ is, f(lr u~ Jn for the first time?" Bcmd Becher: "As rlw subtitle for the a rtistic.:principle. Linne is a) much an artist a Ein)tein." hook A11011y111011s ~rnlpt11res:A Typology of Tub11ical Chevrier: ··There "a very srroni; idea heh1nd rhi,, which 1s Co11slmt:II011s.~ Ziegler: .. ~., the more similar the conthe 1dc:a of comparative 3n,1tom)'.~ I lilla Becher: ··Yes, srrucrions, the mme convincing the typologies?" Bernd absolutely. Mo~r of the rime you learn h) comparing rhrngs Becher: .. Exacrly. That wa& what we always srrovc for" ro orhl:r rhings you already know" (60). And in rh,: L.inge (99-1 00). Sec alsv the ~ecr1on emirled "Typologie Jnd interview originally in l11d11strwlLandsraflt'S the Bechc:rs Compar:mvc Juxtaposition~." in Lange, Bernd and /111/a jointly ~rare: ~ In morphology - the science of form, - there Becher, pp. ) 1-4. are wonderful an.1logies. The appro:ich begins with a r 5 Bernd and l lilla Recher, in Lynda Morris, "Introduction," description of the outer appc:ir.ince of 311animal or .1 plnnr, 111 Bernd and Hilla Becher, exh. car. (London, r974 ), n.p. everything that can be rccogni1ed un the outside, ~uch as Qumed b>· Ann Goldstein, .. Bernd and Hilla Becher," in size. color. and the relationship of rhe pans to rhc whole. Reco11s1deri11g the Oh1ect of Art: , 965-1117f, cxh. cat. ( l.os Then tht' inner organs are investigated, rhc: srrucnare or Angeles, 1 Y9 s-6), p. 79. :inatomy. Finally rhc developmcnra l hi;.10ry and questions 1'1 Kohler: "And then there is an clement in your pictures that (If function Jre looked mro, including rhe niche each ~pecies disringui~hes them from purely scit::ntificpictures. I 111eana fill; in irs environment and ir, own specific hiol) pe. If you ccrrain wit, a cerrnm humor rhat res11lt~from die individtransfer this mcrhod to orher areas, it is possible m invesual deviations from rhe ba~1c rype or object, from rht.> tigate any kind of subjecr. You t:.in say, tor rxamp le, that a rensilln between geomerric purism and :irchitecromc plJnS blast furnJce built in the lasr century rhar has been c,1nt1n· and the at times whirn~ic.ildni::arinns from chis plan which ually upd,tted and pipe system~ added on has undergnnt' have hecomc necessary for wha tever local rea~ons." stages just like an insect. In both cases at is po~sible 10 Bechers: "Yes, rim hears mentioning because!rhe humor is follow the develnprnc:nt hisrorically and comp:ire ir with a very important focror for u,. a certain subvers1vene~~c,r similar or dissimilar form;" (in l,3nge. Bemd ,111d Hilla recalcitrance of the people there who have ro come m pracBecher, p. 2.00). tical ri:nns with instructions issued from forrher up :ind then 1~ ln Lange, "lndustri:i l Landsc:ipc:s" interview, p. r99. give free reign ro their fantasy. Thi~ is lnrgely what form~ 2.0 ln ..M ll)ic of the Blast Furnaces," p. l 9,. the individual nature of d1e 11bjccr,and of course at also 21 See Michael Fried, ..Arr and Objecrhood, ~ 111 idem, Art t111d plays a part in our decision 3\ to which objecrs ro ph(ltoOb1ectlmod: Essays and Ret•1ews (Chicago and London, Becher, pp. 190-9 1). grap h" (in Lange, Bemd mid f-li/111 1998), p. 156, where l associarc rhis my~rification with ,1 1Apropos the pracncc of photographing uhJl'Ctsfrom an elesense of anthropomorphism. "[Tlhe apparent hollowness uf vated vanrage point, Hilla Becher explains to K1'lhler th.11 mosr lueralist work - the qualir) of having an 111s1de-is doing so •·makes rhe objects comp:irahlc - as long a!, we almost blatantly anthropomorphic. It is. a, numerous com· st ick ro ir. Because iris really on ly when you have the ~ame menrator~ have rem:1rked approvingly, as though rhc work vantage point rhar you can lay the photo~ alc,ng,ide nne in question has an inner, even secret, life - an effect t har is another and realiL.ewhat they ha\'e in common, whac is sp<'· perhap~ made mmr explicit in Morris\ U111ttled( 1965). a cific ro the: basic form of a blast furnace or :i cooling mwer large ringlike form 111two halves, with fluore,cent light and what is individual variarion•· (in I :rnge, Bernd ,1111{ glowing from within nt rhe narrow gap hetwcen the two. Hilla Becher. p. 189). Bernd Becher m:ikes the ~amc po1nr ln the s:ime spirit Tony Smith h,b said, Tm interested in ro Heinz-Norbert Jocks: "When we laid a number ol the inscrutabilit)· and mysteriousness of rhrng.' •· ohjecrs with the s:ime function alongi,iJe one aaorhcr rh.:re 22 Alfred Doblin, "Faces. Image~. and Their Trurh~ IGerman was a tension creared from rhe slighc differences whc.:nyou original, 192.9), in August Sander: Face nf cmr Time directly compare them. If you have three nr four rows rhe11 (Munich, 1994), p. 14. A page or so earlie r Donlin remarks you can compMe rhcm vcrricall}, horizontally, or J1JJ:Uco the reader: "What r
note~ 10 pages 309 319
391
"orJ generic presupposes ,1 gcnu~. The ob1ects m he porrraycd must ,111have man} points of ltkt·ncss in common, :inc.J1t t~ l>f e!>peci.ili111porr.1m:etha t cliaracteri,tic, of 11 medium 4ua liry should he muc h 111,irl'common amo ng them than thv~e that dev1art' widely. Nn ,carisrician dreams of grouring herewgencou\ focr!>m rhc SJmc tahlt'; no more do I propose l<) gniup hcrcrogenenou\ forms in th.- same pi..:rure. Statis tical average!>, and 1he lake, are n,, 11~en~1cal prn. t\rmin Zweite, "Bernd and Hilla Bcchl'r\ 'Suggcsnon for a Way of ~ccing:' Ten Key Ideas," Bemd and Hilla Ht!cher: T_vpnlogies, re.I. Armin Zwc11e (Cambridge, M,m ., ,rnd London, 2.004), p. - . Q11ored from Bernhard and I lilla Becher, "Ookumenrarion 111du;meller Kon\trulmoncn," in "Was die Sc/1i)11/Jei1 sl!t, das weiss it:h mc/11." Kii11stlerThe11rie- \Ylt!rk,1:xh. cat. (Cologne, 197 1), p. 141. Zweite conrmue~: " rh1s ,tatemcnr duly expre,<;c, thl' fa~cinat1on C\crrcd h} the II orld of rh1ng,, <;omerlung the couple tries to reproduce ,rnd capture m rhe medium of phmographi •, a process in whk h aesrhc:ticck mcnt s os rensibly p lay n (l par t. Ir mon rran<;ptrcd tha1 with thi<;outlook bot h succumbt:d ~!.O). ru a degree of ,elf-dect'pti(1n that re~ulted from how they Ar rhe end of L ingwonJ·~ mterview wirh rhe Bechers hc pomioncd rhcmselve~ 111oppvsition to the arrislic mo, easks, "How w.1, Sander regarded at the heginning of rhc menrs 111(JcrtnJn)' in t he 19(,0~. Today. looking back a1..ross 196os? What position did he 11ccupy?" I lilla Becher replic,: the oc nvrt·, one gcts the impression th:ir 1n the cou r~c o f ''l le d idn' t hrive a posit ion, he had t11 he red iscow red. He rime there was gradualli .1 markcd ~hifr in cmpha~t<;, for was hardly known. Bernd found one of Sander's books in the document.tr)' character has increasmgl)' been permeated .11,old boohhop. l arer, an article appeared in Du, .ind it hy formal considerJtions, in facr the larrer rn p:ut rnme m was a fantastic revelation because of thc way he portrayed obscure the fm mt'r." But "formal con\idcr: m ons" arc nor peop le, in rhe ~ame way tha r we would por1rai• oh J.:.:ts. exactly the \a111c <1Srypo logica l one:.. and as will be ~cen the Sander encouraged them ro perfo rm their rule. Pcrhap~ the primacy of rlw "worlu of rhing;," i~ ba!>1lro rhe larrer. obiccts and rhc plant~ we phorograph :ire able to pertorm their role a~ well .. (''~lusu:: of the Bia)! Furnaces," I')$ ). 3 I Ziegler interview, p. 100. Sec e.g. Francis Gal ton, .. Generic l111.1ges,..N111t!tee111'1'2. Zwcite, "Ten Key ldl':lS," p. 7, cited from Bernd and I filla 8cchtcr in cnnvcrs:'lrion wirh .v l ichcl (,uem n, "t 0 11s ovo11s Ct•11t11 ry, no. 6 (July 1879): 157- 6'). I-or a critical d ist'llsn,nntre de~ images dej:i composecs," / t' M,md,e, May 2. ,, ,ion of <.,altun's work in this vein St'C Carlo t..inz.burg, l.001, p. 12.. ·'famil) Re,emblances and Fam,lr Trees: Two Lognmve I .rngc, "' Reducmg Objccrs,' ·· p. 1+ I he phrase "\urro~a te . vol. JO (Spring 2.004): n 7Ylctaphors/ Cmical lnq111ry ,6, e~p. 539-4 1. Sec abo the remarks on co mpnsite phoob 1ects" comes from "Bernhard und Hilla Bechcr uhcr ihre Arbeit," in Bemlwrd 1111(/Hilla Bl!cher, /11ge111e 11rrograp hs in Ruth Leys, ·'Type~ of One: Adolf 1\ileyer's Life Architekt11r: f.otogra/ie11 11ml Dmckgr«fik, ed. l·achChart anJ rhc Reprc~enrauon of lndiv idu.1liry," Reprt•sc11hochschole I h1mburg (Hamburg, 1980), n.p. tattn11s, no. H (Spring ,,,1 ): 1-!lt M) ch.mk, tfl J(lel ~nyder for g111d111g me thrClugh ~omc of th<' issues rJiscd hy 34 A11uther ObjcClwltJ•, 51!-60. ( ,a lron's work . J 5 h ied, "Art :ind Objec thood," p. 151; rhc words in qurnaAllan !iekula, "T he Body a nd the Arch1v,·:· Octol11!r. no. tion marks J rc Robert MMris's . Sec the ear lier disnMit:ll1 of rhis p.1ss.,ge m Ch. 9. JY (Winter 1986): 47, Cited by Leys, "Trpes of One," 7. 2.- Galion . MCompositc Portrait~, ~ladt: hy Combin111gTho,e Sec Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Srnm.-e o/ Log1t, 1r:ins. A. V. Miller (Amhcr,t, N.Y., 196, ), pp. 1J 1-56; and of Many Different Persons into a Single Rl'~ultanr Figure," G. \Y/. I~ 1lcgel, The f: 11c)1c/npedi11 L.ogu-, trnns. T. 1-: jo 11ma l of 1he l\11thmpologic<1//11sflt11te t>(Creal /Jritai11 Gcrae rs, W. A. Suchting , ,1nd H. S. Harri, (lndiar1,1poli~and ,111dIreland vol. \/111 , no. :::. ( 1 X79): 1p .. Quoted in Ginlburg, "Family Rt•semhlnnces and h11rnlyTree\,'· 540. Camhmlgt', 1991), p,iragraph;, 111, pp. 14,-5::., " I will pmcced w speak of ... generic portrait~ ... The 17 2-4. Further page references rn the" : hooks will be in l,.nowledgc, .ind lasr hur noc ll·.i,r hi~ 1mmcn~ephoro1tr,1ph1c talcnc, Sander has ~uccceded 111 wrmng ,ociology nm by "riling, hut b) producing phowgraphs - photogrnph, of faces and nm mere costumes. Just as 1111c can nnly achwvc ,111 undersr,rnding of nature or of rhe history of th<' ph)'\i cal organs hy ,rudying comp:ir.uivc anJtomh ,o th,., phnroArapher ha~ pr:icriced a kind of compar:uivc photography anJ achtcY!.'.U a scirnrific vt<:wpoint ahnvc and beynnd that <1frhe ph11t<1gr:ip her of dt·tail .. ( 1,). Jnrcre~tingly, ~:indcr in~i~red cin photographing ~uhjccrs who not onl) were .mare of hc:ing photographt·d hur who ,11:melyrnok part 1n the proces\, cc Richard T Gray, Ahnut Face: Gtmmm l'hys1ng1101111c Tbought frm11 Lcwatcr lu A11sdn1111., (Detroit, 2.004), pp. 31,\,1-1!0. Th,~ is why Wnlter Ben1am1n,,as led tu '>ayin 19 \,: ~work like ~andcr·s could overnight as5ume unlooked-for mp1cal11y. udden shifrs in power ,ud, a, arc now overdue 111our 30 wciety ca n make th.: ahi lirr ro read focial types a nrnt1cr o l , i1;1I imp11rr:1ncc. Whether one is of the Lcfr or the Righr, one will havc m gcr used ro bemg looked at in terms of nne') provenance. And oni: will have ro loo~ at other~ rl1e same W:J), antler's work 1s more t han a pictu re bl>ok. Ir 1s a traininJ! manual" (Waller Benjamin, .. Little Hi~tury of Photograph),~ tran~. l:.dmund Jephcorr and "i11gsley ~honer, ,ol. 2. cifSdected Writings, 4 H>l~.,rran~. R11dney Livingstone et ,1/.,td. Michael \YI.Jcnnmgs, Howard l'i land, and Gari • Smirh IC..ambriJgc, Mass., a nd Londo n, 1999 I, p.
~2-,.
392
norns ;o µages 319-324
parcnihese\ in rhc tl'\t. \l y anention was tirst dr.rnn w rhl' potenn.11 1nrcres1of I kgel's mo LOnceprs of 1he infinite h> Jeff Wall in his c::,:,ay"11110rhe hm:~t: lwo 5kercht:~ for Studic, of Rodney Graham'~ Work." in ll>rm without cud. So we have nt>thinit here hut .1 superficial :ilrernation, ,, hich srars fore\'cr "1rb111the srhere nf the finite. If we suppt•sc rhar we can libera1c Olm,clvcs from the finare by sreppmg ou1 mm rl1Jr infinirudc. rh " is in fact vnly a liher.uic,n through tlighr. And rhe J')ersonwho nees is n<•tycr free, for in fleeing. he is still dcccrmincd hr rhe ver, thing from which he i; flccing. ~o 1( peoplt: rhcn add th.it the infinire ..:annot be anamed, what rhey say is q111rec11rrccr, but on ly because rhe derl'rn11nation of heing somet hing ahs tr:acrly negarivc: ib heing lodged in the infintte. Philosoph} dnes not waste rinw wirh such cmpcy and 11thrrworldl) ~ruff. What phtlosoph) ha, to do with 1s alway, ,omcrhmg concrete and ~tricrly pre~enr" (l-11cycluped1aI tll{ic, 150). ~X Robert It Pippin, 1-/egd's ldt!,1lis111: the Satis(,wi1111sof Self-Cu11st:io11s11ess (Camhridgc Jnd c,, Ynrl.., 191!9), p. 196, emphasis in ortgin.,I. Fucrhcr pJgc referenct:, ro this hook will be an parenrhe,es in thl' tC\I. Hegel's ldc•i1/is111 1; widclr regarded as inriuguraring a new phasl· in rhr srudy of Ht:gel; ch~. 8 and 9, "O bjective I og1c" and " llcllecrive Being," .ire pcrtinrm to the discu,~1011rhat follow~. Beyond chis, I .un greatly mdehtcd in what follows to con, l'rsarions and c'id1.1nge\ nf c-mJil w11hPippm aho111 th1:~ei;)ucs. cc also Pippin, Mudem1s111-99; and "Aurhenltc.:ity in PJi nt ing: R.-marks on .'vl ichacl Fritd's Arr History," C:ritirnl lm111 1ry, vol. 1 1 (Spring 2.005): 57 5- 98. 19 Robert Pippin, pcrscmal cwnmun1i.:atinn. There P1pp111 also remarked: "In Hegel\ treatment thc~c conditiom, let us sa) finally, rl1c<,c11/ti111,1te conditions (this in1imanon of ultimacy in the po;sih iliry of mea ning) requi re :i theory of rhe conccp1ual r,rder whic h treats rhe determinate conrcnt of these ba\lc condirion~ (in essence the 1.a1egorie~he: rrc:it~ 111 rhe Logic) as ·~elf-determined,' finally infinitely selfderermincd. (He s:iys a few time~ th.H the cr ucinl difference in cp1esrio11" herwecn nn indefinircly exti:ndec.Jline (as what rhe searlh for conditions ·Jooks likl•'), .1nd a self-enclosing circle. I think what he tntl'nds br tlus circle is the notion of a self-grounding principle for rhc ,enes . bur 1har" hard to
9-,-.
\..
make out 111 rh1s lontl·,t. J He me.ins h} rhi, 1hJ1 rhetr d1~· tincuve normarive JUIhon!) ' ( 1111\" rhc way J world <.:all he mnde 1nrelligiblej is nor dl•rivcd frc,m elsewhere, 'from' experience. char Re.1\on i) ultimatcl) ' 'sc lf-authormg.'" .j O Pippm, "I he Kanta.in Afrcrmath," 111f'hl! Pas1Sf('II({' of S11h1,•ctw1ty, p. 49. -11 Thus I ,111gcwrites: "·r ht: \election a11dorder of the 1n1agcs is driven inirially by Ihe nhjecc~· fu11c1 ion al Jnd strue 111r,1 I propertil'), wh1cl1 con be orgJnitl'd in diffen:nr work group~, \UCh as rhe groups of winding mwer~. bla~r furnace;, ga~ometer, or c..ool111g to\\ t·r-.. \Xfithin the,c work groups, thl· photographic prinrs are l)rdcrt:d ro form t>bjecr families alignc:d by thl· construction mat.-rial used, such as wood, tuncrc1e, sted, or :i mixturt'. Selection criteria hased entirel>· on aesthetic appearJnce Jre firsr appl1eJ when definin~ rhe funt.lamcnral shape~ of an ohicct family, which can the n he subdi vidcd ,mo suhtype~ 1Jr variants of pro tntypica l ~h.1pcs. f'J,c criterion uscc.l co distinguish chem i~ external Jppcarance, a~suming an ic.Jenrical funcnon Jnd idenucal building mJtcnals. A further sccp 1s ro d1Mmgui~h the obiecrs by Iota I it.lentiry, which ..:ould bc tcr111c·d echnograph1cal ~ubdivision. T his include\ the classificat ion of object\ hy the use of huilding materials specific ma particular ..:ountr} or region, and the rel.ucd preference ro certain ~hape, .,nd ,t) les- (llemd and / {11/,1Recher, p. , 1 ). I set: whr L.rngl' uses rht· phrase "aesthl'ttc appc-arance'' bur l am nor hnpp)' with ir for rhe ,impk reason rhat it rums the Becher~' project inm an '·esrhe1ic'" one too readily, or sar roo earl) on. -1::. Lingwood: -is chcrc a point at which you cou ld evcr con~idcr 0 11c of yo ur co llecrions , or !inc group wirhin your nvera ll co lleccion:,, fl> he finished?" H illa Be..:her: "No. h doesn·r work like thar. Jr is alw.i>~ in progre,s. \'(lhcn we photogr.iphed die coal tipples m Ph1laddphia, we did sci with )omc urgctK)' because it seemed tha r expe rience was finished, .md that rhc objec ts wou ld ~oon cease w exist. But n year later it rurncd mar that co.ii prices wem up hecause of thc oil crisis and ,o they started huilding new co.ii ripple~ one;" "hich wen• at least ,1~ 1nrer~ting a~ rhc c'<1~c111g ("Mu~ic of the Blasi l·urn :m:s," 1\)4). 4 l Pippin, 1/c:gel's ldet1/is111, p. :::.18. T he ~cmence conti nues: "all in a war that will evcnrnally le.id to an 'absolme reflecor ·• ntion' of such cnnrinual 'movement' in 11on' a/111111 rhouAht. I le begin,, tha1 i~, ro 1mkc his c:isc rh:.1 1 dw issue
notes ;rJ P<"!,lOS325-328
393
rhi\ drnprer; ~ome nme lalt'r l received a long email which 1ncluJcd thc follow111f: ~ummary of and lomrncnt:iry 1111 my arguml.'nr:
,1hout the phorogr,1phy cuntempornry with Vlaner or In light of the account of the Bechers' project put forward Courbet, he"s writing about phorugrarhy nO\\" (" Posr-'60, I was ~urprised ro read the follo,\ mg in Erk Photography and Its Modernist Context : A Convtrsarion de Chasse) 's Platt/11(/es:1111cl11stu1rede la plmtograpl11e between Jdf Wall a nd .John R,,herrs,'' in Jeff W:ill, Selected pfore (Paris, 2.006): •·My disa)?.reemenri~ ... complere with Essays a11d/nteri11cws I ew York, 2.0071. p. 336). See 111 the interpretation in rerms of oh1ectlmod recently propn~ed rhis c.:onnection my discu~s,on of Courbet's and Menzel\ h)' Michael Frred apropos rhe Bechers' images ( 111 a lecrure respective realisrnb in relar1011(specificnlly, in cuntrast) to ar rhe Centre altemand d'h1smire de::l'art in Paris, Novcmphotography in my Courl,ct's Realism (Chicago :mu hcr 2.005). The American art histc>rian made of la series of I ondon, 1990), pp. 278-83, and Me11;c/'sRealism: Art a11d photogr~phs taken 111\Vales 111 1966! an exemplar)' serie~ 11ry Rer(i11(New Haven f111bod111 1c11tin N111etee11th-Cc111 ru rhe extent that the anchoring lof rhe srructur esl m the and LondC>n,1.002), pp. 2.47-~2.. gro und allowed him co in~isron 'the heuristic condition s of 7 Sec Michael hied, "J oseph 1\larioni," Artfuru111,\IC1l.lthe object.' He evidently neglec.:ce hntography (New York, 1977). p. 37. show the works together'" (p. 2.2-4 1 n. 2.02, rranslation Funher page references ro this book will be in parenrhe~e, mine). The lecture co which Je Chassey refers was a slighrly \honer, alt bur final versirm of this chnpter (minus notes, of in the text . 9 Quc,ted by Jeff L. Rosenheim, "Afterword.'' in \Valkcr course). So rhere is o lwk1usly some misunderstanding here. Evans, Ma11yAre Gilled (New Haven and London. 1966), 49 See Robert l{osenblum, Tra11sfimmlf1011s i11Late £1ghtee11tl1 p. 2.03. Rosenheim adds: '·h ,eems cq11,1ll y likely rh::ir 111 Cc11 t11r y Art (Princewn, 1967), pp. 150-5 1. reality he h::idsimp ly been unable to find il pub li~hcr for the 50 Qurned in my nArt and Objccthood,'' p. 165. <;ee Robert work before 1966" (,b,J. ). Morris, "Notes on Sculpture, Part 1, .. in Morris, Co1111n11· ro See Jes~1ca Morgan, " Interview with Rmeke Dijkstra," 0 11s l'ro1ecr Altered Dady: T/11!\Y .lrrtings of Robert Moms Ri11 eke Dijkstra: Portraits (Bosron, 2.001), p. 76, emphasi, (Cnmbridgc, Mass., and London, 199 .1), p. 7. Morri s', in original. es~ay was originally publisheJ in Artforr1111, vol. 4 (Februn .Jean-franc;ois Chevrrer, "Thr Advennires of the Picturc ,lr )' 196/l): 41.-4 . Form in che History of Photography" ( 1989), tran s. Michael Gilson, in The Last Picture Show: ArttSts Usi11g Photography, r960-r981, exh. car. (Minneapolis and Lo, conclus,on Angeles, ioo3-4), p. 1 16. Further page references ru chi, essay will he in parentheses iu rhe rext. Walter Benn Michael,. "Phorographs and Fossils,·• in Jam es 12. cc \Va il's essay ''Unity and Fragmentation m Monet" Elkins, ed., Phntngr,,phy T/Jeory (New York and London, ( 1984) in Thierry de Duve, Arielle Pelcnc, Boris Groys, ,rnJ .:.007), p. 449. Further page references to this CSS:l)' will be Jc:in-Franc;ois Chevrier, Jeff \'(/alf, 2.nd cdn. (Londo n t111d in parenrhcses in the text and notes. New Yori...,200 2.), pp. 78-89. ! liugimoto makes the comparison in his brochure I listory of project see Michael Fried, Ma,wl's ModHistory (New York, 2005), which acC{lmpanicdan exhibi- 13 On rhe Max1111ilian m the t 1:16os (Chicago and ernism, ur, The Fan: uf Pai11ti11g tion of that title :ir the Jap:.in Society Gallery, New York London, 1996), pp. 346 - 64; and John Elderfield, Ma11et (!005-6). e.xh. cat. ( ew York, a11dthe l:.xcwt,011of Max1milic111, 3 Among rhe c.1sr of Elkins's authors , Joel Snyder coun rs as "indcxophobic," Rosalind Krauss as "indexophil,c ... The 1006- 7). n:fcrcnc,· to me on Demand is to Fried, "Wirhoul a Trace," r4 According to the recent cata logue raisonnc, \'i/a ll proposed removing tht: sign element 1n 2.000 and the owners of rhr Art(orum, vol. 4J (March 2005): 199-203 . work agreed; rhe picture was shown hy irsclf for the fir~r 4 Walter Benn :Vlich:iels,The Shape of t/Je Signifier: 1967 to time in 2.005. See Thcodor:i Vischcr anc.l Heidi Naef, Jeff the End of I /,story (Princeton and Oxford, 2004). Wla/1:Catt1log11e raiscmne 19-8-2004 (Rase!, 2005), p. 2.845 !,ee e.g. the ch. "Action and Accident: Phot ograp hy anJ Writing" in Walter Benn Michaels. T/Je Gold Standard and 15 As Thierry de Duve, with charac terisric ascurencs~, has rec.:ognized. "Wa ll belonged squ:irely to the modernist trad ithe Logic of Natumlism: American L11cra111reat the Tum tion ushered in by Manet," is how he puts it, "and seemed uf the Ce11t11ry(Uerkelcy, Los Angeles, London, 1987), ro want ro go back co Manet's time as if toward a pc)mt pp. 2. 1 5-44; ide111,"The Phorographic Surface," in James where history forked in rwo directions, only one of which \~elling Photographs , 977-90, exh. car. (Bern, 1990), it explored. This 1s what ml1kes his art unique. Mancl i~ pp. 102.-14; :ind ide111,Shape of the S1g11ifier , pp. 95-10 4. undoub1cdly the first modernist painter in Greenbcrv.·~ 6 \YI.J. T. Mitchell. What do Pictures \Vant? The Lwes a11d ~ense, but he is also the first a11dthe last painter of modern l.011es of Images (Chicago and London, 2.005), p. 233. Yer life in Baudelaire's sense. Mayb e Mt the only one: Daumier, Jeff Wall remarks rn John Roberts in 2006: "If you read Degas, Caillehonc, and a coup lt: of others might vie with lFried's arr-historicalJ books you gee the sense that the queshim for this rirJe. But none of these painters, 111duding tion of photography 1salway~ just around rhe corner, and Maner himself, had any real progen y in thib particular that at some point o r other he would have m address ii J1rccrion. They diJn't give rise co a genealogy of artisri, direcd)'· le', on ly 3 lirrle surprising rha1. instead of writing 4X
.such o nly 1n and whcne1,er 111such a world-· rather than a generality rhar covers an 111finirely extended l111e ) is as much their place in h1stoncal rime ("de.1d.~ ahandcJned, built only for use fur a time) and with ~OmC'th1n g of rhe pa rhos of :1historical worlJ of mere uuliry anJ function. (I don'r mean in each picture as such, bur as a resulr of ,uch repemnn in the show111&,.The th<·mei•, repeared 111 Lhe displa y of photos as a griJ of somt: number. There i~ ,t marvelou~ dupli1..1tion ol the meJi:ition/indi, 1Jualit~ rhcme of the objcc:t~in Lhe p1crurei,in the di~pl.1yof ihc ~ml of p1crnre5, Whar makes them uniqllcly Bccherphoto~ emerges in rhc ~worlding" that happc:n~ in wch c.:mnpositions on the wall.) If the phoros aire .1s much phoros of ,uch a world, and s11 c h .1 "workli n,g.," rhcn one c:111say rhat rhe pl:ice of suhjc:c.:tiviryin such ,1conr.:.xt 1~ nm as ha, 111ga polllt of 1·icw or being Jdd~essed by the object, but in such a world heing su~tained (or 1101) b)' us, something deeper than h:w1ng beliefs, etc.. (the sort of world that is ah,a) 'S becmning-pa~r. pclt'haps more rapidly and inrenscly rhan any other lustorical world, htcau e it i~ tht' world of technology).
111 lh1s chapter,
l r.,ke the over.ill pomr to lll' that the fkcher-oh1ecrs, let u, ~ay, illuminate the fa.-t that parricularit) ' is never, t:.in never he, hare parriculariry. Bare parriculariry or rhe brure prc~cnce of n11n-conceprual content in cxperiencc 1s ;in absrr:icrion anJ distornon of "the real." Lireralism, h> making a kind of ferish nt rhe standmg-out uf "mrs· tCrtl)uS" particularity, falls into this rrap. "BaJ" 11bjecrhond i~ the result of :111 attempt ro get m "objccthnod" iN~lf as if d1recth .ind the cLiim that ,, har we get .1~ a re~ulr is an absrra-;tion is .1nmhcr way, l rhinJ..,tCIs:iy that it 1s thentril:al - ;i disp layed ohjecr-,uppos.:-dly-111-i rself is never ,1 true (compelling) object. (The Jiale.:ti..:.11 twi t rh,11t:ome~ in saying: the very arrempr to get ar the "cxpcrienlial" i111medi.icyof an obiec.:1-enco11nter mean~ we must mi~~ it i~ of a piec.:ewith rhc twist rhnc romes wirh the focr chat rrymg rn evoke the objecr a!>.such non conccprudll)' means 1r will elude u~ and hecomc a mere lliterali.stl .ihstraction.) The German original reads: True di,uncmess .is J particular i5 what Hegel calls I 1m:ell1e11, 111Jjvu.lu,1liry, and ~o 1salways a mediated parDas Kunsrwerk iq Jer Gcgen)t anJ ,ub specie acrern1· ticularity. The relevant nanw for such mediation in the t:His gcschcn; und Jab gutc Leben i~t Jie We11t sub specie Bechers' c::1>eis "typolog~ •· and so rhc philosophical aeternitaris gesehen. Dies i,r dcr Zu>:unmenhang zwi~que5rion become~ the ,ratu.s oi ~uch a type ag:11nstwhKh chcn Kunst und Ethik. rruc distinctness srnnds out. The Becbers ccnat nly Die gcwohn lichc lktrachtungsweise sieh1 dit· Gegen~ucccrt.l m ~hnwing rhar rhe background rype i> not ,1sub!>tande glerchsam aus ihre \,lirre. Jic Bcrrachrung ~ub 1ecnve framing, as if by alteration of ~uch framing ,imply ~pecie aerernitatis von ausscrhalb . hy a subjec.: 1, the narurc of the object JS individual wuuld So class \le ganzc Welt ,11, Hinrcrg rund ha ben. chunge. ("Wor lds" fire not like this, any more than they 1st es erwa Conant. ~lichael ,,b,ecr than ir is an ahsrracrcd generalny, drawn fn•m as Kremer, and David Wellbery for (simultanenu~ly) calling my many (inlinirely many ) parttculars ai, pl)s~ible. This prinatrennon w this entry, and ro Conant . Kreme-r, Wellbery, ciple in rhis case is nm limited to shape or visual type. Ir and Robert Pippin for helpful di~cus~ions of its implic,1· 1~not really "tht' industrial world" either since the ohjecrs tion~. Thank~, roo, co Nils Schon for aiding with rhe are rarel) ~hown "alive·· or funcnon111g.This rhoui:h English trn nslarinn. mean~ rh:it rheir individua lity is not "me diated " by their industrial Jesign l)r sh:1pe alone. By hcing 111effect dead 47 In the entrv from rhe Notebooks, Witrgcnstt·in uses the nouns der (;<•ge11s1,111J (and d11!Gege11st.i11de) anJ d.is Dmg ob1eccs they call anenrion cu the limited time of rheir inrcrchangcahly; the 11011nd.is £111;:,el11£' Joes nor :1ppear, usability .1nd their forlorn :ibandc,neJness as very largely m,r docs .iny cqu1valc111m iL Bur a few monchs earlier what makes them what they a re. (Why this snrr tif phn· W1ngenstcin had wrmen: "The parric.:ul.irobjt·cr I\ a very 1ograph Jnd displa> would nor work well wi1h. say. tree,; remarkable phenomenon" - Der best1111111te Ge,g<'llst,md1st why I le1degger talk, .1hnut Le11g, nnr Nafllr, :1, c11nt!inesehr 111el'kt11iirdige brsc/Je111Hngwhich show~ rhar the sritucnrs of Welt.) They arc, that is, ncJt just inst:lnLL'"of question uf the logical narure of rhe "individual thing~ was a type, cerr.1inly not inscan.·e~of an .,b~rrncted rvpe. The alread) on his minJ {Notebooks, enrr) for Jul)' 11, 1916, ·'whult:" char encloses them (" infinuely lile .1 c1rclepp. 7 5-1 o;e). :1nythmg, 111finircl y nnythinf;, hecomes ,1 dercrminai c this-
391
notes to pages 330-34 I
1101es 10 nages 328-329
- -
--
-
-- - - ----
- - ---
-- --
395
capJhle of 13lkin~abour rhc world 111pa111u~gw,rh rhe Jncumentar)' wealrh that Raudelairc lent the painrer of moJ1:rn life, h111r.1ther .1 genealog} of p:unter~ ,, hu ,acnficcJ tht: world in order w s:ivt: painting. Thi\ was ,1b~n:1crwn.~ hundred years later, 1t wol.. a young .irtbt "ho had CJ,.pcrtcnccd first-hand the risk of ,reriliry in rhi, genealogy, nnw chat n haJ come up against the 'la~t· monochrome, to decide m turn ba1.:kto rhe point of hifurrnti on called Ma net, in 11rder to e>.plore rhe path nm taken by rhc h1Stor~ of modernist painting. Needless m say, he h<1dro sacrifice p,unnng on rhe way" (Look. 1 oo Yet1rsof Cu11te111p urary Art, tran s. 'iimon Plcasance and Frorm1 \Xlood51Bnmcl~, 1.0011,pp. 1.45-f>, re,. and enlarged edn. of Vnte1. , oo ans d"art co11tempomin l Brussels, z.000-01 I. 11, Jhe notion rhar a photogr,1ph tenJs strongl} to reveal rhat per 5ons in it are merely posing, if thar is 111facr the case. was regarded h) the ntm:teenth-century phorog.rapher and theorist A.-A.-1:. Disderi in hi, Cart de la ph1Jtogrt1phJe ( di(,!) a, prest:nring .10 in~uperahle p~oblcm for phot~)~r:ipher~ whn wi~hed to con~rru1.:tmulti-figure comp1)s1non, nf genre subject, . As I pur it in rourhet's Realism: "Fnr Di,deri phomgraphi;.: vcrism exacer bates the issue of rbeamc.iliry with respect to an entire clriss ol subject m.Hte.~ which the phomgrapher is therefore ;:ailed upon ro es~hew. (pp. 45 -6). But precisely th,11 fearnre of _the meJ1um •~ rumed ro positive accounr by Wall in v;mous works. Sec also Dianne W. Pitman, rn whom I owe 1he refercnc:e to Disdcri, Ba:ille: Purity. Pose, and P11i11t111g i11tl,e I l/6os (U111vers1ry Park, Pa., 191;18 ), pp. 107- 1." 17 I take up the theme of severing in .1 different hut related context in my account of what I call "the ,nrerna.1strncrurc of the pictorial act" in The Moment of Car,wagg,o, a hook in-pmgrc~s ba~ed on the Andrew W._Mellt1nLecrures s of cou_r,c being a key term in•' Arr and Objecrhood" ("James Wcllmg in Convcrs.irion wirh Lynne Tillman,~ 111James \Vcl/111i! Ffowcrs I ew York, 2.007J. n.p.J. :! 1 Sec ~lkhael hied, "Roger Fry's formalism," The Tanner L£•t·t11rcs 011 Hw11a11\ 'a/11es.nu. !.J (Salt Lake Cit)', Ur., 2.004), pp. 1-40. . . 2.:! Michael,'s w:iy of purring this is at fin,1 slighrl) ct,nfusmg m rhar he n:fer~ to 1he phomgrapher's ...ib!.orpnon" acwrJ-
,rns,1 prcc1euse qu·u111 : gorger ,h111in the prc~ctll conte'
mg m l:lanhes, hy which I cake h,m _w mea~ the phowgra · pher\ ab,o rption in the :ic1 of raking a. p1i:rurt'-of phor,>graphing the st11di11111 -wch thar he fail~ t11perce1\e tht' feature of che scene tha t ,viii rurn nut tu he the J111 1zct11111 qf decJil (for some parncular viewer). This i, what it muse mean for Michaels ro write: " ror Fried, Banh es ... emerges .1~.i champion of ab,orption" (41- ). Also: lW[hat Barthe~ reltuire~ 1> a rad1cali1ation uf ah~orpnon; he rran~form, the ,mi\lcnce that rhe sub1c:ct of. rhe phut<>graphnor he ,een as ,ecking t•) proJucc an l.'lfcct. into the in,i5tence tha1 rhc photographer nn l ht: !,ecm a~ seekinV,m produce an effect. Acrn.111}, thi~ is coo wc.1k a w:iy m put it. Th e effects Banhes b intl'l'l!stc,J in are not merely one~ chat sccm m be: unintended; the)' .ue ones ch:11 re:illy Jre 11ninrcndcd. r\nd while th1s_imisrence on the unintended makes Banhes .. . a cruc1Ji figure for Fried and rhc critique nt the pusnn t•dern. it .ilso makes hnn :1 cruci:il figure for wrirer, like Krau!,~and C,olomonGodeau, who are c:ommiucd 10 dcfendin!!,rhe pos1mo~crn. Indeed whar I have 1usr described a, the rad1caliza11onof absor ption (the radicalizanon ol~ the ~cfus~I of perform.ince ) rurns our in Barthes ro ~ d,1ale~t1cal:it turns rhe antitht:atrical 1nm pun: rh1.:amcal1ty; 11 rum, what Fried calleJ absorpnon into what was •,upposed Ill ht: its opp11,nc, liu:ralism. l.:ilf
(19"' 1).
A work I discuss ar lc:ngth in TJ,e Mrm1e11t CJ(Caravax~iu. See my Co11rhet'sRe11/is111, pp. 148-55. Yukin ~1i;;hima, Sprmg S11nw, trans. Michael Galla!!,ht:r (New York, 1975), p. 372.. Yuk10 Mishin1a, Tl,e Te111/1leof D,1w11,rr:rns. E. D:111." ~aunders Jnd Cecilia ScgawJ Seigle (Nm Yori.., 1975), p. 1 16. Furrher page references will he in parcnrhcse~ 111the text. Fried," Arr and Ohiccrhood," p. 14!<.The quotanc1n comes from Perrr \liller, /on.1tl,,m Fdw.1rds (New York, 1959), pp. ,29-Jo. A recent b1c,graphy 1s George M. Mar sden, J,math,111 F.dw,trds: A l 1fe I 'ew Havcrr'an
The crucial point 1s not rhert:fore the ~pnv~1q•n ~if rhe pzmctttm but r.irher "irs independence of rhe inrcnnon ol rhc phoroJ?,rapher~ (4.39). As Michael~ :ih,n wmc~:
200,).
See Jenmfcr A,hron, From Modernism tu l'ost111e1de111zs111: Aml'rica11 l'n1•try t111tl T!Jt:'IJI'}' in tin: Ttvc111tethCcnt11ry (Cambridge .ind New York, 200· ), pp. , 69 - 76. A~hton'!> read ing focuses on crucial par:igraph, from Edwards·~ The Great Christz,111Doctrmt• of Orig111alS111D1fe11ded, as quoreJ by rhc poet Jori e Graham for her own :inrithccicol, in
lllna,much as rhe ,
struck h) :,..1i~h1ma\cvoc,mon of che memor1.1lphomgraph ,ind wondering for a momem \\ ht'thcr ir m1ghr he po~\1ble m make a worl.. uf h1~own ba,ed up,in Jt. Thr dcscripnon reads: TIHSphotograph, pnnri.:,rho11~ands For the rC!.t ~uu saw 11orh111g nf rhem. In the f(lrcgrn11nd,,hey were turned away from the camer,1 ro reveal the white sunshields hanging from their caps and rh<: JiagonJI learhcr straps across rhc1r hacks. The)' had not formed up in neat ranks, bur were clustered in groups, beads drnoping. A mere handful in rhc lower left c11rner h:id half-turned their dark faces wward the 1.:amera,like figures 111 .i Renaiss(lncc paint · ing. F.1rcher behind chem, J hrn,t of ~11l
no10-= to pages 347-35~
396
101es 10 ~ ages 34 1- 347
--------------
- --
--
~ -~---__..:iill--
-
397
- _.,-- ·,
photograph
Thc publisher rhanks tht' fo llowing people, museums, and phorographic libraries for permission ro reproduce their matc:rial. Every care has hccn raken ro trnce copyright holders. I lowev1•r, if we h,1ve omitted anyone, we apologi1.c and shall, if informed, make corrections ro any rurure edition. 1 umhcrs refer to figures, unless otherwise indicared. fhumJs Demand, VG Bild Kunsr, Bonn / DACS, London, Courre~) Spriith Ma,zers Gallery, London: fronrispiece, J 62., 1(,~, 164, r65, 166, 167, 168, 169 , r70, 171, 172.; 1008 Thomas Srruth: page-.:, 63. 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, .,,, 72, ;3. 74, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82., J 18,119,110,123, 1:1.4, 12~, 12/i, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 190, 2TO, 2 11; Hiroshi Sugimoto, ~ugimotu Scudio, ew York: 1, 2., 13)1, 1K,. 186, 187, 188, 189; Courtesy vfCm
39i::
pho t ogr ap h cre d its
index
credits
Arts, Boston: 85; Courtesy Andreas Gursky, Monika ~priirh Galeric, Koln / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn / DACS, London 2008: 'JO. 9r, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, rm:, 10,, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111; Scala Archive~, florernce / The Museum of Modern An, ew York/ Barnett Newman Foundation/ ARS, ew York and DACS, London -2.C>oS:109; The Metropolitan Museum or Art . New York/ DACS, London/ VAGA, New York 2.008: 110; Courtesy of Luc Delahaye: 1 12., r 13, T 14, 1 15, 116, 140, r 41; Bildari:hiv Preussischer Kulrurbesitz, Berlin / Jor g P. Anders/ Nationa lgalerie, Staadiche Museen zu Berlin: 117; Die Phmogr:iphische Sammlung / SK Stifrung Kultur - Augusr Sander Archiv, Koln / VG Bild-Kunsr, Bonn, and DACS, London 2008: 12.2., 203, 2.04; Courtesy of Rineke Dijkstrn and Marian Goodman Gallery, New York: 127, n8, 129, 130, 131; Courtesy of Patrick Faigenbaum: 132,133, 134, 135, 136, 137,138; Courtesy of Roland Fischer/ Von I intel Gallery, New York: 142; Courtesy of Roland Fi~cher / G Fine Art Washington: 143; Anna Lena Films, 2006: 144 , 145, 146; The Estate of Garry Winogrand, courtesy Fraenkel Gallery, San Franci sco: 148; Counesy or Beat Srreuh and Murray Guy, ew York: 149, 150, 151, 157-, r53; Co urtes y of Philip-Lorca diCorcia andDavidZwirncr,NewYork: 154,155,156,157,158, r5 9, 160, 161; Candida Hofe r / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn, 191!8: 178, r92;The£srateofGarry 179,180,181,182,183,184, Wi nogrand, courtesy Fraenkel Ga llery, San Francisco I Collection Center for Creati\'e Photography, The University of Arizona: 191; Courtesy of Jame s Welling and D:ivid Zwirner, New York: 193; Co urt('sy of So nnabend Gallery: 194, c95, 196, r•:n, r98, 199,200, 2.01, 202; Trustees of the British Libr ary, London: 2.05; Corbis / Ma~simo Limi: 106; Courtesy of Tony Smith / Marrhew Marks, New York/ ARS, New York, and DACS, London 2.008: 208; akg-imagcs / Erich Lessing/ Kunsthisrorisches Museum, Vienna: 21 2.; RMN. Paris / Gernrd Blot/ Musee des Beaux-Arts, Nan tes:
213.
1'01 E: Page numbers an italics refer to pages containing illu~rr:mons; where information ,s in a note, the page number is given followed by the note numb er. abso rpti on and diCorcia's work 149- 52, 254, 2.56, 257-8 ill French painting 26-7, 38, J!J-40, 12 ~-s,340. 350-51 Ill Gursky's work f73 performance of 137-8, 349-50 and portraiture 193-4 Faigenhaum's work 21 5 Fischer's Nuns ,md Monks 22.5, 22.6 Srrut h 's family portraits 2.03 Zidane film 228-~ 1 and srreet photography 102 and Strut h's museum photographs 127-8, 135-6 and Wall's work 37-6l, 65-6, 74-80, 136. 145. 34 1, H9-50 and Heidegge r's Being-in-the-world 49-50. 346, 347 and Wittgenstein anJ the everyday 76-80 see also anritheatricality; Fried: Absorption a11d
Theatricality Adam~, Parveen 266 Adams, Robert 337
Adelat"de,011 la femme 111 orte d'amour (a nonymou s conte) 24-8, 29 Agee, James 195, 338-9 Alberro, Alex ;7711.38 AJetti, Vince 2.58 Amano, Taro 19-20 Andre, Carl 270, 2.9_1 and Bechers 321-2., 32.3, 327,331, 347 antirheatricalit) ' of :m phomgraphy 331!-47 and cinema Io, , 3 and Barthes's p1111ct11m 100-03, 104, 106, 107-14, 345 ru1d blindness 91, 93, 2;8, 2.55-6, 36lfo.14 Ji Corcia's Stnrybook /,ifc 258-9 distance :ind "seve ring" in Gursky's work 158-6 5, r 77, 179, 182., 186-7, 343 Faigcnbaum's husts or Roman em per ors 2.18, 2.19 and French painting 10, 2.6-7, 34 . .t3, 9R, 100, 12.7-8, 14041 anJ high modernism 170-71 and posing H, T 3 s-1
and Barthes's Camera l.11c1da107-14, 194. 2.14, 239-40, 33/1,345-6 Dijkstra's beach series 2.12.-1 3 trurh's family porrrairs r 96. 198-<;1.20 3- 4, H 1-2 of street photography 101-2, 243-5 anJ to-bc-seenness 2.14 and Wall'~ work 66, 80-81, 8 5-93 . 11;-8, 246, H 2 see also absorption; thearricahry Arb us, Diane r, r, 149, 2.39 and Diiksrr:i 107,208, 2.10-11, 2.14, '3Y Jnd SuUlh 195, 196 Arden, Ro y 3, 7 Armsrrong, Carol 38 111.43 arr: poetic revealing 61-2. Artaud, Antonin 1 r4 Ashton, Jennifer 3 5 2. auronom) ' of artworks 145, r 50 Ave
rnde x
39!)
('Ind D1is,eldorf Academy 1 1 5. l9,;-6 Hegel and infimcc 1q - 6, ;2 --8 .rnd oh1cn hu od 30;, ·p. ,- ,o, 34C'>-7 "goou·' and "bad .. objecrhoud -8. p.8-30 on ~lwn:'s work 2 1-2 rypolugie~ and ideal rrpe \O'J, J 18-2.1 ,lnd Wirtgen,1cin 32-8-9, H5, .H7 lllast /·11man· JOI/
Cuolmg To11er 30C1)()l111g Towers 309, 3 u C11sn111eter 308 G,1so111et1.>rs 309, 3, .l 1
"Typologie3·· 308--
f.ii>l,·1111x l, q. 1X-23, 24, 101,- 7, 14<, and cxdu~1on 1.1, 1.2.-;, 1.!.4, dl7. 28c,, 140 , ;44 and !:>hnre's work 21-1. Tuble«tt llfJ . , - 1 8-11J. 19 Tablea11110.. lJ d!- 19, 20 Tablr,11111u. 1 o J 21. 22-,, .2 J, 1 1 2. T.ible,111110.10-1 21, .:.2.- ,, 21,111. C..a11lchorte. C,u,rave HCr4 1 /'ans ::itreet,lfoiny Day 11 5,
11ll,
r19-2.1,
1.2 0 ,
12>1,235
Young M,111,11 ,1 W.111,dnw 5R 32er2.1. ;26 - ;o, H 1, 332,
333, H5, H6-7 Wiater lower .io Water Towers 310-11, J 16-1\Vindmg Towers 314-tf
Mcnsr da .p, 4~
Caro, Anthon)' 38611.16 Cartier-Bresson, Henn 196, Cave l[. Srnn lt'y ;- 4 , 80,346,
heholJing 2. and absorption 3R, 39-4 1, 127, J35-6, 193-4, 3.p and Wingcnsrein 76-in Z1da11cfilm 229-30 and ,rnrirheamcaliry in Jrt pho togra ph y 43, B9- 40, .H.5 in French painting 26- .. , 9 r. 98, 1oo, 127-8, 34<:r.p distance and ··severing" in Gurskr·s work 158-6.5, 177 , 17 9, 182, 186-7, H, ,ind e,du!>ion in Sugimoro'!> eascape~ l94--
Michelangdo
Cru111//111g 1t11tbThoms J 50,
y 1, !:ll, 2,8. 1.55-6,
:;68 11.14 Boudinet, Uam el: l'()/aro,d 107, , of/ lfourkc -W hitc, Mar garet 374 11.27 Bormans Museum, Rortcrdam 1, 39 Branigan, Edwa rd 35 v1.5 Brassa'i 4, 30, 35711.40, 36 711.11, 36811.15, 36911.;q Brech t. Bertolt 114, q5. 36711. 11. Brrson, Norman 200, 2.03, 17611.35 13uchloh, Ben1amin 196, 1
l
uo
:;6, 2 ,X- 9 1 5511., o , 11<1n.39, ,S!:111.1
Cc:tanne, Paul 1 5l-3 C.hardin, Jea n-BaptiMe -Simcon 367-X11. 14 anrirhcarricalir)' of work 2.6, 3ll, 3•1-40 , 42, 43 The C,1n,e K1111cklebu11t'S 3q-40 The /1<111se of Cards 39-40, 39, 2.03, 2.49-50
(Jr
Su1111 8111>/1/es 39-4 0 The Y111111g Dra11ghts111a11 'l'J, pJ, 40
Yott/If,(St11de11t Dro1IL'i11g 18, 3q, 4er41,
157, 350
C hevrier, Je :111 - harn ;oi, 2. 4, 30, 17 1 Becher discus3ion 32.1-2., .P· 3 "Th 1: AJven rur e~ nf the Tableau 1Picwrc1 F<,rm" 14, , ~. 143-(, , I 49, I 5 .!., 339, HO Christenberry, William 337 Cima da Concg liano. Giovanni Barti,m: The /11cred11/ityo/
St T/]()mt1sr25, 1.26 cinema and an phomgr:iphy
5-1.1, ,er,
r. , 11, 2.51<
Barth cs on 1 1 1 Clark, ophic 252- .l "co ld nc~s" of phorography 148, 2.54 see .ilso coolnc~~ uf photograph) co mp o,itc phomgraph s , r9-2.o computer-generate d images sec digitization
and art
photography Co nanr, Jam es 35411.6 Conccprualism and phom1?,raph) 144-s wnccptualiry a nd Zida11efilm 2.32-3 cn nfr ontarion anti clisph 1y of an photography and ~rreet phowgr.,ph) Constable, John I So c, 111/cs ,mir<111x1.5-6
Rnnm (1994) 2.61. ~,,2 Room ( 19416) 21'i.i 1,
Crane, '>tcphen 1 7711.4 :; l rimp, Dougla~ 336, H .\- 411.( riqur . Jean-Pierre d!- 19, 20, 2.2., il!2, 'l '411.6, 37 7 11. ;8
Le f't>ntde /'L11rope235
C.iravaggiu,
Sour,·e of the l 1J111! 35 1 fin • \\''m·e , HH, 189 Wheat !:!J,( t~rs :inti Wall's After "~p1·111f,( S111m .•" 3 ,o-s see ,ils11hied: Co11rhet'sRMli,111
14 ;, 144, 149, 33!1, ,40
2w
see also Adclai'de, 011/,1fe111111e 111orted·,111w11r
coolnes, of photography 78-':I see also ~coldne~, ·• of phomgraph) Co p lans, John 337 Courbet, Gu!>tave 40, 1 oo, 1 s 1, >40. >43-4 811rit1Iat Om,111 s 28 , 3.5 1
Uaguerrc, Loui!> Jac4uc~ MJnde 3-011.2, l),1sem: 1 lcidcggcr :ind Wall\ wor~ 48-9, 60, 64-6 0Jumier, H onore 100 [):iv id, facques -Lou1~ 2.8, 1o o de Cha,,cy, Eric 3 5611.2,, 1\14- 511.48 104, 10<, death :ind BJrthcs's p1111c/11111 Dclac.:rorx, Eugene Alger,,111W'o111e11 57- 8, , 9 , f 9 Dcstmctio11!J(Sard11110p11 /11 s 16-1 - , 5X I ,berty at the Barrirndes I q -5, , 2 f Dcl:ih,1ye, Luc 1 , 18 2.-7 , 343 _ 4 1:A11tre182., 2.15, 21 r-,, .l.LJ, 15!1. 342 and £,an,\ Ma11vAl'L' L1/led 121-2 Baghdad II 182 -j. 1//r. 186 Je11111 Refugee Camp 181, 1N5, 186 A L1111ch at tl1e Beh•cdere 183, 186, 1 ,'U, Tal,hm, dl2, tSJ. 184. 37811.51 U.S. 811111h111g 0 11 Taliban Positm11sI X2, 1 R4, , H-1,r 86 \Vinterre,se I X2 11c mand. Thoma ~ 1, 21, 176, l61-81, 2.>l6, 137 , 340 on Courher\ Tbe \\I.we 189 and mdcraminacy 264- 5, 266, 344 _ 5 Jnu indcxicaliry 2.68-9, l 7 :.. .ind i11tenti111127 r-6, 28 1, 3 3 6, 344 _ 5 on p lace 266, 26X ''saruranon" of p1crures 266, 27 1 ~culprurc anJ rcc o nsr rucnon s 26 1. 264-5, 2.69-70, 27 1 and Srruth '!>ciryscapes 2.7 6-81 Archiz,e 260 , 261 Barn 263, 26 J 13athn1u111 (/lea11/~111a gc) 2.61, 2.66, 1.67. .:.70 Ca111J1111g ·foh/e 26 1-2, 1.69 Cle,m11g26~. 2.75-1'., 2 -; Collectio112.l'i3, 1.65. 2., 5, z-,f, Co11stcllatio11 276 Comer 2.62. ComJ11r .z.61, 2.64, 265 DrcJ{tmglfo11111 262-3 Fsc.1lt1tor162 Kitchen 162. l.,1bor.itory 263 . 2., 5 , z--
1 1111•112.63
MuJel ~62. Office 1.61 P,t 263 l'od11,111 1.62. Pull 2.61., 273, z - 3
l ro
·
Sink 11 273-5, z-,./ Space 1m11/t1tor z.6, .\tm rcase 2.6l Studio 2.6, Tavern :;8511.Tt11111el 1.62 Derrida, facques 370- 7 111.2.9 Dcscarte\, Rene ,8 111. w d1Cor~·1,,, Ph1hp-Lon:a 2.4 0, 149 -, 9 , .,.,t<, J·P and absorptilln 249-51., 254, 25li, 2,7-1! and to - be-,t:CO\H'SS 1-19, 253 - 4. 256, 2.59 Aude11a11cll:,mn,,1 25 1, 2.f 2 D,widt• 2.51 heads 256-8, .25lgor 2.51-2, 1.iJ Los Angeles ( 199,) 2.52, 2 54 , 1.i.f Mario ( 1978) l49-5o, 2.JO Max 251 Naples 2.51., 2, .1- 4 1ew York ( 1993) 2.,2.. .:., - 4 3 New York ( 1y~ 3 , srrce tsc:.1pe) 254-5, .!)f . .:.5<>
A \/oryhook Life 25R~
Coney Island .:.58, 2,9 Los Angeles ( 1990 ) 2, 8 Mano (19X1) 250-51, 1.p, 251< Teresa 2., J D1derc11,Denis 2 . 4, 2 1, 162., 199 , l56 absorprion and "forgotten" beholder 2.8, 35, 100, r:i.7, 19~, z11-,:;, HO and "for~orten" ~elf (011b/1 de sm) 4er41, 2.03, q9 ,md lttr1 hcs 98 ,1 00 , 3 45 , 36711.12 anJ Dijksrr::i 1.12-13, H9 Jnd 1-.iigenhau m 2.15 anti Manet 1 5 , . 3 4 0 ,111dSrrurh 127, r 4 0 , 203, q 1-2 21,-7, H, 79 , 100, lo;, H•-2, 37 111.3 an
401
40 0
uncunsciuusne~s
moments 20 7-f<, 210. 2.r 1-13, 2.14, 230
reda. Amsterdam, The Netherlm1ds. May , 6, ,994 212 01llem uth, Stephan 147-8, r50 DiPietro. Monty 389r1.41 Disdfri, A.-A.-E. 39611.1 6 display of art ph0t0graphy 14- 15, 22., J?, 106-7, 14;1-4, 3 E)40 c.ltsrnncc ,tnd confrontation .339, 340 in IJdahaye's work 183-4, 181,-7 in Gu rsky's work 156 . 157- 65, 1-7, 179, 182., 186-7 Doblin, Alfred 3 L8-19 Jucumcntary phowgraphs Del;.1ha)•e's photojournalism 182-7 .ind esthc tic appea l 30-35 see alsu Wall: "documentary" photographs Dreyfus, Huberc L. 64, 65, 232-3, 358n.15, 35911.31 Drury, Maurice O'Connor 36411.33, 36511.37 Durand, Regis 10, 148, 223-4, 22.5, 2.66, 2.71 Diirer, Alb recht: Se/f-P1;rtrait1 15, 133-4, t 3J Duve, Thi erry cle 3!,15-611.15 Edwards, Jonarhan 3 5 2. Egg leston, William 337 Eklund. Doug las 38711.2.7 Elinga, Pieter Janssens: fnterior with Pai11ter,Reading Wloman. and weeping Maid 72., 72, 75 Elkins, James .335 Ellison, Ralph: Invisible Man 44-7, 84-5 Emerson, Ralph Waldo .38rn.39 Enframing: I leidegget and Wall's work 60-61 Engelmann, Paul 76, 77, 7S Enright, Roberr 4t, 64 r.psrein, Mitch 3 3 7 Estep, Jan 63,211, 36011.5. 36:w.2.8 esrherics and Bechers' indusrria .l strucrures 307-8 and documentary photographs 30-35 Evans , \XiaIker 33 5 Let Us Now Pmise Famous Men £49,194, 195, 338-9 Many Are Called ("Subway Portraits") 93, 93, 1or-2, ro,. 236. 251 . 338 and DelaJ1aye's L'A11tre22. 1-2 eve ryday and Wall's work 62, 63-93, 33.3, 341, 346 exclusion 12.4, 187 and Bustamante's Tablea11x2.1, 22.-1, 124, 187, 1.86, .340, 344 and Demand 2.66-7 and Gursky 180, 344 and Hofer interiors 286-8 zoo phomgrar,hs 301-2. anJ Srrurh's "Paradise" ser ies 299-.300, 344 and Sugimoto's seascapes 2114-9, 344 see a/sn "severing" in G ur sky's work
402
md e )(
·' fac ingncss" a nd Barrhes on phorography Ir 1-1 2 in Manet's work 40, 43, 150-5 2., 340 an
c.leChasscy on Becher lecrure 39 511.41/ ~r.eric.1ulr's Romanri.:ism" 12.8 ··James Welling's Lock" ,0,-4, 322. Mamit's Modernism 2., 4, 26, 40, 91!, r45, 150-52 The Momeut of Caravaggio 35811.9 Realism, \Y/riting.D1sfiguratio11 J 5811.9 "Shape as Form: Frank Srella's Eccentric Polygons" 66, 8 1 \'(lhy Photography Matters as Art 3 36, 337 Friedlander, Lee 240, 27::., 337, 145 At \V/ork 1,7 -8 ,, 17-8, 140,341. frunral pnse in phorogrnrhy 111-14, 143, 145 Bechers' industrial scrucrures 306 portrairnre 194-6 and Dijkstra's work 207-8 Ruff's portraits 149 . 339-40 Struth's family portraits 202, 203-4 and streer photography 239-40 see also "fadngness" Fry, Roger H5 Ga lassi, Peter on diCorcia 2.49, 250, 1.53 on Fried lander 17411.2.6 on Gursky 157-8, 16r-3, 166, 168, 169-70, 172.. 1.,.3-4, 1 7 7 ,344, 37511.ro, 376-711.36 on Ruff 148, 37511.10 ga llery inreriors and Heifer's work 2.88-y4, J44 Galton . Francis: composite photographs 319-21, 320 Gardner, A lexander: Portrait of Lewis P,1yne 104, ,05 , 106 Gauthier, Michel 356-711 .31, 37611.2.9, H7"·45 Gerica ult , Theodore 100 l:.11lra11ce to tl,e Adelphi Wharf 89, yo, r 57 Raft of tht! Medusa 28, 89, 1 15, 1 t6-17, , r7, 128- 9, 157, 34° Gest, Ben 338 Gilden, Bruce 98, 100 Gisbourne, Mark i 96 G lenn, Constance W. 2.8(,, 2.90-91 Goethe, Johann Wo lfgang von: Almr ot Good Fortune 330,
330 Go ldbl att, David J.l7 Go l
Feature Film H8 Play Dead: Real Time u7, ,38 Zidane (wit h Parreno) 2.15, 22.6- 33,
22-., 228-9, 342., 347 Gowin, Emmir 337 grace Barrhes on Winter Garden Photograph 109 3nd diCorcia's heads 258 and Srrc u li's video wo rks 243-4 Graesch, Anrhony 82 Graham, Dan 2.88-9 Alteration tn ,1 S11b11rba11 Ho11se36211.2.7
( ,reenberg, Clement 4, 1,4, r 44, 187-8, 3 7 2.11.6 Greu7.c, .Jean-Bapristt: 40, 98
f-athcr uf the hlmily R(Jddi11g the Bible 2Grimm, Melchior 19c,, Groover. Jan 317 Grundberg, Andy 2.10-1 , , 2.50 Gursky, Andrt:as 1, 115. r56-8i, .i.72., 21'<6,57,11.10 anJ absorption 17 3 and abstract art 165, 179-81 digira l manipubrion in wo rks 165-6, 169-70 diptych form r 69-7-::. distance and "sevt•ring" in work 1 'i6-65, 177, 179, r:h, 343 and Del:ihaye's panoramas r l!G-7 and exclusion r8o, 344 globa lization as rhe1ne in wo rk i:73-6 J\tlanta 165,165, 1t(r Autoba/Jn, Mett111a1111 1 67-8, 1 fill, 11<0 81111destag, 801111r68-y
Cairo Diptych 1 <,9 Clucagu Board of Trade 165, , 79 Chickens, Krefeld 173 Diisscldnr(, Rhri111 58 EM Arena, A111sterda111 I 1 64 £11gadi11e 1 64 Fishennen, Millheim a.d. RulJr 158, 1 S9, 1 -3 Giordano BmmJ 377n,37 Greeley r 73 Happy Valley I 167, 167 Hong Kong 1111d Shallghai Bank, Hong Ko11g16!! Hong Kong Stuck Excha11ge170, 171 Hong Ku11gStock Exchange, Diptych 169, 170, 17 0 --;1, 172 . 179
Kla11senpt1ss r57-8, IJ7 Klitschko r 72 May Dt1y IV r64 New Years Swimmers 159 Nha Trang, Vietnam 173. 17s 99 Ce11t164, 180 Paris, Montpamasse 165, 170 Pollock's One: Number 3 1 180 Prada r I 64, 165, 179 Pr,1daI I t 7':J Resta11m11t. St Moritz r 81-2, 181 R/Jint•II 1 65, 166, 179, 1 80 Salerno 163-4, 163 Schiesser r69 Schipol 1 66- 7 Sha Tin 172, 17i., 180 Siemens, Karlsr11her73, ' 7-l State11ille,l/li11P1S1 6';), 169 Stockholder Meeting. Diptyc:h 174, r76, 1-6-7 S1111rlay Stmllers, Dilsseldorf Airpurt 1_56-7, , 56, 1 73 Swimming Pool. Rr1ti11ge11 159-61, 160, r64-5, 17, TimesSq11t1re11,5, t70, 179, 181 Tokyu Stock Exdmnge 161-2., 161, 173-4, 17 9
103
Turner Collectio111 So Untitled 1 , 7':J, , 80-R , Untitled II 1 82 Untitled Ill dh Untitled \ 165 Untitled X 1 80 Untitled X JI ( 1) 17/;-9, r,IJ lurid, Giim:how,
I/
1 66 Be.ice 33 8
H:1mho11rg, Maria Morris 36711.1,, ,8711.27 Hamilron, Geo rge Heard 36211.23 Hansen, .Miri:un Braru 36611.fi Hauge land, John 3 5 811.15 Hegel, G. W. F. 3-4, 78, H6, 347
The £11cyclopediaLogic F- 4, 325-6 infinite and Bechers· work ·p.4-6, J 27-8
Ichikawa, Masanori 19k indererminacy and Barthes·s p111,ct11111 34 5 Busram::111re' s Tablea//x 20 and Demaod's work 264 - 5, 266, 344-5 indexic:aliry and p hotography and Demand 268-9, 272 Gurksy's digital manipulariun uf work 1(,6 Krauss's "Note.s on the Index" 261! Michaels on 3J 5-6, 3I<511.r 1. and $truth's cityscapes 2.78, 281 infinite in I legel and Becher~' work 324-6, 317-8 intemion 352 and Demand's work 271-6, 2.81, 316, 344-, "gap" between intention and effecr 272,345 and Dijkstra's work 207-8, 211, 2.14 and Srruth's ciryscapes 277-Sr
'fric11ccof Logic 324, 32.6 Heidegger, Marrin 3-4, 8 r "The /\ge of rhe World Picture" 60, 62 Being and Time 47-56, 64-6, 78, ,47 "The Urigin of the Work of Arr" 62, :;03 "The Quesrion Concerning Tecl111ology" a nd Wall's work 60-62 '·The Turning" 60 and Wall's work 4 7-62, 64-6, 7 8, X 1 and rechno logy 60-62 wc,rld a od worldne.ss 47-56, >46, 3 4 7 and Zitla11efilm 23 2 Heilmeycr, Wo lf-Diete r 134 Henson, Bill 3 3 7 Hernandez, Anthony '137 Heynen, Julian 38811.35 high modernism antithearric.iliry 270-71 and minimalism 2.., 43, 162, 2.70-7 1, 344-5, 352and tableau form r 44-5 and Wa ll's work 81-2 Hoft:r; Candida 1, 21, 115,18 7 ,338. HO interiors 281-94 and exclusion 286-8, 344 and gallery space 288-94, .344 w h ireness in work 290-91 Bnllett;;,e11trum, Hamburg Ill 286-7, 2.87 BNI- Paris XX 2.84 Ca' Oolfi11Venezia I 2.1<4,285, 286
Ca' Reuonico Venezia I 2.91, 291. DHFK Leipzig IV 2.90, 291, 293 Museo Civicn Vietmza JI 282-3, 282., 286, 2.!:l7-8 Neue Natio11algalcr1c,Berlin \Ill 283-4, 2,~3, 286 l'alaz.zo Zenobia Venezta Tl! 284 Schi11dlerHouse Los Ange/as VII 2.9, , 2y 1 Zuologische Giirtc11294 , .301-z, 301,344 Holderlin, Jnhaon Christian Friedrich 61 Horsfield, Craigie 2.15, 337 Hiim:, Axel 115. 357
Jamt!S, Geoffrey 337 Jameson, Fredric 37711.4 1 Judd, Donald 22, 179, 270, 304 Kafkn, Franz 102 Kant, fmm anue l 64, 78, 3 24 Katz, Vincent 36711. 1 1, 38311. 15& 17 Kertesz, Andre
1,
Piet Mondrian i11His Studio 1 1 2, 3, 114 The Violinist's Tm1e yS,
Mayda)', Moscow r r 2 Shi11ohiern,Fighter Pilot 98 Klei st, "On Kluge, Kolbe , Krauss,
Heinrich von 4 tht! Puppet Theater" 24 ,-6 Alexander 271 Georg: Daum F,7.70-7 1 Rosalind 3 36 "Nores on rile Ind ex" 268
La Fonr de Sainr-Yen ne 37611.2.2. Lafont, Suzanne 337 Lageira, Jacinro 3 5 511.20 f.ange, Susanne 306, 309, 321, 39311.4 1 Lauter, Rolf 52, 54 l::rwler, Louise 337 Le, An-My 337 Lear, Jonatl1an 35811.3 Legros, Alphonse I oo, 1 ,o, .1.25, _:142 Leibowitz, Fran 239 Lerup, Lars 38 511.4 Lesser. Wendy r3n. 1~ Levine, Sherry 3 3 7 Levitt, Helen 22 1 Lewis, Riley H2
Liebermann, Vakria 18 I inder, Mark ,88 - 911.40 Lingwood, James 306, 307, 31.L-2, 329-30 Lurnaeus, Ca rl 3 1ll litera lism see minimalism (lirer,ilism) Lombino, Mary-Kay 284-6, 2X7 1.oock, UIJ·ich 21, u, 35711.52 Louis, Morris "Unfurleds" r8o. 2.70 Alpha-Pi 81, 81, 181 Lllfrer, Vera 33"' McCracken, John 304 McDowell, J0hn 232, 233, '47 Mahayana Buddhism 3;r-2 .\llalcolm, Janet 37,511.16, 38011.34, 382.11.50 Malcolm, Norman }64-511.37 M.111ec,Edo uard 2., 7, 100, 2.1.5 "facingness" of work 40, 43 . t 50-52, 340 portraits and Ruff's work 150-52, 340 and Wall 6 3, 340-4 1 B(/r at the Folies-BergereJ 6- 17 Deieu11ers1,r /'herbe 40, , 50-5 1. 3 40
Excc11tio11 of Maximilian HO Old Musician 40. 150-5 1, 340 Olympia 28, 40, 150-51, 340 Pnrtrail of Victorine Nle11re111151, see also Fried: Ma11et'sMfJdemism
151
Mann, Sally 337 Monuvich, Lev ,7011.1.6 Mapplerilorpc, Robert 1 12 Marcoci, Rosana 261,270, 3/1511.l! Marder, Maleric: At Rest 338 1\llarioni, Joseph 337 Masuda, Rei 2.99-300 m;;:mory and Barrhes"s p1111ct11m 103-4 Menze l, Ado lph 38811.u Michaels, Walrer Benn 4, 337-X, 368 11.q, 7,7211.6 '·Photographs and Fossils"' 3,5-~ and Barthes's p1111ct11111345 and indexica liry ,n-6, 38511. 12. on Sherman and Welling 35411.7 , 31!711.24 fl,e Shape of the Signifier 3 3-, 38611.1 5, ,8711.24 on Wh:uton', The House of Mirth 386-711.20 Michals, Duane 337 Michelangelo: Da111d138-42., 342 Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig 66-,2 Miller, Perry ,52 Miller, Jean Fran<,;ois I oo "mindednes s" 40 minimalism (lireralism) 24, 3 11< and antithca rrica lity of arr photography 344-5 and Barthe.s's punrt11111345 and Bec hers' work ,21.-3 and Bustamanre's T11hle,111x 22-3 and ga llery space 288-90, 293, .H4
and high modernism 2, 4 3, 162, i. 70--- 1, 344-5, 35 2. and tableau form 144-5 and theatricality 2.70-71, 30~ and Wall's C..oncratcBall 130-33 and Welling's Lot'k ,o}-4, 321! Mishima, Yukio 4 The Decay of tht· i\11gcl198-9 Spring S11ow 348-9, .351-2 desc:rip1ion of photograph 39.,11.32 Wall's After ··sµ,i11gSnr,w," 30, 44, 33-/ , 347-5:. Yuishiki school and ala)'a constiousness , 'i 1-2 The Temple o{ Daum 24 voy;;:urism in 28-,0, 3 5 Mirchell, Wi lliam J.T. 337, 37011.26 modernism see high modernism ,\11.o ndrian, Piet J 12, 1 14, 187-R Morgan, Jessica 207-ll Morin, Edgar 369 - 70 11.25 Moriyama, Daido 239 Morris, Robert 270 "Narcs on St.:ulpturc" 1-14-5, 288, 3 3; Untitled 39111.2 1 mt,vies sec cinema Moyse, Edouard 22.5, 22.6 Mulvey, Laura 35411.6 Musil, Roberr 4 The Man r11itho111 Qualities 20, , 76 -9. 28 1 Nadar qy Naef. Heidi 3 5711.45 Nattier , Jean -Marc 199 Newman, Barnett 23 011l'71/ellfI I 79 , J 79, I 80 Nicpce, Joseph Niccpho ri:: 3 7011.25 N ixon, Nicholas 337 Noland, Ke1111erh1SX \lia Mcdic111 1 80, r 80 nbjecchood 30,-33 and Bechers 78,303, 321-30, 345, .H6-7 "good" a nd "bad" objccrhood and Bcchers' typologies -8 . .328- Jo ::ind Michae ls on indcxicality 336 anJ Wall's Concrete Ball 333 anJ Welling's L11ck303-4, , 28 sec ,zlso Fried: "Arr a nd Objectho,,J" O'Dohcrty, Brian 4, 289-90. 291, 292-4, 344 Ohlin, Alex _,7711.40 Olicski, Jules 180-X 1, , 88
011bitde sni 40-4 1. 203, 2 10, 339, 367-811.14 Owen, Craig 336 Parreno, Philippe: Zida11e(wi th Gordon) 215 1 22./;- 33, 21.8-9, 342, 347 Pascal, 11laise 40 P:iyn;;:, Lewis 104. , o f. 106
22.., .
404 405
Peirce, Ch.tr ies ~anders 38511.12. Penn, lrvmg _no11.28 pcrformanct' and Strurh ·s mu~eum phomgra rhs I l 5- 7 m Wall's photl)graphy -11· ,o, 65-n, .qn, 34')-,;o see alsri ~stagm1;": rheamc.1lil) Pfob, Rupert 16\, 164 Phillip s, /\Jam 2.1o philosophy :ind :m 1-4, :qn-7 see ,1lso Hegel; H c:1tlt·ggcr; Wirtgen~rein Philp, Annc:tte 3"'411.19&10 Pippin, Robert 3-4, 4 7-8 . M,, • 24 Hegel .111JBechcrs· work 12s-6, 32.7, 328, 346 place Demand on 2.60, 268 Stturh's ciryscapes 276-ll 1 rocric revcnling ,)f :.ire A 1-2. Pollocl-. Ja ckson 11.7, 179, 11<0 Pouns, Larry I RI< porcrairs 191-2.33 and scale 17-1 !I cheacricalit) 19::.-4. J, 8-9 see also Ruff: "Por tr ai t~"; \rruth: lami ly portr:rns posing anJ anrnheatm:aliry 34 , 1 n-7, 341-2. in Barrhes\ Ca111eraL11mla 107-1 4, 194, 2.14, 2.39-40,
338, 345-6 Srrurh's famil} rortrait\ 196, 198-<1. 2.0:--4. 34 1-2. and rhcarricaliry 40, 50, u 1, 35 8-9 truth 's Pergamon Mu seum piccur cs 134-8 uncon~ciou~ poses in d1Corcia's work 256 111Wall'~ work H, 50, 65-6, 2.37 see also fronta l po se in photography "p resence-at-hand" .ind H eiJcgger 48, 49, 78 Probst, Barbara J 18 Proust, Mar cel 4, 98 memory anJ l.farrhes's J11111ct11m 103-4 on Ruskm and re,1ding 3 1011.28 Quinton,
Fr:inc;ois 264
Raphael frescoes 115, 132-3. 132 ''rea di11css·to -hand " in H eidegger 4X-9, 50, 5 s-
406
tndEI •
Ruff, Thomas 1.4. 1 r2, 1 1 l, 1 , 6, 2.-2. and Ce,anne 152-3 "facingncss·· of work 149-,0, 319-40 historica l as)11ci:111011s o f wurk 153-, Jnd Mancr's porrrairs t 50-51, 340 "Aire red Portra11~" 15 3 en larged pixel phomgraphs 1 ,4-, 1 H " Hou ses" 148, 150, 1p.-3, 15:! " ~1achines~ , 54 "New,paper Photographs" r 54-5 "Nigh t~" n611.2. 1 "1'udes·• 153-4, 154 "Portraics" 2., q, 17-18, 19, 143-4, 146-55. l'ortrmt {A. K11chddf t.17
195, q9-40
PortrJ1t f 8. fii11ger/,Portr,11tf K. K.11 cf/clf ,Portrait /R. l-111ln m/ , 4"SrJrs" 148. 1 50, 15 3. 1 SJ Runge, Philipp Orm 39011.9 Ruscha, f:, ,J 337 Ruskin, lohn 37011.z.R C.aint-Victor, Paul de 225-6 Sa l,1, Anri: 1.nrzg ormw 33!< Salgado, Sebasriao ,37 Salzmann, Augu~t ;69 11.21 San d er, August 149
People of the T111e11tieth Century :1nJ Becher s 318 -1 9,31/1, 119 and Srruth 195, 195, 19(,, 197 ante. Loe 156, .:.57-8 Sa~s, Louis 380 11.34 Schabel. Jo hn 338 5chjeldahl, Peter IH, 13 , -7, 198,181. J7911.2.2&15 Sch mickl, Silke }II, 18, 37 411.i.7 Schmidt, Michae l B 7 Schneid , H erve u6 Schor, 1 aomi 36611.6 chwah sk)', Barr y 38.p1.2.6 Schwander. Martin 38, 40-4i, 43, 75, 77, 2.50, 34 r '>eidel, ClauJia 37311.12. Sekula, Alan J 19-2.0 Senn ett, Rich a rd u911. 2.6 •·severing" in Gursk)"s work 158-65, 177, 182., 186, r87, 343 Sherman, Ci ndy 337 Untitled Film Stills 7- 10, 8-9, r3-14, r 1 r , 1 i.:., 24 9, 38-11 . .1.4 anJ arr phorol:(rnphy 1 8 Sho re, Stephen 3 3 7 Uncommon Places 2.1-2., 2.1, 1i4 )ilhoucrres and Bcchers' work 306 size of Jrl photo gra phy wo rk s q , 1 , - ill, 37, 101>-7, 14 3- 4 Busram:m te's Tal>lea ux 2.0-2.1 Delahaye·~ pan oramas 18,, 184, 186 and d erail 15- 16, 164, 186, 2 1 1 diCo rcia's heads 2.5"'
r
Sm ith, Tony 1.70 D,e 318, J p and Wall's Concrete /Jail ,30-, ~ Snyde r, Joel 38511.12 Sobel, Dean 2.61, 31<511.6 Solomon-Godeau, Ah 1gail 336, ;8711.2.4 Sonrag, Sus:1114 011PlmtogrtJphy 2')-JO, 79, 194. 36911.2.2 un Arbus 208, 37111.34 <111 Evans 101-2., 338 Regarding the Pain of Others q, JO-H, 10::. on Wall's Dead Troops Talk .,i.-,, 246 spec tator s see beh<)lding ··sr:iging " cinema and art photography 10-11 diCorci::i's Storybook f.ifc 2.58-9 performance and ab~orpc ion in Fried landcr·s work 137-8 and Smtth'~ mu seu m ph otograp hs , ,5-7 nnd Wall' s photography 41, 50, 65-6, 246, '149-,0 sec also rhearricalit) ' SrJ IIJbr as) . Juli an 37711.39 Stein, Geruude 4 ''Picru res" 149-50 Stcll::i, Frank u, 2.3. 119, 356 11.2.8 Sremmrich, G rego r 365-61 1.42., 366 11,6 Sternfcld, Joe l 337 revcns, M ark 254-5, 2.56, .:.58 Sticglirz., Alfred: The Horse-Car Terminal 112. Still, Clyfford .:.3 Strand, Paul 36711.I 1 Blind 93, 93, 255 street photography 135-59 anci rheatrica liry 101-1, 2.43-~ unawareness of subj ccrs 101-2., 236, 238-9 di Co rcia's work 2.52.-6, 2,7. 1.58 Srreuli's video works i.40-4-1, 2.47-8 and Wall 2.35-8. 1.40 Streul i, Beat Io 1, 2. 54. 34 2., 36711.1 r and co-be-seenness 246-8 I-our Twn Screen Pr<>1ec11011s 1.40-47 BKK Siam Square, Bangkok 242, 1.43 Broadway/Prince Street 2.46, 1.47 8th Ave1111e and 35th Street, New York City 2.4.:.-3, 2+,1, 1 47 George Street 811s Stop, Sydney ·qr, qi, 1.4 2., l.15 The Pallasades, Birmingham f £11 gla11d/i40-4 1, l-J 1. 2.45, 146 Venice Beach 2.46, 1 8411.2.1 ew York City 2000-oz 2.47-8, 2-,R• .1.p Porte de Fla11drc,Bmxelles 1 8411.24 Srrucver, Nancy$. 36 111.15 Struth, Thomas r, 21, r11 . 156, u8, 340 Becher discussion 1 2.1-2 and ro-be -~ecnne ss 34 1-2 "AuJiencc" serie~ 115-16, 13>1-42...145. H:!
Audience 2 1 3 X-40. c3 9 J 140, 1-10 A11d1e11,:e A11d1 c11re- 141, r -11 cityscapes 171>-8 1 Grosh)• treet. "Jt'w 'r'ork ,sol101 27b
Diisselstrasse, Dusscldorf l 7
2.-.--8 1
Pr111,:e Rege11tStreet, Fd111h 11rgh :!-II Smtt/J l.ake Strl'cl Apart111 e11ts .1. C/11C",1go 2.7R,:!HO family portraits 148, 191-2.06, 2 q, 2.15 11nd ah~orption 2.03, 230 antith eat rica lity 196, r9 841, 203-4 , H ,-.:. The Remstei11h.muly. Nliimlershac/J 191, 111J, 1 'i9, 2.00. 2.oc, 103 The C111 1s()la11Jiramify. lvlda11201, 20 , Eleonor t111dCdes Robertse111, Edinl,urgh 2.01, 1.01. Tl,e Hirose Ft1111ily, Hiros/11111,1 1y o . 191, 196, 197. ioo. 20t 1 2.03 The Mart111·lvlasrmfamily. Diisseldorf ios-6, .to; and resemhlance 199-2.00 The Ridner Fa1111ly, Diisseldor( 20 4-5, 20 -1
The Shimada Family, Ya111,1g11ch1 z.oo-o r The Smtih Fa111dy,fife 191, 191., 196,200,
2.03 techniqu es for achieving portrairs 196-8 museum phorograph~ 115-4 1., 145, 162., 342-,, 347 anJ ahsrr,1ct work) 1:!5, 127. 180 Alte Pmakvthek, Self-Portrait 1 1 5, 13 3-4. , 3 ~ Art lnst1t11t e of Chicago 2 1 r 5, 1 16, 1 19-1, , 11.0 . 12.8 Calleru1del/'Accademia 1, Ve111,el r 5, 1 r8, 119, 1 :1.1-2., 127 "Herm 1mge" se rie\ 116, 3 43 K111isthistorischesMuseum J, Vienna 115, 117-tll, r di, 12.1, 136-.., l..u uvre 4, P11risI r 5, 1 16- 17, 11-.. 128-9 Mu see d'Orsay , , Paris r 2 5 Museo def l'mdo , 343, 343 Museo del Prado - '42- 3, 34 l Museo de/ Vat1ctJ110, . Rome r 15
atio11c1I G,1llery 1. Lo11do111 ::.5. 11.r. National Callery 2, Ln11d1mx r 1 5. 1 \0-3 t, , JI Nationul M11s e11111 of Art. Tokyo 12.4-5. 125 ~Pergam1>n Museum~ series 115, 1"14-7, 13r. H:2 " Prad o'' ~cries 116. ,42.-3, J-1,
Riiksm11se11m , . Amsterdam t 25, , :di San Zc1ccar1.1, Ve111ce1 15, 12.9-30, 1 10 Stc111;:e d, Raffaello 2. Rt1111e1 15, 132-3, r 32 sec also "A udience " se ries ,1ho11c 37 411.19 f'a11theo11 ~Paradise" ~eries anJ exd11s1on 2.94, 2.99-300, 300, sufferin g and esrheri cs in phol(1gr:iphy 30-3 s Sugi moto, Hir os hi 1, 11, _n5. 31~, 340 D10ramas ~. , 8 Drwe-lns r 4 Mu111eThet1tl.'rs5-7.6, 11-11, q- 14, rx, 111 " C::t~Capt:!>" 10, 294-9
mde>
344
407
Black Sen, Ozu/uce :.9(,, 29Caribbeaii Sea, Ja111aica294, 291
revelarion of unconscious self 2::.1 Struth ·s family portraits 203 unconscious moments in Dijkstra·5 work 207-8, 21 o, 2.1 r-13, 2 14 street photography 101-2, 2_:;6, 23X-9, 2.40 diCorcia's work 2.51-6, 257, 258 Srreuli's video works 2.40-44, 247-8
exclusion of beholder 1.94-9, H4 fn11ia11 Sea, Santa Cesnrea 295-6
Mirtoan Sea. S01111io11 1.98 North Atlantic Ocean. Cape Brecon ls/and 1.9Set111f]11{)t1/l, l{ebun Island 295-6, 1.96 waxwork historical figures 215, 219-21
Jane Seymour
Van Gog h, Vincent 62 Van Loo, Louis-Michel 193-4 Vermeer, Jan: W'om,111 1(11//; t1 l.ute x 115, 1 :,0-3 1. , J 1 Veronl ·se. Pao lo: Feast in tht! House of Lev, , 15, 1 1H. 1 19,
220
surfaces and a hsrracr arr 188 and Ruff's portraits 149 rransparency of photography r X7, , 88-9 in Wall's work 84 ~zarkowski, John 208, 38211.50
12 ·1-2,
"rableau form" art photography 14-24, 143-1>, 152, r87, 188 and Bechers' wo rk 309, 3 19 " resrirution" 144-5, 339 tableaux and French painting 26-7, 34, roo, 152., 3--11-2 techno logy : Heidegger and Wall's work 59-62 theatricality , oo cinema a nd arr photography , 0-11, 1 3 and minimalism (litera lism) 270-71, 303. _,45-6 of portraiture 192-4, 338-9 and posing 40, 50, 2.2.1 Barthes's Camera Lucida on 107, 109, 111,194,214. 1.39-40, 338. 345-6 Strurh's Pergamon Museum picrures 1:,4-8 unconscious poses in diCorcia's work 256 see aim anrithearrica liry; Fried : Absurption a11rl Theatricality; "staging"; ro-l,e-seenness Tillmans, Wolfgang 337 to-be-seenness 35, 4,, 2r4 , :1.26 and De lahaye's L'Antre 223 and diCorcia's work 249, 253 -4 , 256, 259 H ofer's zoo photographs 302. and Srreu li's video works 246-8 Strurh ·s work 3 41-2 and Wall's work 50. 5 8-9, 82, 2.3 8, 246, 341, H9 Zidane film 229-30 see ,1/so thearricaliry transparency of photography 187, r88 truthfulness and falseness and represenrntion 27-l{ Tuchman, Phyllis 122., T25, r2.7 Tum lir, Jan 63-4. 72. Turner, J. M. W. 180 typologies and ide:11 type 309, 318-2 1 Ubl,Ralph r,-16 111rnwareness in subjects distance and severing in G ur sky's work 158, 16,-J, oubli de soi 40-4 1, 203, 230, 3 39 and portraiture 193-4, 33X-9, 34 r-2 Evans's sub way portraits 221, 222
408
173
12-
Vischer, Theodo ra 1,711.45 voye uri sm in Mishima's The Temple of Dawn 28-9, ,5 of photograp her 29- 30
Clipped Brcmclu.!s'i-1-5, SJ Co11creteBall -;_,0-33, 331 , ,45 Cuttings 5-1-5 "Dan Graham's Kammerspiel" 362.11.17 Dead Troops Talk 32-5, 33, 63. 72-3, 102, 246 "Depic tion, Object, Evi:nt" 344 The Destroyed Room 10, r5-17, 15, 5/l, 63, 144 Diagonal Co111positio11 SJ, 54
Diagonal Compositinn No. 1. 53, Diagonal Composition No. 3 52, Doorpusber 6 3 Double Self-f'nrtrait 6-; The Drain 63 Eviction Struggle 64 foking Death 354-511.8 Fieldwork 80, 82-4, 83, 34 1 The Flonded Crave 80, 3 51
,4
n,
54
" Frames of Reference" 344 Waddell, Stephe n J 3 8 Wakefield. Nevi lle 37711.40 Wall, Jeff 2., 14, 1.4, 106-7, 186,188. 22 _,, 3;8 a nd absorptio n 37-62, 6<;-6, 74-80, 136, 145,341, 349-50 anrirheatricaliry of work 66, 80-8 1, 8 5-93, 237-8., 246, 3 52 "cinematographic·• phorographs , o- 1 I, 63 digitization of photograp hs 34 . 74. 7 5. 83 . 348, H9 nn display of photographs 1 -14 " documentary" photographs Io, fq, 3 30 "near documt:nrary~ picrure~ 4 1, 66-76, 80-H 1, 82.-93, J 86, 138, 341 on Evans 335 and the everyday 62, 63- 93, 333. 34 1, 346 a nd Fried 1, 39, 39 511.6 and Heidegger 47-62, 64-6, 78, 81 a11d Maner 63, 340-41 micro-gesr ur es in work 237, 2.38 and minimalism/ literalism 330-3 3 "neo-rea list'' work 63, -3 :md '"optkaliry" 286-7, 36511.4 1 on paintinJ? and photograp hy 12.4. 1 R.,, and philosophy 346, 347 and srreet photography 2.35-8, 2.40 m-be-seenness of work 50, 58- 9, 82,238,246,341,349 on water in phorography 73--1 and \V.ttgenstein 76-80, 81, 34 7 Adrian \Ylalker36, 37-4_1, 45-6, 63, 65, 80 . 2,8, 2.49. 250. 341 After "lnvisi/ile Man" by Ra/pl, Elliso1144-51, 4S- 63, 65 . 80-81, 238,341. Af ter "Spring Snow." by Yukin Mishi111,1, clmf1tcr 3 4 ,o, 44, 334, 347-51and Co urb et's Wheat Sifters 3 50-5 1 Backpack 340 Bad Goods 63, 64 Blind Window nos. 1 and 1. 91, 9.2, 93, 25 'i The Burrow 8~, 88
The Giant (,3 Housekeeping 85, 85, 88- 9 Scene 63 A Hu11ti11g A Man with a Rifle 63 "Marks of lndifferenceTI 145. 37511.16, 38y1.11
Mimic 64,234, .i.u-8, 240,246,255.340 Momi11g Cfea11i11g, Mies i1a11der Rohe Fo11ndatio11. Barcelu11a10, 66-76, f.8-7r . 78-82, 138, ;41 Mo111eA11die11ce10-1 4, 1 0-11, 1 1 , No 340 ''A Note Abo ut Clea ning" 36y1.2.9 Odradek, Tahoritska 8 44 Outburst 63 Passerby Sy, 9, , 91
Peas and Sauce 52., p "Photography
and Liquid lnrelligence" 73-4, 78-9 t 1 2., 340
Picture for Wome1115, r6-17, 1 r,, 63, 72-3, Rainfilled Suitcase 5 .i., J2 Restoratiu1163 A Sapli11i Held by a Post 54, iJ Stai11i11g Be11ch55-6, ;6 Stereo 63, HO Still Creek, Vancouver, \Y/i11te1· J 51 The Storyteller 63 The St11111/Jl111g Blnck 63 A Sudden Gust of Wi11d6 3 The Thinker 63 "Thri:e T hough ts on Photograp hy" J60ll .7 U11ta11gli11g 5 r-2, J J, 65
Untitled (Forest) 8 5-6, 86 Untitled (Night) 65, 87-8, Hlllltitled (Overpass) 88-9, 89, 3 5 , The Vampires· Pic11ic63 A View from a11Apart111e111 56-1',2., 1R, 60, 6,, 65, !10-81 A Wall i11ti Former Bakery 84, 84 The Well Xo \Y/0111011 with a Co11ered Tray 88-9. 90,351 \Vo111a11 c111d Her Doctor 63, 340 wall -mounred display of art photography 14- 15, 22, 37, 1067, 143-4, 339-40 Walton, Kendall 372.11.6 Warhol, At1dy 218 w,uer in phorography: Wall on 73-4 Welling, James 1, 35411.7 Lock 303-5, 304, 3z.8, 333,345 Wessing, Koen: Nicaragua 9-4, 96, 97, 100, , 1 l Weston, Edward r87 Wh.isrler, James McNeil) 1 50 Widmer, Ru edi :i.63-4, 265-6, 268, 38511.4 Williams, Gregory 38311.16 Winogrand, Garry 30, 101, 238, 2..,9. 1.-2 The Animals 294, 301-2, 301 Hollywood Boulevard, Los A11geles136-7, 236 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 3-4, 8 c. 346, 362.11.28 Bechers' t)'pologies and "good'' and "bad" ohjecthood 321<9, 345, 34Cult11rea11d Value 76-80, 102, 162., 328, 34~, 347 Notebooks 3 28-9, 3-15 Philosop/Jical fn11estigatio11s 80, 113- 4 Philosophical Remarks u:2.- 3, 347 on resemb lance a nd $truth's fa mily portraits c99. 200 and Strur h's museum photographs 122-3, 347 and Wall and the everyday 76-80, 81 . 347 world and worldhood creation and recreation 3 51-2 1 leidegger and Wall's work 47-56, 61 , 6-1-5. 346,347 and Zidane film 1.32. Wunderlich, Perra 3 "l7 Wylie, C harles 19/1-9, 200, 202-3 Yuishiki schoo l nnd ,1/aya cc,nsclousness 351-2. Zidane, Zinedine 226-33 Ziegler. Ulf Erdmann 307 , 309, 390-9 Zweite . Armin 32.r
t 11. 1-1
index
408
