?

Log in

No account? Create an account

lirikons

Recent Entries

5/22/16 03:07 pm - ход45

У Лишаева (Эстетика пр-ва):

"...Но чем ближе к нашему столетию, тем чаще мы встречаемся с представлением о человеческой жизни как о становлении без цели, как о не знающем предела переборе возможностей. Центр тяжести в таком представлении о жизни лежит не в завершении, а в самом становлении, в том, что происходит (переживается) "по ходу" движения, в самом переходе от одного к другому.
Переход от модерна к постмодерну ознаменован вытеснением представления о "человеке-ставящем-цели-и-достигающем-желаемого" представлением о "человеке-в-бесконечном-движении" (прежняя модель все еще работает, но ее активно вытесняет новая). На исторической сцене появился человек, стремящийся ускользнуть от любых определений, любых идентификаций ( в том числе от самоидентификации как обязывающей меня стать тем, кем я хочу стать), рассматривающий любую обязывающую определенность как утонченную форму рабства, закрепощения, подавления. Его представления об успехе не связываются с какой-то определенной областью деятельности, а профессия не воспринимается как призвание.Человек постмодерна получает удовлетворение от самого процесса становления иным, от смены позиций, ролей и мест, от тех переживаний, которые возникают при переходе от привычного к непривычному, особенному, иному.
Его восприимчивость к процессуальности, становлению, к метаморфозам и перемещениям обостряется, первостепенную значимость приобретают не вещи и даже не аура места, а восприятие и переживание направлений возможного движения."
Стр 40

"В отличии от восприятия мест, восприятие направлений не связанно с пребыванием человека или вещей в каком-либо пространстве.Здесь в сферу чувственно данного входит возможность иного в образе пространства-для движения (в образе мира как пути-дороги). Но что, собственно, означает на предметном уровне восприятие возможности\невозможности иного, если речь о пространстве, а не об эстетической данности овеществленных модусов времени? Ответ прост: восприятие возможности пере-мещения, возможности сменить место.
У человека как деятельного существа пространственные представления формируются по-ходу предметной деятельности. Различные направления пространства - это направления нашего действительного или гипотетического движения, это возможность\невозможность перемещения. Наш глаз непроизвольно промеривает-прощупывает пространство, поскольку мы имеем телесный опыт движения как по горизонтали, так и по вертикали. В своем истоке пространство в основных его направлениях формируется по ходу движения, в процессе тактильного и визуального прощупывания окружающего мира). Простор, даль, бездна и высь воспринимаются как направления движения. В опыте простора, например, возможность, которая нам открывается, - это возможность свободного движения в любом направлении по горизонтали, в то время как в опыте дали мы воспринимаем возможность перемещения по горизонтали в глубину пространства. Главное - это не вид (хотя на просторе нам, конечно, может быть открыт вид на прекрасный ландшафт), а возможность иных видов, иных пейзажей, иного бытия.
Пространство в его особенных направлениях предстает здесь не как образ предмета, а как определенная конфигурация поля возможностей самого созерцателя. Это не ограниченная возможность передвижения внутри какого-то пространства, а открытые движения для возможности взгляда. Когда наш взгляд не встречает препятствий и наше внимание захвачено переживанием направления как условно или безусловно особенного, мы находимся в одном из расположений эстетики направлений... Каждое из направлений пространства, вовлеченное в силовое поле эстетического события, - это опыт возможности Иного, Другого, по-особенному данного в разных формах пространства как простирания."
Стр. 51

Ямпольский:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uElFb6mNQPI&t=2632s):
Лабиринт - паралакс (изменение вида объекта в зависимости от позиции (с помощью лестницы (тропы)) = монтаж. Фрагмент сопротивляется объединению в целое. Кинематограф - динамическое видео - интеграция фрагмента в цепочку.
Город нельзя охватить взглядом (кроме как с башни). Лабиринт улиц - нельзя охватить целое. Топография - разрушение, космография - гештальт. Переход от тотального видения к частичному: башня - субъективность и объективность сочетает - объективируемый образ города сверху, внизу - субъективный образ города. Движение от когнитивности к аффективности.
Урбанистический опыт протяжен во времени и связан с аффектами прохождения сквозь.
Беньямин: "Опыт города - переход от внутреннего к внешнему и наоборот. Стеклянные галлереи (пассаж) - стена внутри, имеет видимость внешнего. Выворачивание пейзажа."
Лабирит - разрушение гештальта восприятия к реальному при проходе души, мертвого. Гештальт должен разрушится.
Линии:
Нить - (не имеет поверхности, не гештальтируется, а чтобы возник смысл, нужен носитель).
След - что мы производим. Разрез, порез.
Линии которых нет - широта, долгота.
Лабиринт - и нить и след. Лабиринт мертвых не имеет поверхности, доложен находится под землей. Переход от следа к нити. Проваливаемся в темноту, гештальт исчезает. Образ разваривается, возникает реальное, т.к. поверхность разваливается. Например, лабиринты кот. рисуют, фигуры, которые не укладываются в плоскость, имеют объем.

Травма - вторжение реального. Мир не гештальт.

Разинов:
Однако то, что мы именуем пространством челове-
ческого существования, характеризуется прямо противоположным образом.
Оно неоднородно, анизотропно и дискретно, как и сама экзистенция,
которая, по Хайдеггеру, «всегда моя», но при этом еще и подвержена
отчуждению. Экзистенция все время колеблется между модальностями
«собственного» и «несобственного», «подлинного» и «неподлинного». Dasein
дискретно.
Термин «экзистенциальная геометрия» так же, как и «психологическая
топология», имеет в виду Путь в некотором важном смысле этого слова,
а именно — его экзистенциальное измерение. В европейской же культуре
произошла редукция этого смысла к методу. Метод — это путь, прошедший
процедуру рефлексивной разметки. Для характеристики методического дви-
жения важно не столько то, куда мы пришли, сколько то, как мы к этому
пришли. Греческое слово μέθοδος буквально означает «по-след-ование» или
«по-след-ствие». Метод — это последыш первоначально неметодического
измерения пути. Это своего рода инструкция или карта, содержащая по-
следовательную раскадровку шагов, — своего рода по-дорожная.
В методе осуществлена рефлексия, но и одновременно редукция пути,
как в смысле торения, связанного с движением по бездорожью, так и в
смысле проживания, раскрывающего пространство нехоженого.
Для обозначения пути в этом значении в греческом языке чаще ис-
пользуется другое слово — πόρος, πόρεία. Оно означает путь, поход, пере-
ход с акцентом на преодоление преграды, чему в старорусском языке со-
ответствует глагол «путить». Непреодолимая преграда на таком пути есть
α πόρεία — слово, ставшее, благодаря Зенону, термином неразрешимого
логического затруднения. Обозначая первоначально буквально непрохо-
димое место, беспутицу, слово «апория» стало уже в переносном смысле
метафорой безвыходной ситуации. Суть же затруднения — необходимость
торения, то есть прокладывания дороги там, где ее нет или где она невоз-
можна, следствием чего становится блуждание и заблуждение.
В экзистенциальном плане путь — это само прохождение, это бытие-
в-затруднении или пребывание в экзистенциальной апории, в которой
оказывается всякий вторгающийся в неизведанное пространство, бредущий
по нехоженому маршруту, по распутице, по бездорожью. Но именно такое
содержание пути, сопряженное с непроходимыми трудностями, ошибками,
обманом и заблуждениями, пытается преодолеть западное мышление, во-
оруженное идеей метода.
Если в китайском понимании
Путь (Дао) — это одновременно и цель, и способ ее достижения, равно как
и само достижение, то в европейской культуре произошла постепенная
редукция идеи пути к одному преимущественному смыслу — к контроли-
руемо воспроизводимому целерациональному способу действия. В качестве
метода путь перестал быть сферой осуществления человеческих поступков,
ибо, как следует из размышления М. Бахтина, любой метод для поступка
был бы отрицанием самого поступка.
Экзистенциальная геометрия — это теория Пути в том начальном
смысле, который оказался преданным забвению в культуре современных
«путешественников» — туристов, занятых не сбором впечатлений, а кол-
лекционированием знаков впечатлений, озабоченных не душевной работой,
а перемещением тел (и их знаков) в системе физических и социальных
координат.
1. «Путь, о котором можно поведать, — не постоянный Путь»
2. «Вступивший на путь никуда не идет»
итд, см. статью.

Из разговора:
Тропа в деревне - необходимость.
Тропа в городе - излишек, желание путешествия. Пройти так.
Путешествие на широкой асфальтовой дороге (перешагивать через одну плитку).

Фразы:
тщательность пространства
движение - восприятие видов. сложное движение, лестница, лабиринт
лабиринт - классики (игра). Прохождение, как возвращение к аффекту, реальному.
реверсивное движение
эталонный маршрут (с занятия).
идя по маршруту, лабиринту, автоматизму - разрушить гештальт. Как?
Методы: чудовище, путешествие, загадочное

Немного вытекающая из вышенаписанного идея:
Идея связана с плитами, которыми заделаны стены и колонны станции метро Чернышевская (их немного видно):


Как говорил Ямпольский, мы воспринимаем гештальтами, схемами (автоматизм), разными причинами обусловленными (культура, семья и т.д.). Но реальное, тем не менее есть, во всей полноте негештальтируемых схем. Аффект - это один из возможных путей ощущения реального. В те моменты, когда он случается, мы с реальным контактируем. Далее, без логической связки перехожу к лабиринту Ямпольского, как тому, что в мифологии располагается возле могилы и разрушает гештальт, приводя душу к реальному. Лабиринт, это способ освобождения от гештальта. Он подводит к этому через понятие нити как тому, что не гештальтируется, т.к. не обладает поверхностью. Проходя по такой нити, мы также освобождаемся. Это своего рода выход из автоматизма. Как в принципе и узор, который, также можно соотнести с лабиринтом. Например, момент, когда клеятся обои и необходимо, чтобы узор на двух частях совпал - выстраивается некий туннель на обоях. Причем, такое желание, желание этого туннеля - естественно. Желание, чтобы взгляд скользил по пути, по лабиринту, тем самым совершая проход, и возможно, путешествие.

Мраморные плиты на Чернышевской также содержат узор. Узор камня. Но плиты камня на границе не создают перехода, перетекания рисунка, они не совмещены по узору. В каждом камне лабиринт начинается, но не имеет продолжения. Таким образом взгляд "обламывается". Что может жутко злить. Например, когда я только приехал в Питер, и работал на первой здесь работе, вечером задержался, и охранник стал со мной разговаривать. А в здании, где я работал такая же ситуация с этими плитами (институт Мечникова, тоже находится на Чернышевской). Он работал в окружении этих плит и был зол, говорил, что они специально так сделали, чтобы навредить.
Так почему это может злить? И почему так сделано. Можно найти какие-то причины: безалаберность, или злой умысел идеологии, в целях контроля не дающий людям путешествовать по узору, для встречи с реальным. Мы привыкли к этой неувязке и проходим мимо. Хотя это глобальное запрещение. Возможность прохода к реальному, к приключению на дороге должна быть освобождена.
Я задумал сделать фотографии этих плит, разместить их на стенде, оформив в виде игры в пятнашки и дав возможность посовмещать эти плиты в надежде сложить узор, который наконец сложится.

4/13/16 09:37 pm

Online Photographic
Thinking
JASON EVANS
Photography travels. Photographic images customarily
appear on coffee mugs, t-shirts, and front pages, and
this capacity to roam continues to be one of the defin-
ing characteristics of our slippery medium. This essay
addresses the context of the Web for photography. It’s a
new frontier that, from the standpoint of an independent
practitioner, doesn’t seem to have fulfilled its potential,
given photography’s phenomenal recent expansion as a
contemporary art form, as well as its over 150-year-old
track record for multiple expansions. Thus far, I am
underwhelmed by photography’s presence online and
the lack of innovative explorations of the new medium. I
want to ruminate on why that might be—on what condi-
tions might have led to an underwhelming response by
serious and independent photographers to the potential of
the Internet.
First, let me contextualize myself. I am a 39-year-old
photographer/educator living an hour from London. My
own work, I like to think, is experimental and often takes
photography as its subject. I have regularly operated in
the editorial, fashion, and music industries. I studied fine
art in the late 1980s, when computers were just finding
their way onto campus. In those days, my idea of innova-
tion was Brian Eno’s wonderfully plodding “Mistaken
Memories of Medieval Manhattan” (1981), in which the
monitor, at that time almost solely linked to a televisual
experience, was turned on its side to accommodate an
image generated by a camera in equivalent condition.
40ESSAY / JASON EVANS
This anachronism may seem simplistic by contemporary
standards, but it proposed an important dialogue with the
imposed system of image reception, a subtle “détourne-
ment” that informed my own engagement with media
systems, both in integral and formal ways.
My own work, which had previously consisted
largely of self-obsessed street photography, made the
hop from the page to the screen in 2001. As a big budget
flaneur for British Telecom, I filed daily image and text
reports as I drifted through pedestrian precincts. I shot
on film, mailing handwritten notes to a Web designer in
Soho. In 2002, the cosmetics giant Shiseido commis-
sioned “Beauty Where You Find It,” a two-month cir-
cumnavigation with a remit to photograph things I found
beautiful. This developed my antenna for idiosyncratic
fancies, from a knitted bicycle cover in Myanmar to the
retro-utopias of Brasilia and Chandigarh. For this project,
I worked with a Sony Cyber-shot (still my favorite cap-
ture palette) and a laptop from which I emailed images to
the Paris La Beauté gallery for immediate display, as well
as to be uploaded to their website constructed for this
purpose.
The following year manifested a similar process for
Nick Knight’s SHOWstudio in a project called “New
World,” made on a camping trip through New Zealand.
By then the technology fit in my pocket, as a clunky
camera phone that afforded me freedom from cyber-café
negotiations. The tool of delivery had changed radically
in three years, with a particular emphasis on reduced cost
and size along with increased speed. The new technolo-
gies gave me license and encouraged me to deliberate
less about whether or not to actually take a picture.
Liberated from the worry that the film in my camera
would run out just as I stumbled across the best observa-
tion of the day, and from the fear of “wasting” valuable
film in the process of experimentation, I developed
41JANUARY 2008
a confidence and a flippancy that allowed me to take
new sorts of pictures and not be too precious about my
practice.
However, I’m conscious of the contradictory ways in
which I’ve responded to digital photography. For some
projects, I’ve become slower and I take fewer pictures.
I launched TheDailyNice.com in October 2004. The
project has channeled a few personal anxieties towards
catharsis. I show one picture at a time, uploaded at
bedtime. There’s no archive of previous days’ images;
when it’s gone, it’s gone. At a point in photographic
history where commodification offers new challenges
to practitioners, I wanted to kill my darlings one by one,
which has been a cause of anxiety for many viewers. The
images are always of something that was its own reward
and that made me happy at the moment when I found it.
Real beauty is not about perpetuity. It seems that there
are a few people out there (34,000 visits per month in the
winter months and 32,500 in the summer) who enjoy a
website that is dedicated to a happy moment in each day.
It’s a good news page, and by harnessing the ephemeral
aspects of photography, I now come across more “nices”
than I can show. In a society that discourages such
behavior, I have owned and shared my happiness.
Without the World Wide Web, I could not make such
a project happen. The site has generated an international
audience and dialogue. (Visitors respond with everything
from haiku to rambling essays on aesthetics.) The other
great advantage of this Internet-based project is the ratio
between the numbers of visitors and my own expenditure
in launching and maintaining the site. Magazine, book, or
gallery projects just can’t compete on this level. There is
the quality versus quantity debate, but I like to think that
I have that down, too. I’ve reached the biggest audience
of my life with no content compromise and an entirely
affordable process. There is no coffee table book in the
42ESSAY / JASON EVANS
pipeline, for which I am glad. Contemporary collectors
seem only to discuss what they own, rarely the content.
My work is no longer hemmed in by the deadening,
hyper-accelerated capitalist objectification of magazine
advertising as in my editorial days. I feel free.
Creating TheDailyNice site has encouraged me to
think about other applications of my pictures online. I’m
making book-type projects now that paper publishing has
a different imperative. Like many photographers in the
mid-1990s, I was sucked into a sense of inadequacy from
not having a monograph by the time I was thirty. In the
early 2000s, I started talking to publishers and hearing
what a hard time they were having; stories of editions
of a thousand barely shifting half the print run. In 2007,
I launched TheNewScent.com, and it had 3,700 visitors
in its first month. If an audience is what you prefer (as
opposed to a physical thing like a book or a show as the
testimony to your photographic talent), then the Internet
is for you. How the perceived populism and the lack of
exclusivity of my online presence places me in relation
to, say, the gallery system has yet to be determined.
In the inevitable and frankly tedious digital versus
analog debate, my position is one of either/and. Both
systems offer distinct possibilities, but I ultimately
believe that they are just different sides of the same coin.
Photography’s comparatively brief history is littered
with mechanical revelations and methodological revolu-
tion. I see the digital as nothing more than the most
recent of these. Those who whine about the demise of
Kodachrome rarely bemoan the lack of popularity or
common usage of the cyanotype. Those fuzzy thinkers
seldom make the connection between a beloved aesthetic
and the motivations of the corporation that created it.
We are not having our choices taken away from us by
the usurping of analog by digital; we just have to expand
what photography can be.
43JANUARY 2008
Changes in “capture” characteristics, particularly
the preview screen, have had an essential impact. In the
“good old days,” when we shot in the dark with intuitive
reliance on a sense of skill, a serendipitous selection
of “happy accidents” informed the development of the
medium. With the preview screen, we are more likely
to delete immediately anything that doesn’t look like a
picture we formally recognize—that is, photography that
looks like photography as we used to know it. I’m an
advocate for not pressing the delete button too readily—
for leaving the (analog-born) door open for finding a
new direction or cause for thought in your photography
through retrospective editing.
Many of us come from a position of having learned
to create photography with analog tools and outcomes.
An interesting thing about the digital is that it does us
good (mentally, anyway) to sometimes put aside the
seductive “thing-ness” of photography (the crumpled
papers, the hassles of framing and hanging) and engage
directly with the image. I’m not saying, of course, that
online/digital photography doesn’t have form, or that
there aren’t already stylistic conventions emerging on
the Web, but rather that the issues of form and aesthetics
that are rightly heavy or serious ones for a photographer
working in print form become lightened and are less the
focus of my creative energy when thinking “WWW.”
When making work, we usually operate from a tangible
experience that still seems to matter like hell when that
same work becomes intangible. These are good buttons
for us photographers to press.
In the recent scramble to establish the new cultural
frontier that is “contemporary art photography,” there
has been a shift away from defunct ideas about visual
“democracy,” wide circulation of the “image,” and
the re-establishment of the photograph as object. Art
market credo limits many of the defining characteristics
44ESSAY / JASON EVANS
of the photographic medium, simultaneously rendering
“serious” work less likely to reveal itself with any real
intent in the populist and, dammit, free realm of the
Internet. The prospect of all of those uncalibrated moni-
tors is going to be a turn-off for any photographer who
has labored with specific tools and palettes to produce
particular effects. Compare the “image” impact of a
Gabriel Orozco to the “picture” production values of a
Gregory Crewdson, and ponder which translates better to
the Internet.
I know that this means that the Internet is not the
place for everyone’s photography. But editorial photog-
raphers are a pragmatic group of people and, taking cues
from photography’s analog past, we have learned sto-
icism when dealing with the reproduction quality of our
work in books and magazines. The same quality won’t be
delivered by 35-mm film as an 8 by 10 view camera, but
it delivers nevertheless. The argument that photographic
imagery doesn’t “work” on screen need only be directed
to how well the Web’s fleshly offerings serve their
clients. There were 260 million porn websites last year,
which implies that certain images can and do work rather
well on the Net.
I’ve found myself shifting some of my browsing
from the library to the Web, getting lost and found in
digitized photography. At its most satisfying, I stumble
across both intentionally and unintentionally brilliant
photographs and ideas. The way Internet search engines
work will always be a mystery to me, but I trust that they
are like libraries with well-reasoned taxonomies and
filing systems that I feel an obligation to subvert. Just like
a library shelf organized along the lines of book height or
accession date, the brilliant coincidences of what sits next
to what on a Google search is food for my imagination.
To round up these thoughts on Web-based photography,
I want to describe some of the projects that inform and
45JANUARY 2008
brighten my experience of photography on the Web.
I’ve never been very interested in qualitative judg-
ments brought to bear on photographs; all photographs
can work given the right context. A good example of
this and of “bad” digital photography would be
http://www.usefulphotography.com, which culls images
from eBay—where sellers have attempted, with varying
degrees of success, to illustrate their wares. These are
pictures you will not be finding at a swap meet in twenty
years’ time.
For lovers of the vernacular, Squareamerica.com
is a gift. This humanely curated collection of “found”
images overshadows recent paper publications on similar
themes. It gives real insights into the collection, and the
sense of humor that resonates through the selections is
unique. The site’s warm-hearted lightness of touch is a
terrific pick-me-up.
During my cruise of Flickr, the online photographic
social site, I came across the postings of Zimbaman. His
collection is made up of vernacular images of fit and
handsome young men, which have a contemporary ho-
moerotic charge when seen en masse. Viewed in another
way, this collection could be seen as a glimpse into the
nature of masculine stereotyping in Israel; some of the
photographs show young men in army training or posing
in situations where flags and images of war machines are
displayed. Others offer intimate bathroom posturing and
poolside horseplay in which a besieged secular national
identity apes a more liberal, relaxed lifestyle. Either
way, the collection offers the fascinating and poignant
prospect of a vernacular form that could be seen as an
accidental version of the highly intentional speculations
of Collier Schorr.
It might not be currently fashionable to make the
kind of street pictures that you can see at In-public.
com, with their dependence on mid-twentieth-century
46ESSAY / JASON EVANS
photographic standbys like timing, luck, and loitering.
However, it’s great to have a site that makes such a good
bid at convincing us that the genre is alive and well,
rather than threatened by institutional paranoia about
uncontrolled imaging and its potential destinations at
a time when nearly everybody has a camera on his or
her phone.
Also poignant is the site of a talented but reticent,
recently graduated young photographer Kevin Beck.
Unlikely to rise through existing channels of photogra-
phy promotion anytime soon due to a lack of ambition
rather than talent (sometimes the art system supports
those who are good at networking and form-filling)
is http://www.kevinbeckphotography.com. This Web
format offers critical closure in what is otherwise an
unstoppable stream of image production.
For me, Tim Barber’s refreshing labor of love,
http://www.Tinyvices.com, beats all other photography
sites hands down. The volume, quality, and diversity
of this altruistic selection is staggering and it offers an
“intimate” view of a range of work that one simply would
not be able to access otherwise. The organic parameters
defined by Barber’s unswerving and kindly instinct shift
and accommodate notions of photographic pluralism
that would be hard to find elsewhere. His own blog is
interspersed with images of and by (becoming) famous
friends as well as the awesome “submissions” gallery
and a huge collection of submitted folios of work, with
contact details. Barber draws no income beyond occa-
sional sales and hosts no advertising on this site, which
lends a refreshingly un-corporate, DIY air to the proceed-
ings. (He does, however, have plans to use the site as a
springboard to publishing artists’ books.)
I’m not arguing that the Internet should be consid-
ered as the only new frontier for serious and independent
photography, any more than I subscribe to the anxiety
47JANUARY 2008
that I need to choose between digital and analog pho-
tographic capture and output. Instead, I believe that
complementary versions of photographic thinking can
be played out at this interesting moment in the medium’s
history and that it’s time for any photographer with
public, discursive ambitions to shape our online context.
Imagine if the Internet had emerged in the early
twentieth century. The majority of those “-ists” would
have had a field day—imagine Andy Warhol and the
Internet. I guess it is simply a matter of time before a
generation not weaned on paper and chemicals sees the
manufactured bubble of “art photography” for what it
is, and begins to explore the potential of an inclusive,
affordable distribution network and its inherently inter-
esting formal qualities for presentation and distribution.
--
DISCUSSION FORUM
WWW.WORDSWITHOUTPICTURES.ORG
--
Subject: Not Yet
Date: 3 January 2008 14:37:52
From: AMIR ZAKI
I interpret Mr. Evans’s essay to be expressing his
frustration that more “serious and independent
photographers” are not making more interesting
work for the Internet as an alternative to gallery
and museum installations. Why is this the case?
Why haven’t they? Why not?*
Well, one somewhat boring reason may be be-
cause it is just not time yet. These sorts of
things seem to happen organically and with a sense
of critical urgency—I’ll even say necessity—not
wishful thinking or desire. My interpretation is
that, despite the imperfections within the “art
world proper” (the gallery and the market), it
48DISCUSSION FORUM
is nonetheless a finite forum that has some sort
of system of checks and balances, problematic as
they may be. There is an evolving structure in
place. Artists that choose to participate within
this structure, knowing its faults and potential
for dysfunction, are doing so because of a shared
desire to be a part of a language, a history, and
a multifaceted, ongoing contemporary art dialog
involving regular exhibitions, critics, journals,
reviews, curators, etc. For me, as one of these
participating artists, the potential for fail-
ure and rejection are as important as aspects of
critical success and peer support. In short, there
is something at stake.
With photography made for the Internet, there
is no such community. There is no such system or
power structure. Thus, there is no such potential
for failure. Not yet. If no one “hits” your web-
site, you are the only one who knows or cares. If
someone does come across the site and wishes to
engage through some sort of critical response,
there are the forums of blogs and comments, which
have little impact at this point. (I think “OMG”
and “LOL” are probably the most popular responses
to images one finds online.) There is very little
at stake. Therefore, it’s very safe. And, as
Mr. Evans states, it is free. It is democratic.
However, I’m not convinced that democracy, in
the way I understand it, is a system that is best
suited for all areas of cultural production. In
fact, I “vote” against a democratic art world if I
am to continue to take it seriously.
For the sake of comparison, please imagine
that instead of art, we consider the field of
philosophy, a relatively parallel mode of creative
cultural production. There are contemporary phi-
losophers, mostly academics, who participate with-
in a rich history of rigorous dialog and debate
in the world of ideas. Most of the time peers in
academic journals and books review their work. It
is scrutinized, torn apart, refuted, dismantled,
challenged, praised, and expanded upon. There is
a community and structure in place. And, if it is
like many other fields of study or inquiry, it is
49JANUARY 2008
not perfect. There is probably nepotism, feuding
camps, some injustice, etc. Despite these ills
(like a close family with its own problems and
difficult relationships) organized groups func-
tion better than nomads. Certainly, there must
be some independent philosophers philosophizing
online without any of these constraints, right?
I’m sure some of the content is also incredibly
rigorous and interesting. However, at this point,
there isn’t nearly as much of this serious work
happening as there is nonsense and “philosophy-
lite” ranting or opining.
Similarly, within the realm of contemporary
art, I think there is some incredibly engaging and
serious work that has a final destination on the
Web. However, at this point, there are infinitely
more examples of terrible and uninteresting, al-
beit VERY popular, imagery floating in cyberspace.
The majority of Myspace.com is but one example.
Countless videos of people doing “face-plants” on
YouTube.com or Break.com are certainly entertain-
ing if one is in the mood to comfortably revel in
the low resolution, excruciating pain of others,
but it isn’t good art, no matter how many thou-
sands of “hits” these sites get. When considering
the benefit of having a potentially much larger
audience online than in the gallery or museum ven-
ue, Mr. Evans states, “If an audience is what you
prefer (as opposed to a physical thing like a book
or a show as the testimony to your photographic
talent), then the Internet is for you.” With this
logic, one could stand on a freeway overpass hold-
ing up a large photograph during rush hour and
could have an incredibly large audience. But what
does that mean? Personally, it means more to me to
have 10 people intentionally spend 20 minutes each
seriously engaging with my photographic instal-
lations in actual space than it does to know that
100 people happened upon my website, half of whom
got there by accident when Googling their favorite
guitar virtuoso who happens to share my name, and
spent five seconds or less before they were on to
yet another adventure.
I understand that the potential that Mr. Evans
50DISCUSSION FORUM
describes for much more interesting work to exist
on the Web is there. I happily welcome these ex-
pansions of the medium, both formally and concep-
tually. However, we have many historical examples
of artists who begin by working outside of the
fuzzy boundaries of what is then accepted as art.
Their ultimate success is not so much in forcing
(or even caring about) a dramatic alteration in
the existing structure, it’s in the structure’s
ability to slowly grow, adapt and absorb that work
within its boundaries. Mr. Evans invokes Andy
Warhol as a pioneer, which he certainly was. (One
could easily replace Warhol with Marcel Duchamp
or several others in this example.) However, the
reason Warhol’s radicalism took hold is because
it was time for it to do so. Had he made the same
work 50, 15 or even 5 years earlier, there is no
guarantee that the response would have been as
strong. All the wishful thinking and desire one
can muster won’t make a difference.
I suspect that Mr. Evans is foreshadowing in
some way an inevitable evolution in contempo-
rary artistic production and public reception.
I suspect that the art world, sort of like the
commercial music industry already has done with
some success, will eventually incorporate more art
that exists as digital information in addition to
discrete objects. As with the music industry, it
will happen when it absolutely has to, when all
parties and the technology are ready. It will be
later than its pioneering participants wish, and I
bet it won’t be free.
* “Why Not” was the working draft title
of Mr. Evans’s essay.
--
Subject: The Buck Does Not Stop Here
Date: 7 January 2008 01:21:32
From: NICHOLAS GRIDER
It seems that the nervousness that underlies both
Evans’s original essay and Zaki’s response is not
51JANUARY 2008
ultimately one of the quality, seriousness, or on-
tology of photographs circulating on the Internet,
but the equally serious question of how to profit
from it. Digital technology has reached a state
of expansion and the contemporary art market has
reached such a state of attenuation that, for an
unknown artist like myself, the Internet offers a
paradox: it’s easier for me to distribute work on
the Internet than it is for me to print it, assum-
ing that I actually have a reason to do so.
Or, put in a better way, the focus of the
photograph on the Internet is not on the photog-
rapher, but on the image and the context, which
is both immediate and less direct. This is almost
completely the opposite of the art world proper,
which operates by marketing artists, not their
work (which is more or less a loss-leader for
investment in an artist’s career). This is why
online distribution models for photographs will
never replace or subsume the current art market;
there’s no way to control where a faceless and un-
known audience is supposed to look, and what names
it is to remember.
What the Internet is very good at is informa-
tion. A site not mentioned by Evans but one I
check at least once a day is iheartphotograph.
blogspot.com. Don’t let the title fool you. It’s
a serious endeavor to promote photography world-
wide, and while there’s a definite post-market
lack of care for whether the photographer is
an art student in Ohio or a food designer from
France, the site (for me, at least) acts as Flickr
with a critical intelligence.
For someone like myself, coming of age without
preference for analog or digital and, like many
people my age, without access to an increasingly
shuttered art world, what the Internet offers is
not a utopia but something even better: an over-
whelming amount of undifferentiated information.
What the impersonality of the Internet offers is
that I can at least get the feeling, at times, of
having some measure of agency over where to look
and how to work.
52DISCUSSION FORUM
--
Subject: __________
Date: 28 January 2008 04:30:55
From: DAVID CAMPANY
A wonderful essay, Jason.
One observation. Current photography publishing
tends toward serial repetition; look at the first
three pages of most contemporary photo books and
you know what the next 60 are going to be. It’s
connected to the fact that most (but not all) gal-
lerists and curators want this from photography/
photographers. They trust repetition, since it’s
the easiest way to “look like you mean it,” and it
takes the anxiety out of confronting the radical
plurality of the medium and what’s possible with
it.
If I were generous, I’d say that the kinds of
websites you are drawn to represent the opposite
of this—images loaded up on a case-by-case basis
with no apparent agenda other than curiosity about
the medium and its subject matters. I’m sympa-
thetic to this. But, speaking from my own viewing
experience here, I feel these sites lead to their
own kind of repetition, a kind of auto-leveling of
experience in which the un-hierarchical display
of heterogeneous photos can lead to a new kind of
homogeneity. Perhaps the immaterial form of the
Internet screen has found a perfect photographic
analogy in the stream of interesting but replace-
able photos that tend to erase the preceding ones
as they materialize with a mouse’s click and van-
ish with the next. Is photography on the Net able
to reflect on this condition?
I don’t know the answer, but I sense there’s a
problem.
53JANUARY 2008
--
Subject: __________
Date: 29 January 2008 20:26:03
From: DAVID WEINER
DAVID: Thanks for the response. It neatly sums up
what I’ve been thinking about this as well, and
since I’ve been incapable of neatly summing up
what I’ve been thinking, it allows me to jump in
anyway.
What I think is interesting about this sort of
dichotomy (images in a series/images with less ob-
vious connections) is what I think is also inter-
esting about Jason Evans’ original essay: context.
While Evans goes to some effort to contextualize
himself in the opening of the essay and provides
some context for the sites he links to, the sites
themselves go pretty far to decontextualize the
images they present, both in terms of what comes
before and after them and in the more basic con-
text of the production. Of course, Google is al-
ways there to apply some context. Without much ef-
fort I can go from the temporality of TheDailyNice
to Evans’s portfolio site and make a connection
from there to “this guy also shot Radiohead,” and
from there all kinds of context can be added in.
The “risk” of this is that Jason Evans no longer
really controls the context and I’m free to make
all kinds of associations that may or may not be
productive to appreciating his work. But then how
different is that from real life?
Well, I think it’s pretty different in some
important ways and the difference is unfortunately
a bit of a high/low argument that I’m not very
comfortable with, but I’ll make it anyway. I see
the Web as more of a mass medium, most similar
to television, and it has a way of erasing value
difference that is quite televisual. This can
be good for all kinds of things where the vacuum
of critical dialog is an advantage, but it can
be difficult to evaluate art in that kind of a
vacuum. I think commercial photography has taken
great advantage of the ability to establish its
54DISCUSSION FORUM
own context and drive its own meaning, and at
least superficially what I see on the Web as the
most popular photography projects are ones that
adhere most closely to the commercial paradigm of
decontextualized imagery.
The type of decontextualized imagery I’m
thinking of here is not the same as non-serial
imagery, though. Personally, I’m a strong be-
liever in working against serialized imagery, but
to sustain a work of non-serial, non-narrative
images takes far more effort on the part of the
artist and the viewer. I think this type of work
requires a contextualization, and benefits from
both a historical perspective and a sustained
look. The stats that Jason Evans presents are
as good an illustration of this as any. He cites
~34,000 monthly visits, but doesn’t mention the
more pertinent stat of duration. What his site
and many sites based on photography offer is the
ability to take a look at an image and move on. In
fact that’s all that TheDailyNice offers; in that
respect it’s a perfect vehicle for that type of
image consumption.
So, for me, the question becomes whether or
not the type of viewing that the Web can sustain
is compatible to the type of viewing that I as-
sociate with non-commercial photography. At least
for right now, I’m thinking that there’s no con-
text online for a sustained look.
--
Subject: Re: New Photographic Thinking
Date: 31 January 2008 03:21:18
From: LESTER PLEASANT
Photography changes and evolves whether or not
we like it or choose to recognize it. We can hold
on to rusty models of thinking about images and
disregard the fluid present reality if we want,
but the photographic is constantly moving and
changing regardless of which theories and ideas we
subscribe to. Isn’t it inevitable that the theory
55JANUARY 2008
will always be several steps out of sync with the
current possibilities the practice offers at any
given moment anyway?
This reminds me of the previous essay on this
website, in which Bedford suggests that photogra-
phy critics have failed to comprehensively address
the medium and how this situation has limited the
discourse and therefore the possibilities of the
medium itself. It makes me wonder, if they can’t
do it, who can? If the allegedly most educated
and “aware” critics, curators, and historians
are unable to fully comprehend how photography
functioned yesterday, why should we believe they
will be able to do it tomorrow? (Luckily, there
are plenty of critics, curators, and historians
who have done an incredible job of taking on the
challenge.) As practitioners, we can either wait
around for someone else to write history for us
or we can be active participants in its evolution
now.
This leads me to believe that practitioners
today have a responsibility to be aware of these
shifts and new possibilities as much as possible
in order to define their own positions and come
to their own conclusions. Unfortunately, in our
ever-accelerating situation, it’s going to be
much easier to see what we want rather than what
is actually happening—especially if the reality
threatens to contradict or undermine the founda-
tions of our ideas. So it will be a challenge and
there will be growing pains. Maybe this is why it
might have to wait for a generation that is free
from our peculiar baggage to truly open the doors
wide and walk on through instead of nervously
peering though the keyhole into the darkness
beyond. Will it be similar to the moment when the
conceptual-artists-using-photography of the ‘60s
and ‘70s—who had little interest in or allegiance
to the conventions of the photo world at the time—
proceeded to bend and re-write the rules of what
was possible with photography in the process?
Ultimately, we create our own reality and set
our own rules and limitations, even if that real-
ity is simply settling for the default modes that
56DISCUSSION FORUM
have been handed down to us unquestioned from the
academy and our cultural institutions. (And you
don’t have to get an MFA to inherit default per-
spectives, BTW.) Many of these same institutions
have admitted that they are struggling themselves
to maintain a position of relevance in the current
situation. So maybe it’s a case of the blind lead-
ing the blind . . .
In any case, I don’t think we should dismiss
Jason’s call to arms lightly. We have a window
to new realities before us, and the question of
what form the photographic possibilities of the
Web will consist of will be answered by our own
actions. The time could be now, if we choose to
embrace it. But we might have to risk venturing
beyond the known.
--
Subject: other online thinking
Date: 31 January 2008 14:26:19
From: PENELOPE UMBRICO
The Internet presents a complicated relationship
to what I think of as “photographic.” For me,
there is an analogous experience in viewing some-
thing through my computer window and viewing some-
thing through a camera viewfinder, while there is
a kind of dialectical inversion in the position of
the photographer and Web surfer. The photographer
moves about, gathering information and making it
available to others, whereas the position of the
gathering Web surfer, for whom information moves
through the field of screen-based computer vi-
sion, is static. But both practices provide access
to other realities; both allow us to offer up our
ideas and images; both make the local global, and
the global local; both foster a pseudo intimacy
of sharing private aspects of life; and both work
by remote tactile control mediated by machine.
And, most interesting to me, both function as an
indexical record of our culture (of what we think,
and of our concerns). Since all these aspects of
57JANUARY 2008
the Web are created and managed by us, the myriad
visual representations there become a visual index
of ourselves—a constantly shifting auto-portrait.
In the context of this glut of imagery every-
where, the post production practice of pulling
together sets of pre-authored images and informa-
tion is as much an act of creation as making the
images oneself.
I view the characteristics inherent in all
photography—appropriation, and by extension
questioning authorship; multiple production, and
by extension questioning uniqueness and individu-
ality; mediation, and by extension questioning
perception and truth; decontextualization; frag-
mentation; ubiquitous dissemination; and the loss
of aura—to have extended into the very essence of
the Web.
So to speak in terms of the potential of the
Web to circulate photography, for me, is only a
tiny part of the equation. Assuming Net neutral-
ity continues, the concepts of open source and
free distribution become valuable in their own
right, and I’d like to think, somewhat revolution-
ary. The idea of exchange and engagement with the
platform itself (creating work on, with, and for
this platform) is where the interesting space on
the Internet is for me, with regard to photogra-
phy. I am inspired by the many artists’ projects
on the Web that use the Web and its technology to
produce the work. My favorite websites are the
ones that support these projects (Rhizome.org,
Turbulence.org, and Ars Virtual on Second Life, to
name a few). By addressing the shifts in meaning
that result from the shifts in content and context
inherent on the Web, artists are finding agency by
utilizing the potential of the Internet as a tool
for making, as well as circulating.
58QUESTIONNAIRE
QUESTIONNAIRE / FIA BACKSTRÖM
DO YOU ENJOY LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS
ONLINE?
I almost only look at photography online, although
I enjoy very much real, physical prints. I think the
online experience obviously is the most prevalent
these days, and contributes to the distributability
and shape-shifting appearance of photography.
WHAT FACTORS DETERMINE THE VALUE OF
A PHOTOGRAPH TO YOU?
Its news value. I am very interested in photo
journalism. But mostly its use-value, how I could
re-use the image, or what kind of generation of
ideas it could be part of. What kind of cultural pro-
duction could I move it to from where it originally
occurred?
QUESTIONNAIRE / TODD HIDO
DO YOU ENJOY LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS
ONLINE?
Yes, very much so. I see hundreds of photographs
a day online. You cannot ever beat the ease of
how things are just out there for viewing. However,
there is nothing like a really great print on a wall.
The right image presented the right way can liter-
ally hold a room.
I feel it is important to see that all these spaces in
which we view photographs—the Web, the book,
and the wall—are all really different; not every im-
age works well in all the spaces. I think it is harder
to make things for the wall. In my own practice as
an artist I will always use the wall as a benchmark
for whether an image works or not.
WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER SOME OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES THAT
PHOTOGRAPHY HAS UNDERGONE IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS?
I feel the most important positive change in the
59medium is that it is now possible for almost
anyone to distribute photographs to a worldwide
audience, in some cases in moments. That is the
biggest and best change that has happened.
WHAT DO YOU SEE AS BEING IN STORE FOR
THE MEDIUM?
Great things. Lot of things. The fact that anyone
can post anything or get a book printed on
demand is fantastic. But with more things being
produced there will be many, many more not so
good things being made as well.
I feel it is harder to wade through all the sites and
blogs that are being produced. We’ll see how it all
shakes out in a few years. I think the cream will still
rise to the top.
QUESTIONNAIRE / PAUL GRAHAM
WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER SOME OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES THAT
PHOTOGRAPHY HAS UNDERGONE IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS?
If you are talking about the art of photography, it
is the recognition of the medium by the art world.
This is a great thing, but has been somewhat
partial, confused, and off-target on occasion. It
has skewed the field a lot, but will hopefully work
itself out in time, as people come to understand
the core qualities of this medium, instead of trying
to see what it does only in the familiar terms of
other traditional art forms.
QUESTIONNAIRE / JAMES WELLING
WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR OBJECTIVES AS A
PHOTO EDUCATOR AND IN WHAT WAYS HAVE
THEY CHANGED IN RECENT YEARS?
I don’t have any objectives as a photo educator
apart from getting through the eight hours of my
class and stimulating my students to think “in the
moment.”
Incidentally, I teach art classes (as I am
60
right now) as well as photo classes and most
of my students are not doing photography. I’ve
been bringing in a lot of visitors to class (Joyce
Campbell, Kristen Calabrese, Mark Owens,
Warren Neidich, Mark Allen of Machine Project) to
stimulate discussion and new ways of working.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MOST NOTABLE
WAYS DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES HAVE
CHANGED YOUR PRACTICE?
I have spent an inordinate amount of time not
making work and futzing with all things digital.
WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER SOME OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES THAT
PHOTOGRAPHY HAS UNDERGONE IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS?
Historical amnesia has grown rampant.

11/28/15 11:04 am - А

Авито - глобальный черный архив. Черный, наверное, от слова "непроизвольный". Возможно аналогия не столь прозрачна, но я имею в виду некое "автоматическое письмо", жизненные "издержки", или, если хотите "следы жизнедеятельности", подобно следам, которые оставляет яблоневая плодожорка в яблоке. Можно и об этом подумать. Она оставляет туннель, и если придерживаться этого, то и авито - туннель, хотя мне это скорее напоминает мусор лежащий на обочине. И в том и в другом однако явно присутствует момент "сейчас", то где находится червь, или машина, и то, что остается после. В принципе, эта логика является и логикой всей фотографии - есть сейчас в момент съемки и остальное потом, туннель увеличивающийся во времени. Однако в случае с Авито, все-таки хочется подчеркнуть непроизвольность "туннелирования", в которой нет цели запечатлеть, или сохранить что-то фотографически, есть цель скорее мимолетной репрезентации, показа. Конечно, так работают многие индустрии, тот же фешн. Все, что остается после них - это неликвидный мусор, горы необработанного хлама. Что отличает фешн от авито, так это, наверное, момент постановки.

11/26/15 09:49 pm - Фотогр.

Фотография, всегда вопрошание к форме. Почему так, а не иначе. Мы привыкли видеть вещи, и, собсвенно, почему мы должны им удивляться. Фотография должна это делать - взывать нас к удивлению. И дело, вовсе не в композиции, ракурсе, или "жизни предмета", т.е. не в формальных характеристиках, которые мы и сами можем считать, если изменим угол зрения, или посмотрим немного дольше. Дело с какими-то пространственными штуками, которые может уловить фотография, а мы нет, но это то, что и нас касается. Зависание пространсва, его тишина, или пристальность, много приемов, которые говорят, смотри, помито тебя есть еще, или что-то внутри тебя работает не так, как ты видишь. Фотография кажется наиболее похожей глазу, но, она другая. И это доверие к ней, как к себе, впускание ее в себя, впускает в себя и то другое - массу возможных вопросов.

11/6/15 09:33 am - А прошлой осенью было так.



Read more...Collapse )

10/24/15 03:16 pm - Средство изучения.

Я смотрю и пытаюсь изучить то, что вокруг. Пока остается только смотреть, может слегка по-особому. Зрение, это тот естественный анализатор, который дан от рождения, а значит он встроен в происходящее, является его частью и он подвержен такой же магии, в отличии от цифр, которые полностью придуманы и не описывают, а приспосабливают окружающее. Мир, в отличии от цифр, не является фрагментарным.
Какие можно использовать средства познания мира в его неприрывности?

10/24/15 03:04 pm - Куча листьев

Смотрю на кучу листьев, и вижу кучу, поскольку эта куча лишена различных смыслов, кроме одного, который ей назначила доминирующая культура, а именно, что куча листьев, есть ничто иное, как куча листьев. Но, разве сказав "куча листьев", мы поймем что это? Назначение произошло, но оно не приблизило к сути. Можно конечно сказать, что листья, это какие-то органические соединения, атомы и молекулы, и это приблизит нас к этим атомам и химиии, но куча листьев так и останется недостигаемой. Что с того, что мы можем описать атомы и их соединения, те последствия, которые они образуют, являются большими и немыслимыми. Что такое "куча листьев", как она существует? Такие вещи, мне кажется, хорошо постигаются через интуитивность и магию.

10/16/15 12:35 am - Король

Король был пьян. Его кубок склонился к его манто, капля капнула и оросила его так, что оно бы давно испорчено, если бы тысячи таких же капель не оросили его ранее. Король был мудр и пьян, он обозревал со своего балкона свои владения, чувствуя мощь и несокрушимость духа, и все его величие, потом услышал попискивание микроволновки на кухне и пошел есть.
Затем король вышел из подъезда и присел на лавку, продолжая обозревать свои владения уже с несколько более низкой точки. Деревья шелестели и клонились к нему, навевая красоту мира, и он чувствовал, как его власть и могущество все возрастат, как истребители летают все дальше, и как растет несокрушимая мощь его королевства. Плеер играл в ушах выходящих мужчин, которые садились в автомобили и ехали на работу, попутно попадая на страницы ютуба и соцсетей, жизнь варилась в этом мире, казалось сама по себе, как может варится жизнь, зарожденная в бетонном муравейнике социализма, которая как и любая жизнь может принимать успокаивающую и стабилизирующую форму, складываясь сама собой. Эта сама собой сложенная жизнь и казалась королю тем достижением, которым он себя тешил, а эти бетонные стены были тем могуществом, на которые он уповал. Он решил сходить в магазин и взять еще немного благородного напитка, но денег было жаль, и он продолжил сидеть,силясь поймать и осознать еще немного могущества в уходящем опьянении. Ему льстили незамысловатые жесты и разговоры людей, проходящих мимо, он был в них вхож, и казалось, в любой момент мог вторгнуться в ситуацию и поодержать ее или понять, и быть сочувстующим участником. Но сидеть было так же приятно, как и вторгаться, а может, сидеть было достаточно, и даже более чем, позволяя жизни течь, и чувствовать себя ее господином.

9/9/15 02:15 am - Один мой вечер на одной из планет.

Сегодня на своем корабле я опустился на новую планету. Новое место. Я пытаюсь идти, но вдруг понимаю, что не знаю, как тут идти, и есть ли здесь «куда». Глаза цепляют цвет. Намечается опредмечивание, но потом приходит понимание, что это обман твоего разума. Логика происходящего вокруг не становится яснее. Гроздья чего-то зеленого перемежаются с серым, коричневым, что-то мягкое и податливое, словно вата, что-то твердо, как камень. Я вроде бы натыкаюсь на синюю дорогу, иду по ней, иду вдоль ее борозд, но похоже она закольцована, словно ловушка. Ловушка — это шутка, для которой здесь нет смысла. Мои глаза не дают мне никакой информации, мои пальцы проваливаются в незнакомые очертания. Я застыл и сфокусировался на белом пятне маячившем неизвестно где, не зная, как к нему приблизится. Read more...Collapse )

9/1/15 11:20 pm - dark

Порой "темный попутчик" раскручивает свои обертоны или что там у него. Это неприятное, противоречивое чувство гнева, ярости, темноты. Но нужно дойти до конца этого состояния, что бы устать от этого.
Powered by LiveJournal.com