After having a look at an exhibition at the A.P Bond Gallery in Stepney I wandered around a bit taking a few photos. It highlighted to me that the intrinsic qualities of the picture was less important than the act of naming it as a work of art and getting the legitimating institutions–museums, galleries, collectors, historians of art etc —to accept the picture as art. What still haunts the art institution is Duchamp naming readymades such as a bottle rack or urinal as a work of art that should be in an art gallery.
I’m not sure where that leaves photography once both the copy theory of representation and an aesthetic canon of conventional forms has been rejected. Are photos functioning to re-enchant the world? They are becoming a sort of magic realism, fetishes or animated objects? A memento mori—ie., a mark of the inevitable passing of time?
One Reply to “being-there”
I’ve noticed how words can have an impact on perception of a foto.
i.e. I called something ‘Warsaw’ and some one on flickr had a bad reaction. I was not my intention 2 do that. The foto was of decay, hence the title. Not ment 2 b about death or pain, but how the word engenders a decay feel. These days i try 2 keep it simple, so not 2 offend.
Gud post Gary.
Comments are closed.