Birnbaum v. James Wood (link)

JW:  … When Virginia Woolf read Chekhov she said something like, “The emphasis falls on such unexpected places so that you hardly realize that it is an emphasis at all.” And that’s what I very much love about Chekhov is this extraordinary subtlety and unpredictability. That the sentimental moment is always avoided, just at the last second.
…
RB: In the 19th century, was there that kind of self-consciousness about the novel form?

JW: Well no, there wasn’t really. And that’s why James is interesting. There wasn’t anything like that self-consciousness, really until James and Conrad. And if you go back to [pause]—well that’s not quite true. The decisive thing was probably Flaubert, where there was a new kind of self-consciousness. Where in a way, for the first time you see art being turned into a religion but also into a stylistic agony—Flaubert at his best doing a hundred words a day. Agonizing over repetitions. Prose has become poetry at that point. And you can see in his letters, Flaubert is frankly envious of, as he sees it, the great writers who didn’t need to worry about that kind of thing. He says Cervantes, Moliere, and Shakespeare, they could just toss it off. Surely any writer that abundant, can just, they are not thinking. I [Flaubert] am, on the other hand, however am caught in this modern dilemma of agony, of artistic self-consciousness. And James met and corresponded with Flaubert and in some ways is an inheritor of that Flaubertian agony, too. Though it didn’t seem to stop his productivity.

Wood is perfect in quoting Virginia Woolf on Checkov’s brilliance. I’d like to do the same with my photos. Put the emphasis somewhere unexpected. So softly that it is hardly noticed. A disguised but studied avoidance of sentimentality. His bit about the self-reflexive nature of modern art ties in with what I was said in the essay published this week.

As an aside, hearing Woods talk it really bought home how rare it is to find criticism of photography that is as acute, human, and articulate. Szarkowski was of that type. Maybe it is typically more difficult to talk about something visual, but I need to find more of this nourishing writing. People like Aletti, Sante, Rubinfein are writing well now. I wonder who the others are. Szarkowski talks about some early writers on photography here.

Click the link in the title.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

A Conversation With Jeff Wall (2000) (link)

A Shit Picture by Jeff Wall
JW: The aesthetic norm of fragmentation implies that the avant-garde movements made a fundamental and irreversible break with the past. The art of the past is defined as “organically unified,” art that does not want to recognize its own contingent character, its own fragile illusionism. It wants to revel in the illusionism, for its own sake and for the sake of its audience, and it wants to seem to be inevitable and complete, the creation of magicians. This is what is called the “genius ideology.” Tearing apart the organic work of art was the accomplishment of the avant-garde, which revealed the inner mechanics of traditional illusionistic art, the stagecraft of the masterpiece. To a great extent, I agree with that process, and I like a lot of avant-garde art very much; it’s very important to me. But I feel that it’s an unfree way of relating to it to erect it as an absolute standard, against the aspects of the unified work which I like.

This is all the very worst kind of bullshit. If I had to define what I do in the negative, I would say that it is whatever Jeff Wall and the art world he represents doesn’t.* I can’t believe these laughable, banal, empty reasons and the similarly bland pictures are considered at the apex of art photography at the moment (apparently his works are at least a million each). It is an unconvincing joke.

I wanted to really work hard to concentrate on what he was saying. To find at least a granule of depth. Nada. His main points in this interview (with a servile interviewer) seems to be that big is good because it shows you more detail (but now everyone’s doing it), a ‘unified’** picture has validity (if this needs to be defended the world is in a very bad way), and that black and white is good, because it’s different. Wtf? After reading this I want to kill myself.

You can check out how truly pedestrian his work is at the MOMA exhibition from 2007 here.

Click on the link in the title to feel like slashing your wrists.

* I understand that Wall is partly rejecting these claims, but that doesn’t change the fact that he has firmly put himself in this current in the past and profited from this ecosystem.

** I think what they mean here is a picture that is of a consistent whole, and which has the decency and care for itself and it’s viewer to hide the way it is made, so that the story can be told. So that the viewer can feel something or learn something about life. One of the infantile gestures of postmodern art is that it thinks it’s being clever by revealing that there is no god. They don’t understand Nietzche’s conception of the necessary lie.

It seems that at the heart of the postmodern urge is a Cartmenesque ‘screw you guys I’m going home’ because it is getting harder and harder to say something original. In our saturated times, it is easy to say fuck it, everything has already been done and said, and all of it is available on the Internet. But this is not true. Not everything has been said, we are constantly new, different. And in any case we should rise to face the new difficulties rather than wilt.

What the postmoderns term ‘fragile illusionism’ is actually the core drive by artists in the art that they create. The whole point was to be so convincing that the audience is carried away, entertained, taught, shown etc. So is Sophocles, or Byron, or Tolstoy, or Shakespeare’s work fragile illusionism? The more I think about the postmoderns the more I think of them as bad artists who didn’t or can’t put in the effort to create viable illusions, to write a transportive story, a transcendental poem, a movie so riveting that you are crying in the cinema hall. So the weak attacked the structure that was judging them and made it their own. And so now, bad art flourishes. But thankfully so does a lot of good art, good novels, good movies.

Maybe this has happened in other ages and we just don’t know about it because these empty people get driven from the very memory of an age.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

The Discrete Charm of Stalking the Famous

A portrait of the famous photographer

All my friends (except one cunt) and loved ones think what I’m producing is getting better, is good. I’ve been working hard. But they are supposed to say placatory things like that so I don’t reveal their despicable secrets. Also, they’re all very nice and all have great taste (except one cunt), but they don’t work at this everyday, so the advice they can give is limited.

So whilst I’m in Europe I’d like to hunt down some photographers who’ve established themselves and see if they’ll have a chat with me about what I’ve been doing and plan to do. I’m a bit anxious about how I should go about doing that. So I’ve interviewed a famous photographer:

Adnan: Yo.

Famous: What’s uuuuuuuupppppp.

A: Listen, how should someone contact you if they’re just starting out and want some advice? Thanks for seeing me by the way.

F: I didn’t have a choice fuckrod, you’re making this up. As to your predictable question: they shouldn’t contact me. I’m busy. The economy is collapsing. I’m sleeping with my best friend’s husband, and I have these nasty, nasty sores that are killing me. People should just stop sending me crapmail that I automatically trash and go away and do their own work. You wouldn’t believe the pure unadulterated shit that turns up in my mailbox. ‘Here’s a picture of my horse. Do you think I should contact Steidl?’ Umm, hell no bitch. Go to law school and start a fucking revolution.

A: Right. Sure. I see what you mean.

F: No you don’t dumbass. What I’m saying is that you should have good work to show before you waste my time. There’s a million photographers. Did you hear that? A million. That’s like a city. A city full of photographers. Just thinking about that makes my sores flare up. And 80% of them are doing it so they can sleep with hot girls, the other 20% are nitwits. It’s my 80/20 rule. See what I’m saying? No? I’m saying most people aren’t committed to it. It’d help if you had shown some commitment so that I know I’m not spending my gold minted time on your waste of a life.

A: Well I’ve been working hard at things, I’m nearing 30000 photos and I shoot good street. I read a lot and am aware of the history …

F: Hahah, ‘good street’ is an oxymoron, moron. Ok, so you’re in the 80%, great. Now you have to get over the other hurdle. Here’s a secret, there is no good photography. There’s only photography that I like. If I don’t like your photography than it’s no good. Get it?Thinking is hard for you isn’t it? I mean you have to contact people who are going to be receptive to the work that you do. Who can judge without the prejudice that they hate your kind of work anyway. Don’t give me crap about your stuff is unique. Nothing’s unique. Now here’s another secret: how do you tell what work a photographer likes? Their own! We’re artists. All we care about are ourselves, oh and saving the planet, railing against bourgeois taste etc. etc. So find people whose work you like, and contact them first. There is another class of people, but there’s only like 10 of them in the entire world, and those are people who are so open hearted that they can look beyond differences in your work with theirs and still give you good advice. I’m not one of those people, your work isn’t fit to clean my ass with. Stop wasting your time.

A: But you haven’t even seen it.

F: Well I’ve met you haven’ t I? That’s all I need to know.

A: Ok, so I make a list of photographers whose styles I like and I think will be open to my work. What then?

F: Well, try to find a phone number for them. Or a mailing address. Try to stay away from email. It’s what everyone else uses. The best is if you can just ‘run into them’ somewhere. A gallery opening may be ok. Now, don’t get me wrong, most of the time you’ll be reduced to an email, but it’s good if you’ve got other ways of contacting them. Most of the time you’re not going to get a response. Getting their details can be hard. I damn well make sure mine are hard to find. But search. And I don’t mean the Intertube. That needs a bypass. Often they will have a representative, and you can try calling up the rep and seeing if they’ll forward your details and a message on. You’re making me talk about hella boring shit here, but you’ve got to be persistent. It’s best to be a little annoying but be charming at the same time. Also, it’s good to be recommended. Meeting people through other people. So go and hang out, have some free shit wine somewhere. Get drunk. You need to.

A: Cool. So find analogue ways of contact them as a first resort. Then what, what should my letter, call, conversation, email say?

F: What’re you in the mental ward of the local zoo? You say you like their work. Which you do right? But don’t be a boob, say what you like about it, what personal connection you have. That’s why you’re contacting that photographer right? Because their work has had an impact. Then talk about your own work and what you’re trying to do. Try to sound sane. This is very important: ‘sound sane!’ Don’t write 30 pages (like this mock interview), and don’t write a mail merge three line advertisement. Be sincere, be yourself.

A: Allright.

F: Well don’t be the dweeb that you really are. Dress it up just a little bit. Ok, then request something specific. Whether it’s 30 minutes to have a talk about your work, and what you’d like to do in the future. Whether you can meet them at a gallery if they are showing. But be specific about what you want and when. It’s good that you’re going over there and can be in the cities to meet them. These things happen face to face. Don’t let them palm you off to a portfolio review, that’s a scam for the herds.

A: Ok, thanks for the advice.

F: Leave me alone. But, let me tell you this. You will probably be disappointed by what you get from all this. Real mentorship comes from friendship, not some grubby social climbing. If you work hard, produce good work and get it out there, you’ll meet others who are doing the same. You’ll meet people you respect and you’ll meet them as friends. But I guess you have to learn your own lessons. So good luck, jackass. Close that door on your way out.


Posted 2 years ago

Todd Hido Interview Video

Oh man, I can’t wait till I’m making books of my own. I so want to make a book. Put a photo in a book and it really doesn’t matter how bad the photo is, presto!, it’ll look great!

This is another video that goes to prove the the most talented artists are also the most unhipster. It’s like hipsterism is some kind of creative AIDS. It weakens the body’s ability to fight. It’s most likely because it takes so much effort being a hipster. Being a hipster is a full time job. It seems I’ve gotten distracted.

Anyway, enjoy the video, it’s about a white photographer who asks models to come in for mediocre clothed shots in hotel rooms, and creeps around outside people’s houses at night taking photos surreptitiously.

His house night work is amazing though, and so is some of the landscape work. Go to his website here.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

Rumpus Interview with Zak Smith (link)

Michele: How does your environment influence your work or the way in which you work?

Zak: When I lived in New York and I painted a girl sitting on her bed, there was a fire escape out the window, so there was a fire escape in the painting and I had to figure out what made fires escapes interesting to look at.  Now there are palm trees out the window, so there are palm trees in the painting and I have to figure out what makes palm trees interesting to look at. Everything else is the same–they sell liquitex acrylic and needle-width brushes on both coasts.

Michele: Why work in porn?

Zak: Nobody ever asks me “Why make paintings”?  Is wanting to spend your time around attractive women who like to have sex much more difficult a desire for journalists to understand than wanting to dip wisps of horsehair into a wet lake of colored goo and smear it all over a piece of paper until it looks pretty?

Such clear-sightedness. Such simplicity.

There’s a sweet interview on his porn career here.

Do you just fuck women? Do you have a certain “type”?

My type is like…I guess I like girls who are attractive. I like attractive women. And gophers. Pretty much any kind of gopher.

You mock my questions! You’re not getting off so easy. What do you consider attractive?

I like women whose hotness is really really obvious. I have no interest in subtle, coy, or mysterious women. The answer to the mystery woman’s mystery always ends up being the same: She’s not very good in bed. I’ll take quality over mystery any day. I like a woman who introduces herself by saying “Hi, let’s have sex a lot.”

I don’t really like his art, but I like the way he lives. And I can see how others can like his art. It’s full.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

The Modern Word - Zak Smith Interview (link)

Erik Ketzan: So you created an illustration for every page of Gravity’s Rainbow. How long did that take?

Zak Smith: It took like 9 months, but I was working on other stuff, too, at the same time. People always go “Wow, you must’ve had a lot of free time on your hands,” but, y’know, it’s my job to. You do something 14 hours a day every day, you can get a lot done. I think people are conditioned by the art they usually see in galleries to think that it takes an artist a full 8 months to—say—glue a dixie cup to a rug and write “Slander!” on it in lipstick—so when they see something where an artist had to actually work as much as a person with a real job does it seems like it must’ve taken forever.

Zak Smith is probably the most sensible artist/pornstar in the history of the world. He’s like a young Szarkowski for me.

Also his take on drugs and the arts is accurate:

Terri Saul: Gravity’s Rainbow is one of the most drug-ridden novels ever written. When considering your illustrations of it, I thought about Glenn Gould, a musician who experimented with both drugs and classical music. Do you ever use drugs while working?

Zak Smith: 1-Drugs are very popular among people who are interested in interesting things but are not themselves very interesting.

2-Drugs make your body do weird things–so they’re interesting if you’re in the performing arts.

3-Drugs make boring things seem interesting, so products created by people while they are on drugs are often really boring.

(via)

Click the link in the header.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

AmericansuburbX Interview with John Szarkowski (link)

Photographer Unknown

Brilliant, brilliant interview with Szarkowski. It gets especially good when he stops putting up with the shitty, academic questions.

  • His pointers on good early writing on photography is a good resource.
  • “Part of the problem is doubtless our difficulty in accepting the fact that luck is a great and powerful force in photography; we tend to be interested only in intention, because it makes the enterprise feel more important. I think it would be just as important-and less boring—if we accepted the fact that luck is everywhere active, if not determinant, and that the world would be pretty gray without it.”
  • Chose the photographers he did because of luck, chance, not because he was acting as a gatekeeper.
  • “Nevertheless, I am not interested in these people because they used the camera simply and directly. Why, unless they were trying to earn their MFA degree under a very obtuse professor, would they use it any other way? I am interested in them because of the playful eccentricity of their work or its gravity and justice, or the disinterested precision of their eyes, and the acuity of their minds and the depth of their passion, or the sweetness of their sympathy for the wonders and terrors of the world. One might say that I am interested in them as artists.”
  • “Of all the people on your list, surely none was less simple and direct, as a person, than Evans. He was complex, sophisticated, secretive, unpredictable and capable of deviousness, none of which affected his superior manners or his loyalty as a friend—although that loyalty was expressed according to a code that remained resolutely secret.”
  • “So, to get to your question: In my view, Evans, Winogrand and Eggleston were alert to all and any clues, hints and sources that crossed their path, whether encountered in the Louvre or the postcard stand, but I do not think that there is with any of them an attempt to adopt and adapt any vernacular style or method. Rather, it was a matter of allowing into the mix of picture-making potentials subject matter and techniques that had not been considered by the previous generations to be the proper concern of serious photography.”
  • “If I understand your question, you are suggesting that fecund artists are likely to be inferior to artists who produce little. According to that test, Paul Dukas should be considered at least 100 times greater than Haydn. (I am assuming that Dukas wrote at least a few things other than the Apprentice, although I don’t know what.) I doubt that you would agree to so ludicrous a proposition, but I really don’t know what else you might mean.”

… Oh fuck it. Just go and read the whole thing. It’s all gold.

Click the link in the title.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

Szarkowski Interview in LA Books (link)

Why is that such a good picture? It’s a stupid question, but it actually is the question, isn’t it?
… Some photographers think the idea is enough. I told a good story in my Getty talk, a beautiful story, to the point: Ducasse says to his friend Mallarmé — I think this is a true story — he says, “You know, I’ve got a lot of good ideas for poems, but the poems are never very good.” Mallarmé says, “Of course, you don’t make poems out of ideas, you make poems out of words.” Really good, huh? Really true. So, photographers who aren’t so good think that you make photographs out of ideas. And they generally get only about halfway to the photograph and think that they’re done.

A related question came up after seeing the Getty show, thinking about an Eggleston, which is often so sharp and so poignant, and a lot of those, which are very similar, but feel — Flat.
Yeah, flat.

What is the difference?
A lot of it is just idea mongering. Well, I shouldn’t say a lot of it. The weaker stuff. You think, okay, that’s interesting, and it’s flat, and, of course, that brings us halfway to modern if it’s flat, because modern is flat, right? The whole tradition of modern painting has to do with flatness. So you march straight up to the building, and you get some letters that might be fairly interesting as letters, and maybe they say something that you think possibly has got a little bit of ironic valence. Or a photograph of a building that has been influenced by people whose taste is inferior to your own. You know, that kind of shooting-fish-in-a-barrel sort of thing. And without any affection, without any attempt to understand.

‘Ironic valence’! How could you not love this man? He perfectly summarises the deadness of so much academic conceptual art. There is a real drive to taking pictures of a theory, instead of exploring an idea, or situation through the photography itself. Photography is not a take home exam. It’s a pop quiz.

But it’s not just that the photographer comes with ideas and that the ideas are so simplistic (they tell you nothing new, and nothing interesting). Sometimes they proudly come with no ideas at all. There is a fear of saying anything at all, because we know, through our excellent collections of the past, that all of it has been said before. Granted, this is a major barrier of entry to art these days. But you have to sneak in, jump the fence, or lie to the bouncers to get in.

There’s always something to say. People are always falling in love, out of love, getting hurt, going away, a million things to think about, to say something about.

Oh, and Szarkowski’s mo. I’m so in lust.

Click on the link in the heading.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

Godard 'interviews' Woody Allen (link)

This is far more about Godard than it ever is about Woody Allen. Takes effort but is hilarious. Seeing the panicked looks of incomprehension on Allen’s face is to die for. He always recovers though. “I’d rather struggle with film rather than struggle with other things.” I feel much more informed about the damaging affects of TV rays after this.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

Paul Graham Interviews Richard Woodward (link)

Richard B. Woodward

RW: Did you realize that you could have a career?

PG: A “career”—god no! Sadly I belong to that naïve alternative culture of the 70s that rejected “careers.” I did what most UK musicians and would-be rock stars did: I went on the dole. Oh, and I worked Saturdays in an arts bookshop, which meant I could order anything I wanted. I stocked the place with these amazing books: New Topographics catalogs, Robert Adams’ The New West, early Ed Ruscha books, etc. We never managed to sell any of them—they were all remaindered for 50c!

RW: But if you’re going to travel to Europe and Japan you must have figured out ways to support yourself.

PG: You sleep on friend’s floors. I traveled in an old Mini—the original Mini—and I slept in the back of that for a long time. That was uncomfortable! I ate in truck driver’s cafes, and had a friend who found out-of-date film for me. Then you do some teaching and get a small grant. The documentary-style tradition is very strong in England. Eventually I met up with Martin Parr, Chris Killip, Graham Smith, John Davis.

A highly urbane, plain spoken guy. I remember this is one of the things that really attracted me to photography in the first place. That no matter how much bullshit people in the academies (or elsewhere) spin about it, in the end there are only the pictures. And it seems the best photographers have been amazingly straightforward in describing what they are doing. The authenticity is what is refreshing. That it felt real, and unfake.

Click the link in the title.


Posted 2 years ago

Permalink

© Adnan Chowdhury 2011