Oh Superman…
The Saatchi Gallery is a large exhibition space and the Out of Focus survey of contemporary photography is a large exhibition, possibly too large to absorb in one go. But that is what twenty six of us set out to do on Saturday. It would be pointless to try to summarise the day, so here are some personal thoughts on just a small sample of the work.
The first room hits you with twenty prints by Katy Grannan from her Boulevard series and student reaction was mixed and vociferous. For Grannan, images such as this ‘represent the range of prideful individuality among human beings, and their common fate, symbolised by that ubiquitous white wall. Or at least that’s what the Gallery guide says the images mean for Katy Grannan. It is very clear that this is not just straight documentary photography, but is clearly referencing Avedon’s In the American West and although the light is described as ‘the blinding glare of the Californian sun’ there is a sense that that sun has been carefully supplemented (with reflectors, soft boxes?) to create images which are no less controlled than those of Phillip Lorca DiCorcia.
Reactions were mixed from the study group members. Personally I felt the initial impact as a visceral shock and it is very easy to be repulsed. What is Grannan trying to do with images such as this? The more I looked, the more I came to appreciate the work however. This image, which had been chosen for the exhibition catalogue cover, speaks to me of resilience. The woman who may well be damaged by excessive exposure to the Californian sun is not a helpless old lady held up for ridicule, but someone who despite no longer meeting the exacting standards of ‘Because You’re Worth It’ culture, still matches her fuschia coat, blouse and lipstick before facing the world. [One of the great features of the Saatchi website is that it has really good galleries of the work on exhibition – so while other students who did not come to the study visit will not get the same physical experience, it is possible to form a view of the work by clicking through the images here]
David Benjamin Sherry‘s work also occupied a whole room. Not sure why.
Continuing round, it was good to see a wall of images from JH Engström’s early Trying to Dance collection and relate it to his interview in which he describes how he came to be a photographer. Equally, it was puzzling to see only one image by Elina Brotherus and multiple images by Pinar Yolacan which struck me as simplistic to the point of irritating – we are what we eat? Never thought of that before.
If I had to live the rest of my life confined to one room, it would be Gallery 10. The huge triptych by Mat Collishaw (Corona in the centre with Eighth Day on the left and Madonna on the right) paired with Noémie Goudal‘s haunting Les Amants images felt like the work that would be on the walls in Neil Young’s After the Goldrush moment.
Over coffee a member of the study group told me he felt the work had little to do with photography and was art. I am not sure the categorisation matters. A lot of the work was created to be photographed, but there were glimpses (and more than glimpses) of the potential of the medium. Yes it was a messy sprawling show as Sean O’Hagan said in the Guardian and although it is now closed, the catalogue is a must buy, if only for the essay by William A Ewing
26 thoughts on “Oh Superman…”
Leave a Reply
> Next Post Why…?
< Previous Post It beats me
Tutor News – Katrina Whitehead
6 Comments
Some of you will know me as your personal tutor, or you may have...
Read more
Student Stories: Julia McLean
2 Comments
OCA Photography Program Leader Dan Robinson caught up with Julia McLean about her experience...
Read more
OCA’s Online Degree Show Showcase 2023
0 Comments
Welcome to our online Degree Show Showcase 22/23 where we are celebrating a number...
Read more
Student stories: Nuala Mahon
30 Comments
I have arrived at the finishing line of the long adventure that is (or...
Read more
I appreciate this study visit a lot, mainly because we are venturing into less-traditional way of constructing a photograph. I have to admit that if I didn’t go with the study group and have the conversations going on between us and the tutors, I wouldn’t spend more than 5 seconds in front of some of the images. Is it an eye-opener? Sort of, but I still find a lot of the “new” ideas are still hard to swallow. You mentioned about David Benjamin Sherry’s work on landscape with colour filter is definitely one of them. However, my question always is, is this photograph effectively communicate the message the photographer is trying to get across? Sometime I feel the un-conventional approach works, and it is a delight to see it happens. Some other times I feel people should learn how to hit the delete button when their approach fails, instead of trying advertise it as a new and trendy way of using photography as a medium.
I find it interesting that someone made a comment that “the work had little to do with photography and was art”. I never able to answer what exactly is “Art”, and if our objective (our personal practice, or our education in OCA) is to create “Art”. It may sound like I am getting into some pointless discussion, but it does make me wonder what exactly do I want to achieve in my education here.
Well, I do have a question for other students and tutor: Are you interested in creating this type of work as well (any of them particular eye catching?)? Will the assessors hand out an A or F for this?
I think that the important thing is to produce work which you want to produce and not what you think other people want you to produce. Personally I don’t think it matters whether it is called art or photography. It is more important that you are using your photography/art as a means of expressing what you want to say.
I wasn’t able to come on the study visit but have been to the exhibition on a visit organised by The Photographers’s Gallery. I must say that I found Katy Grannan’s work really interesting. It is easy to dismiss the ‘Boulevard’ series as exploitative images of people on the margins of society. However it should be borne in mind that the subjects all agreed to pose, were allowed to present themselves as they chose, remain anonymous and in some cases have a continuing relationship with Grannan. For me several of the portraits convey defiance and pride rather than despair. I plan to carry out a more penetrating review as part of my OCA studies.
Keith, It is interesting what you have said about “produce work which you want to produce and not what you think other people want you to produce”. Pari Naderi, the teacher of my very first photography course, said the same thing to me when I met her again for a new project last month. This is something I can’t quite get pass myself, along with with Peter’s comment (the third one on the next comment thread) on how the work evolves on its own. I know what you mean, but I can’t quite articulate how I really feel about it, except I find it, strange.
When I first study English, the teacher taught us alphabets, then some very simple phase (such as “how ae you”), and grammer. Later on we learnt what to say in certain situations and more useful phase. Writing, especially creative writing, comes many years later, and after partical writing (formal letter, notice, etc). You can then write drama or poem afterward (very advanced course many years later if you survive everything before that), which probably along the line of “Art”. “Produce what I want” is a very strange concept for me, when I am hoping to learn the photographic version of saying “how are you”, and make sure I am getting the grammar right.
I am not sure how would I react if many years ago, my teacher walked in and said, “This is an English lesson. Just write whatever you feel is English, instead of what the English people actually use this for.”
I think a better analogy Siegfried would be: ““This is an English lesson. Just write whatever you feel strongly about in a way you feel best expresses your feelings, but make sure you use the grammar and spelling of English.”
But I do accept that it is difficult to do this while learning the grammar and spelling.
Gareth’s point is well made.
What I was trying to convey is that even though you are still in the process of learning the technical aspects of how to make excellent photographs, e.g. composition, light, colour, narrative and such like, it is still up to you to decide what to take photographs of and what messages you are trying to convey with your images. The more you progress through the courses the more opportunity you will have for self expression.
“However, my question always is, is this photograph effectively communicate the message the photographer is trying to get across? ”
The reality is that this is probably the wrong question. A much better set of questions is:
What does it say to me?
Why does someone think that it might say something?
What am I missing? (assuming you don’t get much from the image)
As to “Will the assessors hand out an A or F for this?”…A is for something done exceptionally well in all aspects and F for something done exceptionally badly, whether I would want to do it has no bearing in the matter
Peter, Since you are here, can you tell me if the photo with cuts and other material paste on it (by Meredyth Sparks), those landscape with colour filter (by David Benjamin Sherry), or even that Octopus Portrait (by Yumiko Utsu) is “done exceptionally well” or “exceptionally badly”? What is your judgement if your student is sending you those works? I am not trying to put you on the spot, but it is interesting to know what the tutors think if we really do something experimental and end up with work with questionable quality like these.
I don’t approach art works the way you state it. Even if those work doesn’t speak to me, they speak something to Charles Saatchi. I prefer trying to understand the approach an artist takes on communicate the subject and ask if it is effective, and to whom. Do I miss somthing? So what? If the communication is effective, it is still a good work despite it is not my cup of tea.
I am not trying to dodge the question but I haven’t seen the work in question so cannot really comment.
My judgement includes, but not exclusively, creativity, relevance, coherence, suitability of technique and of course I would want to see the research, preparatory work, a statement of intent (proposal), some sort of artist’s statement (why, where from etc) and a self assessment. If all these things are exceptional then it is an A. very good a B. good a C, acceptable or adequate a D and unsatisfactory an F.
Yes I think you do miss something, though your approach has much going for it. Once a work has been finished and moves out into the world it has an existence all of itself, rather like children having left home, and whatever the maker intended and however well that intent was realised, a whole range of other factors come into play. Not least of which is the variety of knowledge and experience that each viewer, reader, listener etc. brings to the work. Then there is the passage of time and the new things that have happened since it was made added to which we have the new situation of the image (or whatever), for example the meaning of a painting made to hang over a fireplace (Rubens’ Samson and Delilah for example) in a specific private house may well be changed by being hung in a gallery amongst other works. The maker’s intentions cannot take these things into account and so although it is fascinating and often enlightening to know what the maker was getting at the real artistic value of the work can be independent of this.
I often find that trying to work out why someone, usually a curator, thought the image that does not speak to me worthy of exhibition and in the way it has been is what leads me to an understanding.
Have a look at Barthes’ ‘The Rhetoric of the Image’ in ‘Image, Music, Text’ for some insight as to how images convey meanings and John Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ for some discussion of the way in which context effects meaning. Both these works are some decades old but none the worse for that.
As a writer, not a photographer, I was intrigued to see some of these photos since I didn’t know any of them. The American in your face portraits make me think of Hopper.
The filtered namby pamby photos I could do without. We can’t know what the photographer was getting at, so it’s how we respond that is important. And of course, something about technique and strategies are important if you are considering whether it’s an A or an F photo. I don’t know if Barthes ever said the photographer is dead, but he was certainly as interested in photography as in writing.
My blog is here …
http://amanostudy.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/out-of-focus-a-visit-to-the-saatchi-gallery/
Thanks for sharing. I put my commentary on my blog here, with all the spice and potentially offensive comment.
http://art-of-photography-sip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oca-study-day-out-of-focus-at-saatchi.html
Thank you Gareth for sharing this. All the links worked well and it was very enjoyable to see from my computer here in Bristol.
For me it is important to think of these as works by an “artist” rather than a “photographer”. This is an extensive catalog of contemporary art that just happens to involve photography as the medium, and represents the current directions in which artists are using photography to bring out their creativity. One example is that where “traditional” photography or art tended to be bounded by a set frame (thinking of Daguerotypes where the frame was absolute), many of the artists here refused to be contained by the photographic frame (eg Mariah Robertson), and others look at components within the frame (Adam Broomberg & Oliver Chanarin). We are familiar with photography representing a specific slice of time, and a known reality, so other artists here subvert that understanding by removing time (eg Luis Gisbert) and by creating their own reality (eg Sara VanDerBeek). Whereas we expect recognisable colour within a photograph, artists here have altered that perception to create a different mood , or even to lampoon traditional photographers (eg David Benjamin Sheery). Photography is understood to establish identity, so artists demolish those understandings (eg John Stezaker).
As photographs I actually hated more than a few of the images on show, but as works of art they are an entirely different experience and represent what the artist felt or wants the viewer to feel, and that takes art photography to an entirely different plane where like/dislike is secondary to intent, understanding, and even empathy.
I’ve only been able to articulate this thinking in the days after the show and no doubt further thoughts will present themselves.
In summary, “photography” is not primarily what we’re looking at, and this is not a “photography” exhibition.
Brian, I can not accept the conclusions you draw!
Some of the works on show were by photographers (such as Mitch Epstein) and others by artists using photography as a medium; the difference between the two seems to be generally accepted although it is often difficult to distinguish between them and in some cases it may not be possible. Photographers who create “art” may not want to be known as artists while artists who use photography may not wish to be known as photographers (e.g. Gillian Wearing who did not feature in this exhibition).
Yes, this was a photographic exhibition but art photography rather than documentary although one can never completely exist without the other owing to the nature of the photograph.
Mitch Epstein may be a photographer but he doesn’t take photos in a traditional manner, he applies much creativity to process, as do all the artists in this collection. It suits me to think of him as a “creative” in a commercial sense, but mostly as an “artist”. Splitting hairs perhaps but it aids my understanding.
A “photographer” for me is anyone who takes a picture, and I want to differentiate based on intent.
Wearing wasn’t here because Saatchi hasn’t yet bought her work, or perhaps he keeps it in the “art” cupboard?
I am not sure what you mean by “traditional manner”. Epstein uses a large format camera and composes in a way similar to Ansel Adams; as Adams foresaw, Epstein also has the liberty afforded by digital enhancement.
More hair splitting I guess!?
On my MA we were told that we were making culture not art. That has stayed with me as a neat way of side stepping the distraction of what or what isn’t art; I don’t consider that to be a helpful consideration for a maker in the process of making.
Photography is a medium, like pen and ink, paint or agar agar; on that level it’s blithely unaware of the contagion it’s carrying.
However you’ve identified a subset of photography that we also casually call photography which is a set of aesthetic concerns that are perhaps particular to those who call themselves photographers and view themselves as distinct from say artists who use photography as a medium of convenience.
You have laid out some of these concerns, the act of framing to create significance being one that I particularly identify with. However I don’t believe that our photography degree is exclusively about this subset of the medium.
It should encompass anything that the physical medium can achieve, without ideological boundaries, and this show gives an indication of the spectrum that contemporary application of the photographic medium is currently being stretched across. It’s work that would be welcomed within the compass of the photography degree rather than being rejected as ‘un-photographic’.
Of course that’s not to say it would all be A* material or even a pass. ‘ }
If photography is not art, what is it? Is there a difference between photography and art using a camera? As there might be between scientific/journalistic writing on one hand and fiction/poetry/script on the other? In other words, is the difference in the purpose of the practitioner, or in the reception of the viewer/reader?
Since we can’t agree a definition of “art” or even “photography” it seems we’re growing into awareness of “philosophy”. Just like Clive’s “culture/art” hook I’m hanging onto my view of “artist/photographer” as a handy pointer on approaching any work or exhibits. Maybe I’ll update it again in a few months, it’s already taken me quite a while to understand the different photo genres.
Granted that the Saatchi show could be considered by some to be a photo exhibition, but I understand that it was put together only from Saatchi’s collection which is why there were omissions such as Gillian Wearing, who would have been right at home here. So rather than a themed exhibition is was a display of what was in his cupboard.
Cupboard love !?!
Yes, I do not think the exhibition presented an objective view of contemporary photography!
It is slightly unnerving to be told that work like this is exemplary when a lot of it meant little; difficult to aspire to something one does not really like even if photography is not there to be liked ….
I think its great to see the huge diversity in photographic practise and that we are able to persue the particular path within it that interests us. It opens up possibilities that weren’t there before.
Just because it doesn’t mean anything to one person doesn’t mean it’s meaningless to anyone else, or if it is meaningless maybe its making a point about the nature of truth?
I should probably have put some inverted commas around my last meaningless!
Quite, I agree … my view was meant as personal though I am aware that others felt the same.
Whether art needs to have meaning or not is a question that is difficult to consider since both “art” and “meaning” are terms that can be interpreted in different ways.
I found there was too much to see in the exhibition even though I returned after we had finished tea. Reflecting over it all, I was glad to see such variety even though I did not have time to take it all in
Well said Ann….it is great to be able to explore the diversity within contemporary art/photography. It is equally great that this causes debate amongst those of us who are passionate enough to embark on a course of learning through the OCA.
Thanks also to Peter for your analogy of a photographer/artist’s work being rather like a child moving on into the world….thereafter whatever one might have intended for the child or work is now largely beyond your control…I found this a great way of thinking about the influence that an artist/photogapher really has (or has not) over how their work is interpreted.
Sorry for the delayed comments! I have been working on an interview with Oliver Chanarin and Adam Broomberg whose work I was attracted to in the Out of Focus exhibition, not least because I am from Belfast and know the archive well but also because I love the manner in which they question the past in their interpretation of the archive.
If you are interested you can read the interview here:
http://photoparley.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/adam-broomberg-and-oliver-chanarin/
I’m coming rather late to this because it took me a while to work out why I had a depressed reaction to the Exhibition. Katy Grannan’s portraits in Gallery 1 were so large, staring me in the eye with all imperfections highlighted by the sunlight glare that I had an immediate visceral response of ‘No’ which remained with me. The result was that I couldn’t find anything which resonated with me in a positive way until I went back for second looks and then subsequently read the Exhibition book alongside Charlotte Cotton’s ‘The Photograph as Contemporary Art’ (2004). This helped enormously to get me into a more objective way of thinking, and, also to make sense of the plethora of different forms of image-making which seemed to present a confusing tangle at first sight. I have two blog entries
http://catherinebanks.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/out-of-focus-july-2012-saatchi-gallery-part-1/
http://catherinebanks.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/out-of-focus-exhibition-july-2012-the-saatchi-gallery-part-2/