I wonder how much it makes a difference if/when galleries put archives or catalogues online. I've mostly trained myself out of taking pictures at galleries and especially would never take photos of others but archiving is useful and I often can't afford a $50 show catalogue. I think there's a lot of accepting the fallibility of memory too: it is okay to see something and consider it deeply and allow it to move you and it's also okay to forget it a little afterwards, because being truly present to art isn't a state of mind you want indefinitely
penetrability (therefore femininity) 😭😭😭😭🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🔫🔫🔫🔫🔪🔪🔪🔪🔪 this is an exceptional piece because of its content and because of your extremely intentional world choice
As someone who has experienced similar frustrations when experiencing the MoMa’s Rothko collection and feels uncomfortable being the subject of photographs, I found this incredibly compelling! Aside from the personal archive aspect of photographing art, I think it also makes us feel some sense of ownership or mastery over it somehow. Learning to put my phone down at art museums has been a much more humbling experience.
Oh this is beautiful. I see so much of Roland Barthes’ influence in your words, and I love how you describe the immense vulnerability and violation of being photographed. It really does feel like being flattened down into an object and being robbed of your capacity for self-definition (and the same effect applies to this whole photograph-a-piece-of-art phenomenon!!) This piece me think about a previous essay you wrote about photography over the summer— you replied to my comment suggesting I read Camera Lucida, and I did. Thank you thank you thank you
“digitally mediated” vs raw. IM writing a manifesto about this exact thing! It’s pro “friction” which is the raw you speak of. Our experiences with the world should be painful and intense and certain and crazy and fever pitch, NOT MEDIATED in any way. ESPECIALLY not through tech BLAGH!
This was a great article to read and so insightful! You observing intentional art, and being the unintentional subject of someone else's idea of art who would nonetheless make people feel something, but so far removed from what you expected of the artistic experience.
i'm curious if you've ever read susan sontag's 'on photography' - yours and her ideas seem very intertwined. if you haven't (or even if you have) it's so incredible fascinating to see how this concept of the camera as simultaneously a vehicle of invulnerability and one that probes into vulnerability threads through the years and becomes more relevant. that line about penetrability and femininity was also really beautiful :)
I wonder how much it makes a difference if/when galleries put archives or catalogues online. I've mostly trained myself out of taking pictures at galleries and especially would never take photos of others but archiving is useful and I often can't afford a $50 show catalogue. I think there's a lot of accepting the fallibility of memory too: it is okay to see something and consider it deeply and allow it to move you and it's also okay to forget it a little afterwards, because being truly present to art isn't a state of mind you want indefinitely
penetrability (therefore femininity) 😭😭😭😭🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🔫🔫🔫🔫🔪🔪🔪🔪🔪 this is an exceptional piece because of its content and because of your extremely intentional world choice
As someone who has experienced similar frustrations when experiencing the MoMa’s Rothko collection and feels uncomfortable being the subject of photographs, I found this incredibly compelling! Aside from the personal archive aspect of photographing art, I think it also makes us feel some sense of ownership or mastery over it somehow. Learning to put my phone down at art museums has been a much more humbling experience.
Oh this is beautiful. I see so much of Roland Barthes’ influence in your words, and I love how you describe the immense vulnerability and violation of being photographed. It really does feel like being flattened down into an object and being robbed of your capacity for self-definition (and the same effect applies to this whole photograph-a-piece-of-art phenomenon!!) This piece me think about a previous essay you wrote about photography over the summer— you replied to my comment suggesting I read Camera Lucida, and I did. Thank you thank you thank you
“digitally mediated” vs raw. IM writing a manifesto about this exact thing! It’s pro “friction” which is the raw you speak of. Our experiences with the world should be painful and intense and certain and crazy and fever pitch, NOT MEDIATED in any way. ESPECIALLY not through tech BLAGH!
Her work is harder to see, but another artist to consider these questions was Francesca Woodman.
This was a great article to read and so insightful! You observing intentional art, and being the unintentional subject of someone else's idea of art who would nonetheless make people feel something, but so far removed from what you expected of the artistic experience.
i'm curious if you've ever read susan sontag's 'on photography' - yours and her ideas seem very intertwined. if you haven't (or even if you have) it's so incredible fascinating to see how this concept of the camera as simultaneously a vehicle of invulnerability and one that probes into vulnerability threads through the years and becomes more relevant. that line about penetrability and femininity was also really beautiful :)