2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

Krauss offers that by the 60s, photography was no longer "a historical or an aesthetic object," but rather a "theoretical object." In other words, photography was no longer thought about in historical or artistic terms and became instead a central site of art theory. I would argue that this idea is too absolutistic, too black-and-white, and that photography never "left behind its identity as a historical or an aesthetic object," but rather, in "(becoming) a theoretical object," only added a certain depth to its identity. It is not possible for photography to become nothing but a "theoretical object."

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting Krauss, but over and over she seems to suggest that photography has waned into a state of "obsolescence": "now photography can only be viewed through the undeniable fact of its own obsolescence." Also, "(photography)...will (pass out) of the field of social use and into the twilight zone of obsolescence." And, "At the moment, now, of its obsolescence photography can remind us of this promise..." ...When has photography ever been obsolete? When will it ever be obsolete? I must answer "never" to both questions. If I understand Krauss correctly, I must disagree with her notion of photography as "outmoded," "one of those industrial discards...like the juke box or the trolley car." Photography, like every medium of art, is evolving, and is in no way obsolete or becoming obsolete; it is in fact becoming more and more widespread and dominant in the art world, as well as in the non-art world, despite its transformations and despite the rise of the film. Could someone help me with this? I had some trouble with this essay, and I wonder if I'm misinterpreting Krauss...

Krauss says quite eloquently, "The decadence that was soon to engulf (the medium of photography) was thus not just due to its having yielded to the commodity but to that commodity's having been swallowed by kitsch, which is to say, the fraudulent mask of art." But if the definition of art is as open as it is nowadays, and art can literally be anything, from Rauchenberg's torn-up, painted, vertical bed, to Duchamp's ready-made toilet, to little more than an isolated, "good idea," who is to say what is "kitsch" and what is "art"? These days, no lines are being drawn to define "art," so perhaps anything at all is "art," no? If it is so dangerous to confuse "art" with "artiness," as Krauss suggests, why is just anything allowed to be "art"? SHOULDN'T certain lines be drawn? Shouldn't art be something, rather than everything? I realize that this digression doesn't speak to Krauss' general message in her essay, but it struck me as an interesting idea...

I saw that Krauss suggested the same thing Bejamin does: the advent of the "copy" affects the status of the "original." With photography, since the original IS the copy and vice versa, photography became the ultimate "wrecker of unitary being," the final destroyer of the "original."

Krauss’ arguments were, for me, reminiscent those of Baudrillard. When speaking about the how photography loses its sepecificity as a medium while becoming a theoretical object, the author breaks down the different “shocks� that we have consecutively experienced through futurism, photo, and film. This reminds me of Baudrillard’s observations that through surviving this deluge of reproducible and reproduced imagery, we have become essentially immune to the effect of the image itself: art has been “dissolved within a general aesthetization of everyday life, giving way to pure circulation of images, a transaesthetics of banality.� Also, when Krauss (and Benjamin, for that matter) talk about photography being “deeply inimical to the idea of autonomy or specificity,� I think of Baudrillard’s words: “Each category is generalized to the greatest possible extent, so that it eventually loses all specificity and is reabsorbed by all the other categories.�

However, Krauss is not simply arguing that photography has lost its specificity as a medium, but also that it has passed “out of the field of social use and into the twilight zone of obsolescence.� Like Rowan, I think this sounds a bit absolute. Simply because the methods and technologies of photography have been made accessible to the masses, the author believes that the medium has become an “industrial discard.� Is she saying that because photo has been somehow demystified, or at least de-high-art-ified by drug store developing and digital cameras, that it can no longer exist as an artistic medium? Perhaps I am not understanding this completely, or reading it without enough context, as this seems like quite a leap to me.

Krauss goes on to talk about the “reinvention of the medium� that is derived from photography’s desendence into obsolescence. She says that, rather than remerging from traditional media, this reinvention “concerns the idea of a medium as such, a medium as a set of conventions of a given technical support, conventions out of which to develop a form of expressiveness that can be both projective and mneumonic.� I feel as though this sentence may be the crux of this piece, and that I’m not at all sure what it means. I think i understand (though disagree with parts of) the author’s destruction of the medium, but am confused as to how it is reinvented.

I can see the imfamous "save-it-for-wednesday-morning" technique taking hold among my classmates... That must mean y'all are having the same reaction to this essay that I am.

As Rowan has mentioned, the essay states that by the 1960’s, the photograph had evolved from an aesthetic object into a theoretical object. Krauss proposes that the medium of photography has lost specificity, become outmoded and is finished. She writes of Benjamin’s interest in the early history of the photograph, when aura could be associated with the human portrait, but then quickly reminds us of the “decadence� that overwhelmed the medium.

I find interesting Krauss’ reaction to the act of a photographer framing a picture through a lens. “That this act alone is aesthetic means that an entire world of artistic technique and tradition drops away, not only the skill required to make the older forms of ‘works nominated to play this role’ but also the technical skills…requisite to photography itself.� I’d be interested to hear Sam and Areca’s opinion on this statement. I think the skill required to successfully capture a visual moment in a lens is equal to that of composing a painting or sculpture. I often think photography can be an even more difficult task, as subject matter is somewhat limited to a photographer’s surroundings. I can ignore reality and make up my own visual worlds, which I find to be much easier.

I have to agree with both Rowan and Mel that photography is certainly not an obsolete medium. Yes, it has become extremely accessible to the masses, but haven’t other mediums as well? Craft stores like Michael’s and A.C. Moore have made paint supplies, fine art papers, inks and other tools readily available to the general public similar to the way drug stores have made photography so accessible. Does this mean that drawing and painting have also lost their specificity and authority as a medium? Certainly not. The whole emphasis Krauss places on photography’s descent as a medium has become less important in the contemporary art world. Artists are employing a large variety of untraditional materials to create works that are evocative regardless of their medium.

As with Rowen, Mel, and Jonathan I too had difficulties with this piece. To the best of my knowledge, when Rosalind Krauss is talking about photography being reduced to a "theoretical object", she is talking about photography becoming self aware. In the same way that painting began to focus on the nature of painting and paint itself, photography has gone through the process of self examination. As with painting once it goes through this process, it is forever changed. Anything that comes after is viewed through this historical lens.

The whole notion of the death of painting relates to this idea. I'm not saying that I agree with the statement that painting is dead but there seems to be a correlation to the idea of photography being obsolete. Painting shifted to focus on the nature of paint once photography came along and overtook it as the master of documentation. Consequently, photography began to focus inward on the medium of photography once video over shadowed it is a more efficient means of communication. In light of this I think it is presumptuous to say that photography is becoming obsolete. As Rowen stated the use of photography is "becoming more and more widespread and dominant" then it ever has been.

Another aspect of becoming a "theoretical object" is photography's ability to be neutral. It has the ability to reproduce visual information in consistent fashion. Unlike painting and sculpture the aesthetic of photography is relatively unified. The photograph is "the perfect instance of a multiple-without-an-original. It is born into this world as a copy. Because of this it lends itself to being used as a tool of conceptual endeavors. For the most part I agree with this assessment. Obviously there are many photographers that have their own voice within the medium but in terms of it's basic function, it is a great tool for removing signs of personality and evidence of the hand. Krauss's lengthy example of James Coleman's use of photography in a more conceptual way leads me to believe that she is interested in how photography has begun to move beyond the pure photograph. It is being incorporated into the larger practice of art. It is one of the tools that is at the artists disposal.

A quick comment on the question of photography's obsolescence. I agree that Krauss's rhetorical strategies are a bit overdramatic, but I think the central point she's making is that photography's very ubiquity is what makes its impact negligible. Yes, Rowan, "photography is becoming more and more widespread and dominant," and this is precisely what dulls its influence on the viewer. Krauss speaks of obsolescence in a cultural sense, not a technical one, and the culture that matters to her is the culture of the contemporary art world.

This reading was very problematic for me, and I’m not sure that I got it all. “Reinventing the Medium�, Photography, just when and how has it been reinvented. Since the daguerreotype, I realize that the technology of photography has constantly been improving, changing and becoming more accessible and democratic to the masses. And now in the era of digital technology, it is changing again, so I would argue that photography has constantly been reinventing itself through its history.
But has this reinvention made photography obsolete? And if photography is obsolete, why is it still so popular. Why is there a place for it still in the Arts, society, history, security, media, and in our personal lives?
And what exactly is a theoretical object? Certainly not a photograph, I could see an infinitely small theoretical particle in quantum physics being a theoretical object, but not a photograph. I can see a photograph, I can hold one. It doesn’t matter if it was the first print produced, the hundredth, or one on a computer screen. I think some of this language is absurd. Maybe I took parts of this reading far too literally, and will read it again before our discussion, but I feel that photography is not obsolete, painting is not dead, and accessing the original object is a bit over rated, and is not economically, socially or physically accessible for all artists or the masses. I’m value photography’s role in access and documentation.

What a wonderful article in comparison to Walter Benjamin’s essay. Rosalind Krauss’ words flowed more into a concise idea, she was focused on the nature and medium of photography rather than justifying this “new� medium against the Art World, the Fascists and the Avant guard. She make me feel better by calling Benjamin predicable and positive, one who greets historical progress only by looking backwards at the storm of it’s deconstruction. Knowing a bit about the writers she mentions strengthens my support of her ideas and helps explain where she is coming from and to where she leads us.

Where she does lead us is to the heart of photography, as artistic expression, beyond the historical beginnings of it technology. Photo conceptualism seems to have changed the world. The emergence of photography as a theoretical object gives the camera is own eye of sorts, leaving behind the portrait and using the medium as a story teller, “rendering the human subject woven into the network of social relations. This is where the beautiful idea of a mask can be incorporated, where the choice of keeping “operations of history and politics� out of sight. Is that of the artist. This creates space for control and conceptualism in the “why� of the photographer, this is where the “art� medium can take hold. Postmodern deconstruction is also a great space where photography expresses itself by deconstructing itself. Painting has done similar self-deconstruction when making work about itself. I found it pretty hardcore, to say that photo destroyed the conditions of the aesthetic medium in the transformative operations of art itself. I don’t actually know what this means except for giving audiences new ways of seeing? Did photography do this or was it time in Culture to reinvent the medium?

I also liked about the conversation about Obsolescence and redemptive qualities in photography due to mass interest in the medium. Krauss then talks of the work of James Coleman where her ideas come together, the results of a theoretical object, the nostalgic, redemptive concern for the medium and the exposure of what film can be in itself, the film still. She then goes on to talk about Barthes and the power within film stills, and the Diegetic Horizon. This concept of a still being a figment of a second text is so clear and I realize why I enjoy seeing film stills even if they are over done today. Krauss finishes with what I think of as an ultimatum to the world of art and it’s creators. A statement telling us to use the medium to “reclaim the specific from the deadening embrace of the general .’

I would pick the following line as the highlight of Krauss' essay: “...photography functions against the grain of its earlier destruction of the medium, becoming, under precisely the guise of its own obsolescence, a means of what has to be called an act of reinventing the medium.� I understood that in Krauss's perspective there are three states in the history of photography; destruction, obsolescence and reinvention. I do agree with Rowan, Mel and Robin about the argument toward the absolute perspective on photography as an “obsolescing medium�, but I am also trying to look for another perspective about this argument. For it's nature of productivity, accessibility and precision, photography was an obvious ground-breaker in the field of visual art. Trying to imagine the impact it caused to the whole culture of visual art at the time, I am starting to feel the sense of “obsolescence� of, not the entire medium of photography, but of a boldness and a meaning that was used to be attached to it. May be like the good-old pencils and papers, the medium has lost it's special attention, photography is now just another tool and no longer a ground-breaker. May be the time of “reinvention� is to treat this tool in it's generic means.

It would be interesting to see what would Krauss say to the photography and film of today. The raise of digital technology has added another dimension to the media. Now that we are so much closer and more familiar to these media, that it's almost as accessible as (or for some people, MORE accessible than) pen and pencil. And the fact that the media are now much more manipulatable, they are losing the sense of precision, they are no longer “theoretical objects� (they can still be, but not necessarily any more). Before we could even “reinvent� the old photography, now it has gained another layer of complexity. Technologies are advancing way faster than our process of “reinvention�.

To me, this evolution of photography seems the same as the evolution of drawing tools, or any tools that allowed us to express our interpretation of the visual world. Creating a representation of our visual world, was enabled with the invention of tools. I can imagine that human were impressed when they saw for the very first time, a tool that allowed them to leave a mark to represent visual surroundings. I think the invention of photography was a similar phenomenon. Each time adding more complexity, thus the meaning of the use is also getting complex, but the invention of new media are all just an invention of new tools, or an invention of the USE of these tools. We are in constant cycle of invention, destruction, obsolescence and reinvention. In each loop we are exponentially raising the complexity in its use and meanings. Plurality of the arts is inevitable. I do not agree with the “need for the idea of the medium as such to reclaim the specific from the deadening embrace of the general.�

Jennifer's comment on the Krauss' last phrase was very interesting because it was basically opposite of mine. Not that I oppose to your idea either, but I think "specific" is never accomplished among all the unique artists with all these tools that we never define its use in singular mean. I think what ties us together will always be "general".

I initially had the same reaction as Mel and Rowan to Krauss's argument about photography's obsolescence, when she says it has, "…suddenly become one of those industrial discards, a newly established curio, like the jukebox or the trolley car, " and, "By the early 1980s those same tourists would be toting camcorders, signaling that first video and then digitized imaging will replace photography altogether as a mass social practice." What is she talking about? Jonathan's comment helps a bit, but the statements I quoted don't reference the art world, and she is clearly just wrong on those points. I'm trying to move past the fact that I think her basic premise is wrong, and view it through the interpretations Jonathan and Ben laid out; this idea that photography had become a theoretical object and become obsolete as it is/was in the art world, through its own ubiquity.

I begin to see her point that the fresh ideas coming from photography have been exhausted, the excitement of a new medium has long since worn off, and alterations or additions to the media are being made-- a reinvention of the medium is occurring. I find this to have mixed truth. With the case she cites of Coleman, it is refreshing how he has altered and shuffled the medium of photography, but I actually think of Wall as quite a traditional photographer-- it never occurred to me that his use of Duratrans could be considered being a reinvention of photography, just a slight tweaking. (I think there are other photographers who serve as better examples of reinventing the medium). However, most of the photographers I can think of who are having success in the art world today take a rather traditional approach, using the exact same medium as photographers in the 60s did, but still managing to say interesting things.

From another viewpoint (and I suspect that Krauss was not referring to this), with the advent of digital photography and photoshop there has been a drastic shift in of the meaning of photography, a passing of an era. (Perhaps this is what she means when she says “digitized imaging� in the previous quote about tourists—digital photography. But if she sees it as something separate from photography, she is probably alone in this view…). The shift stems from the fact that the veracity of photographs have come into question in “mass culture�. It used to be that the truth of a photograph was relatively unquestioned (whether it should have been is another issue) and now this idea seems almost quaint. People now know they cannot trust the photographs they see to be a true reflection of the original scene, and this has drastically changed the meaning and purpose of photography. The way one considers a photograph changes with the knowledge that it is a digital manipulation. In a way photography has become obsolete as a “truthteller�, and must be reinvented because of this.

these essays are freakin me out.
mostly because im not sure i can absorb what she and he are saying.
im lame for not reponding but i have been reading for two days now and....its like i walked into a fog.
im getting an F this time around and look forward to the charlie rose round table discussion.

“The ‘in order to’ has become the content of the ‘for the sake of;’ utility established as meaning generates meaninglessness.�
--Hannah Arendt

In his essay, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance,� Kenneth Frampton uses the above quote to support his criticism of the universal style of modern architecture that has supplanted “locally inflected culture.� Arendt’s words can just as well be applied to the Krauss and Benjamin essays that we’ve read this week.

Both Krauss and Benjamin are struggling to make sense of a society in which boundaries have blurred – between artist and audience, between industry and culture, between one medium and another. Krauss describes how, for Benjamin, the crisis of photography (and perhaps of art in general) lies in its identity as an object of utility – an empty signifier that will give rise to art objects designed for commodification without social function. Benjamin sees “…the photographic – which is to say mechanical reproduction in all its modern, technological guises – as both source and symptom of a full-scale demise of this aura across all of culture, so that art itself, as celebrator of the unique and the authentic, will empty out completely. Its transformation will be absolute: ‘To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility.’� Indeed, Benjamin is shrewd to point out that a work self-consciously designed for reproducibility has already been altered in both intent and content. However, he has a marvelously nuanced view of mass culture, and it’s unfortunate to blame him for the sort of willful faux-amateur meaninglessness that Krauss describes as photoconceptualism’s “second strategic dimension.� Indeed, I would argue that this strategy stems from a literal and limited reading of Benjamin’s work – as though these photographers had read the sentence “When the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult, the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever,� and simply resigned themselves to addressing meaninglessness with meaninglessness while still milking the gallery system for money (instead of getting a productive job teaching elementary school.)

I am especially interested in Benjamin’s idea that the political significance of art’s mass production and distribution lies in its erasure of boundaries between artist and audience. The idea that democratization of cultural production can be used as a placating substitute for political democratization is especially prescient in these days of YouTube and dwindling civil liberties. Benjamin says it best: “Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves.�

I may be one of the few in class, but I really enjoyed this essay and it engaged me more than expected. Part of that comes from my own work with the medium of photography that resonates heavily with the work of James Coleman, who I am glad to have been introduced to with this reading.
Specifically the use of ‘low-grade, low-tech commercial support’ in my process, and the sequencing and loose narrative in my photo-based artists book’s movement toward filmic technique. I do however disagree with Krauss’ claim that photography is ‘obsolete’. It is an evolving medium just like any other, and I believe that whenever a medium hits a dead end, artists have the ability to re-invent, re-contextualize, and revive. Artists are the cultural farmers in our world. They know how to plant seeds, grow ideas, harvest ripe work, and most importantly, they know when to let something melt back into the mother mass and be ready to work up the soil the next spring when hunger strikes again.

In an art historical perspective, photography is a teenager, and film is the ten-year-old sibling. The first half of the history of photography so far was just the realization of the initial technological idea and goal, which was to capture a real-life image on a flat surface as crisp and realistic as possible. We got there early to mid-1900s and I believe after reaching that point, artists using photography went through a phase of exploring how to re-invent the medium. The first cycle of vegetables grew hearty realistic black-and-white silver prints, and when the art world became saturated with these prints and affordable cameras that could produce them, it was time to break up the dirt and plant new seeds. And I also think photographers went into using cheap drugstore prints and other ‘amateur’ methods to take the medium’s ‘aura’ into the conceptual realm away from the ‘fine art object’ realm. I feel when something has played itself out and needs a new direction it is up to the alchemists (artists) to go back into the cave and challenge themselves to turn shit into gold again. Shit in this case being ‘low-grade, low-tech commercial technology’ and ‘amateur’ equipment.

From personal experience, it gets so boring and uninspiring to use a camera that does all the work for you. It doesn’t engage my imagination as much, and it doesn’t challenge me. In my last photo-based artist book I set a rule that I could only use materials that I could find at OfficeMax. That challenge inspired me to no end, and as a result, the book is pretty sweet and brilliant. ☺ So in conclusion, I feel the peak was reached of ‘photography as straight documentation’, and so in Krauss’ mind became ‘obsolete’. But photography as a tool for the artist has only grown and become more diverse and exciting. And perhaps with the recent over-saturation of digital photos and technology, it is time to let this pixel-harvest die, and for the artists to work with the new abundance in new and exciting ways.

Ps. I just bought a full-size VHS tape camcorder on Ebay for 99 cents.

In regards' to Robin's comment on the quote about framing a picture through a lens, “That this act alone is aesthetic means that an entire world of artistic technique and tradition drops away, not only the skill required to make the older forms of ‘works nominated to play this role’ but also the technical skills…requisite to photography itself,� I'm honestly not sure what Krauss means by this. I do think that this act can be considered aesthetic in some sense, maybe analogous to a painter doing a quick sketch, just to see how the elements will look together. I don't know why this means that artistic technique, tradition, and technical skills drops away... I certainly think it takes technical skill to consistently make good photographs, but more than that it takes a good sense of aesthetics, anticipation, and a good concept. This is probably quite similar to all other mediums. She is probably right that technical skill in art is not as important now as in the past-- which I am grateful for in some ways. As Sam said we have so many mediums to explore and invent, we don't have to toil away all our artistic life perfecting our skill in one medium...

In regards' to Robin's comment on the quote about framing a picture through a lens, “That this act alone is aesthetic means that an entire world of artistic technique and tradition drops away, not only the skill required to make the older forms of ‘works nominated to play this role’ but also the technical skills…requisite to photography itself,� I'm honestly not sure what Krauss means by this. I do think that this act can be considered aesthetic in some sense, maybe analogous to a painter doing a quick sketch, just to see how the elements will look together. I don't know why this means that artistic technique, tradition, and technical skills drops away... I certainly think it takes technical skill to consistently make good photographs, but more than that it takes a good sense of aesthetics, anticipation, and a good concept. This is probably quite similar to all other mediums. She is probably right that technical skill in art is not as important now as in the past-- which I am grateful for in some ways. As Sam said we have so many mediums to explore and invent, we don't have to toil away all our artistic life perfecting our skill in one medium...