Interruption/Surrealism Tuesday May 24, 2005
One of the attributes of so-called postmodernism is the notion that we no longer live by a received, establishment ideology. Everything is relative, culturally conditioned, and arbitrary. This is an academic preoccupation, but I don’t think it describes a profound difference in civilisation, that the world is substantially changed from the preceding era. As a cognitive or philosophical strategy I like ‘deconstruction’ quite a lot but from what I’ve seen it fails to deconstruct itself, so its logic reaches a brick wall and then doesn’t attempt to climb it. If you don’t deconstruct deconstruction then you are building a structure of meaning, while you pretend otherwise.
I’ve been reading a book called The Art Of Interruption (Roberts 1998), subtitled Realism, Photography and the Everyday. It’s a great title, and I like the idea that photography offers new insights into ‘reality’, that it’s a way of ‘interrupting’ the flow of one-dimensional meaning so we can look with a more sustained depth. However those are my own feelings, and the book has other concerns. Basically it’s a Marxist treatise documenting photographic culture in terms of ‘raising consciousness’, predicated on the idea that Karl’s analysis provides us with a final and encompassing methodology of political understanding. I accept that dialectical materialism was a great intellectual achievement, with enduring consequences. But as with deconstruction – with which it is strategically aligned – it builds a perceptual castle providing a comforting roadmap for the critical mind, and is ultimately another form of opium in the sense that Marx called religion opium. Deconstruction has to be deconstructed; Marxism is the opium of the academic. I object when the political brigade hijacks a term like ‘realism’, and a philosophical subject is reduced to dreary material terms. The book feels like a walk through a Soviet housing estate, on a grey winters day, with no bread in the shops.
The analytic mind shatters ideologies into component parts, revealing the beliefs and values masquerading as absolute truth. We are thus increasingly surrounded by mental configurations which we can interpret at will. Each is iridescent with meaning, while the great beliefs from which they issue grow paler. Photography has impressed on us the dissolution of traditional perspectives: not only optical distortion and investigation, but also the potential whereby anyone can capture and create their own meaning, regardless of the establishment or cultural values. But this is more interesting, I think, than just depicting working class conditions or marginalised communities. I don’t accept the dreary material empiricism of Marx; I think there are levels of intellect and philosophy free from class politics, like a ship that has pulled up its anchor. We all know how wretched life is when you are penniless and powerless, exploited by the factory-owning bourgeoisie. But that doesn’t mean you extrapolate from this an entire philosophy of life, using the idea of the ‘revolution’ as a utopian trajectory. I’m not a machine, and when I did some factory work it did not define me: I read books, went for walks, played music. Those things were not improved by a better wage, or affected by it.
Subversive photography is a great idea, challenging the received and preconceived outlook. I think successful street photography often has this quality: Cartier-Bresson’s images frequently have a sense of unexplained meaning and his compositions are simultaneously ordinary and mysterious, their narrative impact balancing recognition with an implied question. That’s an ordinary person I see but who are they, and what are they thinking, and what are these circumstances? His ‘decisive moment’ was an instance of layered meaning depicting not mundane physical conditions, but the implication of an alternative and revelatory perspective.
In his younger days Cartier-Bresson was influenced by surrealism and I think this is not only one of the keys to interpreting his work, but also one of the essential qualities of photography. It’s great fun capturing a fleeting moment – let’s not forget our childhood initiation into the art of the camera – and it’s also a repeatedly surreal activity. Every time we snap the shutter we consolidate this surreal activity by producing yet another piece of surreal information: an image we know is not real, but which is seductive. And it’s such a powerfully intriguing experience we like to repeat it again and again, thousands of times, for many decades. Some of these images of course have a startling and objective political significance; the most substantial part of photographic history is probably the famous documentary work that is common knowledge. The girl running from napalm, the soldier being shot. Riots, elections…the hundred daily scenes that inform global consciousness. The behaviour of Lyndee England in the Abu Ghraib jail. Images of captured Westerners, soon to be beheaded by Islamic fanatics. Photography has been there, done that, and continues to do it: and much of it has a clear and simple significance, corresponding to real documentary concerns. But the photographic aesthetic is not confined to literal depiction, and the quintessentially surreal aspect of this art is – I believe – why we are continually interested. Cartier-Bresson and also Jacques Henri-Lartique simply loved to take pictures, the latter amassing a famously enormous collection, for which France is grateful. Many of those pictures are not especially interesting – how can they be when there are tens of thousands? Henri-Lartique’s work is valued as a documentary collection, recording a substantial period of French social history. But when we think of him, we think of the few startling images for which he is famous: the surreal capture of a half-flying woman, a formidably made-up woman walking a dog when we can’t help wondering yes, very nice, but what kind of person is she?
— tamara · May 25, 05:08 PM · §
There are indeed some interesting questions in relation to the history and aesthetic/semantic status of the photographic image.
— James Lomax · Nov 4, 02:29 PM · §
I have come across this at 21:55 am,the night before a massive photography assignment is due of mine,and it seams to me that these bundle of words you have strung together so nicely has cleared up so many thoughts and views of mine about the subject. Dusted up the areas i forgot about,the meaning. Not all this nasty competition that seams to being going on about being “omg the best photographer” making photographic myspaces to show of photos of skinny scene friends with lamp lighting and calling it photography. Seeing my generation do this and following trends makes me forget the true passion and true meanings,feelings thoughts and reasons. Makes me feel not worthy of loving this hobby so much.
if that makes sence? Sorry im very overwhelmed with information from studys. Either way,thanks and great work (Y).
— Tayla-Ashlie Robertson · Jul 18, 04:02 PM · §
Thanks Tayla!
Glad you enjoyed what I wrote and good luck with the assignment.
— James Lomax · Jul 19, 09:12 AM · §