Foto Follies · Thursday May 17, 2007
Duane Michals recently released a book that looks a most welcome addition to contemporary theory
Here’s an example:
Michals says:
Sidney paints his fingernails shocking pink, a brilliantly audacious gesture that exposes the discorroborative bias of Revlon’s vacuity, while trenchantly confirming lipstick as a phallic ploy of alpha males vis-à-vis Derrida’s strategies of discorroboration.
Indeed.
Yet Cindy Sherman is included in respected and widely used critical studies of photography. I think some of her work is quite interesting, but the subject is so lightweight I’m not sure it deserves the prominence it has. Jo Spence is even worse – the theory is, she introduced or at least made notable a new kind of personal narrative-making practice.
I do actually think there’s a potential for photo-therapy, if indeed people find it therapeutic. Whatever turns you on. I recall a TV programme about 12 months depicting a young lady with body image problems, who went to get photographed in New York by a woman who specialises in the subject. I’m a little cynical about that too – essentially all she does is take beautiful pictures, sometimes of people with facial or bodily damage, and throw in a little cooing and reassurance to make them feel good when they react with inevitable uncertainty. The young lady in the programme was average to attractive, as I recall; her problem was entirely psychological. The NYC photographer, I forget her name but she should be easily Google-able, naturally charges a high fee for her specialised servces. I think the money would be better spent finding a competent and sympathetic normal photographer, and finding an add-on bit of counselling or support in some other way.
Spence essentially did the same thing. I know of some local projects working with people suffering from AIDS, women who have had mastectomies etc., and I think the benefit was clearly evident – much of it I think derived from the photographer, who recently spoke at The Democratic Image conference, who was a very warm and kindly lady.
I wouldn’t knock that.
But feature such work alongside Cartier-Bresson, Magnum documentaries etc, as part of photographic theory? No, it’s just silly. Mention it in passing perhaps, as part of a study of narrative, but don’t include entire chapters on Jo Spence with accompanying photographs which is what you find for example in The Photography Reader, by Liz Wells.
Sherman is not in the same class as Spence, but she is in the same category. Most famous was her series of black and white photographs called “Untitled Film Stills,” showing Sherman as a B Movie actress in various poses. Quite interesting:
But really, it’s a pretty lightweight little preoccupation. It had a novelty value, but the subject of social generation of images pertaining to gender is bigger and more complex. I hate TV adverts – I can’t stand having that crap invading my living space, especially because the televisual audio image is such a powerful experience. It’s like loud music – you can’t avoid it. And one thing I’ve noticed recently is the huge quantity of Revlon, Rimmel etc material that gets broadcast late at night. Flip the channels after midnight, and see for yourself: Andie McDowell smiling her perfect teeth, and general “because I’m worth it “ bullshit (no, because you buy into a brand image which is very different). The sheer volume of it is worrying, as it pertains to its inevitable psychological effect. So if it is a serious subject, and it’s certainly a current concern with ‘0’ body size being the desired shape for models, then it deserves something more than a photo project that’s somewhat more arty than political.
Anyway, satire is good fun sometimes. “Exposes the discorroborative bias of Revlon’s vacuity….”
Indeed.
Update: I wouldn’t necessarily change any of that and the nuance it has, except in one important respect.
I think in theoretical terms, Sherman is actually very interesting in respect of how her work ties in with media and cultural theory. I don’t find her photography intrinsically interesting as photography, but as an expression of postmodern ideas – in particular – she makes a worthwhile study.
— James Lomax · Jun 4, 10:21 PM · James Lomax">§
who is this movie on the picture?
— laura · Jun 18, 09:01 PM · laura">§