Jeff Wall’s essay was interesting to read and had a somewhat lighter feel to it than the various essays we have read in these past couple of weeks. He mentions in the start of the essay how within his work he likes to provoke many associations of complicated natural forms. This is a technique we probably see every day with our naked eye without realizing it. We most likely don’t realize that we are associating a shape of an object with another object, idea, or preconceived thought.
Wall also focuses on developing this idea of a “logical relation of necessity between the phenomenon of the movement of a liquid, and the means of representation. “ His idea of “liquid intelligence” is still a bit hard for me to fully comprehend. It seems as if he is very into the theoretical aspect of photography and what exactly each aspect of photography represents and how that characteristic can relate to other areas and hypothetical ideas. At first, this sounded a little crazy but reading it over a few times I actually found that Wall has an interesting and very respectable perspective of photography. I think it is pretty clear where he receives his inspiration for his photographic products. For him, nature and all things natural are of a “liquid” representation and the institution of photography and the mechanics itself contain a more or less “dry” character. On the other hand, with the essay considered in its entirety, it would be safer to say that this was not as light of a read as I had first thought it was. Reading it a few times brought out new perspectives and images that weren’t see the first time. This has a lot to do with his simple wording he uses to introduce complex ideas. This was a tricky task he accomplished in this essay and I’m sure there is much more to be said about its literal meaning, if there is one.
1 comment:
Out of the two articles I was definitely most interested in Jeff Wall's writing. I liked a lot of the points that he made about water and photography as well as about photography as an art and in general. Even though we have read many many many writings about the debate whether photography is an art or not, Wall seems to move a step over that and just starts analyzing art in general and what it accomplishes and how each piece and genre of photograph is different. When he writes of Evans and the way in which that type of photography challenges aesthetic photography in a way. He also brought up an interesting point about Levine (who I had previously decided I just didnt like) and how she could simply be stating through her photographs that she is giving praise to the original masters of photography and those who came before her. I had never thought about her photographs in that way but many of the things he discusses are new and bring up valid new points. Another item that I liked of his was the analysis of cinematography and breaking it down into simply a series of photographs. He states that a movie is simply photographs that you are shown briefly and are unable to fully see it as a still life. It is moving. I thought that in general his writing was very interesting and insightful. I enjoyed the way he moved from one subject of photography to the next, literally taking on all of art at once. But he presents it in an artistic way, flowing it together well and even when critizing, keeps a calm artistic flow to the writing. I really enjoyed him piece and the different way he took on the question of photography as a whole.
Post a Comment