Exercise 4: Conclude your work on photography and time by reflecting on the role of photography in the work you’ve just looked at – and similar projects. Is the photography simply providing an authentic record of the artwork – photography as evidence – or is it part of the artwork itself? You might argue that the photograph is the artwork for a viewer who has never actually seen Richard Long’s wayside sculptures, for example.
Without the photographs, would those scenes that Richard Long and Hamish Fulton captured in their exhibitions even be seen or witnessed by any humans? It's possible, but who would know?
It's almost like a chicken and egg situation. Was photography first used for proof and permencance, for documentation, or for creativity, art and aesthetics? In these exhibitions, where photography is an integral part of ‘Earth art’ or ‘Land art’ they can be considered both.
I don't believe the photos themselves need to be qualified as either proof of art or art themselves. I believe they can be both. Just as a family portrait or a catalogue photo is both a record of existence and still has an element of creativity and art towards it.
I found Aleksandra Mir’s work particularly interesting when it came to seeing photography and videography as proof of existence. In the project titled First Woman on the Moon, 1999, there is a representation of the original moon landings which were themselves recorded with photography and videos. The construction of the lunar landscape for the scene was built and then destroyed within a day, much like how the world has long moved on from the moon landings and all that remains is the photographic proof which is open to much scrutiny.
In the works of Richard Long, some of the photos such as Snowball track’ 1964 and ‘Line made by walking’ 1967, we see only fragments of evidence that someone was there besides the photographs themselves. Most of the artworks i've looked at in this section lead me to question, ‘if there were no photos, did it even exist?’
I think back to the art project I was asked to look at for assignment 1, the ‘Battle of Orgreave’ and it’s installation in the Tate gallery. The exhibition includes paraphernalia of both the actual event and the recreation, both of which rely heavily on photography and videos not only to produce a documentary but as evidence of what took place. That evidence became the art. Was the project itself the artwork, or the resulting photographs?
Going even further back in the course, I was initially asked to consider what art is. For a photographer, I assume they consider the same question every time they frame a scene for their camera’s lens. They have to consider if the photo they are taking is worth the time and consideration, and before digital cameras, was it worth the space on their camera’s film? When it comes to works such as land art that is aimed at only being temporary, that photo has to be accurate and the project deemed worthy of recording.
Comments
Post a Comment