David Lurie's Images of Table Mountain
Saturday, June 24, 2006
So ArtHeat got it's very own review copy of David Lurie's Images of Table Mountain, and I surprised myself by actually liking it. I generally don't enjoy photography, and black and white documentary style photography makes me nauseous. I hate the staged casualness almost as much as I hate the self-importance. And don't even get me started on my problems with white male photographers taking photographs of disadvantaged people. Or just photographers in general, and their imperialist tendencies. I'm retching. Did I say I quite liked the book? Well, if this was a review of Lurie's show at Bell-Roberts it'd be a little on the nasty side. But when I see it in a book format, without the layers of importance a gallery adds, I feel my issues gently lift away. The essay by Ashraf Jamal in the beginning called "Shadow of the Mountain" is really fantastic and erudite, as Jamal tends to be. And as a good essay should it changed my perspective a little, skewed my issues just enough so that I could get a glimpse of what the photographer was trying to achieve. There's a moving message of the divide between rich and poor, which is nicely anchored on the theme of the mountain. It's a contemporary history of Cape Town, and a neccessary and broad collection of images. The photoographs show a huge amount of time and effort and sometimes bravery. The book itself is a beautiful object, and fit for the most exclusive of coffee tables. And here lies its fundamental problem: the message that the photos have will always be from the perspective of the rich for the eyes of the rich. This to my mind gives the images of the poor folk a touch of the exploitative, and the images of the rich folk a touch of self-indulgent satire. Putting that aside, I think it is a good book and worth the money. As a collection of images that document a time and place it will become more valuable as that time and place changes.
posted by Robert Sloon at 6:35 PM
10 Comments:
Wouldn't it be lovely if mister lurie donated a few copies of his books to schools or libraries in townships? but then I suppose he'd have to buy them an exclusive coffe table to put his book on.......oh well
I guess at that point he decides that you can't give people hand-outs, it builds bad character, you know. But when they pose for free for him, it's all for a higher purpose of course
while I nodded happily along to Sloon's comment about 'don't get me on the subject of white male photographers' etc, I did get on the subject, and started thinking about Guy Tillim. While I hardly know... the guy... I come from his generation and so I still think of him as a war photographer, which isn't really as entirely vain as a 'look at the funky marginalised "other"' photographer. (As a student I could actually see the townships on fire from upper campus).
And I was thinking how much we all love the Chapmans and their Goya references cos they were publicised by the cleverest ad mogul in history, but if we look at the actual content of Goya's "Disasters of War" it's not just about the actual fighting, it's about the surreal perversion that goes on when every humane act is defiled and blown up in front of your face.
So as a war photographer, it's interesting that Tillim didn't just pack up and go off to cannabilise the next site of conflict: he actually noticed the aftermath in Africa of the disasters of war.
I agree with you, Tillim's work as a war photographer is brilliant, sensitive work. But when, like in his Petros Village show, the photographs become over-aestheticised, made-for-gallery works then I feel the politics of the photograph come out in front. And I have always found those politics disturbing. Its not to say that the brilliant sensitive qualities disappear, but rather, and similiarly to David Lurie's, they take a second place in my mind to issues of representation, exploitation and authenticity. But then again, don't take me too seriously...as a former art student I probably have been jaded...the only thing I saw on fire at university was the lazy end of my cigarette.
what "brilliant, sensitive war photographs" are you referring to specifically, sloon et al.? the reason i ask is that it seems like it is cool at the moment to refer to a time when guy was a "war photographer".
i am intersted in what is meant by this and when this actually was and/or when it ceased to be? please tell me.
To my mind -paid journalistic assignments aside (which to be honest can sometimes come as close professionally to being a barman as opposed to real calling of blog hack, if you get my analogy...serving the masses , intoxication, bar fights etc.)- he is a artist (photographer if you must) working within a tradition. This tradition is foremost about experiencing the world, searching and being in spaces that elicit an emotional response in the photographer or allow them to act as witness, martyr even. The tradition is also one that (like other art forms and film) explores ways of using formal devices (composition, tonality, colour etc.) to sensitize the eye and mind to specific moments, gestures or residues of humanity, which often includes but are not always about conflict and war (see www.magnumphotos.com for example).
is he not still doing this?
in what way are the tones, texture and strong composition in this 2000 Kuito image (http://www.michaelstevenson.com/contemporary/exhibitions/departure/item10.htm) any less-"aestheticised" than this petros 2006 image (http://www.michaelstevenson.com/contemporary/exhibitions/tillim/petros18.htm)?
and in which way is the this "war" portrait (http://www.michaelstevenson.com/contemporary/exhibitions/soldiers/item36a.htm) more acceptable and less "made-for-gallery" than this "happy" portrait (http://www.michaelstevenson.com/contemporary/exhibitions/tillim/petros19.htm)?
I concede that the work is emotionally different because it explores the dynamics of a different type of space (stable village in relatively conflict free country) but at the same time the mode, the character the position of the photographer is the same, is it not? how can the "the politics of the photograph come out in front" all of a sudden? is it not in the eye of the beholder that these shifts in politik take place?
i am waffling so i will stop but... ed recently accused me of being biased on this topic because of my relationship with guy, so in advance of slander please respect that i have own opinion (pinky and the brain). am just asking these asking these questions to clarify.
p.s. i clarify that i when i said " it it seems like it is cool at the moment to refer to a time when guy was a "war photographer" i was reacting to "Tillim's work as a war photographer is brilliant, sensitive work" (but also other comments made to me in person over the last few months). I am not saying that it is unimaginable to refer to him as a war photographer (lots do) but it is this emphasis on a then and now scenario i really don't get. etc. etc. blah blah.
As the anonymous who started this, here's why I think of Guy as a war photographer. There was a war on, and he photographed it and sent the pics to Reuters.
Sure, war is pretty nuanced when it's happening in your own country, cos you see more effects of it than just the actual armed conflict. But isn't that was Goya was seeing?
By the way Mr Sloon, I don't think your generation is lazy... in the 80's it was hardly a big stretch of the imagination to be involved in politics. It was more like a basic requirement for getting into anyone's knickers
Jules, I was using guy as an example to illustrate why photography makes me nauseous. I concede that my opinions might not have been particularly educated, or accurate. But there wasn't some big emphasis on a then and now scenario...I was using Petros Village as an example, being freshest in my mind (wasn't it shown at the Michael Somethingorother)...I'm sure I could find the same problems in his other work too. Now if only I could figure out who put this opinion in your head...
he he... of course i forgot i had a idiot cotton wool brain and have always relied on assimilating the strong opinions of my artist genius boyfriends! forgive me, i slip a little from time to time.
anon (i know who you are!): i agree with you about the goya analogy, i know what you saying ...and i know what you meant "war photog" in the first place. I spose what I want to know is what SPECIFICALLY makes sloon, or others of his school of thought, "nauseous". I don't believe you need to be "educated" to look and be moved or provoked by photographs: but let's try to be "accurate" let's put into words what the experience of looking does to us. what makes one photo more aesthetic than the next? or one more unnearving, uncomfortable or dare i say it politically incorrect? Look carefully at the images and tell me what makes them problematic. i am not saying they are not...
anon again... shall we post one and discuss it. my problem is i'm too lazy to look the stuff up
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home