The Artist Upending Photography’s Brutal Racial Legacy

Retro-Grouch said:
That means learning about the history of art and how it functions in our society, and past society. Sometimes that process of learning can feel overwhelming. It's like going out in the garden to dig some carrots, and unearthing the ruins of Troy: What do I DO with all this?
Click to expand...

Nicely put! Much agreement here.

Retro-Grouch said:
A highly recommended book, small but dense, is "Beauty in Photography" by the photographer Robert Adams. He wrestles well and eloquently with these complicated issues, and provides a number of valuable questions with which to approach art. Too bad I don't enjoy his photography as much as I do his writing. In his photos, his political agenda gets too much in the way sometimes, and his environmental concerns lead him to create dull and visually unresolved images that are essentially just illustrations of an idea. Yes, I said it: His art is sometimes too political, and suffers for it. You can quote me.
Click to expand...

Adams is my favorite photographer, but his true gift is writing. More of a writer with a camera rather than a photographer with a pen.

I have all of his writings in my library and most of his photo books, and it strikes me that he's a great example of politics in art, and also the lack of it. He's spent the last fifty years holding the same mirror up to America so we can see ourselves and what we've done, and for that work of course he would agree with you that his photography is very political indeed. Every interview I've heard with him suggests it.

And then he'll offer a poetic book on domesticity like Around the House, which is full of beautifully composed images of exactly that; his wife in the yard or at the kitchen sink, his darkroom (impeccably clean of course), his workshop in the garage, some clouds, a few sentences about home life, a picture of a moth. Not a whiff of politics or agenda, just art presented in the clarified air aesthetic that he's perfected.

Sometimes a picture of a moth is just a picture of a moth, and that's where its healing power originates.
 
Jawarden, I am so much in agreement about the healing power of some pictures of simple beauty! Adams speaks about times when his work documenting "what we've done" becomes more than he can bear, how he seeks out a friendly cafe or the simple companionship of his dog. He has certainly earned that respite!
It would be a wonderful world if we all had the loving spouse, the quiet yard, the leisure to watch the clouds. I think that Adams understands that these things things represent a privilege in this world as it is, and I suspect that may be why his other work struggles so hard to confront a world that is so often a mess, where that quiet domesticity and security are unavailable to so many.
Sometimes I photograph in my local communities, engaging with the despair, struggle, and resilience of the people in the small dying towns of rural New Mexico.
Sometimes I photograph my kitty.
 
I haven't read the article yet, I plan on doing that. But I've always wondered: just what is political about black people--black American citizens--wanting to be treated fairly and equally as full citizens of our country (which they haven't been, clearly, for nearly 400 years), and for white Americans (decent ones, at least) also to want them, as fellow citizens, to be treated fairly and eventually exactly equally in law, justice, and opportunity? As Americans, isn't that *what we should want* for *ALL American citizens*? Why does that get some people (usually white people, let's be honest) so touchy, angsty and all fired up?

I'm saying this as a white person who grew up amongst black folks--I attended a majority black inner-city high school, and was the only white guy on my high school basketball team--and still work daily with and socialize by choice with black people. It's not really hard to understand they just want the same opportunities and treatment as everyone else, I've just been really puzzled (well, not *really*) that a lot of white people can't seem to figure this out, and for some reason it's "controversial" and can't be discussed in "polite society," usually because some people (almost always, let's again be honest, white) decide it's somehow "divisive."

What the hell, really.
 
Rulnacco, you get it. But for a lot of people, it's not that they don't, but won't.
In the early years of the American republic, the elite (White landholders) realized the challenge that might arise to their self-proclaimed authority if Black slaves and the poor, disenfranchised whites, who were the vast majority of the population, realized they had more in common with each other than the elite class. To destroy the potential for that solidarity, they promoted the idea that Blacks were subhuman and destined inevitably for slavery. Thus the poor whites, indentured farmers, landless laborers, the disenfranchised multitude, could at least point to Blacks and say "At least I'm not THAT!" Who promoted this filth? Political, civic, and religious leaders of every stripe. The wedge between Blacks and poor whites was thus created, and still, to this day, is promoted in coded but clear terms by so many in power. Not very pretty.
And oh boy, am I gonna get flamed for this post! Won't be the first time...
 
Interesting thread, folks.
I've been a member here for quite a while but have not been posting much at all for some time.
Not because I dislike the place but because I am finding myself asking different questions about my photography.
I have more and more been asking about "why" am I making any particular photo rather than "how" or "what with."
I have been thinking about the choices I generally make. I am not trying to make art but I have long been trying to show and share some of the beauty I see around me.
And, that choice is definitely "political".
For a discussion like this, however, I suspect that defining "politics" as "the total complex of relations between people living in society" works better.
Thinking of politicas as only left vs right or some other narrow dichotomy is short sighted, I think.
 
Absolutely correct, rbiemer. And concise, something I have difficulty with, obviously! And thank you for posting; it's refreshing to see more of the "why' being considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom