Saw Paul Graham last night- basically went to see if I could gain a greater appreciation of his latter work upon hearing him explain and present it. After all, how could I have such a general disdain and disregard for it- considering his earlier work which I so respected and admired? I obviously wasn't getting it.
And I still aint. A sunset, followed by a woman eating ham hocks (or was it a woman carrying a case of Pepsi, or a guy mowing the lawn, or...), followed by the same sunset, followed by completely blank pages so we could meditate on what we just saw and experienced, followed by the ham hocks, the sunset, blank pages... On and on it went... And these were (sorry, for the lack of a better word) mostly snapshots, simple snapshots- not the so called "snapshot aesthetic," but... snapshots!
And so I asked as politely as I could, "Uhh, uhmmm, Mr. Graham, sir, do you think you could get major publishers to publish your work today, which is so intensely private and personal and uhhh... esoteric, if you hadn't been a known name for your first three books of more errrr conventional work?" And he answered something to the effect that none of his books made any money, and that anyone can publish their own books these days. I don't think he purposely skirted the question, and I didn't have the heart to press it further since I still do respect the guy for what he once did. After all, it's not like he sold out- he's still staying true to his vision (whatever that now is), and to his credit, it's still somewhat socially based. But the question I really wanted to ask was, "Do you really think any name book publisher, or gallery owner would give you the goddamn time of day if you walked in off the street riding this sequential, conceptual high horse- without having the pedigree of being one of the very first to so brilliantly incorporate color into art/documentary photography? Do you have any idea whatsoever the shit you're getting away with?"
And so I asked as politely as I could, "Uhh, uhmmm, Mr. Graham, sir, do you think you could get major publishers to publish your work today, which is so intensely private and personal and uhhh... esoteric, if you hadn't been a known name for your first three books of more errrr conventional work?" And he answered something to the effect that none of his books made any money, and that anyone can publish their own books these days. I don't think he purposely skirted the question, and I didn't have the heart to press it further since I still do respect the guy for what he once did. After all, it's not like he sold out- he's still staying true to his vision (whatever that now is), and to his credit, it's still somewhat socially based. But the question I really wanted to ask was, "Do you really think any name book publisher, or gallery owner would give you the goddamn time of day if you walked in off the street riding this sequential, conceptual high horse- without having the pedigree of being one of the very first to so brilliantly incorporate color into art/documentary photography? Do you have any idea whatsoever the shit you're getting away with?"
If I didn't know better, I'd swear the real "conceptual" art being perpetrated here is seeing just how far people will buy (literally and figuratively) whatever the hell is being pumped out by a name brand. Now that's a concept I could almost admire- yes, you know that third pair of blank pages really turned it around for me, it really got me to thinking...
What compels breakthrough pioneers to ultimately descend into minimalist deconstructed artwork that can be best explained (and appreciated) by some burnt out hippie from the '60s? Then again, Paul could have simply answered, "Who the fuck are you, you sniveling little snot!?"
So I got on my bike and rode home...
6 comments:
"Art is a dirty word in photography" Helmut Newton
I'm all for art- this, not so much...
Can the work in question really be placed in the conceptual tradition? Graham seems to share so little DNA with Levine, Ruscha or Demand, for example. Also consider his two recent essays "Photography is easy, Photography is hard" and "The Unreasonable Apple" and it is easy to see that Graham appreciates that sort of work but no interest in making it.
Today when I think of Graham, I think of Stephen Gill, Torbjorn Rodland, Bertrand Fleuret, Jason Fulford, JH Engstrom, Michael Schmelling, Wolfgang Tillmans, Kevin Bewersdorf. Sensualists all, who have embraced the network, the cluster, the sequence as well as the perfectly realized single photograph. Maybe some of Graham's photograph don't carry much force as single units, but they are not meant to be considered in such a way. Would you call Guy Maddin or Wong Kar Wai "conceptual" filmmakers for not having each of their shots function as perfect gems of information and affect?
And Stan, why no mention of Empty Heaven or New Europe? Fascinating works in their own right that enable us to see the links between the first books and Shimmer. Graham has betrayed nothing, and his evolution makes sense.
You have every right to dislike even hate the work, but if you have the respect that you claim for the man's past work then I only ask that you put more thought and effort in the takedown.
Binbaz- I don't think I ever accused him of betraying anything, in fact, I did say that he does stay true to whatever his vision may be- "evolution" as you put it. I'm just not a fan of where he's arrived- and, point taken, perhaps conceptual is not the right word, just as documentary no longer fits either. He obviously has the right to make his work the way he sees fit, as I have to dislike it.
My outrage comes from... well, let's put it this way (and I could well be wrong)- if Shimmer of Possibility was proposed and submitted under an alias, I'm betting dollars to donuts the publisher would be Blurb instead of Steidl, and you wouldn't have auditoriums filling to hear the function of blank meditation pages.
Stan, you never mentioned betrayal. I was just anticipating a potential turn in this discussion. Granted, I was perhaps jumping the gun, I tend to get overheated when talking about Graham.
As for publishing question I don't think that it is a fair one. The workings of a prestigious publishing house are complex and contingent, and sometimes have nothing to do with respect or appreciation for the work offered. It is very easy to imagine Graham being turned down if the same work had been proposed for publication two years earlier or later.
What I am really interested in is your thoughts on other works like "Landmasses and Railways", "Truth Study Center", "I Want To Live Innocent" or any other examples in this loose genre of bookworks that I am possibly making up.
I appreciate the passion Bin... I think my analogy is a valid one- as valid as any analogy can be. I'm just amazed how innovative photographers are often given carte blanche on whatever they produce after their "revolutionary" contribution- perhaps it's the basic insecurity of a still self doubting medium. When a name director puts out a bomb of a film- he gets to hear about it, loud and fast. And other visual artists are constantly critiqued. I couldn't find one review that really challenged Graham's latest work- they either sang its praises, or lauded the concept(s) that led to it, which in itself is rather... odd.
As for his earlier work, his mid life crisis work (his words), I think it's all very hit and miss. I guess some artists build up to their great artistic crescendo, and other's descend from it. I suppose what really matters is that you have one...
Post a Comment