O\J

f
\0
9
\.

Art After Modernism:
RETHINKING REPRESENTATION
Edited alld \\"ilh all illtrodllct ioll 1)\"
B H 1.\ N \U L LI S
Forc\\"onJ Iw
lTCKEH
The ;\ew Museulll of Contemporary Art. New York
in association with Da\"id R" Godinc, Publisher, Inc", Boston
rIMe 'MA5
'I\e MISI'IID 01 ClltellpCIlU)' Art, New Yort
t:otll'"tt':> in \ n
61./90
'.E' 7S'lICj
Snits FAil.-: \Iareltl Tlk.i.CT
Sutf fAilft Chrblvph.:yPlIII!.p!>
8nall "aUb
Tim \ulm
\olumei"made possible through a!,renerous grant
from (he Henry Luc;e Fund for Scholar:.ltip ill I\ mcncan In.
lh::\ew .\Iu.!'Cum .\n.!>8:j .. '\cwYorkS.Y. 10012
DIl\;d H.(:.xiine. Publj"her. Inc..306DarunouthStreel:. Iko"lvll. "lb:;. 0'2116
,
C 198-+ by n le :\(: w'lu...cIlUl \n
\11 ne-.hG re;;.--rved. j'ublisitLxi 198-+
Printed in th.-CniledStale ur \n'M.--nca
LihruryofCOllh'n"SS Cataloh-i ng in Publiculion ))",a
!>1Il0 under Litle:
\naft tr1Il{)fit-mi"'Ill .
(DocUl llcnllll;:soun::cs inoonlcrnl)(H' 10 art )
Bibltogmphy:p.
Includes index.
I . PO:>tnlOdcmisrn-Addresscs, loclUrt'S.
2. \n.,.
k:C1 Urc". I. Wallis.. Brian. 195:l- II.
i\Xi 56.5.P66 . .\7.. 198.. 700'.9' 0..
ISBN 0-8:9":!5-563-2
ISI}'1 0-8:9'2:3-564-0(phk.)
essays,
Sene. ,
8i-2'2708
0(:1 by Di.x Inc.. .'\t w York
Printed Halliday LithographCorp.. \\: 'c:.1IJ:IIMcr. \1.bS,
Io.':a ty Homans, 1-lon18lh/S:,i:.gi\er
selected and 8ITanged byI.OUl,*, LJl \\I"r. in ....-.Il:th"nllion \\j,1t Briall \'(' allis
Endpapers : A"dy Warhol. Horsdl(ldl 1'C$/. 198-+. (l crylic tnl ('illI\'1\". 10 x 16' (3.0i,,( i.88 m).
(Photos:courtesyLeoCHStdli Callery)
FrollLispiece: Barham Kruger,Ou.r LQS.6 is Jour Cw'", 198i.photomontage. ?2x..8"( 1R.3 x 122
cm). (Photo:courtesy the ani;;t)
1>t:nnissioll3 lO reprint essays in dlis \ol ulIlc \\','n:: grn.JlI(-d by lhe original publishers
unless OlhcJ"\I.iseindic:aled.
Contents
Foreword
\'11
-'!orela Tucker
1ntroducUon
Brian /I allis XI
I. Image /Author /Critique
Pierre ,\l enard. AULhoroftheQuixote
Jorge Luis Borges 3
TIleOliginil li lY ofIhe .\\ 3m-Garde: ,\ PoslIllodem H{'peli lion
1;5
Rosalind A"muss
for Ihf' of FutureHc\"ululion
;;0111.\ ' , lcker 31

II. Dismantling Modernism
TheHi",of,\Old, \"nrhol
Roberl
0>
Arter A"H1II -CardcFiiln
J. Iloberfllafl 59
PhotographyArt, ' rAI1Photography
IIhigail Solofl/ol/-Coc!erlll
75
Hr '\' jf'Wit Lg,\loclt ' rn;:S1Crilici,:,111
8'
,\Ian' ""'!\'
III ,Paro\}sms of Painting 103
uf AuthurilY. of .
Benjamin 11, f). /Juddoll 107
Flflk fromIhe Hadic<.lls":Tlw A1I1cri caJl Case Cennnn Paillli ng
DOl/old R. A:I!:SPI',
J:37
LII51Exi l: Painting
'!1lo"ms /..flll.-'SOn
153
IV,Theorizing Postmodemism 16
7
From\X' orkIf) Texi
/foIOlullJorl/t C$ 169
Photngraphy Mter Art Photngrnphy
A B ICAIL SOL O MON -C OD EA U
-
ua.-. -
-
1::1
Mirrors
andWindows
In 1977, JohnSzarkowsklorg_lzeda largephotographyexhlbl.
tion at the Museum of Modem An under the title "Mirrors and
premised on the critical conceit that the 200-odd prints included could be
apprehended eitJler as records ofsome exterior reali ty (windows)Ior as inte-
riorized visions revelator), of the photographer's own inner being (mirrors) .
Critical response to theexhibition was mixed.One persistent refrain, however,
was that manyofthe pictures could easily beshifted from onecategory to the
otherand makejustas much. oras little, sense.
In retrospect, what seems most curious about the organization of the

--
om
II
-
Installationviewsoftheexhibition.Mirrors and Windows: American Photography since 1960, atTheMuseumof
ModernArt, New York,July26-0ctober2, 1978.IPhotos:courtesyTheMuseumofModernArt,NewYork)
exhibition-asigni fi cantly moreecumenica1 emporium than its recentpredeces-
sors at the inclusion ofartists, such as Hoben Rauschenberg, Ed
Ruscha, and Andy Warhol. Forlike the proverbial foxes in the henhouse, the
inclusion of these artists-and more specifically, the issues raised by their re-
spective uses of photography-posed an explicit challenge to the brand of
modemismenshrined in MoMA'sDepartmentofPhotography.
Common to the photographic usages ofthese three arosrs was an insis-
terice on whatRoland Bartbestermed thedeja-Iu (already-read,already-seen)
aspect ofcultural production, a notion alternatively theorized, with respect to
postmodernist an practice. as a shift from production to reproduction.1 In
eontrast to modernist art photOgraphy' s claims in regard to the self-contain-
ment of the image and the palpable presence of the author, works such as
those by Rauschenberget alia emphasized in everY way possible their depen-
dency on already-existing and highly conventionalized imagery drawn from
the mass media. Thus at the same time that modernist boundaries bet'W'een
"high" and cultural {OnTIS were breached orobscured (an imponant
1.See ror cxllmple the essays in TIleAnti-Aesthetic; EssaY' Oil Postmooem Cultm"f,
cd. Hal roster (PortTownsend,Wash.:Ba)' Press, 1983).WaJtcr Benjamin, parti cularly in
his essays "TheWork ofArt in theAge ofMechanical Reproduction,"and "TIle Amhor85
Producer,"discussed the implications of this shift. The fomtcr essay is included in Illumi-
nalions, 00. Hannah Arendt, tnuls. HIUT)' Zohn (I"e..Yon" Schocken Books, 1969) and
the laner inRejledioru: ways. Aplloris".",. AlltOOiogrophiooi Writillgl. ed. Peter Demet2,
trans. EdmundJephcou (Nell-' York:Harcourt 1978),pp.220-238. [The
latteraI50 reprinted in thisvolume. seepp.297-309.]
PhotograpbyAfterArtPhotograpby 75
component of pop an 11 decadf' carlier' . the rnod(, nli." St rcs5 on the purity of
the sih'nifier was effeCli\ ely
The culture of has been theorized in ,'noous \\"ays and
approached frorn VU ri OliS perspecuves. \rhether premised on the shift from
industrial capitali :; m and the national :)lale to managed capital and the multi -
national corporation. or ident..ifi (od wiTh the new infonnalional economies and
the profound CffCCLS of communicatioJls und global consumerism. the
OC('llrrence of basic stmct uraJ clumges in society argllcs for a subsequellt ailer-
Brion in the terllls of cult ural prvdlll:lion. Thlls. while it is possible to currently
idcruify an anti -modernist impulse which signals the declining 8Ulhoriry of
modernist culture. posunooemislll has thought to possess a critic.'l1 agenda
and distinct features of iTS own.
BI.II however OIlC wishes 10 theorize po:' Illlodemi::.1 i ui (and one cannot
Spt'uk of II critical consensus). The imr ()liHIlC" of plH)tography wiThin it is
undcniobll interestingly. till' propenics of photographic imagery which
haw made it a pli \'ilegcd medium in pOST modern art arc precisely those which
for generations an photoh'raphers ha\'e bten conc."Cnled to disavow.
\X"i1.hout in HI1\" wa" wishilw to (,1055 onr the vcrY reul dirrerences between
. . 00 '
Rauschenbcrg. Huscha. and \x"m-hol. their u5CS of the medium had
le:,s to do with its formul quruities per se than wilh the ways tlUlI photography.
in itS nonna1i, e and ubiquirous uses. functiolls . ...\S photography has
histOri cally come to mooialt', if not wholly represent. the empiric<-)) world for
rnfl:H of the inhabiwnts of industrialized indeed. the produCljon and
t:o
ll
s
ul1l
ption of images serws as olle of the distingui:,hing characteristics of
udnlll(''('d societ ies). it has bel:ome u principal agcnt and (,"Ondu it of culture and
,
.\ccordingly. when phOlography hegan t(I be inc."O'poralcd in the art of
the 19605. irs identi ty as a multipl y rl'producible muss IIH.:diuTn wus insistently
emphasized. nowhere morc 50 thull in the work of Andy \ellhors
e.... dusi\c use of alreMly-exisleni popll lar hij production of series and
multiples. his n::plication of assembly- tint: procedlln.""S for the produL1.ion of
images. his dubbing his studio ' -The Factory: aJlel his cul ti\"ation of a public
persona that undercut romantic ooTu:.:cptions of the artist (Warhol presented
himself-as C:Ul impresario) constiluted u significant brcHk with 111000irrni::t1nllues.
The kind of an production exemplified by Andy \\ arhol displayoo an
imlJOrtant to rennin aspects of lhe work of 'lared Dudl<lmp . .\Iost
prominclltiy with his rcadymadc!>. Duchamp was conterned 10 demonslr.lte
that the of iU1 was itstlf f' lItircl y l"Orl1illgent all d arbimlry. it funct:ion
of dis("Qursc and Hut of revelation. In contrast to any notion of m1 object as
and autonomously endowed with signi ficance. meaning. or beauty.
Dueilamp was proposing that the idt lliity. Ilwalling, and \alue or the work of
fin were actiyeh- 11Ild d\Cnamicall\' cunstructed-a rdusal of 1ll(){lemist,
ideo list the of the artists sudI as Warhol,
Hau",dlcnberg. RlIscll a. or Johns. in re-prcscnting photographic; ilnages from
mass culture. on 10 the postlllodc.mist coJl(..'epl of what might be call ed
the
Douglas Crimp has djrectoo auention 10 another aspl'Ct of phOl ographic
usc in p05t1l1odemisJ1l which he tc.nns Hhybridization" - another divergence
,"bigall Seloaton-Godeau 16
from the fonnaJ categori es of moUemist aesthetics.
2
Whil e the ,nixing or hel
erogeneous media. objecl::l. and lllatcri aJs ,iolates. the purity of 111C
moderniST an objCt:1. the inoorpomtioll of photography "j0131es it in a paniclIlar
way. As an indexi clII as well as an iconic the pholo!,rraph draws the
(represented) world illio the of the 311 \york- thereby undcnni ni ng ib
claim.. 10 a separ.lIt sphtrc of exi::t lem:e <md an int ri n..ie aesthetic yield.
For an photOgraphers fullo"'ing iu the fOc)f':'h:ps of .-\lfn:'(1 Stieglitz or
Edward \r eston, of \X'alker E,'ans or Call ahan, an intri nsic acsthetic
yirld-an 8ur8tic i,nu1:w- is nOI easily renounced. Illdeed. photogrnphy s ascent
to fi ne 311 status was \'inllculy predicated on it", c1airns to aura. \rnhcr Benjer
min. who theori7..ed lhe concept. described it as l"Ompri.st,-d of those qualities of
and uniq ueness which produced the authoritative "prescJl(:e" of the
original " 'ork of a11. AUI"i) was the very qllality. lIe argued. thar IIlUSt wither in
the ag/"' of mechanicHI reproductioll . Notwithstanding Iknjarnins f"Ol1\"i cLi on of
its the f"OlItinlloll S "alorizHli oll or aura ill the modern age masks an
idenlogical COn5tnll'li(1I1 tiS does modernist one of who;:.(: elements is
the ilJ('\itable cornnr udificutjon of the ,In object itself.
hilf" few photographers ling(Ar mcr aesthelic not ions of
Form and in the Same way [IS tile Ia.ndscape photographer Hobert
Adams (in his recent Beauty ill Pltologrophy: .s.says ill Defense o/ Traditional
f alues). neither arc they prepared 10 go on record as recognizing such tenus
as historical consLn.lctions that today can serve only the pUf"'JXtSt-""S of II fet;shislic.
retrograde. and thoroughl y cOlnrnodified concept of m1 making. III :,0 far as
l"Olllelll l>on:r ry an pholOgraphy ha.-, lx.'l'Ome as lnuci , II crcft lioll of the rnarkct
place an engine or it, it comes uS no surprise to en coulllN the ultirnmi' denial
of photography H::t a meclranically rcpr(){lucible lcchnuloh'Y in sudl
as Emmel Cowin s recent producti on of 'monoprints"-edition", of 1.1 single
prim from a negalivc. Indt'ed. a reo'HI press release from the Laurence J\liller
Callery announces 0 11 the occabion of an exhibition ('nlitled ...1"11(' One and
Only: 'Contrary 10 poplilar belicf Ihut (l photograph is but one of POtCllIifllly
infinite nurnht'r of prilltS of being printed frum a single ,u::galin" this
exhibiti,m demoll:,lrah '!> thai a lung lind exciting hi::t lory of one-ofnki nd pllo-
tvgmphs cxi.its. Twu po:,5ible Themes suggest Ihemselves: lIni(I"C hy
and unique by ("OIl;,{jOIl 'i chvice" :'\ ecdles.:. 10 SHy. it is the lauer ulllllI,-ui\('
thm has. 5inc(" at If'il'>t the of tile Photo-Secession. scf\cd as all imponant
strategy in realib'lling photogr.:tphic dis("QlIr5C to mnforrn to dw delll and3 of
print connoisseurship.
The generic cli::!lil1cl ion I am attemptillg 10 dra\\' bct\\'('t'll phlllUgraphi c
usc in P05HlllXlern isJ'n and U11 photogmphy lies in the fonner' s ror
instit utional and/or rcprescmativlla) critique. anruysis. or address. iJnd the
lall er's deep.. stIlled inabi lity 10 ucknowlcdge any need even 10 think 31>OIIf such
matters. The contradictory positioll in whi ch C"Ontcl1l porary art photOgraphy
now finds itself with respect to bOlh self- definiljon and the instituTional trap
2. Douglas Crimp . . '1llc PholOgmphic Activity of Po:;tnuxlcmGm," (klober. no. 15
1980): 91 101. and Rosalind Krouss. Sculptu re in the EXPfllldcd Field,' Cklober.
no. 8 (Spring 1979), 31 -4<.
Photography After Art Photograplly 11
(Above left ) Edward Weston. Excusado. 1925. Black-and-white photograph, 91h x 71h (24.2 x 19.0 em). Center for
Creative Photography, Tucson, Arizona. (Photo: a) 1981 , Arizona Board of Regents) ; (Above right) Bernd and Hill
Becher. Waterrowers,1980, Black-andwhite photographs, each : 20Y. x 16Y.- (51.6 x 41 em); overall : 6lY. x 49"
(155.1 x 124,7 cm). (Photo: court esy Sonnabend Gallery, New York); (Bonom) James Welling. 4. 7.84. 8, 1984. Black
and-white photograph, 8 x 10" (20.3 x 25.5 cm). (Photo: courtesy the arti st )
LI pS, or magazines. ,rhen Prufessor Bunnell employs the term " tradition" to
3. " PhoLOgmphs and Professionals 111; - n,tPn'"l CoILoct.ori .\ClL'slelier 14. 110 . 3
(July-A ugu:.t 1983) : 88-89.
After Art 79
,.1
'
pings of its newly acquired stat us is nowhere bener ill uSlnlted than in the head-
scratchings and rumblings of museulll curators confrolHcd w!th the task of
constructing some kind of logical framework for the inclusions (and exclusions)
of photography in the museum. ,\hhollgh denizens of the an photography
establishment arc welJ aware thm something disjunct from traditional an pho-
tography is represented by uses of the medium, the tenns in
which they are accustomed to thinking pcc\'ent ulcm from disceming precisely
the issues that are mOSt at stake, And while occasional ly. in Ii moment of media
slippage. a photogra phy wri ter is assigned to re\,jew a particularly well-publi -
cized artist such as Cindy Shennan or Barbara Kruger, for the most pan there
is little discursi ve overlap between these two distinct domains .
Thal the tnldit ional art. photography constmct today fu nctions as a the-
oretical no less than a creative cul -de-sac is revealed in a recent round-table
discussion in t.he pages of The Print Collect.or'sNews/eller. Si n(,'c 197:3. every
five years, six dcsih'TI uled phoLOgmphy experts (the onc practicing photographer
being Aaron Siskind) ha\'{' cOlll pared notes on tile current state of the an. The
interchange here takes place between gallery owner Ronald Feldman and Peter
Hunnell. of Photography and Art. at Pri 'l<:eton
t;ni t y :
HF:Well, Peler,do you finda Cint6"Shennan
PB:Ifindherinlemfingas all artist. butllllifllereslingas a
photographer.
RF.:Illterestingas(lfl artist bulnot asaphotographer?
PB:Idon'tsee herraisingsignificontquestions willi regardto fli is
medium. I findherimageryIasclnating, but asI iflt crpreliterwork,I
havenonotioll tltallwuldengageherin a discourseaboutlhenatllre
ofthemedium throughIvblclt siteden.'1Je$ here:cpmsion.... I" l(! had
discussionsulithartisls/l1hohot! ulili:.edourmedium itl L1(!I)' inl.erest.ing
U;O}:s osindependent e;Lpn'.'isioll, but I hacenererperce/Ioed litemas
with thestructUn? orthetradition Ihave rrferredtohere. Of
course. thai changes orcl'Olves,I think lhelensioll bet.u'efll thestruct.ure
thaioriginote.s I:" WI all 'areness of ourown IU:5loryalldtltatof a
flIlfnberof who derilV! theirvilali("fromtheabsence of thaI
knolL'/edb'f! is righl al Ihecuttingellge. 'l7tOlSIrhprr lite eni,emen' is
andIhat's tritelY! Ilt l' pressure isromiTlgfrom COTltemporar:varlists.3
Professor Bunllell i., Ix-rhaps right to fi nd Shennan interesling ilS an anist
but not as a photogra pher. " Our mediurn" as he descri bes it, restri cted to
photography as defi lloo, practiced. ilnd understood within the fmmcwork of
an photograpll y, has \'cry little imponanc(' in ShcmwJl's work. lIer medium
of pl lotography- her use of it-is predicated nlther Oil the uses and functions of
photography in the mass media, be they in ad\'cnisi ng, fushion, movies, pin-
indicate whitt Shemlall and others of her ilk arc not partlclpaung in, he is
indica Ling his bcljef that the tradi Li on thaI malleTS is the one cafyed out by art
pholOgraphers (or those who h,we ht'ClI nssimihllcd inlO that t.mdition). and
not the global production of imagery SO profoundly inslnl mcmai in the pro-
duction of meaning. ideology. and desire.
The pholOgmphic usages I lUll here designati ng as pOSLlllodcmist are in
no 10 nudcl'StCHXI as colu. kind of school. 51yle, or ,ing imo some
O\cn:.rchi llg 8C'5thetic. Quitt the contra ry: the kinds of production represented
anis!!' as i) S John Yif"tor Burgin. Hilla and Bernd
Becher. and Dilll Graham. or mure rccent ly by youngf>r al1.i 515 Stich as Sarah
CIUl rl c;":l \\ ol1h. Barbara Kruger
1
Louise Lawler, Sherrie Richa rd Pri nce,
Cindy Shf rHIi111. Lnmie Simlllons_ or Ji m \r clling c\,idence a considerable
mngc of eonCtTlI 5. What they share is an ubduratc 10 fOl1nal analysis
or plul'emcnt within the modcmist pamdigm. A formulation of conunon critical
ground would eneompass H shared propensit y to contest n01ions of subjectivity_
origi nali ty. und (most programmatically in the work of Levine and Prince)
authorshi p. It is here. perhaps, th.'II il is possible to locate the most obvious de-
parture from tht' ethos of 1.111 pholOgmphy :md here. too. where the Duchamp-
ian legacy is most clearly ciemon;":l lrcw.. d. Such work SI>cci fically addresses the
conditions of commodificalion and felishizaLion that enfold and inform an
produ('tion. The purview of sll ch practi{.'es HI'(' the realm of ideol-
0t.'y alld n"pn-'St, .... mation. cuhural and meruli ng and conte."(l.
lanertll.lgf' and significiuion.
That pholOgnlphy should thus fi.:.,'l.'Tf" as a cl1.I ciait.cnn in postmodem.ism
seems bOlh logic ..tl lind (al lens1 retrospet1iwly) incvitable. Vinuall y e\'ery
critical and throrc1icHI issue with which posunodernisl all be said to
engage ill one- st' 1IS(' or another CHn be located wi thin photography. Issues
Illivillg to do with subjecti\"iIY. and uniquencss are built into the
vcry IUl.t mc of the pholOgraphic proccss itself: issul:s devolving on the simula-
t mm. the sH. and the social and srxual positioning of the \'iewing "rNltYI>C.
subject ar(' ('(' ntntl 10 Ihe pl'oduel ion and funclioning of ach-en_ising and other
mass- media fonns of photography. Postmodcmist photoh'T,(lphic acti\'ity may
deal with allY or all of th('5(' clements and it is won_h noting too thal even v.-ork
constnJctoo by t.he hand (e.g ... Troy Braullltlch. Jack Coldstein_Hobel1. Longo)
is frequently predicated on the photogmphic image.
{Seriality and repeti tion. appropriation. intcncxltl alilY. simulation or pas-
tiche: these are the primary devices employed by poslrn()demisl ani!)ls. Ctili zed
singly or in combination. ",hill is of impol1ulI c(' in the ronlcxt of this ess.ay is
the way each device call b(' cmployt'Cl us a refusal or subversion of the pUlati \-e
autOnomy of Iht.' work of an as concci\'t'd within modemisl acsthetics . The
nppcanmce of such practice.., in the 19705 5C(' meri 10 IxmcJla the possibility of
H sociaUy grounded. and potentiall y radical art practice that focused on
issues of rrprcsentll tion as Collectively_ use of such devices to prompt
ditllf' cticHI critical mode; of rwrccplion and analysis may be tel11100 deC:X:HI -
stnJ ctivc. (T his deoonstnlctivc impulse is of special importance for feminist
theory nnd a l1 pmctice in pal1 icular, in thm Ihe space of representation is
increasingly theorized as the vcry site of feminist 5tmgglc.) Thus. if posunod-
cmist practice has displaced notions of the self-sufficieJl(:y of ule aesthetic
Ulgan SelomGtHleao 80
signifier with n new toncern for the referent. it rnust al30 be said that il i!) wi lh
t.he referent a problem.. nOt as a given."
\rithin the range of poslJllodernisl a.rt, it is works that dismalttle
traditional notions of authorship or which mOS1 spccifiCfllly address thf' institu-
tional ru-rui.scursive bpace of Hit dUll best dcrnonstrate a dC(.'onslructive 01; -
enl aLi0t..B?iand Bal1.hcs' 1968 b-Xly '-Tllt: Death of the Author" remailb Ihe
ur-tCXl tu dcl inelilc Lhe implicHl.ions of tht: shifl from the author as both
source and locus of meaning. asserting inslead thai meall ing is never in\'elll ed,
much less locked ill : \r e know no\\' that a lexi is not a lillc of "'ords relea:,i ng
a single -l.heologiCflr meaning (lhe -message' of ,he AlI lhor-Cod) bUI a multi-
dimensional in which a va.rie[y of wriLings. none of them olihri nal. blend
anel clash. The tl'xt ; is a Lissue of quotations dmwll from lhe innumerable
centers of culture. . ' . . Succeeding the Author, the scri p lor no longer benrs
withi n hirn pa53.ion:;. humors. feeling3. impressions. but rathcr this immense
from whi ch he draws a writing t.hat can know itO hah: li fe never
does lIIon:.- than imi wle the oook. and l he book itself i.::r unly a ti:,Suc of signs,
an irnil.ution that is deferred . ' :' ..r- _
For Bal1.hc:,. Ihe refu&ll of aUlhorship and origi nalily was an innatel y -
re\olulionary stance "si l1("(" 10 refuse to fix meaning is. in the end_ to refuse
God and hyposl<-beS-reason. science. law.' (0 the of
the nouon of uni(lllC Banhes understood as a sahllilry blow stnlck
against on QS!)ified and essentially rctroh'Ti1de bourgeois humanism. But whether
l>OSt lIlodernis1 appropriation and other related str<tlCh'; cs have indeed fUllc-
Lioned in the lilX:Jining and revolmiolnlf'Y fas.hion that Banhes' Icxl would
indicate is open [0 \'Chile unmt"dimed appropri<ltion (e.xemplifi ed by
Levine and Prince) sLi Il I'clains its transgres.si\c edge. pastiche opel'alions nrc
as Illuch to be found in tele\' ision commercials and rock videos as Tribeca lofts.
if the workings of ule an marketpl ace demollstrate anythi ng m fill ,
it is its capacily 10 Ilssirnilme. neutralize and (:onunodify \'iI1uall y <In)'
practi ce nt all. Finall y, Inany anis1s find it difficult to a\'oid making those
adjusunenl.::r and accollllllodatiolls Ihat will pen-nit thei r work 10 be more
readily aeccptcd by the marht: a c::onditioll_ after aU. of si mple sUf\ind.
In a"cmpling 10 nutp out a lopography of photographi c praetice HS it
presents itsclf now_ I ha\' e COnSlnl l1cd an opposition bclW(''C1i an instiltllional-
Lzed an phologmphy li nd poslll"todcmisl art pmcticcs ,,hi ch use pll ol.Ogmphy.
Such aH OPIXlsition suggcsts it.self beccmse the working a53umptions. and the
goals and intentions. of lhe respective approaches thereby refl ect bHc.: k on one
another. A critical reading of modernist values docs nOl devolvc on the '- fail -
ure" of lllodemislll . any more than a discussion of postmodcrnist pl lologmphic
practice impli es a criteri on of success. Rather_ what is at stake in 3 11 photog-
raphy or postrnodemislll concems their respccti\'e agendas and ho\\' as an
practices they arc l)Osilioned- or how lhey position themselves-in relati on to
... . Jacquclil'c in (hc Field of \ 'ision.- in Differella: 0" Heprrscllialioll
a"d Sexualily. cd. "tile Li nker (i\'ew York: TIle i\'ew Museum of Contemporary An._198-+).
5. HoJnnd Banhes, " The Death of the Aumor. -, in Jmage-.\!usic-Tal. I.I'"WIS. Stephf" 11
1ICtl lh (J\cw York: Jlill and " ""flllg. 1977). pp. 146- Ii?
6. Ibid.. I). H7.
Pltotography Alter Art Pltoleg-raplay 81
thei r insti tutional spaces. By instirutionru spaces, I refer not only to the space
of exhibition. btu to oJi the discursive fonnalions-canons, art and photOgraphy
histori es, cJiticism. the ,narketplace-that together constit ute mc social and
material space of an.
"lnese fonnations have been crucial agents in me recent n:.1>ositioning of
photography as H modernist an foml. Such a massive reconsideration mandates
that the apparatuses of canon fonnatioll. connoisseurship. kUllStwis.sellsclw/t.
and criticislTI be nUlrshaled 10 impose lhe triple unities of anist, st yle. and
oeuvre on the protean field of photography.' The principal problem of inten-
tionaliT Y(which might apl>Car TO snbowgf' slich an enterprise) has been neatly
sidestcpped by recoll rse to a moor-rnist formulat ion of a photographic olllology:
Once phoTOgraphy is theorized in terms of inherent properties (time. the frame.
the delHi\, Il-t e Thi ng itself. and thl"' vrnllage Ix.im, in John Szarkowski's effici ent
distill ation) of its actual ust's. any piclUrc and any photographer can in
pri nciple entcr the canon. This enables the portal of the ern-lOll to Lake on the
8uribulcs of a revoking door, and messy questions of intention and conte.xl
can be effecu\' cly banished.
An_pholOgraphy and postmodelllisl photography do not , in any case.
encompass nil the fiel d. The tl1tdiuonalllscs arid forms cominllc: documentary
praclices. reponage. and all the uulitari;:tIl and com mercial fu nctions photog-
raphy has regularly ful[jUed . Perhaps the most du rnble legacy of art phOlC\,f1J'8-
phy has I)("('J) its :,lI("(:ess in e5tabli:,lting that phologrnphy is a Inedi uHl like any
other with which an anisl might work . Bul 8 too-circumscribed (:onception of
hvw the medinrn should be used, a::l well as a blind and unquestioning adher-
ence 10 TI]I"' rnoclf'rnisl \' alues which d enncd iT. has produced the
current impn5Se of (111 photogmphy. Refuge from The generall y lackluster. albeiL
plenTiful coill emlx.rary producLion of art phOTography is now routinely taken
by rl'<."OUI"SC 10 an assiduous mining of Ih(' pasT. the hagiographic re-presenta-
tion of Ihe already canonized the rccent spme of lexts and exhi bitions on
,\ll"rOO Stieglitz is one such cX<'lIllplc), and tht" rdclltles:, overproduction of third -
and fourth-generation variants of a \riliat{d academic fonnali;:,nl.
In the most illt el'C:-Jting of fee('lll dc\-c1upmerns is the
burgeoning. if nOI fl olllishing.. of phOlOgntphic pract.i ces thaI in a ccnain sense
im'cm thCnbcl\-cs for me projecL at hane!. Il cre the issue is nOt phoLography
qua photography. but i15 use toward a :o;pcci fi c end. This instnllllental ap-
proach to the medium often enlnils that phUlUf.'1llphs arc combined \\-ith te.'\:t.s,
adaptCfllO book or multimedia format. or geared to poi lll C'dly e.ilic..'lJ ends.
mig-hi consider. by way of example. some "-",<-"enl wurk by Vincent
Leo, whf!. ill contrast LO m OS1 Dl her 1>OI)tlllOdel1lil)Tanists now using pIIOtoh'111-
:. -nli., an- hi 'iloncal 5t ffi h'gy is cfk<:li\t:' ly di"rnnntlt-d in Bosnlincl Krull:':;' inJispen.
sable I.fUld3t.apc/ \ icw: Phologrnphy":- DiscUNi\c Spa(1'S.' Art JOlln/al no.
(" illier 1982 ): 311-3 19. See ru30 in Ihi., rrgun:!. Chrislophcr PhillirtS. " A r>.lncmonic An?
Calotn>e ' ......dwucs 01 Princt."lon" October. no. 26 FoJl 1983): 35-62. Douglas Crimp,
The \lu3tum::. Old. The Library':. "\('\\ PorocJwle. no. 22 {Spring 1981 : 32-
3: . and my 0\\1"1 CoJolypomania : Tilt: Gollnn("l Cuick to "\in('(("("mh-Cenlury PllOlogra-
phy'" Aftcrimol!e 11. nos. 1-2 Summer 198.'3 : 7- 12.
Abigail Solomon-Godeau 82
phy. has a background us a practicing photographer. Llpon first examination,
these hJark-and-whilf" photographs appear to belong to. The ever-increasing
stockpiJe of deriVal iH' \ nriations 0 11 the work of the offlcially-designated mas-
tcrs of ArncriciUl photography. \I ow precisely. look like pastiches of the
photographs of Hoben Fmnk. In fact -and lu're Leo's work separates itself
resolutely from til(' n"ahn of academi(' p&lidl('ur-they are the photOgraphs of
Roben Frank. " ' hat Loo has done is to Cllt li p Ihe rt"produltions in Frank's
seminal book The ,lmericons. reposilion and cull ag\. differelll photographs. and
then rephOl ograph tile results to yield (in Marcd Dll f"hnmp' s words) a new
Ihought for that ol'ject.
On the mu:,1 immediate level. the joke in phutogmphs is Ihat he is
dclilx-rau." ly enaelillg \\' lI m legions of contemj:Klrnry al1 pholOgraphC'TS unrrnrc-
lively recapi tu lnle. A photographer such as Tod Pnpl.lgeorge working in the
rn:lIl ncr or Iraditioll of Cilrr:- " inogrand. Roben FrClnk, or ,ralker is
no mt"HlI:... 1I1llbllili in art phologmphy. 0 11 tlte contrary. the 1)('1'\[6iH'ness
of ::I1,1t.:i1 influencr in an is auenrled remarkably li ttle anxic IY.
A:. Ilaroid Bloom ha.:, how('\er. a. \"olunHlry punxly is II1I)rl"' illlpr('S-
s;:iH:" th<.l rt <'III im nlull wry one. Leo's direct ("Olb(-' ription of his SOl/ rct's ser\{'1) 10
IlIldlTCllt 1)( ,111 tIll' and of pl lvl1lWHI,hic originalilY.
.\hhough 1.4'"0 Ihe images frolll n,e . lmeriwlls .h Ihe (l ileral ) build-
ing blo(:ks of hi:. u \\"11 work. his picture:, art' lillally leM ilhulIl the slyle of Rolx'n
Frank or the of 77, eAmericans than about !Ill" discursive l>O::Iition-
ing of Ix.th within art It il) thi::- cmpha.., is Ihat most deci..,i\ c!y
dislinguiglu:s th(' fOTlllali.,t 1)(' li("f thal photob'Taplty is ulLimat ely about pholog-
nlphy fr(IITI Leo's cri ticlil of the wily as well as \'alur
are prod uced pi1nlogl"lll,hy's vcry textuali lY. here, is conc('ived
nOI as defi ned hy it..; UWII making. hilt hy what is lIlade (tf il.
In a wh.-Illy .-l iffl"l'f' lIt mode. Connir I latch h& producer! , among: olher
\\ ork. an ongoing phOl vgmphit projed emirle'd .TiI(' De-Subli l11a1ion of Ho-
lIlanct'". If. LUlra arpurs. woman as "'1)("("la(lt.
objl'{"! nlmer dum ::I ubject of lilt" gazc. I latch::- emerpri:->(" is 10 fore-
grollnd 111('-'(' opt ralioll.s- to wk, f' xmtl y tho"{'" nf pll()lo-
graphic a nd f'\ en mo rl"' that lIlode of phOiogrit phic
practice m od a:;.-,all hi \l lind apprupriati\c {lilt! lUI"II il back UIX. II il:'(.' If.
The ("OII\(' nl ioll:' Lhat Ii aleh re-approprime5 and r("-present.:, ill"(" first of
all ule kind of :,trC('t photography e.\ t' mplified by pholOgmphers ;:, lIch a;:, Carry
" inognlnd. l...{"t' Fri rdlrt nder. and Tod Pnpilgf'org("-i1 fonn of pl1010graphic
production that is bOLh dom inated by men and predieated 0 11 til l"
tlHU meani ng is fonuilOlisly found in the worl d and framed in the image.
Halch' s ri gorolb understandi ng of t.he way phOlOh'T'.lphy wflrks. wilh IJlInit'l Jiar
regard fol' ::I ubjccl/objecl relationships and the mastery conferred nn dw \ if'wCI",
enables her to perfoml a critical intervelllion 1118t goes beyond the 1"C' \cbtioll I)f
Ihe network of lX"t\\'cf'1l phoT0J:.Tfa pllt"r. ::I lketalor. ami ..... pri"IHrlt . By
taking as the \'ery :,ubjecLof her \\'ork the act vI' looki ng {or nOI louking ,
Halch drows llllt"llIion to tile and woof of power n:lmi(ll l:'" w.. lII"f'
in.-,cribed in Ult' operuliOib of Ih( gaze il :'(:lf: the phOtographer5. tht
and the gazes rcprcscnt"d in t11C pictures.
Photography .Uter !\.rt Photography 83
Vincent leo. Untitled,
1982. Bl ack and
white photograph. 16
x 20" (40.6 x 51 em).
(Photo: courtesy the
art ist)
Connie Hatch. The
DeSublimarion of
Romance, a series of
photographs with
text. as presented in
wedge, no. 6 (Winter
1984), pp. 20-21
tIM, _TN for liquor
top tt.r ....,. ow-l-. ...ed
pit-eyed shlt-bce-d
snockeTed
shl(ker
Martha Rosier. The Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive Systems, 1974- 1975. From martha rosier. 3 worts
(Halifax: The Press of the Nova Scotia Col lege of Art and Design, 1981). pp. 24-25
.\Iartha 'The Bowcry in Two Inadequat e Dt'.:)Cli pliH' .. ll lIl". '
a wurk ernplllyillg lext and phul ogmphs is yct ,1IIuther exa,mplc ur photOl! raphic
work that ("onrorms to no :, p{'('ifit' rubric. hUI demollstral e5 nev(, l1hdl'!!3 phi )'
IX'Tl'lllill l fur ri gorot.... crilic':l!. ilnd ronceplUally sophi:-' li('ul("(1works.
Pai ring of Bowery 5tun-frolHs and doorways emptif'xi or Iheir bums wilh
fI lexicoll or cfflX't.:) a ('ritiqlll' of tradi lionnl s(H.:iHI dt' I(.:u-
mentary. ,HI "xl1ll1iwuiOIl or th(' lacunae of represc nl tHion. alld all (.xrwrillwnr
in as a infonned ;,tn practicc, work " 1.i.tlt-!l orr'
on two famili ar ill photOgrnphy {the libemJ hUlllani.'" Irudiliun or
"conct:fII C'd" ducllllicmary. and the fonnali:,t cdebrmioll of ,\nwri(l.l n vernac-
ular culture" but i:. in no a cri Tical parody as is L('O'::o . or a bllpplclJ'lt'lIwl
criti que in any simple rashion. RosIer's laconic. rrolllal photographs (' \01..(' the
shade of \ralker Evans and cennin of his progeny. bur di e
aesthetic premises that inform ,heir photography. Thr- P''I'CI.' l'tioll
of exemplary rorll1 10 be found ill . ::oay. sharecropper' s shantics. drlt"s nOI cross
O\'el' to th(' :, treet.:. of Llw
The pil'lir"5 uf phOlographit mntCIll an" likewise IJY Hosler.
who rt'lnark:" in the essay thm aC('OllI pi.lllies the work : hl'("("<I :-, lin
... t .... in all plHbCS or cultural lire." The (:onspiclIou:, absent.'C of
the .:) ubjecb-the \ icliln.:)- in her pholOgrnph:, mentall y cunjuf'C:'!i up their pn;:o,-
ence in all Ihe n::presell1<l1ional siLCs where we have Sl."'Cn them l)erof(' . And. as
Rosier' :. prujecl qllt":, liul1s. to what end and to ",hut purposes? II is
more thun muna! rcctilude Ihal dClcnnincs the refusal 10 image the \ictim liS
spectacle: it is rather all understanding of the stnlcLUml oo,npli cilif:S sllch
rcpresenll.lllOIl::i propag<lTf' .
Leo. Ilmch. [Iud Hosler represent onl y th ree possible examph:s of pholO-
graphic U:-C Ih,1I exist:, oUlsid" (i f photOgraphy as colwcllIionidl y theol; z{'(1ano
practiced. Such tU1ist.:. tcud to be marginalized both wilhin pholobrraphy and
witllin the l1111in:. lream an worl d. The promise of such work lif'S ill ils n'lali\,c
freedolll rrom tht' institutional onilocioxics of both camps. it is in its
Jack of confonnity (0 thC5C 011hodoxies that il s marginalizHliun illevilably rol-
lows. ' rll e curn.: nt political enviromnent. rnorco\'ef. docs not favor critical pmc-
tiets ill allY Incdi a. ;,md it seems reasonable to predict Ihal the phou'graphil'
practice, "wt will rcrnain rnuSI favorcd will be those thm call the fewc,::, t things
int o qUb tion.
Photography art er ill1 photography appears as an eXpandf'fl rather than
a dirnini:,hed fi eld; this is in pan a mnsequcnce or the SU(,ft'ioS "r 1111 phulog-
raphy ill legitimizing Ihe c..ul1rra. If al this point. howenl'. ar1 photogmphy
S<.'(' llb capablc or yielding liulc or interest. lhe problems lie f'lltirdy withill il5CJf.
Today aT1 photography reaps die dubiou.s reward of having llc('Olllpli:, hed all
Ihm W;1::o lirst set out. in its mid-ninetccmh cclllury agenda : gellt'ral rf'U)h'l'lition
as an fin form, a place ill ,he muscum. a rnarkct (however erratic). a palri -
rnolliallineage. an acknowledged canon. Yet hostage still 10 Il mod e- mist nlle-
giance ' 0 the autonomy. sclf-rcrerenti illity. and of the work of
/lT1. an photugraphy has systematically engineered its own irrcicv;lIl(X: und
II is.. in a sense. all dressed up no,,,here to go.
Pllotegrapby ."'ter ..\rt Photography 85