Laurel reacted strongly to my constructed spaces images, the only work I showed. Wondering whether that was a positive reaction, her visit informed me about types of viewers. She praised the photographs as images but was confused by my intentions behind them and the way I talk. She wanted to fit them within her own narrative and preconceived notions of what the reality is, which is fine. What was troublesome for me was her drive to impose that narrative on me.
The meeting started with listing names of photographers who have done work on the topic (or how she understands the topic) the names she gave are only American: Tim Davis, Todd Hido, Jeff Weddstone and Catherine Opie; without referring to Gursky, Struth or Atget for instance. Her other very pronounced reference was Alec Soth, she insisted that my images have to do a lot with his work. Her most favorite images were the Baltimore slum street and the pasted architect renderings on the glass entrance. What struck me was her saying several times "...what I want to see...". Laurel pushed the conversation towards the recession, the failure of the American dream, the bad situation in mid sized American cities. In her words this is what my work is about or should be about.
Indeed, there is recession and I have done work about the recession in Bulgaria, however, this is not the focus of my current work. The recession is one of the economic elements determining the landscape and social interactions, but the US is a huge thing and generalization is not what I want to do. For instance, the economic boom of the 1960's was actually more devastating for American cities. While many people lost homes and jobs due to the recession of the late 2000's, the car centered infrastructure and white flight that happened in the mid 20th century actually ruined the lives of many others. The worst times for American cities was not the recession but the 80's and 90's as consequences of infrastructure and urban planning. Richmond has greatly recovered from this period, Baltimore too, although to a lesser extent. My goal is not to illustrate the recession but look for the reasons behind the existing situation; examining spatial design, the realization of design and people's interaction with the built spaces.
This is what I tried to articulate, not sure how successfully.
Laurel was not happy about my point of view, in her words refusing to say that there is recession is "fucking bull shit" and is very ignorant to say such a thing as a foreigner. Also it is disrespectful to argue with a visiting artist. My answer was that I don't reject her opinion, on the contrary I respect it, as she needs to respect mine as well. The conversation continued after this point for another 10 minutes. She appreciated that I believe in my work and she really liked the photographs. Again there was a remark about Soth and his vision of America and how my images function for her as an alternative view. Her advice was not to photograph in NYC because so many people have done that. I still think about the value of this advice and what it means. This city is so huge and full of history and history is one of the things I try to work with.
Nakadate's response was a great example of place / space difference. After she labeled the work as "series about mid sized American cities" she did not try see the my intention in the series. Instead there was already a set narrative, a predetermined way of reading the images. I agree the work has documentary value, however, this is not the only thing it is about. The goal is not to show the reality (very subjective) but make the audience more sensitive towards the reality around themselves. Or at least this is my intention, I don't know how successful I am.
I'm currently looking at Catherine Opie's work, who is the good reference from the names she gave me. I will look up Soth as well.
BEST. POST. EVER.
ReplyDelete