Reading #8: Hillbilly Heroin, Honey

Hannah Modigh's book is an example if we take the ethics discussed by Claire Bishop out of art, focusing on a particular aesthetic. In this case, the topic focuses around drug use in the south viewed from an outsider. The book goes back and forth showing people with dignity and then showing them in a more haphazard approach, under the influence of various drugs. In interviews, Hannah called her subjects white trash. It just seems to be a disrespectful presentation of these people in general, and moves toward making a division of people look worse.

Reading #7: Jodi Bieber

This is a tough situation for me as an artist. I want to get paid for my work and I want others to see it, but at what cost? When Jodi Bieber handed her photo over to Time Magazine, it was contrasted with misleading text, changing implied meaning of the photograph. Perception is half of a work of art. What happens when text changes the perception of the piece? Is it worth the money? I suppose it depends. In Jodi's case, Time Magazine completely reversed the meaning she was trying to convey, that hurts.

Reading #6: Meg Floryan

I will get back to this!

Reading #5: Fig

Fig is an interesting project as it is a series of photographs that on the surface have nothing to do with each other. They document a collection of unrelated events and found objects. There are meanings and reasons behind each photograph, it seems, but they are subtle. I'd go as far to say that these photos do not have an obvious style either. This serves to turn documentary photography on its head, as these guys set out to document everything without context. Useful or aesthetically pleasing or not. These rather do look like mundane figures referred to in texts, they formed the series knowing that these could be passed by as things everyone has seen before (with subtle hints of atmosphere, etc.). The series shows a documentation of taking photos, the act of tangibly collecting experiences and memories.

This is the kind of thing every photography student is told to do. Go outside and take photos of everything. However, making photos to be passed over as mundane unless one has knowledge of photography history creates an interesting critique on art in general.

Reading #4: The Selma Project

I will get back to this!

Reading #3: Jorg Colberg Interviews Richard Mosse

I've never looked at Richard Mosse's work before, and upon receiving the reading, I did a preliminary look at Infra, at first trying to understand what the pictures referred to out of context. It appeared to me that he was depicting a military force in some alien, pink world, which obvious stemmed from somewhere in Africa. I did not immediately pick up that there was something more serious going on, in that there was no direct sci-fi styling, but it was actually the use of military infared film. Turning the technology back on itself, it exposes the effects of war in the Congo. It is hard to consider this photojournalism anymore due to how stark this pink backdrop becomes, it appears inaccurate, but really it is exposing hidden colors using techniques used in war to discover hidden enemies. It becomes less about the story being covered, and more about the aesthetic, recalling Claire Bishop's ideals.

Mosse strikes me as someone who knows his field well, and how to break rules to show a more accurate depiction than more visually neutral ways of showing something. He put the Congo in the context of how the military saw it.

Reading #2 on Harrell Fletcher

One thing that resonated with me is that Fletcher was able to sum up my opinion of what makes art in words that I could never string together properly. He defines art as anything anyone calls art, it does not have to remain art forever, just during the time it is appreciated as art. Furthermore, an artist is someone who gets to do whatever they want. You can have several projects in several different fields. This is how I always thought of as art and being an art student was my way of saying "I want to do everything."

Being an only child, I entertained myself with so many unrelated hobbies and I was never fully decided on what I wanted to be. When I entered high school, I took a lot of creative writing and art courses, meanwhile, I was traveling along the east coast playing video games with people twice my age. I started guitar, more interested in making crazy sounds than making what qualifies as music. I had the starts of several different opportunities to make a living without even having a real job. I felt a need to tie everything together into one solid movement in my life, and so I recently have been trying to discover ways to bring all of it together.

Reading #1: Jennifer Roche Interviews Claire Bishop

Claire Bishop recently wrote an article called "The Social Turn: Collaboration and Its Discontents" where she discusses the relevance of critiquing methods for social art. Social art and large-scale collaborative works have a prescribed notion that the aesthetics of the end result falls to the wayside when compared to the process involved to create that. Also typically judged is the effect the project has on the community. Bishop took note that most of the ethics involving these kinds of works were actually put forth by curators to give more of a selling point to the exhibits.

So where does artistry lie? In aesthetics or ethics? I'm reminded of studying Caravaggio, who was a scoundrel of a man, but he produced haunting artwork. Meanwhile, there are photojournalists paid to show us unfamiliar civilizations in as much context and providing as much information as possible, with the goal that we as a society will learn more about other cultures. Social art is often judged on how it helps build community, or how it does not. Should it?