Listening to Adam
Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin, along with Lucy Soutter, Sean O'Hagan, Louise
Clements, is interesting in the way each artist/photographer views the term
“conceptual photography.” Personally, I would have to agree with the mindset
that “conceptual” is perhaps an inappropriate way in which to categorize
photography, due to the way in which all photography is in some way conceptual.
Every artist typically has some sort of concept behind his or her work,
including work that is meant to be abstract/not representational. By placing
works in to specific categories, like conceptual, this in turn can force an
artist to categorize his or her work in a way that they otherwise would not,
only doing so so that others may have a better understanding of it. For
example, artists like Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin who have used
photographic paper to create documentary photography would not consider their
work to be conceptual – to them it would be purely representational and more
true than taking more standard photographs of an event, such as the kind that
are seen in the news. Because I am more privy to abstract or “conceptual” works
of art, I also understand that these terms are frequently used by those that
may not fully understand an artwork at first glance, especially if they do not
see their idea of what is representational or figurative. I think of Pablo
Picasso’s Cubism paintings when I contemplate the mislabeling of conceptual
art. His work shows what I believe to be the truest forms of representation
because of the way he intends a figure to be shown in multiple stages of
dimension and movement as a way to counteract the way that most paintings portray
a figure in a single moment in time. However, because many people cannot fully
comprehend what they are seeing, it is inappropriately labeled abstract or
conceptual. Like all artists, each work has some type of concept; therefore, it
is redundant and unnecessary to label photography as conceptual.
No comments:
Post a Comment