9

PHOTO-BASED at Barbara Archer Gallery

Written By Eric Hancock on April 14, 2009 in featured, Reviews

K T

Karen Tauches, Disappeared House, 2007

Upon entry into the “PHOTO-BASED” opening at Barbara Archer Gallery, I instantly sensed that the work in the show did not live up to its potential. Despite the press materials’ attempt to preclude a critique of the show’s lack of consistency (“Though every image begins with a photograph, the similarities end there”), I still have my doubts. Consistency aside, I wonder—within the conceptual and procedural possibilities available to contemporary photo-based art—what practices are still thought provoking today? How could we define a minimum baseline for evaluating a “relevant” photo-based object? I truly hoped “PHOTO-BASED” would provide some answers to these questions … but, for me, the show doesn’t really provide any. However, there are highlights worth mentioning, and, on a lighter and equally relevant note, Barbara Archer is still one of the more exceptionally proportioned art spaces in town.

Thacker

Dayna Thacker, Selfless, 2006-2009

Dayna Thacker’s Selfless is a long assemblage of old photograph cut-outs. Thacker omits subjects which appear or disappear, sequentially, in the context of other old photographs. The aesthetic result? An old family album—Back-to-the-Future-ized. However, there aren’t enough cues for the viewer to write themselves into the story; the piece fails to evoke a comprehensive narrative horizon and, additionally, suffers from the phenomenological fallacy that old photos actually “record” reality. While the lengthy presentation and overlapping forms are aesthetically effective, they also obfuscate Thacker’s conceptual ambitions.

Karen Tauches, Disappeared House, Okla

Karen Tauches, Disappeared House, Oklahoma, Tornado Alley, 2007

Similarly, Karen Tauches’ artist statement declares, “We live in a world of potential invisibility.” She then continues by stating that “EVERYTHING DISAPPEARS” and that things change too fast in our industrialized, materialistic society. Yes, yes, and yes … your point? Tauches’ art riffs on the conservative* conviction that society should return to the proverbial shire. Her digital prints depict structures such as houses and churches, each painted over to disappear into the surrounding landscapes—leaving only spectral floating fireplaces and fuzzy delineations behind. Disappeared House, Oklahoma, Tornado Alley is the most poignant of the disappearances, not because it makes reference to the corruption of materialism, but for its haunting, surrealistic ambiguity in space and (correspondingly) for its implied phenomenological ambiguity. The memory of the house has faded into its surroundings. The result is poetic insofar as it avoids what the horror genre portrays as the undead: the aesthetic of macabre that renders subjects empty and inhuman. The ephemerality apparent in Disappeared House, Oklahoma introduces the transient mutability of birth and death, and the affective “misremberance” of a personal subjective world.

April Gertler

April Gertler, from "They Are What They Seem"

Berlin-based April Gertler, on the other hand, brings some cohesiveness to “PHOTO-BASED.” Gertler’s unassuming collages resemble greeting cards, succeeding less through sophisticated content than by simply perpetuating a sense of narrative ambiguity. The pictorial collages convey as much their textual narration, conflating word and image onto the same plane, while at the same time establishing two voices within each piece: a narrator and narration. Arranged in a grid format on the wall, each 8.5 x 5.5 inch collage depicts figural elements taken from popular sources with humorous one-line narrations written in pencil at the bottom or top margin. These collages actually began as mere exercises; Gertler would create these to loosen up for “real” work. After some consideration, however, Gertler realized that these exercises deserved official art status. Consequently, the value here results in part from unconscious parameters the artist set for herself during her exercises—the finished works make Gertler a voyeur to her own process.

Dayna Thacker, Selfless, installation view

Dayna Thacker, Selfless, installation view


*Slavoj Zizek sees traditional environmentalism as conservative—not liberal—and instead advocates something he refers to as “dark ecology.”


“PHOTO-BASED” will remain on view at Barbara Archer Gallery through June 27.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Category: featured, Reviews |
Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Jerry Cullum

    Zizek, as usual, has it ass-backwards. Nature trumps culture, every time, and if Zizek wants to be dead very quickly he should try inventing his own radical nature to replace the conservative one that obeys the laws of physics. The fact that recalcitrant physical conditions are used as a purported (and illusory) reason to maintain reactionary social relations doesn’t change the present danger that socially based economic forces have created in our particular ecological niches.

    Thacker, I think, is dealing on a more elementary level with the disappearance of human beings…each absence represents, implicitly, a death…Barthes’ assertion that photography exists to overcome the reality of mortality is here translated into metaphoric form, and yes, Barthes is a phenomenologist…but the fact that photographs are not reliable records of anything does not mean that someone’s ass is not on the line when a picture is made, or that the picture was not made in the vain hope that someone’s ass or other body part would be reliably recorded for the ages.

    Tauches is undeniably nostalgic…she hates the idea of architectural mortality and would prefer that our crass capitalist method of obliterating historical structures be replaced by a more sensitive preservation-minded approach to the built environment.

    Wanna debate? Let’s go for it.

  • http://www.ktauches.com ktauches

    I like this reference to “dark ecology.”

    I do, in this work, romanticize the “conservative” ecological ideal: any change can only be a change for the worse . . .

    my own personal definition of “natural” is something or someplace that has been left unmanipulated by human beings for a significantly long period of time so as to have altered the aesthetics of human control & domination. look at what happens to parking lots, highways,suburbs or single abandoned houses if left out there unattended to for decades. . . though they may be green, most of our natural “wildernesses” are officially managed recreation areas. . .with the collapse of our economy and the housing market as we’ve known it, I think these sort of newly natural settings will become something more than science fiction. and it will be quite beautiful antidote to those real estate ads still running in the new york times magazine on sundays.

    I do think the show at Barbara Archer was not meant to be particularly philosophical (oh, well) . I think it is lightly interested in a formal comparison. however, I agree with eric that the subject is very deep at this particular moment in time. certainly, there is a lot of potential for serious curators & artists to get into this subject.

    about materiality: photography as well as the web is now liberating us from certain mundane materialisms, if we really wish to be emancipated from them. many will have no other choice. (no longer do we need physical albums for our photographs, nor actual file cabinets for our papers, we can construct all kinds of goofy,wasteful environments, buildings and neighborhoods online and not in the real space. etc, etc.)

    I do wish to make images of mystical emptiness. . . the backwards view from progress, a ficitonal future. . .I hope that these artworks are symbols that all things (even powerful dictators, countries and governments) in time will disappear, too.

    -kt

  • Jerry Cullum

    Excellent, Karen. The pieces are multi-concept in their visual metaphors and to some degree I was conflating your approach with Shana Wood’s more openly elegiac approach to the devastation wrought by unrestrained development….

  • Eric Hancock

    sure..Haven’t we already invented other natures and aren’t we always creating other natures via observing the world. Taking a Unitarian stroll through the park is an example of this and illustrates Merly-Ponty’s and Zizek’s Gestaltist positions par excellence. Our consciousnesses are constantly filling in the seems and creating a kind and gentle and immanently walkable and artist friendly narrative world devout of dangerous bears, sharks, lions, tigers, responsibility, and artists whose art is killing other artists. We are always in danger of dying, whether we freeze into a statuesque donkey’s paradox (my predicament sometimes) or youthfully borrowing into the future and burning our resources out(capitalism)? I particularly like modern american depression era literature for it’s straightforward and complex depiction of characters experiencing debilitating and life threatening adversity with nobility.

  • Jerry Cullum

    Since we’re garbling terms anyway, I would point out that Merleau-Ponty’s existential phenomenology would be a version of Marxism less extreme in its rhetoric than Zizek’s…so we agree after all, that we see nature through our own socially-shaped perceptual lenses (unless our neurons are so physically altered that we mistake our wife for a hat, as per the famous book title). But that is far from saying that we make our own reality when we act. Reality, in the end, makes us, and we make our social worlds which we mistake for reality because that is the name that we give to them, or else we call them “nature” and “culture”…Zizek knows better, but he can sometimes be almost as bad as Baudrillard when it comes to claiming priority for the human over the environment within which humanity lives and moves and has its being. It ain’t so. Or it ain’t necessarily so, anyway.

  • http://www.ktauches.com ktauches

    . . .zizek. . .(say it sheeee-shek). . .he calls nature that which is independent of human beings. . . larger than us. . .in fact, we are indeed inside of nature’s vast power! the minute our control/illusion of ownership slips, “nature’s” overarching ways begin to come back, like weeds. . .

    Z claims that capitalism cannot solve ecology, that the 90s were a utopia of capitalism, which is now correcting itself, deflated by larger pictures. . .(“the market” cannot solve our ecological shallowness without collaborating with a larger social context). . .so right now, instead of the old class struggle, humans now struggling to be inside (and not on the outside) of the control that capitalism still claims to secure. the people on this “inside” are gated by glass. they can see but cannot touch. they wall themselves into a system that is ultimately vulnerable.

    . . .but for those on the outside (for various reasons), why not fantasize visually of a slow, natural reclamation? do we not become desensitized by equally romantic crashes, coups and apocalypses in art? artists can illustrate with drama & fear (like the voices of action films and advertising), but artistic statements can also have effect that are still, mystical. . .reverent. . .like landscape paintings. . . the quintessential cliché in art, landscape is now finding itself in a kind of radical position again. . . because such scenes are now only in images and not so much in reality.

    anyhow, it is much more austere to project a multitude of. . .green emptinesses. as a graphic, it is not a bad approach to the propaganda of art-making, which ultimately is a form of publishing to the future. . .

  • Jeremy Abernathy

    As in many recent conversations, I often find it valuable to “rock it Old School” …

    The problem of nature is a tough one, wrapped up in a crossfire of seemingly endless interrelated arguments. For example, I believe the position of the Catholic Church on reproductive issues (e.g. contraception) continues to draw on concepts of nature advanced by Thomas Aquinas, which were in turn rehashings of Aristotle. Our interpretation of the ways things are “intended” to work — or whether we accept the notion that nature has any intention in the first place — is critical to forming our ethical outlook on nature, from our own bodies to “God’s green earth.”

    Arthur Koestler, another Old Left type (who seems to be less popular than the folks mentioned above), points out Aquinas’ problem of the resurrected cannibal. (This blogger has a nice summary of the idea.) If all of a cannibals flesh actually belongs to other people, how could he be resurrected to face his Final Judgment, as a distinct body from the people he has devoured? If we translate the problem into a more contemporary vernacular, think of it in terms processed food. If every cell in my body is composed, at least in part, of matter from processed or chemically or genetically altered foodstuff, then does that mean I’m basically a factory-created organism? Is there any part of me that’s still “natural,” after 20-plus years of eating processed junk? How many years of “organic” living would “restore” my body back to a perhaps never-existent “natural” state?

  • http://www.barbaraarcher.com Barbara Archer

    As a former museum curator and educator, I have long maintained and taught, that in the evaluation of art (visual arts, film, music, theatre, dance, etc.), it is that which provokes, that is often most worthwhile. The artist’s objective is not to “provide answers”, but rather to raise questions, to provoke and stimulate the viewer to engage in thought, to contemplate the experience after the fact . Based on the above dialogue stimulated by PHOTO-BASED, I am pleased that we have succeeded in presenting a gallery exhibition that provokes the viewer, and I take issue with Eric Hancock’s position to the contrary.

  • Pete

    So Barbara, by that logic (broken down a bit):

    * Hancock criticizes the work.
    * People swoop in with, ‘don’t be so mean!’
    * Discussion begins
    The show = SUCCESS!

    However, had Mr. Hancock simply claimed the show was “good”

    * No discussion would have developed
    The show = Failure?

    It’s possible that Hancock’s REVIEW is what has provoked people. I guess we can’t really know.

    Besides, Jerry Saltz, on facebook the other day, said (partial quote here): “If 85% of all art shows are bad why are 85% of all reviews in magazines, etc. positive (or only descriptive)?” I can’t claim to have seen this show (left Atlanta awhile back), but what’s the harm in a negative (or semi-negative) review?