5

Clichés and Soaring Moments in Misrach’s Cancer Alley at the High

Written By Lilly Lampe on August 29, 2012 in Reviews

Revisiting the South: Richard Misrach’s Cancer Alley depicts the Deep South as a fertile landscape rendered toxic by capitalist interests and racial inequalities. This exhibition, currently on view at the High Museum, features 21 large-scale prints commissioned over a 14-year period as part of the museum’s Picturing the South series. The majority of the images focus on the industrial buildings and refuse that led one particular area of the Mississippi River to be dubbed “Cancer Alley,” while the most recent respond to the events surrounding the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The show attempts to connect these environmental atrocities and emphasize their significance through Misrach’s signature usage of grand scale and dramatic composition. In many of these works, however, Misrach’s eye for composition overwhelms the context, causing the exhibition to come across as disjointed though not without its successes.

The exhibition serves as an interesting tutelage of the use and misuse of dramatic compositional techniques in photography. Home and Grain Elevator, Destrehan, Louisiana, negative 1998, inkjet print 2012, depicts a concrete grain elevator towering majestically over the landscape. The curves and scale of the elevator, strategically cropped by Misrach’s lens, resembles a Gothic cathedral draped in concrete, dwarfing the helpless one-story homes below. The effect is stunningly beautiful, yet subtly uncomfortable; the houses, disturbingly close to their industrial neighbor, are easily overlooked in the first glance in favor of the impressive structure behind them.

In another vein, however, is Helicopter Returning from Deepwater Horizon Spill, Venice, Louisiana, negative 2010, print 2012. The helicopter of the title is captured as it passes directly over a cow on a green knoll, flanked by a hierarchical cow on each side. It’s a lucky piece of photographer’s comic-timing, but as part of this series it comes off as ridiculous, with only the most tenuous of relations to the disaster referenced in the title.

Other photographs stumble into obvious juxtaposition, to the detriment of their impact. Holy Rosary Cemetery and Dow Chemical Corporation (Union Carbide Complex), Taft, Louisiana, negative 1998, print 2012, shows in the foreground a cemetery whose marble crosses are mimicked by smoke stacks and electric poles in the background. The symbolism is so obvious it hurts. Playground and Shell Refinery, Norco, Louisiana, negative 1998, print 2012, is similarly stale. An empty basketball court lies before a sprawling oil refinery. Bereft of players and juxtaposed with the expansive factory, the causal connection imposed on the viewer is clear but without emotional import. The text accompanying this work informs the viewer that the court is all that remains of an all-black elementary school that was burned to the ground in 1968 on the eve of integration. The text further states that Shell, owner of the refinery, was forced after decades of lawsuits to relocate most of the residents. The story is unbelievably horrifying and tragic, evoking the very real and recent battles for integration. The image fails to convey any of this. As supplement to the story, it may serve a journalistic purpose, but as art it disappoints.

A museum text on the wall beside this photograph explains that a cloud persistently hangs above the industrial area in the distance, due to fumes rather than any natural causes.

All the faults of this show can be overlooked with the spell-binding Hazardous Waste Containment Site, Dow Chemical Corporation, Mississippi River, Plaquemine, Louisiana, negative 1998, print 2012. A chain-link fence stretches before an opening in the trees, half submerged in gray marsh water. The water acts as a mirror, splitting the scene into vertical halves. The scene hints at Monet’s Bridge Over a Pond of Water Lilies, but where Monet’s stream was flower-filled lushness, Misrach’s is chillingly flat excepting some questionable refuse drifting in one corner. You don’t need to read the text or title to feel the dangerous toxicity of this place. In Hazardous Waste Containment Site, Misrach captured a truly haunting aspect of the Southern landscape, one far more real and chilling than any folk-legend or cliché.


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

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

  • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.deans.71 Thomas Deans

    A
    very attractive exhibition, that succeeds, in part, by the enormous scale of the
    images. (A group small[er] photographs fails to impress to the same degree;
    their details appear fussy and labored, by comparison.) The lessons of early
    the 19th-century English Romanticism are all here, though rendered with a more
    contemporary detachment–Cotman’s St Mary’s Redcliffe, Bristol (c1801), any of a
    number of paintings of Mousehold Heath, the Drop-Gate, Duncombe Park (c1805),
    Samuel Palmer’s The Bright Cloud (c1833), or Paul Sandby Munn’s Bedlam Furnace,
    Shropshire (1803). Only the nature of the architecture and the specificity of
    place have really changed.

    Misrach succeeds best when he is at his most
    Romantic. I agree that the image of the gated and chain-link-fenced waste
    containment site, a quiet backwater, succeeds particularly well. It is, to my
    eyes, an image that evokes a sense of beauty in abandonment–like Cotman’s
    drop-gate–built by hands that long ago moved on and forgot. Certainly a
    Romantic theme, if ever there was one, though here presented with a somewhat post-Romantic ‘coolness’.The composition is striking, the mist-shrouded trees
    and their reflections creating a diamond-shape frame to the gate, itself without
    reflection. The equally striking color harmonies of grays with hints of an
    acidulous yellow-green bring to mind certain paintings by George Price Boyce or
    Whistler. It’s greatest success lies in its being a strikingly impersonal image
    that somehow manages to evoke personal responses. Other images in the exhibition
    are not nearly as successful in this, e.g., Playground and Shell Refinery, which remains
    stubbornly pedestrian and has to rely on a written explanation to evoke any
    response at all. At their best, however, the photographs imbue mere topography
    with an elegance of composition and tonal beauty, linking them to the long
    history of European and American landscape that precedes them.

  • Chamblee Highroller

    I was disappointed in your critical opinions when I started reading this review; especially the critique on how Misrach’s compositions overwhelm the context. Although, that is why there are art critics in the world. So, let me explain further. While your review does not fully dismiss the quality of Misrach’s work, some comments you
    make made me feel as though I needed to write this.

    With your critique of, Helicopter Returning from Deepwater Horizon Spill, Venice, Louisiana, negative 2010, print 2012, I think you could’ve done more research into reaching a conclusion as to why
    the artist included the work instead of just simply chalking it up to a comedic relief amongst a series of haunting images; calling it “ridiculous.” I’m sure Misrach included it for some reason. Maybe it was to bring a sense of humanity/living nature into a series of dead/dying/desolate images/landscapes.

    I disagree with you when you call, Playground and Shell Refinery, Norco, Louisiana, negative 1998, print 2012, stale too. Of course, one image – consisting of subjects/landscapes stripped of all
    history – can only tell so much that is why wall text is used in galleries and museums. You say that this work serves well journalistically, but that as “art it disappoints.” I must say that this comment disappoints me. As a photographer, I take offense to individuals who do not believe that an image can stand on it’s own. Like I said above, the information in the wall text definitely improves the ability for viewers to understand the image better and get the “full story”. However, I feel that an individual could easily interpret
    part of the “story” with what is supplied in Misrach’s photograph.

    While I appreciate you comparing different works of art to each other (Misrach’s & Monet) I think that it is rather useless to compare a work from the 19th century to one from the 21st century when all that there is to compare is the usage of water in a landscape. It might’ve been more appropriate to compare the works that you didn’t think worked well with similar photographic works that do (from any century).

    Overall, I think this review of Misrach’s Cancer Alley is a little too critical, if you will. Maybe you should’ve discussed some information about the artist; giving some biographical insight to your review. More than likely, this would’ve resolved some issues you seemed to have with the exhibit/images. Also, consider the fact that this could’ve been the first time people were seeing images of “Cancer Alley.” Maybe this exhibit was created with a main purpose of informing the public in a very artful/journalistic approach.

    Lampe, I would love to hear your response to any of my comments. I hope you do not take offense to these comments, as disagreeing readers should be expected as an art critic; this is simply my take on the exhibit and your review. This comes from an individual who has lived in “Cancer Alley” and understands the
    detriment that pollution has caused there.

  • Chamblee Highroller

    I was disappointed in your critical opinions when I started reading this review; especially the critique on how Misrach’s compositions overwhelm the context. Although, that is why there are art critics in the world. So, let me explain further. While your review does not fully dismiss the quality of Misrach’s work, some comments you
    make made me feel as though I needed to write this.

    With your critique of, Helicopter Returning from Deepwater Horizon Spill, Venice, Louisiana, negative 2010, print 2012, I think you could’ve done more research into reaching a conclusion as to why
    the artist included the work instead of just simply chalking it up to a comedic relief amongst a series of haunting images; calling it “ridiculous.” I’m sure Misrach included it for some reason. Maybe it was to bring a sense of humanity/living nature into a series of dead/dying/desolate images/landscapes.

    I disagree with you when you call, Playground and Shell Refinery, Norco, Louisiana, negative 1998, print 2012, stale too. Of course, one image – consisting of subjects/landscapes stripped of all
    history – can only tell so much that is why wall text is used in galleries and museums. You say that this work serves well journalistically, but that as “art it disappoints.” I must say that this comment disappoints me. As a photographer, I take offense to individuals who do not believe that an image can stand on it’s own. Like I said above, the information in the wall text definitely improves the ability for viewers to understand the image better and get the “full story”. However, I feel that an individual could easily interpret
    part of the “story” with what is supplied in Misrach’s photograph.

    While I appreciate you comparing different works of art to each other (Misrach’s & Monet) I think that it is rather useless to compare a work from the 19th century to one from the 21st century when all that there is to compare is the usage of water in a landscape. It might’ve been more appropriate to compare the works that you didn’t think worked well with similar photographic works that do (from any century).

    Overall, I think this review of Misrach’s Cancer Alley is a little too critical, if you will. Maybe you should’ve discussed some information about the artist; giving some biographical insight to your review. More than likely, this would’ve resolved some issues you seemed to have with the exhibit/images. Also, consider the fact that this could’ve been the first time people were seeing images of “Cancer Alley.” Maybe this exhibit was created with a main purpose of informing the public in a very artful/journalistic approach.

    Lampe, I would love to hear your response to any of my comments. I hope you do not take offense to these comments, as disagreeing readers should be expected as an art critic; this is simply my take on the exhibit and your review. This comes
    from an individual who has lived in “Cancer Alley” and understands the detriment that pollution has caused there.

  • Lilly Lampe

    Dear Highroller,

    Thank you for your comment. It seems we come from different schools of thought in terms of criticism. I feel the works should speak for themselves, and conversation with the artist or curator comes secondary to that. If the art or exhibition isn’t conveying the intended message of the artist or curator, then it simply isn’t doing what they intended it to do.

    In that same vein, your comment (“As a photographer, I take offense to individuals who do not believe that an image can stand on it’s own.”) surprises me, because judging the work as it stands, without the text and without the buffer of the curator or Misrach’s opinions, was exactly the standard I held his work to. Not all of it met that standard, though some did.

    I’m also surprised at your rejection of my comparison to Monet on the basis that referring another photograph would have been more appropriate. I think there are similarities in Misrach’s work to that of Jeff Wall, but his light boxes function very differently from Misrach’s work. Additionally, Wall’s work (as I believe Misrach’s does) intentionally references master painters. It would be limiting to only compare photographers to photographers, especially when history shows the line of influence between photography and painting is strong and, what’s more, works both ways.

    As to your concerns as to my judging the work as journalism versus art, could you elaborate further? Your suggestion “Maybe this exhibit was created with a main purpose of informing the public in a very artful/journalistic approach.” isn’t clear to me – do you think it serves both? Or is it half art, half journalism, but in whole neither? Please explain.

    I truly appreciate the attention and careful thought you’ve given to the review, as so rarely I see feedback on these pages. I do not take offense at all to your respectful comments, nor your proposal that I may have been “too critical.” So often, the complaint I hear broadly levied against Atlanta art critics is that they’re “not critical enough,” which I assume means not rigorous enough, or definitive in their statements. I’m glad to know at least someone doesn’t think I fall into that camp.

    Thanks for continuing the conversation on Misrach. I look forward to your response.

    LL

  • Chamblee Highroller

    Dear Lampe,

    I apologize for taking so long to respond. First off, I don’t think we come from different schools of thought regarding art criticism, and I’m now realizing in my last
    comment I contradicted myself. So, let me clarify my position.

    I think that certain objects can simply be understood without any secondary materials needed; such as a simple portrait or possibly the grandiose images
    from Misrach, that bring emotions to the viewers. However, at the same time I do not believe that all works of art (most situations; abstract/conceptual art)
    can be fully understood, standing on their own. In certain circumstances the viewer will lose the possibility of a quality, informed experience if they are
    un-informed of certain aspects of the work or the artist. For instance, take a viewer of Misrach’s exhibit; if they know nothing of “Cancer Alley” – which sadly I’ve found to be a reality amongst people I know – then they will inevitably be lost and unable to conjure similar thought processes than would have occurred if they knew that
    information. A deep insight to the artist and their work is lost because there is no supplementary information. In a museum/gallery context I believe that information is critical to a better understanding of that work/artist. I guess what I meant from my comments last time is that at first I do believe the viewer should approach any artwork face to face (without any secondary/supplementary information). Not until after they experience the work without any contexts/information should the viewer delve into the further explanations/history/information. In a way, that approach is like viewing a problem from the exterior and then digging inside to find more.

    When you compared the work to Monet I just felt that a more contemporary comparison could’ve been made. However, I do think that the work can reference master
    painters (e.g. Thomas Cole’s work). I just didn’t see the Monet comparison to be the best fit. However, I do think Jeff Wall’s art provides a great comparison. I had a similar feeling when I first saw Jeff Wall’s “A Sudden Gust Of Wind” as I did with Misrach’s work. So, I wasn’t saying that you should have only compared the work to photographs (although it could prove to be most
    beneficial to your readers), I was just pointing out that I thought there were better works to use for a comparison.

    As to the judgment, I thought you were critical to say as “art it disappoints.” My statement meant that the exhibit served both journalistic and art; in separate ways. One could simply stroll through the exhibit with no idea of “Cancer Alley,” only looking at the images, and then leave with little ability to understand the exhibit to its
    full potential (of course, there are always other scenarios; someone who studies/studied “Cancer Alley”). Another more investigative viewer would dig
    into that exhibit, have a discussion with others, and read/watch all supplementary materials to fully understand that work(s). This second individual brings me to the conclusion that this exhibit could be perceived as more of a journalistic approach to exhibiting art. To me, the exhibit was an
    obvious study in humanity and the issues that pervade society. A definite social history approach to art criticism could have been used, but you seemed
    to use an approach to the works and exhibit that focused more on formalities and principles of design/composition. In a way I see journalism as a relative to sociological studies of the world and the events that happen in it. I feel that you didn’t connect to that aspect of criticism; considering how much this
    exhibit connects to that frame of thought.

    So, all in all I think what I meant to say last time is that I felt that your critique could have delved into the social history aspect of art criticism and even gave more background to who Misrach is; so your reader could’ve understood his approach and had a better understanding of his work. That is the most critical thing that I have to say about this review. I hope this clears up my previous comments and I really appreciate you responding to them! Take care.

    – Chamblee Highroller