Photographs are one of the most powerful tools that we have. They can capture moments and things and allow them to be kept forever. They help trigger memories of times and events and they do so without even trying. When our brains see an image, it immediately tries to place it in the timeline of our lives (2). If it is from our past, then we are reminded of what was happening before, during, and after the image was taken. If it is new to us, then we try to figure out why we are seeing it. Through this natural association that the brain tries to make, conceptual photographers can convey methods using anything from a very simple image,
A crucial part of conceptual photography is the captions. In both of the images above, I did not include their captions yet. By first taking in the image alone, you are forced to think about what the photographer was trying to say without being told up front. The two captions were "Air Guitar" and "Anorexia," can you guess which is which? The use of the captions is a way for the photographer to make sure that by the end of your time looking at the photograph, you leave thinking about what they want you to.
As you can see, these photographs are all about the visual aspects. They catch your eye and make your brain work to make it make sense, to give it reason for being shown. In one photograph, powerful images are streamed into your mind. It is the visual pieces that make us remember them. I scrolled through a stream of photos quickly and the one that stuck out in my brain the most was
There are also much simpler images in which you can clearly see that the main focus of the photographer was not one the art of the image but on the message.
There is also that middle ground that a majority of the images fall into. They could very easily wind up on any wall of someone who just appreciates a nice photograph. This does not discredit the photograph, if anything it gives it more freedom. By keeping it in the middle, it is both visually stimulating but still relatively easy to interpret.
Overall, conceptual photography does do a just job of conveying a message, however it does not neglect the visual aspects. It instead uses them to guide the audience into finding the meaning and helping it stick. It has grown along with the Conceptual Art Movement itself and has expanded as well. Conceptual photography defies the basic idea that conceptual work does not rely on content yet it still conveys just as strong of a message. This can change the way that all conceptual content is considered not only in the art aspect of the Conceptual Art Movement but also in the way that conceptual literature is interpreted.
Sources
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_photography
(2) http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-brain-can-process-images-seen-for-just-13-milliseconds
(3) http://www.veramaurinapress.org/pdfs/Kenneth-Goldsmith_uncreative-writing.pdf
http://www.theartstory.org/movement-conceptual-art.htm
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/conceptual-photography/
*all images throughout post came from: http://dpshots.com/photo-inspiration/conceptual-photography.html
You’re definitely right, relatively conceptual photography has barely seen the limelight and after reading your post, I can see why it should. The basis of conceptual poetry is why an art or written piece matters and the message behind it and what better way to send a message than with a picture that can say a thousand things all at once. I find it very interesting how you can analyse various aspects of a picture, admiring their individuality then seeing how they converge to find a whole and realizing their significance in that structure. In the air guitar picture you can see a bird, a cloud, a building and a person jumping but all together you may see the concept ‘freedom.’ No matter what the picture is, no matter how it was taken or the objects in it, there is always a message to find in it, even if you’re not looking. Conceptual poetry, I agree depends on how it is interpreted, just like other conceptual art forms just that now, apart from just seeing the message you can see exactly what the photographer wants you to see, well because he’s the one that took the picture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lotanna that conceptual photography is not as prevalent as conceptual literature but it is definitely worth looking at because it fits in the category of conceptual art. I have never thought about conceptual poetry, but I see how much it fits with conceptual art because the pictures you have included convey interesting messages to the viewer. They are conceptual because they take something, such as a fish in a bowl, and make it into something else by including the background of the ocean and titling it "Almost...". I like the idea of conceptual photography because it is very easy to visually interpret and experience the photos in their entirety and be able to ponder the meaning. It is also significant to note that most conceptual poetry has an element called deconstruction of the aesthetic. Some examples of this include the "Holocaust Museum" and "Directory" by Robert Fitterman. Basically deconstruction of the aesthetic means that by recontextualizing language, the conceptual author has taken away all aesthetic value from certain texts and made it into something new that can be interpreted differently without the images to focus on. You previous essay was about "Holocaust Museum" which was interesting because it takes away the images and only includes the captions to make the readers think of the text in a different way. The conceptual photography is exactly the opposite because it uses only images and no words to convey a message. Conceptual photography is, however, still as much conceptual as anything else we have encountered because it is doing the same thing as any conceptual art: making you think about something in a new way by changing the context.
ReplyDeleteCan conceptual photography actually exist? I’m not entirely convinced that the works mentioned in this post can actually qualify as being specifically “conceptual” compared to photographs. An anti-conceptual photograph would be one based on a plot; most photography is based on the need to capture a moment in time, and by saying, “I want to take a picture of this person” rather than “I want to take a picture of whatever happens in front of me” (which is more apt for video-taking), one is constrained in much the same way as a conceptual writer. And yet, these images don’t follow other aspects of the conceptual movement, such as the intentional absence of deep meaning or structure typically associated with conceptual literature. Earlier in the year, I based my “conceptual work” presentation on the recontextualization of the captions of advertisement posters from many years ago, and in doing so, I realized how difficult it was to portray a coherent picture in a conceptual light. Paradoxical images, such as the apple core/apple picture, don’t qualify as being photography either, since they are clearly painted and fall under art (and, I would argue, not even conceptual art.) Therefore, I don’t quite understand the argument being made by this post.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post Kelly! When I was a senior in high school, I was in an AP photography class and we studied many different styles of photography including conceptual photography and surrealist photography. Having been introduced to this style of conceptual art before, I was interested to hear your interpretation and see if my new knowledge of conceptual art altered my view and understanding of this form of expression. The images you included were very powerful and had strong messages. Your comment that the caption plus the image is what makes the image really powerful is something I had not thought about before. You make a good point and the first picture with the apple is a great example of that. This post demonstrated the range that is possible with conceptual photography and definitely expanded my knowledge of conceptual art and photography.
ReplyDelete