Woman on a Ledge… on twitter.

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/2012/09/24/atlanta-police-arrest-falcons-defensive-end-john-abraham/

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/258151/40/Falcons-DB-arrested-at-Atlantic-Station-


Sadly, this is the closest I can get to what could have been a travesty.


A few days ago I was talking to Alex Hadjidakiss about this.  On September 24th, a woman at the Twelve Hotel & Residences in Atlantic Station was on a balcony threatening to jump.  Alex happened to be headed to Target with his wife and saw all the commotion.  According to him (and I believe every single word of this, not only because I trust him but it's completely in line with the sort of society we're becoming) people were on their balconies and in the street watching.

Now, that's not uncommon.  People have been jumping off of ledges (or threatening to do so) in front of crowds for ages.  These kinds of things have always drawn onlookers, regardless of whether that is what the person on the ledge wants.  What was interesting about Alex's account was that he said that there were so many people on their cell phones taking pictures, even other people hanging off of their balconies as well.

That is the strange society of voyeurs that we're turning into.

We're developing a culture where people jump off of ledges (or, let's just be honest, sometimes they just threaten to for the attention) and we watch, take videos and post them on facebook.  We tweet about it. "Talk about the crazy shit I see while watching the sunset #ontheledge."  Or something like that.

I'm glad the woman was unhurt.  I can't imagine how traumatic it would have been to watch it actually happen.  As far as I can find, it didn't even make the news; what made the news was the Falcons' player who was either determined to go back into his house (he lives in that building) or determined to cross police lines to get a better view.  He was arrested and charged with obstruction of firefighters and obstruction of police officers.

I wish I could have gotten photographs of all these people taking photographs of a woman on a ledge.  I am even more inspired now, as this is sicker and more perverse than anything I could come up with.

Is Photography Over? Day One, part 1

This is a four-part series tackling the very vague question of "Is photography over?" conducted at SFMOMA including a number of people established in the world of photographic arts.  I mentioned this in class a week or so ago.  Two panel groups convened for an hour over the course of two days.  Group one included seven people:

•Peter Galassi - chief curator of photography at MOMA NYC.

•Blake Stimson - teaches art history and critical theory at UC Davis. 

•Joel Snyder - professor and chair of the Dept. of Art History University of Chicago.

•Douglass Nickel - Andrea B. Rosenthal professor of modern art at Brown University.  Curator of photography at SFMOMA for 10 years.

•Vince Aletti - former art editor and photography critic for the Village Voice.

•Corey Keller - associate curator for photography at SFMOMA.

•Philip-Lorca deCorcia - exhibited art photographer (noted for his series Heads) and chief critic for the graduate school at Yale.

The panel opens with an acknowledgment that "the question is a blunt instrument" that's intentionally vague and deliberately open to interpretation.  They purposely used the word "over" instead of "dead."  They also state up front that they didn't form the panel and ask the question because they thought that the answer was "Yes."  They set it up because they felt it was an important question to ask and be discussed.  The core of what they intended to get at was: if there's something over in photography, what is it and, by extension, does it even matter (that thing, not photography, though one could certainly have an opinion on either)?

People interested in the event and the panelists had to address the question and while digital photography was touched upon, it was not a central theme.  In other words, it was not about this tired notion of "The digitalization of photography is killing photography."  I'm glad it didn't go there.  Joel Snyder (a man whose outlook I disagreed with in many ways; something I'll come back to later) did a good job of making a case for the digital process within photography as it relates to art.  As an art history professor, he references how in the early days of photography it was always references as "mechanical" which was a way of speaking to the fact that it was reproductive in nature and it was only reproducing something that was actually there, it required no artistic talent and could be done by any button-pusher and/or a person who understood the chemistry aspects of it.  He goes on to touch on some early aspects of photographs as art was the literal cutting and pasting method but the photo itself was very much a matter of reproducing or documenting art instead of being it.

The way he wraps it up is to point out that we are now at a point where the photographer as an artist can manipulate photographs as never before and that the photo is now a canvas for the photographer's vision.  As someone who resisted a conversion to digital photography (I'd like to say that I've just made it a part of my workflow but I haven't shot film for about 3 years; I don't rule it out shooting 120 again, since I can scan for free here at SCAD) because it "didn't give me the images I composed in my head" it was reassuring to hear that from someone who I'd assume on the surface would be dismissive of the digital process.  I've had pretty heated discussions with people on how there should be some sort of separation in this world of image-making, where there are photographers on one side and "digital artists" on another, as if the latter category through the use of computer tools are no longer allowed to use the word "photographer" to refer to themselves.  Personally I think that's a.) crazy because it's b.) beside the point.

I really liked diCorcia's outlook the most, general-speaking.  While I consider myself an intellectual, a lot of the panel's discussion could be viewed as overly cerebral, so I enjoyed his candor.  At one point, Joel Snyder is going on about how what photography has lost is this quality he noted when he was young: how in going to a gallery, all the photographs which were there showed us something new/innovative about photography.  Now, by contrast, the photos which go up are just aesthetically please, I guess.  Part of me wants to dismiss that as the classic "Things we're better back in my day and this generation does nothing new or imaginative." talk.  diCorcia counters that with "You're saying the first man who rubbed two sticks together made fire and everyone else is a bunch of pyromaniacs."  Or, in my interpretation, photographer's in Snyder's younger days were innovating (like the first man with fire) and apparently now everyone's compelled to use what they did to do something destructive (like pyros).

At any rate, it's a good watch if you have an hour.  Part two of day one is more interesting but some really good discussion in part one.

Artist talk: Allison Jackson

This was a link that Suellen Parker sent to me at the end of last quarter which prompted a revision of my artist statement (more clearly: it prompted me to add another page or two to my condensed statement for a new, long artist statement).

http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_jackson_looks_at_celebrity.html

Prior to last quarter, I'd never heard of her but after hearing her discuss her work, I'm really intrigued.  One of the things which really struck a cord with me is her view of how we (as a society) have begun to crave this intimate access into the lives of others.  She focuses on celebrity and political figures, whereas I think we're turning our voyeuristic eyes to one another.  With an intention similar to my own, Alison Jackson also uses objects to obstruct the view and emphasize this voyeuristic feeling as if we're seeing something we shouldn't see.  Something dirty or private (or both) that we shouldn't see but we want to believe has actually happened.

Though she said it in regard to Princess Diana's death, her statement that the world looked upon the details of her passing almost like it was pornographic (that is, the world to a lustful, graphic gratification in picking over the gritty details), I see us doing a similar thing to one another.  The way in which we view the downfall of others in reality TV or watch someone breakup or have a meltdown on Facebook is nearly perverse.

I like the way in which she discusses her methodology.  She crafts these situation to make the viewer think it is real, even to the extent that she must now put disclaimers up.  Of course, I also craft my own reality in a photo, choosing that over documentary style which might or might not show the story as I envision it in my head.  As I move forward, I'm trying to tackle this idea of authenticity/reality and whether or not it is necessary for my work.