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.
Alison Jackson's work has a profound snapshot quality to it - it really is difficult to detect she is crafting these frames. So I suppose that I understand the disclaimer part.
ReplyDeleteI prefer Authenticity over crafting a type of reality. It's harder work in my opinion, and to some degree its always in question regarding a situation, place or person... either way Jackson's work is pretty wild. I ask what are we supposed to come away with, after awhile her images don't feel so profound.
I'd say crafting a reality and shooting reality are equally as complicated. I liken one to writing or conducting a symphony and the other to hunting big game. Each requires specific skill sets which (in some ways) are unrelated to one another but no less difficult to master. Each has its own challenges.
DeleteI think once you know it isn't real, it does take a little bit away from the effect. To be honest, I find her outlook significantly more engaging than her work. I mean, sure, it's interesting to see which trick she might pull next but that loses its charm pretty quick. Her mental process and her ideology is way more interesting.