One of the strangest experiences in museums is witnessing fine art become the backdrop of someone's Instagram post. Wolfgang Tillmans' retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art tends to attract an audience that utilizes his imagery in a similar way, specifically a large photograph of Frank Ocean that has reached Mona-Lisa-level shares on social media. The casual, quick pictures taken in front of this image are reminiscent of the way the artist himself photographs. This method, sometimes referred to as "democratic photography" has been used by many of the greats, such as William Eggleston or Stephen Shore. These three artists all follow a similar philosophy that“no particular subject is more or less important than another”(Eggleston). But in a world where most people have access to cameras and almost everything has been photographed, it is difficult to find something remarkable in the democratic images of Tillmans.
The show is a massive expanse of work, including portraits, politics, celebrities, astronomy, and more. The artist curates his retrospective like all of his shows, going against the typical gallery frames and instead opting for tape and clips to hang the images. Along with the unique hang, the images range from 4x6 mini prints to mural sized. Because the show is so different, a lot of the conversation seems to fall on the orientation of the prints more than the content of the images. Many seem to rely on the relationships between others on the wall, rather than being good enough to stand on their own. The democratic treatment of both the images and the hang in such an iconic space feels more self-righteous than unpretentious.
-katherine
I'm very interested in the point you're making here about the relevance of democratic photography - it might be useful to focus in on which specific elements make the show not work for you. Is it the entire concept of democratic photography or the specific way this photographer addressed it? I'm curious about what standard you set for a photograph to be "good enough to stand on [its] own" and about how the hanging of the photos affects this. Are the photos intended to hang together? Should we be looking at them as a single body or as individual works?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the perspective that is taken on your review of the Tillman’s show. When this show was opened to the public there was a broad range of responses – some holding the show in almost holy admiration, and some turning their nose up to the content provided. These ideas approached a middle ground of those two founded in contextual reasoning. The point that you raised of “…in a world where most people have access to cameras… [it] is difficult to find something remarkable in the democratic images of Tillmans,” promotes curiosity towards the exploration of photography and how “the photographer” is existing in a creative output format that is accessed by millions around the globe on a regular minute-to-minute basis. How does one stand-out amidst these truths creatively? Is the reception of Tillman's work effected solely through this issue? Or are there more concepts at hand?
ReplyDelete