A few days ago, at Art Walk, I saw an exhibition of "found photography" at the Stoneworks gallery downtown. It was a good show, but I'm not sure how I feel about "found photography" after seeing a show of found prints for sale.
The artist had found a photo album in a thrift store or something that was full of family photos damaged by the adhesive in the album/weathering/etc. The show was just blown up prints of those pictures, apparently unedited. One was arranged to show the edges of two photos, with the adhesive photo sheet showing between them, and that's the only sign of the artist's hand.
I think that's a valid thing to exhibit, because just by taking something and bringing it into a fine art context, you're changing it into something new, but also, he was charging hundreds of dollars for these prints. He didn't take the pictures or influence their damage, all he did was find them beautiful and interesting, blow them up and hang them. I liked the show and loved some of the pictures, but the sale was a little much.
It's not quite like found art/found objects to me, because photography is all about composition and processing. These are images where these considerations have already been made and you just found them. It's like claiming a found poem. "I think this poem is beautiful! I'll publish it, claim it, sell it!" The original creator probably thought it was beautiful too. It's not fair to assume authorship of something finished that ultimately can't be removed from its context, is it? Unlike Hirst's work, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment