Siebren Versteeg @ Window in August

Share your thoughts on Siebren Versteeg's reconfigured work from 2007, Own Nothing, Have Everything.

Once again, we've placed small pads of paper with the prompt seen below around town.  You are welcome to print and distribute these throughout your own communities as well.  Please feel free to respond via a comment on this blog, or write an entirely new post, which we would be pleased to publish.

Leigh-Ann Pahapill Opening Tonight, July 5th

Canadian artist, Leigh-Ann Pahapill, has been generous enough to allow the first iteration of her brand new project to be installed at Window this month.  It's sure to generate some conversation.  

Once again, we've placed small pads of paper with the prompt seen below around town.  You are welcome to print and distribute these throughout your own communities as well.  Please feel free to respond via a comment on this blog, or write an entirely new post, which we would be pleased to publish.

My Hair is Very Electric Here

....so forms the primary text in Toby Kaufmann-Buhler's piece In/voluntary Re/actions, created specifically for window.  (Click HERE to view the piece and read the press release).

If you are in Asheville, be on the lookout for little pads with tear-off sheets inviting your participation in discussing this work (see below).  If you're in a more distant location, feel free to voice your opinions here on the blog as a comment or as an individually authored post (which I would be happy to publish).

There will be a public reception this Friday at Henco from 5:30 to 7 p.m.  We're hoping for some good conversation!

A.D. Coleman on Robert Heinecken

I really appreciate a lot of what A.D. Coleman has to say in Part 2 of this essay on Heinecken.  You can link to it HERE (scroll to the end of the article to read Part 1, also of interest).  He closes with the suggestion that Heinecken's legacy has "gradually forced those who privilege art over photography, and artists over photographers, to confront their prejudices. The best way for both sides to thank this unlikely bodhisattva for his service would be to erase the arbitrary line that divides them."

I hope that's what we can do here at window as well.

Christopher Meerdo's Sine Qua Non

Our third installation is currently up/in/at window.  Meerdo’s contribution consists of his 2012 work, sine qua non, a digital inkjet print comprised of numerous iterations of a single subject.  In this work, the artist purposefully photographed the sun “thousands of times using an early 1990's digital camera. This resulted in the degradation of the image sensor which obfuscated its recording capabilities” (Meerdo).  

In an effort to involve the public more fully, we're going to try something new.  Each month, we'll place small pads of handouts around town encouraging people to comment on the works on view and (hopefully) turn up to the opening for discussion.  We weren't able to get the pads out in advance of this month's opening, but they will be placed around town this week.  The public is encouraged to drop off their comments at Henco where they will be collected, scanned and published here.  Those who are not local can always send their comments directly to me at dawnroe@gmail.com.

Below is a JPEG image of the handout that you can download at will.

We welcome your contributions, in any form.

 

Scott Hubener on Mark Menjivar's The Luck Archive

Asheville artist Scott Hubener came out to the opening of Mark Menjivar's installation at window last week and wrote up a nice little response.  You can read what he has to say below, and if you are so inclined, you can write your own.

Mark Menjivar at/in/on window

 

The current exhibition at window got me thinking.  Mark Menjivar's work is about luck.  Luck and interaction, really.   The site-specific installation was the launching point for my access to his work.  Only later, upon leaving the exhibition with both a chance to reflect and the time to learn more about his project through the online, aptly named Luck Archive, was I able to digest this work.

What struck me and stuck with me most from Mark's work, both in general and in relation to this project, is that the subject is secondary to the action that follows or is created by the particular subject matter.  What I mean to say is that the interaction and collaboration Mark, and by extension his audience, has with people submitting their objects and stories of luck are the real exchanges, the real raison d'etre of Mark's work, and that is the exciting thing for me. Sure, there's something for exploring luck, but luck itself is not the thing, really its the foil that gets people to share, to connect about something that can be personal and real.  Luck is the trivial subject.  The sharing of stories is the significant.   That fact is exciting for me.  I believe that much too often artists, and photographers specifically, are isolated in the creation and collaboration of their work.  While its true that a photographer may 'collaborate' with a subject in the creation of an image, often the interaction is brief and only extends as far as the subject lending their likeness to a light sensitive surface. The exchange is often unbalanced.  Its exciting to think about collaboration as being something more, both for the photographer and the audience. 

Visit Scott Hubener's Website HERE.

The Value of Reproduction

-->

This week, a fantastic exchange occurred on the Flak Photo Network page on Facebook.  The conversation that took place had me thinking quite a bit about the mission of window, which led me to write up a pretty lengthy response to the original prompt, written by Tad Barney, which is reprinted below:

I have two 5" x 5" prints. One I bought from the photographer for $250. It was printed on an Epson R2880 with archival inks on to Epson ultra premium photo paper luster at a resolution of 200 dpi. I made the other print myself using the exact same model printer, paper and resolution, using an image file I dragged on to my desktop from the photographer's blog. The look and quality of the two prints are indistinguishable.  What makes one print worth $250? Is the other worth the same amount now? Is the true value actually in the photographer's signature that's on the one I paid for? (Tad Barney)

The fundamental aspect of the question posed above relates very specifically to monetary value, which subsequently leads one to consider value more generally.  So, perhaps it would be useful to break it down a bit.  Determining what makes the “original” print worth $250 is equally suspect.  We might even begin there, as the question begins “what makes one print worth $250?”  I suppose the fact that $250 was paid for the print is what makes it worth that amount.  But further, how did the artist come to arrive at that amount as its value (or any monetary amount, really).  Generally, these determinations come from the reputation of the artist, the price point for works sold in the past and whether the print is from a limited edition.  Just as possible though, is that the price is an arbitrary number that an artist arrived at based upon a mixed bag of assumptions about how works of art acquire value and what sort of price one should sell their work for.  Ultimately then, it's up to the market as well as the consumer to determine whether or not something is worth a fixed monetary value (I cringe to even write such a sentence).

The second question is equally complex – “is the other worth the same amount now”?  I suppose a quick response would be, no.  The question of provenance arose in the comments following this prompt on Facebook, and that certainly comes into play – the second print did not originate with the artist, and was not printed to their specific standards.  Even if the same equipment and material was used, an image file (of sufficient quality) downloaded from the internet may differ substantially from the artist’s final print file, and colors and tones differ dramatically from monitor to monitor, making replication difficult.  Of course, if one has the “original” print to use as a source, a skilled printer could likely replicate it to the T (as in the scenario above), but what they would end up with would be an (as close to possible) exact copy of a print that is “worth $250.”  So, yes, if the concern is around monetary value it is unlikely this replica could be re-sold for that same $250 as indeed the artist’s signature is what distinguishes one from the other.  But, as to whether that is where all value lies, I would tend to call that into question.

What’s not being considered within the question is why another print would be made and whether or not monetary value is an essential component.  We can certainly all agree upon the questionable ethics of a commercial business deciding to replicate an artist’s print from an on-line file to hang in one of their properties.  Yet it would seem that monetary value would not be of import in such a hypothetical, rather its use value as decoration would be primary, and it would have not have the monetary value attached to works that belong to corporate collections, for instance.  But, let’s say an artist wants their work to be reproduced in this manner, and that they invite the public to download their files and print them at will.  Wherein lies the value here, and for that matter, how might one be designated as an “original”?   Perhaps in this instance the provenance lies within the concept, or on the computer server?  Most likely, the monetary value would be little to none in such a scenario, but that may very well be the point.  The use value may be substantial though, depending upon any number of things.  Is the work’s content intended to provoke dialogue or to bring about social change?  Are there aesthetic concerns at play related to reproduction and the inherent variance from one print to another?  Is the artist commenting upon the art market itself?  Or, does the artist make more “traditional” work that they simply would like to see disseminated more widely than selling individual pieces would allow for? 

I’ll close my thoughts by relating some of this to the current Klett and Wolfe piece installed at window.   The image is an excerpt from a larger piece designed and constructed by the collaborative pair.  A digital file was sent to me, which I passed along to the printer for reproduction.  The artists were kind enough to allow me to make decisions on my own about what excerpt to include, and how the work would be installed.  Now, admittedly, this scenario differs from what is discussed above, but there are certainly parallels.   I wonder how we might attach value to the piece currently affixed to the window, and whether we consider it to be equally valuable as the many other works produced by these artists and held in museum collections?  What is the value of the image that will be peeled off the window at the end of this exhibition and destroyed?  What is the value of each successive proof made during the process of production?  Is the value of a work of art diminished when it cannot be sold?  Or, does the true value lie within the very nature of its reproducibility?

Klett and Wolfe - Subverting Nostalgia and Kitsch

Mark Klett and Byron Wolfe, 2008. Reconstructing the view from the El Tovar to Yavapai Point using nineteen postcards.

Still thinking about last week’s conversations at the inaugural window opening, I’m prompted to post a few excerpts from the introductory essay written for the monograph that catalogues Klett and Wolfe’s project, Reconstructing the View.  In the essay, exhibition curator Rebecca Senf thoughtfully picks apart both the process and content of the work (and the direct relationship between the two) and also incorporates comments from the artists themselves.

There can be a sort of immediate response to work that repurposes the types of images that are used within the Klett and Wolfe montage currently on display at window (click HERE to view), especially for those unfamiliar with the pair’s prior and/or related work.  Indeed, the first associations that come forth might lead one to quickly assume the purpose of the image (and of its construction) is simply to playfully juxtapose colorful “retro” style images to re-create a beautiful landscape.  These aesthetic qualities surely play a role in the construction of meaning, but only when the process of questioning begins can the viewer see underneath this surface and begin to engage with a secondary set of concerns.

Below I’ve included a few excerpts from Senf’s essay that I think may help illuminate the work more broadly, and perhaps provide a richer understanding of the image currently on view at window.

Excerpts from Reconstructing the View

“A key component of Klett and Wolfe’s rephotographic framework is its subversive intent:  rather than reflecting a nostalgic interest, the historic images allowed the artists to question assumptions about the past, and, in so doing, to challenge generally held perceptions about the present and the future.” (Senf 18)

“For Klett and Wolfe, there is an important connection between this subversive intent and the fun they have in their working process.  Klett has described the link:  “I want to point out that part of this fun is in being subversive, I think we view our practice as the opposite of retro – that is, we’re not interested in historic images for nostalgic reasons, but because we view our practice as calling into question assumptions and established views about he past.  Ultimately this practice can cause one to question views of past, present, and future.  It’s a very activist result from a seemingly passive methodology.  This is important because my experience has been that repeat photography is associated with interest in the past or physical change, but we’ve become much less interested in the subject of physical change than in affecting how we perceive the subject.  The work is an exercise in visualization and examining expectations, and when it challenges what we expect to to see, we get excited.”  (Senf 40).

“The ‘El Tovar and Yavapai Point Postcard Mashup,’ (2008), features a range of postcards, made at different times and printed in various media, that are brought together and enlarged to call attention to their method of reproduction.  The work combines nineteen postcards, or portions thereof, to create a completely new collage of the view stretching from El Tovar Hotel to Yavapai Point, on the canyon’s South Rim…In most cases, the photographers decided to print works that incorporate postcards at roughly their original size, to preserve the feeling of the postcard as a familiar physical object…With the El Tovar and Yavapai Point postcard mashup, however, a large scale was imperative, for the work is about the postcard’s visual syntax, its language of representation.  Wolfe pointed out the kitschy draw of the exaggerated, amplified colors typical of postcards created in the first half of the twentieth century.  (He clarified that he does not use the term “kitschy” to denigrate the postcards but rather to describe their lasting and powerful appeal as collectible objects).  Enlarging the final work renders visible the various dot patterns of the original postcards’ reproductive processes, and the extreme palettes of maroon, bright orange, icy blue, and lemon yellow compete for dominance.”  (Senf 29, 30).

Klett and Wolfe in the Window

Mark Klett and Byron Wolfe, Installation View
(Professional Image to Follow)

There are many ways to begin thinking about the Klett and Wolfe piece that is currently installed in/at window.  In listening to and taking part in some of the conversations at the opening, I noticed a good variety of responses and was pleased to note that some of the questions that came forth were not easy to answer.  This is fantastic, as the purpose of this project is to promote dialogue and exchange – specifically in relation to contemporary artworks that engage with issues of representation and reproducibility as essential to the content of the work.  A good starting point for a discussion of any of the works in the space might be to simply question how the work on view relates to the above, and then, begin to think about why the artists made the choices they did (in terms of subject matter, mode of representation, manipulation of materials, etc.). 

In relation to the Klett and Wolfe piece, I’d like to mention a few things that seemed to be important to viewers.  First and foremost was the re-appropriation of antique postcards, which also relates to issues of authorship and originality.  This also prompted some to consider the retro/nostalgic associations that are sometimes attached to this kind of imagery.  Lastly, the primary image is a composite/montage created by grouping and relating numerous secondary images together – this makes the image somewhat distinct from a more straightforward photographic representation that describes one moment, from one vantage point.  A quick and cursory view of this work may yield a very different interpretation than a more prolonged engagement.  As well, the piece is entirely decontextualized from the pair’s larger body of work (on view inside the shop in the form of the monograph, Reconstructing the View), and is also an excerpt from a much larger piece containing a panoramic view.    

This project is meant to serve as public art, and I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the varying sets of knowledge that each participant will bring to this exchange.  We may not all share an understanding of the larger traditions of art history or contemporary critical theory, but we do all play a role in determining the cultural value of works of art.  But to do so, we must allow ourselves to thoughtfully engage in a process of questioning – of our own instinctive responses to art, our prior conceptions – and to continually re-assess our points of view.

So, with that, whether or not we are accustomed to discussing artists that re-appropriate vernacular photographs/images by including them in whole or in part within their own work, do we carry strong opinions about this one way or the other?  If so, where do those opinions come from?  And what about how the postcards are used in this work?  Is there a hierarchy at play within our minds that suggests a fabricated view is less significant than the depiction of a singular, straightforward representation? 

These are just a few initial little question/thoughts.  As always, please feel free to chime in via an authored or anonymous comment, or by starting a new thread by writing your own separate blog post (send those to dawnroe@gmail.com).

Mark Klett and Byron Wolfe - Inaugural Exhibition

The first paragraph of this post details the purpose of this blog and is re-posted for reference and clarity.

This project was born out of a certain amount of frustration with the false dichotomies imposed, at times, by current dialogue around contemporary modes of representation – primary among these modes are, of course, photo based practices.   The tenor of these discussions troubles me, as I’ve noted (what I feel) are unnecessarily defensive responses to inquiries related to process and material, the status of the object, issues of originality or authenticity, etc.  Rather than forming essentialist categories for analog or digital, or creating distinctions between “straight”, found or fabricated imagery, why not consider the very nature of representation and reproduction in an ontological manner that allows for a fluid consideration between these seemingly opposing areas?  Window aims to serve as a site for such discussion.

Mark Klett and Byron Wolfe, Reconstructing the view from the El Tovar to Yavapai Point using nineteen postcards, 2008

The inaugural exhibition will be installed on March 1, 2013 and features the collaborative work of Mark Klett and Byron Wolfe.  The installation will include a modified version of their image, Reconstructing the view from the El Tovar to Yavapai Point using nineteen postcards, from 2008.  This work is included in the monograph that catalogs the results of their collaborative project, Reconstructing the View, which began in 2007 and continued through 2011.  The book is available directly from UC Press (direct link here) as well as fine book sellers such as PhotoEye (direct link here).  You can find out more about the works within this project by visiting their site, HERE, or by reading the press release on the window site, HERE.

This month, I’m asking for contributions in the form of direct responses to the work (in whole or in part), considerations of how the work is transformed in its various iterations (from the page of the book, to the gallery wall, to the modified version in the window space – installation views coming soon), personal responses related to the subject matter and its mode(s) of representation, short essays framing this project within the history of photography, etc. 

As this is an experimental venture, these responses can take various forms.  Texts can be directly entered as comments to this blog post, where further discussion can ensue.  Or, authors may send pieces directly to dawnroe@gmail.com and formed into a separate post, where a new thread of comments can occur.  All writers will be given full credit for any separate posts, but the option to remain anonymous remains as well.

Please feel free to forward this along, and join in the discussion at any time!

The Purpose of This Blog

This project was born out of a certain amount of frustration with the false dichotomies imposed, at times, by current dialogue around contemporary modes of representation – primary among these modes are, of course, photo based practices.   The tenor of these discussions troubles me, as I’ve noted (what I feel) are unnecessarily defensive responses to inquiries related to process and material, the status of the object, issues of originality or authenticity, etc.  Rather than forming essentialist categories for analog or digital, or creating distinctions between “straight”, found or fabricated imagery, why not consider the very nature of representation and reproduction in an ontological manner that allows for a fluid consideration between these seemingly opposing areas?  Window aims to serve as a site for such discussion.