• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Performative Photography? Is all photography that's not documentary, performative?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Performative is not a word made up by the champagne-drinking folk at some cocktail party for some flash-in-the-pan sensation by a well-healed Los Angeles art gallery with caviar served on silver trays by Peterosian! But it does signify work in which the acts of creation and technique are as much part of the celebration and oration of the work as what we can appreciate with our vision, alone.


per·for·ma·tive [per-fawr-muh-tiv]

adjective Philosophy, Linguistics

(of an expression or statement) performing an act by the very fact of being uttered, as with the expression “I promise,” that performs the act of promising.

noun

a performative utterance. Compare constative.

Origin: 1950–55; perform + -ative


So when did you first find this word? It's used in our discussion of Gillian Wearing. Who else's photography is performative? We don't see it in Edward Weston's shells, even though the balancing of the shells was painstakingly achieved with no less effort than the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceilings!


hint3.jpg


Edward Weston: Shell, 1927 IS

Silver Gelatin Photograph

"The hour is late, the light is failing, I
could not expose another film. So there
stands my camera focused, trained like
a gun, commanding the shells not to
move a hair's breath. And death to anyone
who jars out of place what I know shall be
a very important negative."

Edward Weston - The Daybooks


The beauty of Weston's compositions and mastery of the photographic medium dismiss even the slightest notion of what went into the print. Actually, there's more performance built into every aspect of this simple photograph that almost any other photographer, one can name. Weston spent weeks, consumed all day, balancing shells. He terrorized his family with insistence that everyone creep around less his compositions shift as he waited for the right window light! But all that is ante image-making. The performance nature of the image is utterly imperceptible. We experience just joy and awe in the finely crafted silver gelatin print! So can I say of Weston's work, it's not observable as performative, just superb! Perhaps technically brilliant photography cannot be "performative", but no doubt someone can find examples to the contrary!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So "Performative" is an academic or snobby term?

You suspect it might be one of those epithets used by the self-consumed "Artsy-Fartsy", clinking champagne, at some charity event? Well not so fast! it's just a term covering a major quality of photography. Possessing it or not can define the character of a picture!

So let's try out the term "Performative"! I promise you it is useful practically in understanding and distinguishing what goes into different photographer's pictures. Look at the work of the Norwegian master, Pentti Samalldahti! Do you find any evidence of the photographer or the subject posing, acting, staying still or materializing some effect to make the picture what it is?

So, how does that impress you, each picture a magic window to what humans do and how the world is when it's perfect?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So what do "Performative" works accomplish?

Let's start with the portraits in post # 5 by OPF "Photographer of the Week" Catherine Opie.


at130228bb.jpg


Catherine Opie:Lawrence (Black Shirt)
Pigment Print, 2012
33 x 25 inches (83.8 x 63.5 cm)
Edition 2/5, + 2 APs


Her subjects are keeping a pose but without any force, strain or unnaturalness, so perfect that we can feel that there's a bond between each subject and the photographer. They seem to have been frozen in time with all their beauty and held there by some resonance and bond between the artist and their souls. So in this case, the performative aspect of the work is quiet, but powerful, giving us much more than just an accurate portrait. It also moves us to a more spiritual appreciation the the subject and by reference, the photographer as well. By the body of such intimate images, we get a sense of community.

By contrast, in the work of Gillian Wearer, artifacts and masks divert us from thinking of any bonding between photographer and subject.

P78348_10.jpg


Gillian Wearing: I'm Desperate
“From Signs that Say What You Want Them To Say and
Not Signs that Say What Someone Else Wants You To Say”

For her biography, read this.

We become riveted to the mechanism of the formation of the image, as if we are seeing someone's pacemaker or hip prosthesis through their clothes; we know far more about them than we should! So with Gillian's work, perhaps we're prompted to look at "artificiality" on our lives: the artifacts and fabric of culture that keep us "fitting in" or being an "outsider" in our world. In fact, because of her works confrontational performative character, of such power, Gillian gets away with pretty mediocre photographic compositions and and hardly masterful quality of the imagery in terms of the lesser expectations or need for competent and craftsmanship. So compared to the craftwork of any of the Weston family, Catherine Opie or another master of the craft, Gillman cannot compete. but her ideas and execution are sufficient to propel her work to elite status in photographic expression of ideas in her own head as opposed to merely working with what beauty or interesting exists to excite our minds.

So performance, so obvious in one artists work, can be almost imperceptible, represented merely by an attitude, in another artists photography. But without the kind of performance going on, their work would be each, unrecognizable!

Asher
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Without Champagne

Asher,

trying to see it from a another point of view - my point of view and I pretend to be sober here.

For me we are dealing here with photos that have been staged or not.

The Finnish photographer Pentti Sammallahti, observes and captures - he does not stage his photos. His photos are the result if his way to see the world without arranging it to suit his intentions.

I am less a fan of big words and I think that staged fits quite well - whether there is a special relationship between the portrayed person and the photographer or not or if it was a pain to set up the still life or not is up to the discretion of the photographer.

If the process becomes part of the presentation or better if the photographer makes it part of his/her work, there is another, less positive term that comes to my mind, first coined in the field of journalism. For me this term does not apply to Catherine Opie - she is merely using the close relationship to help the portrayed look natural.

If the making of the photo was (at least close to) an art performance on its own, I would apply this word. One work which comes to my mind is Dali Atomicus by Philippe Halsman, another one would be the portrait of Pablo Picasso by Gjon Mili mentioned here.

This may sound a little harsh, but - and this is my personal view - the place of a photographer is behind the camera, in every aspect this implies.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Great points! I enjoy being corrected. Well, lets call it adjusted, LOL! Sharing your knowledge and the way you look at pictures is helpful. I like the term "staged" but it's not yet the same as performative. Staged is a more useful term in more pictures as we can, as you point out, declare whether a picture is staged or not.
.........

If the process becomes part of the presentation or better if the photographer makes it part of his/her work, there is another, less positive term that comes to my mind, first coined in the field of journalism. For me this term does not apply to Catherine Opie - she is merely using the close relationship to help the portrayed look natural.

I had not heard the term Gonzo, but I like it! Need to think about it and see how it has been used.

Natural is Sammallahti in all his work I've seen. So we we agree! There's no sense or indication of any control he has inserted over his subjects beyond walking to the right spot at the right time! Opie's work, by contrast, although on the path to "natural", still has smouldering embers of her control giving away her "presence" at the scene. One cannot escape that. So what can we call this? Staged is too harsh and natural is not really applicable, however great her instructions have been!

If the making of the photo was (at least close to) an art performance on its own, I would apply this word. One work which comes to my mind is Dali Atomicus by Philippe Halsman, another one would be the portrait of Pablo Picasso by Gjon Mili mentioned here.

For sure, these are the very best examples one could give, clearly performance art that was photographed. But the photograph is just a picture of what was happening, not the perfomance. These pictures are not performative but Opie's work is exactly that! Her intervention continues as long as we look at the picture. By contrast, in the photograph of Dali, the photographer's presence is not felt. It's just documentary of what happened. We can't say it was "staged" because what we see is obviously a performance, not creating a scene that appears natural when it's fabricated.

If someone recreated Sammallahti's scenes in the snow on a set, then that would be staged, even if it looked identical to the original image. It would appear natural but the picture would record a scene which would likely be accepted by the observer as "natural" but that would be a deception, even a willing deception, but once photographed, the presence of the photographer would be absent, just as in the genuine Sammallahti photographs!

By performative. in Catherine Opie's portraits, we merely a recognizing that we do indeed get the sense of the photographer still doing things while we look at the picture and that gives it a sense of she's inserted herself into the image. It's not strongly performative in a confrontational way as the work by Wearer, but nevertheless, we can't escape recognizing that she's still breathing behind the camera. With natural imagery, the photographer must not breathe, leaves no footprints in the snow and is nowhere in the image!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So, dealing with the photographers relationship to the subject and whether or not it's natural or some aspect of "the truth", we can say that a picture is natural when all the photographer has done is sampled the light reflected from the subject.

If the photographer makes a scene of folk kissing, even though the behavior is made to look natural, it is not. It's called staged. I do a lot of work with actors and I maker it appear that the activity is natural, but it's my creation, as I don't want to spend years trying to find exactly the action I can imagine.

But in both cases, natural or staged, what's happening can be recorded, without the presence of the photographer being engraved into the picture. So then, there's no performative quality of photograph.

By contrast, when the photographer obviously has the subject hold a mask in front of her face or a sign for help in front of their coat, the photographer is using the photograph as a broadcasting apparatus for their own ego. Then it may be no longer about the photograph's quality, but rather the social message it carries, that counts. I'd like to know the terms that cover that! Perhaps Gonzo, or maybe there's a more specific and simple term for this aspect of artsy photography that has propelled more than a few modern photographers to fame and fortune, sometimes without any accompanying evidence of the actual craft of the medium.

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I didn't want to leave you out in the cold talking to yourself, Asher, so I'll jump in.
My first question is: does it matter? As most of us are surface observers, ie, just look at the ink on the paper so to speak, we don't concern ourselves so much with what went before.
If that was the case we might consider an ad for Berlie bras on a billboard a performative photograph and get carried away with the moments before where the photographer was juggling cup sizes to get the impact needed.
You might have been right in the first instance when you alluded to the arty farty set considering this an important issue while sipping the chard.
Then we also might consider the act of performance while we wait for something to happen in the local mall while poised with our trusty Leica or cheaper look-alike, mine being the latter since there is no presence for my performance.
Then we might consider that, in spite of the preparedness of the photographer to capture the moment, the very presence of preparedness is an act of doing and may instill a sense of performative action.
Someone says, look at that, a photo is taken and the photographer verbalizes I have taken the photo might indicate a recording of the truth to some, like making a promise. Yet the promise may not be carried out nor the photo offer us the truth. The act of verbalising doesn't always commit the act to completion. The act of photographing does but may not give us the result we desire or expect for others.
I must admit I'm sitting up in bed writing this and its just spewing out so if it sounds like bullshit, I just haven't had my Chardoney tonight.
Enjoy your Sunday.
Tom
 

Chris Calohan

Well-known member
Ditto, and I don't drink the crap. Too much strained peas philosophy goes into what makes a photograph good without the least consideration as to whether it makes you smile, or leaves you cold.

I have a lot of signed lith and etching editions from a number of well known, dare I say, famous artists of the 20th century and a few before that...they are worth a lot of money but I never bought them to hang on the wall, only as a future nest egg. I know this makes me an art whore, but I was in the position of buying cheap and selling high and since Mrs. Calohan raised no stupid children, I took advantage of my fortuitous position as a sales rep for Marston Galleries.

Now, I could talk all day long about the depth of the etch, the quality of the aquatint, the litheness of the silverpoint, the depth of a chine colle, yadda-yadda-yadda and I have to tell you, it was a rare moment when I heard two critics say the same thing about a piece and even rarer when I heard them agree on any aspect of a work and rare upon rarer when I heard anyone say..."damn, that makes me smile."

Most people, whether astute critics, or nose up hoity-toities can quote almost any aspect of a piece, including what was going through the now dead artist's mind when he made the piece. But, what does that really mean? Really; and, far more importantly who really gives two hoots and a holler. The question in the end still comes down to; "does it make you smile."

Yes, I have artists (photographers) who have strongly influenced my work, who I keep their teachings close to me when composing an image and sometimes it's even deliberate - big smile there - but to say it permeates my everyday thinking...meh, rarely and doubtful. I am sure there are some folks out there who are turning in their premade graves as they read this, but I can't let all the outside forces in the world direct my eye. That, boys and girls has to come from within and if by some strange chance it moves someone the way it moved me to make the shot..whoohoo, another smile. If it doesn't, hey, you can't please everyone.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I didn't want to leave you out in the cold talking to yourself, Asher, so I'll jump in.

Where have you been! Couldn't be that you'd give me a pass on my obsessions! .......I thought of you lost in the desert, ute out of gas!

My first question is: does it matter? As most of us are surface observers, ie, just look at the ink on the paper so to speak, we don't concern ourselves so much with what went before.
.

Simply this. I buy pictures I want to look at every day on my walls as I walk down to get my PG Tips British tea, 8 times a day! I'm perplexed at the logic behind photography that's kitschy and worse, has little accomplished technical skill behind it, becoming so sought after and admired in the greatest galleries on the planet. Being rational, I look for commonalities and try to fathom what's going on. Some insight: in Jewish homes for millennia, Passover is celebrated, remembering our rank as slaves and giving us some reflection as to how we treat each other and what's around us; Another expression of "Love your neighbor as yourself!" Well, each night, for two nights, the youngest child asks 4 questions. Often the child is just an infant and this is one of the first songs. "Why is this night different from all other nights.....?" That question was used with benefit in every other discipline our ancestors entered. In England, when I learned medicine, I used Pappenheimer's text book and he instructed everyone to become familiar with that form of querying. It helped my define everything I learned, so as to make a diagnosis without mistakes. So the gonococcus was a gram-negative intracellular diplococcus which fermented glucose and galactose. That was different from all other bugs we had to worry about at that time!

So I use this established form of questioning in my new passion, art, to discern how different photographs might be distinguished functionally. I wish to discover some of what the artist used to fashion their own unique impression on us. So I pose the question,

"In what way is this photograph different from other photographs?"

After all, there's limited wall space and I'd like to know, (beyond "access" to galleries), why museums celebrate certain photographers as stars, especially when they appear to have missed basic classes in form, technique and craft.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Then we might consider that, in spite of the preparedness of the photographer to capture the moment, the very presence of preparedness is an act of doing and may instill a sense of performative action.
Someone says, look at that, a photo is taken and the photographer verbalizes I have taken the photo might indicate a recording of the truth to some, like making a promise. Yet the promise may not be carried out nor the photo offer us the truth. The act of verbalising doesn't always commit the act to completion. The act of photographing does but may not give us the result we desire or expect for others.

Tom, in looking at the photograph, I want to know what tricks are used to capture my attention and have the effect of making me linger and then want to revisit again and again.

With some photographers, their mastery is so complete that there's nothing between us and the magnetic scene they show. In other cases we have to tolerate the artist putting their own presence in the picture as if they have some calling to invade our spaces with party tricks or their nightmares. Starting off with the former as "the best in photography", I have yet to understand how that can be so readily displaced by the latter! I'm certain there's some logic to it and that photography of beauty or drama, alone, cannot be the boundaries of great photography.

Certainly, I learned this week that the feeling of the artists breath behind the camera, as in the perfectly drawn portraits by Catherine Opie, adds weight to her pictures' "gestalt" and ambience and their effect on me.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
........

I have a lot of signed lith and etching editions from a number of well known, dare I say, famous artists of the 20th century and a few before that...they are worth a lot of money but I never bought them to hang on the wall, only as a future nest egg. I know this makes me an art whore, but I was in the position of buying cheap and selling high and since Mrs. Calohan raised no stupid children, I took advantage of my fortuitous position as a sales rep for Marston Galleries.

but how on earth did you choose what to collect? Did you get any of Ms Callohan's work too? I'd like to know why!!:)

I buy what I enjoy!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
How interesting, this conversation.
Asher, you and Christine would get on famously. She's an inquirer as well. No action can run to completion without her questioning "why?". This is, of course some concern to me, as you could well imagine. More than often I will act and then consider if that was a wise move. The advantage of having both approaches in the same house is that my mistakes are clearly pointed out to me and Christine makes all the important decisions. So far I have no complaints. We bought our house on the premise that we could make a dollar. Christine is somewhat of a slum lord here in Darwin. Time has provided us with the opportunity to enjoy it and to make a home of it.
As for art work, the old adage 'I know what I like' still rings true but, as with the house, I'm happy to let some of the more idiosyncratic works to grow on me. That usually results in some understanding of 'why'. That doesn't mean I would 'live in it'. It just means I understand the artists intention. I don't even have to agree with the success of the intention or the artist's methods. With Wearings stuff, for example, I really don't think she is a good photographer, quite the opposite. I do understand the concept but I don't think she applied a great deal of imagination to record her efforts. I could suggest it would be like the architect who designed my house building it himself; literally. Good idea; lousy implimentation.
Would I buy it? Nope! Not even for an investment. Why not? Experience tells me that such gimmicky stuff looses its impact after people get over the initial hype and come to their senses.
As for bad ideas implemented well, they also fall foul of logical thought. I am living proof of that. Christine's logic is clear on that.
 

Chris Calohan

Well-known member
How did I choose...most bang for the buck. It wasn't that I didn't like the works I bought. For the most part, I loved them all except the picasso which I bought on a whim. glad I did now.

There are some pieces which have skyrocketed in price and now I am not so sure I want to part with them. Several of my Leonard Baskins fall in that category. The things I've been off-loading over the last couple of years are my (first restrike editions) by Goya, Monet, Goya, and Renoir but as well, I have two off the original plates, both plate signed by Renoir that are keepers. I bought the restrikes at 12, 24 and 18 dollars each. Several of these have sold recently on eBay for upward of $800.

The higher priced stuff, Modigilani, Picasso, Chagall, Miro's and then some, I will play by ear. As soon as the market perks back up, I have an original of Hokusai's "The Great Wave off Kanagawa," which will soon go on the block at Christies.
And just for relevant information, everything is in a safety deposit box. Like I said, my mama raise no stupid kids.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
How did I choose...most bang for the buck. It wasn't that I didn't like the works I bought. For the most part, I loved them all except the picasso which I bought on a whim. glad I did now.[/url]

Well that and you do know the artists work and value. Obviously you do not need to every use the terms performative, realistic or staged or natural ever again in your lifetime, LOL!!!


The higher priced stuff, Modigilani, Picasso, Chagall, Miro's and then some, I will play by ear. As soon as the market perks back up, I have an original of Hokusai's "The Great Wave off Kanagawa," which will soon go on the block at Christies.
And just for relevant information, everything is in a safety deposit box. Like I said, my mama raise no stupid kids.


Glad everything is in safely put away. Add sheets of copper to take up and hydrogen sulfide. That Hokusai could be worth some $65,000. I hadn't realized just how smart and ahead of the curve folk here are! You should have been my coach, LOL!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
If you can't do it yourself, marry someone who knows how. It took me ages to find a woman who had no scruples when it comes to investments. Why, she even suggested I pay rent when I first moved in with her. I told her it was either that or fringe benefits. She took the benefits. Now I cook and clean for my keep.
My mother certainly raised one stupid son.
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
By performative. in Catherine Opie's portraits, we merely a recognizing that we do indeed get the sense of the photographer still doing things while we look at the picture and that gives it a sense of she's inserted herself into the image. It's not strongly performative in a confrontational way as the work by Wearer, but nevertheless, we can't escape recognizing that she's still breathing behind the camera.
Well - this is an impression of yours I do not share. For me what you call performative can ve attributed to Yousuf Karsh's famous portrait of Winston Churchill, because he removed his cigar right before the shot strongly contributing to his facial expression.

A simple wish: Could we start with simple language before making things complicated?

On self-praise I am with Pindar.

Best regards,
Michael
 
Top