It in an intriguing thought that context could play such a role in the public eye. That the same photographs that appeared widely in advertisements could be more recognizable when Richard Price re-photographed and exhibited them, is something I had never really thought about. there are, of course, advertising campaigns that have stuck in my mind before. But, at the same time, I could not name any of their photographers.
It makes sense that the photographs would make more of an impact as photos within the context of the institution, because of the inherent nature of the language of advertising. Not only does Price's work call into attention the formal qualities of the work itself, but it illuminates the role of the gallery space as a different realm for thought than mass media. However, art photographs have been distributed through mass media with publications, so who is to say which photos are art and which ones are not? Maybe it is the fact that ads have price points and descriptions that cater to the good they are attempting to sell that de-emphasizes the photograph itself?
Either way, and whether or not Price intended for the exhibition to be a somewhat sarcastic comment on the nature of mass media, I cannot help but think that I would be upset if I had taken one of the photographs initially. But since I did not take one of the photos, I think the omission of the original artists names is an interesting comment on the act of re-photographing as an original piece of art. I mean, how many times have people re-photographed certain tourist locations that have been made famous by photographs? If they exhibited them themselves, how would that function?
Haley Taylor
No comments:
Post a Comment