I suppose this represents my own personal validation of chaos theory: A critic flapping his lips in New York City circa 1970 can affect a research project across the ocean 50-odd years later. […]
|
|
Willingly or no, whether or not they consider themselves “photographers” or “artists” or whatever, these individuals and many others are exploring the same field of ideas. That field of ideas is built into and springs from the medium of photography itself; it has a history and tradition of its own which is operative on many levels of our culture. […] The substantial distinction, then, is between treating the external world as a given, to be altered only through photographic means (point of view, framing, printing, etc.) en route to the final image, or rather as raw material, to be itself manipulated as much as desired prior to the exposure of the negative. … […] Carl Chiarenza’s images, though nominally two-dimensional, suggest other things, sometimes beings but more often scapes — deep, complex, convoluted spaces through which the viewer’s eye seeks to wander, drawn almost irresistibly into the intricate folds of this purely illusory terrain. […] Something about the mythologized Capa induces normally sensible people to stop using their eyes to actually see what’s in his pictures and describe that straightforwardly. Instead, they see the myth, press the hyperbole button, and away we go. […] |
 SPJ Research Award 2014 |