{"id":10954,"date":"2012-01-25T23:40:47","date_gmt":"2012-01-26T04:40:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/?p=10954"},"modified":"2021-09-10T20:01:12","modified_gmt":"2021-09-11T00:01:12","slug":"guest-post-9a-ken-schles-on-infinite-stupidity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/2012\/01\/25\/guest-post-9a-ken-schles-on-infinite-stupidity\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest Post 9(a): Ken Schles on “Infinite Stupidity”"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Editor’s Note: I started off the new year here at <\/em>Photocritic International with\u00a0a series of posts<\/a> describing and commenting on my disappointing December 2011 experiences in four online forums.\u00a0Two of these forums involved discussions of my November 2011 London lecture, \u201cDinosaur Bones: The End (and Ends) of Photo Criticism.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0One of those forums, restricted to just ten registrants, took that lecture as it premise; in the other, a thread in a 3000-member forum developed as a result of the posting of a link to my text by photographer and writer Ken Schles. I always welcome links to my text, and I hold Ken blameless for what ensued at that forum. Subsequently he emailed me some thoughts about that, so salient that I invited him to convert them to this two-part Guest Post<\/em>.\u00a0\u2014 A. D. C.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

\"Photo<\/a>

Photo of Ken Schles by Siese Veenstra<\/p><\/div>\n

I’m going to out myself here. I was the person who originally posted the link to the text of A. D. Coleman’s \u201cDinosaur Bones\u201d<\/a> talk in that online photography forum. Allan has chosen, in recent posts about his forum experiences<\/a>, to stridently go after the infinite stupidity that the Internet engenders and elevates in online discussion groups. His stridency may come off as distasteful to some, but fellow New Yorkers will remember the story of Kitty Genovese<\/a>. Allan refuses to stay silent while he witnesses a murder. He won\u2019t go quietly into the night in the face of what he sees as the dying of the light. Both the follow-up on this blog<\/a> and the coinciding and ensuing kerfuffle in the online forum only further proves points made in his Hotshoe Gallery lecture. The rapid decline of the forum discussion was not a foregone conclusion, as some suggest. But given the nature of the subject presented, why would Allan not go down the rabbit hole<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Posting the link to his \u201cBones\u201d talk was my attempt to get a conversation going around what, to me, has become increasingly obvious and problematic in our field and that Allan\u2019s talk originally so cogently pointed to: there is dwindling public space for a serious critical conversation about photography. This corresponds to what Coleman observes as a marginalization of the practice of art photography seen in the larger public sphere. And both of these events are symptomatic of, and portend, a diminished public acceptance of art photography to engender a meaningful and cogent public discussion. Nothing I\u2019ve read in any of these discussions, here or anywhere else, changes the truth of those difficult estimations. Recent musings, in regard to the insular quality of the photobook market for instance, tend to confirm his conclusions (see here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"forum_image_keyboard_keys\"<\/a>Our infinite stupidities are a truth we are left to contend with. It clouds public discourse. We\u2019re in these Internet trenches together of our own choosing: decontextualized in every possible way without hierarchies or common appreciation for history or a common base of knowledge, with the barest of protocol to guide us. We are removed from a larger established mediated public space that contains stringent hierarchies for inclusion and participation, and we find ourselves huddled in caves<\/a> together with ignorance and amnesia.<\/p>\n

Some of us embrace this realm exactly for its possibilities, because it contains connectivity to peers and \u201centhusiasts\u201d who reference work that the physical world cannot provide (or has never easily provided) because (1) of inefficiencies of distance and time, or (2) because of inefficiencies of our market system (which primarily uses desire and scarcity\/exclusivity to elevate value in lieu of a yet to be invented viable and wholly rational system), and (3) the limited ability of institutions to react and critically respond swiftly to contemporary practice. The challenging environment for critics to have their ideas shared widely (and compensated for equitably) is directly connected to #2, as the traditional marketplace is quick to jettison the work of critics when a critical voice no longer serves their interests (either by selling the media the critical writing is connected with or to generate ad sales within the community the critic writes about).<\/p>\n

\"Ken<\/a>

Ken Schles, “The Geometry of Innocence,” 2001.<\/p><\/div>\n

Exacerbated by the disruptive technology the Internet represents economically, these failures aren\u2019t confined to photography criticism or the art world\u00a0\u2014\u00a0these failures are symptomatic of a more general set of structural failures centered on societal participation, equity, power sharing and enfranchisement. The real world, of late, as a place for entry<\/a> and participation, has turned out to contain so many false<\/a> promises<\/a>. Some of which can be linked to two tangentially entwined facts: (a) we\u2019re in the midst of a depression, and (b) there\u2019s been proliferation of technology that plays upon social tendencies to gossip, spread rumor and want to be \u201cliked\u201d \u2014 in other words \u2014 technologies that profit because they play to our infinite stupidity while we amuse ourselves to death<\/a>. But it\u2019s not the technology that\u2019s the problem. Nor is the medium the message here.<\/p>\n

I had already been thinking about issues raised by Allan\u2019s \u201cBones\u201d talk. Early in November, around the same time that he gave his talk, I gave this talk at Light Work<\/a>, as part of the SPE “Joint Regional Conference on Photographers + Publishing,” where I touch upon some of the same topics. The loss of critical commentary has been brewing for years. And the loss of critical space, and the problem that it engenders, plagues me as I try to move forward with my work.<\/p>\n

\"Ken<\/a>

Ken Schles, “Oculus,” 2011.<\/p><\/div>\n

Oculus<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> my fourth photographic monograph, is a photographic project that talks about the meaning of images and how they operate in regards to memory. It takes a longer view of culture and looks at our use of a particular set of metaphors. It is not directed to the photographic community per se. On the contrary, I think it would speak clearly to a wide audience. In working with my publisher (Noorderlicht,<\/a> a non-profit photography foundation in The Netherlands), we were hard put to compile a very long list of publications or blogs across the globe that could consider my book seriously and in depth \u2014 and in general terms too \u2014 in terms that can be enjoyed and understood by a general public.<\/p>\n

This is utterly apparent: Most \u201cserious\u201d popular critical press on photography has disappeared, replaced by publications or blogs or other online venues that act more as echo chambers for artist statements and publisher\u2019s press releases, or that promote their own \u201ccauses\u201d or speak in clipped entries usually within a fairly limited number of parameters and mostly along traditional genres and practices. These discussions remain \u201cinsider\u201d discussions, and at worst tend to touch on subjects in superficial ways or remain half thought out thoughts \u2014 thoughts \u201cin process\u201d \u2014 \u00a0crowd-sourced ideas that rarely connect us to the larger community of humanity that lies outside the photographic world.<\/p>\n

\"Ken<\/a>

Ken Schles, “Invisible City,” 1988.<\/p><\/div>\n

The Internet has also degraded the content of what traditional media remains. Mainstream venues that once considered photography seriously will no longer do so, on the face of it. <\/em>My first book, Invisible City<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> was designated a New York Times<\/em> notable book when it first came out nearly twenty-four years ago. Over the last couple of years, the New York Times Book Review<\/em> instituted a policy that photography books would no longer be considered for such an honorific. They said too few photography books were really that good; they weren\u2019t important enough to be regularly included in their yearly considerations. This is quite an appraisal from the gray old lady who tries to be every publication to all people, all the time, online and off. Unfortunately, the legitimization of serious work for the general \u201cpopular\u201d market through venues like the New York Times<\/em> is still considered tantamount to existing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Contemporary photography has already become marginalized in just this way, rarely seriously reviewed in the Times<\/em> or other mainstream press (there are notable exceptions, of course: four that come to mind are Freddie Langer, who writes for FAZ<\/a><\/em> out of Frankfurt; Sean O\u2019Hagan, who writes for the Guardian<\/a><\/em> in London; R\u00e9mi Coignet at Le Monde<\/a><\/em> in France; and the entries that Vince Aletti contributes to The New Yorker<\/a><\/em>). Coleman in his \u201cBones\u201d talk covers tremendous ground and in a lot more depth and detail than I need go here. Suffice to say, lack of critical context is in the air and on many people\u2019s minds within the community. In response, the Fotomuseum Winterthur just launched the blog Still Searching<\/a>\u00a0on January 15. Aperture recently debuted The Photobook Review<\/a> at Paris Photo in an attempt to also try and fill this certain void, even if, without wide distribution, it is certain to stay circulated within a select crowd, although I hope this not to be the case.<\/p>\n

\"Ken<\/a>

Ken Schles, “A New History of Photography,” 2008.<\/p><\/div>\n

Some would argue that the loss of the printed critical word has been more than adequately supplanted by the Internet, and, therefore, there is less a need for the popular press to provide coverage\u00a0\u2014 that the Internet constitutes a diverse and vibrant international \u201ccommunity\u201d that freely disseminates ideas while acting as an echo chamber for current practice. True enough, barriers of distance and even time have been removed and word can travel around the globe at the speed of light; hierarchies of entry have been eliminated and the \u201cplaying field\u201d has been leveled so that we all can give voice and play a critical role in a critical discussion within the critical field. Neglected works can be \u201cnewly\u201d discovered and revisited readily and by a larger audience.<\/p>\n

But other problems arise that restrict those possibilities, and in many ways the potential good is negated by actualities that arise specifically because of those possibilities. Guy Debord (with a tweak or two) nailed it: \u201cWhat brings together men liberated from their local and national boundaries [read also in this case \u201cby technology\u201d] is also what pulls them apart. What requires a more profound rationality is also what nourishes the irrationality of hierarchic exploitation and repression [and now with the Internet our repression and exploitation need not be so \u201chierarchic.\u201d Facebook and Google will happily let us do that to ourselves]. What creates the abstract power of society creates its concrete unfreedom.\u201d \u201cConcrete unfreedom\u201d being the operative motif.<\/p>\n

The Internet in many ways and on many levels promises freedom when, in fact, it can deliver quite the opposite. Its multitudinous and disparate voices can give us all ADD. Walls around institutions have become nearly impenetrable, if only for the sake of the sanity of those within. Discussions remain fragmented and remain, not for lack of intent or purpose, within closed communities. Conversation is encouraged and simultaneously (intentionally and unintentionally) degraded and elevated via the form of its dispersion and by the practice of its participants.<\/p>\n

(Part 1 I 2<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

\"Photo<\/a>

Photo of Ken Schles by Siese Veenstra<\/p><\/div>\n

Some things about Ken Schles can be read here<\/a>. Here is link to his website<\/a> and his books<\/a>. Ken Schles photographs. He may talk and write about that experience as well. His books are considered \u201cintellectual milestones in photography\u201d (S\u00fcddeutsche Zeitung<\/em>). His most recent book, Oculus,<\/em> just selected as a \u201cbest\u201d photobook of 2011 by Photo-eye: \u201cOculus<\/em> is an unusual and uniquely important book\u2026 Equal parts philosophical treatise and artist book, Oculus<\/em> asks profound questions about how we find meaning in the world and how images give shape to memory and our lives. Viewers willing to spend time with this powerful work will be greatly rewarded.” (Adam Bell) His previous book, A New History of Photography,<\/em> was a finalist for the 2009 Rencontres d\u2019Arles Photographie Contemporary Book Award. Vince Aletti in the New Yorker<\/em> called Invisible City,<\/em> \u201chellishly brilliant.\u201d Invisible City<\/em> was also included in the Museum of Modern Art\u2019s “More Than One Photography” exhibition and listed in M+M Auer\u2019s survey of photographic books.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Internet in many ways and on many levels promises freedom when, in fact, it can deliver quite the opposite. Its multitudinous and disparate voices can give us all ADD. Walls around institutions have become nearly impenetrable, if only for the sake of the sanity of those within. Discussions remain fragmented and remain, not for lack of intent or purpose, within closed communities. Conversation is encouraged and simultaneously (intentionally and unintentionally) degraded and elevated via the form of its dispersion and by the practice of its participants. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6,12],"tags":[275,384],"class_list":["post-10954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digital-life","category-guest-post","tag-ken-schles","tag-online-forums","odd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10954","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}