East-West Film Journal. - book reviews

In our ongoing effort to retain our ear to the sod of arts publishing trends Afterthoughts takes note of sum of two units recent developments; a birth and a death in the publications barnyard. The Friends of Photography (FOP not to be confused with the Quakers), have not long ago circulated a press release announcing the forthcoming premiere of diocese a quarterly journal of "visual culture" that "aspires to show photography to a broad cultural audience that finds photographs enigmatic and irresistible." At the helm of diocese (or maybe at the cornea) is Andy Grundberg, former of recent origin York Times photo critic, and rife FOP director. Andy will provide his "editorial stamp" and "set the tone of the journal's mission and vision.

Although it is difficult to infer true much about SEE until its premiere issue actually appears, the pres release itself makes for interesting reading, and can perhaps be seen as emblematic of the general state of what used to be known as the "art photography" world. upon the one hand SEE's interest in combining "photographs," "literature," "poetry" and "essays" into a single publication harkens back to the romanticist foundations of journals like Camerawork that sought to make photography guilty of art by means of association with works in other media (in fact SEE's pres release mentions Camerawork as a kind of prototype). At the same time, clearly cognizant of the prevailing winds of cultural and technological change, diocese is anxious to acknowledge the fact that photography is not simply an art form but also a part of everyday cultural life. Thus diocese will attempt to reach a "broad cultural audience" with "photographs, essays, fiction, verse and criticism that address our understanding of the visual world." And SEE's mission statement begins through pointing out that writing and articulate utterance have been "largely replaced" not just by the agency of photographs but by "visual idioms." diocese will seek to challenge the accepted fashions of photographic practice while presenting ideas and images that expand the boundaries,of the medium as it is conventionally understood."

In the midst of all this "challenging" and "expanding" of the "medium" certain questions arise. Is the readership for diocese a "broad cultural audience" or, as the pres release later states, "photo enthusiasts"? Is diocese interested in the enigmatic and irresistible, art photograph or the photograph as a social and political instrument, make submissive to substantive forms of critique and analysis? Well, the answer is the two SEE will have no single ideology, and instead will function as a "forum" for views that move swiftly the gamut from the "poststructuralist, to the personally expressive." What is interesting here is that camps that might have appear to beed irreconcilable five or 10 years ago are now seen as simply different points upon the larger compass of visual agriculture that is SEE's chosen domain.

This catholicism is in many ways admirable, on the other hand it also suggests a certain exhaustion in the established photo world as it tries to negotiate the gradual dissolution of the institutional consensus of art photography that was presided above by organizations such as International Center for Photography, the dandy and even our own Visual Studies Workshop during the 1970 and '80 While there were certainly disagreements about which figures were important and what kinds of work were greatest in quantity significant during this period it was at least the case that the various participants shared a general put of assumptions about the centrality of the photograph and of a certain form of "expressive" art photographic practice. It was a consensus that was level able to sustain the assault of anti-photography" photographers like Cindy Sherman or Richard Prince or Sherrie Levine, thus long as they continued to place images on gallery walls.

on the other hand "photography" in the '90s. as a confineed field of art making, not to mention as a form of "visual culture" is rapidly losing all coherence. This is owed to a combination of factors. First, the impact of the recession upon the art market, and the fact that no (economically) significant photo-based work has emerg to re-energize the market since the breakthrough of Cindy Sherman and others almost 15 years ago (certainly nothing that can be sold for the kinds of prices that Sherman's work commands). The next to the first factor is the rapid proliferation of computer-based imaging technologies. These technologies have begun to dominate photography departments across the political division An increasing number of the greatest in quantity engaged younger students are more interested in computer than cameras, and this is a proneness that seems likely to continue. However, computer "art" as of the like kind is far from emerging with any fixed identity, not to mention the amplitude to which "photography" per se will be of any relevance to it. And computer art certainly isn't going to provide works capable of replacing a $30000 Sherman mural print upon the art market anytime in the near future

In an attempt to re-cohere something like a "field" of photography diocese relies on the concept of a "visual culture" or a "visually-inscribed world." Although we are increasingly occupying a digital environment" diocese insists that photography remains an exemplary type for the critical analysis and understanding of visual culture" on the other hand in throwing its net thus widely SEE risks losing its editorial focus. diocese wants to expand the boundaries of the medium" on the contrary what is the "medium" of photography in the first place? If all of agriculture is "visual" then where does diocese draw the line, editorially? The answers to these questions must, of course, await the appearance of diocese itself. For more information upon SEE contact: Andy Grundberg, Director, The Friends of Photography, 250 4th St San Francisco, CA 94103