Reinventing the Wheel
“Untitled”, Nikon D300, Location: St. Louis, Missouri
This post parallels Toni’s recent one. The idea that photography owes itself exclusively to the reproduction of recognizable places, peoples and things is one the has consistently been argued for or against since the media’s inception. The unique thing about photography that causes this inherent dichotomy is its two functions; utilitarian and intellectual. For instance, a photograph of a single-celled organism can either function as scientific fact or esoteric fantasy; one being the representation of a thing that we can not see with our own eyes for the benefit of our understanding, and one being the recognition and appreciation of a design that we are not ordinarily familiar with. Which is real? Anne Hoy wrote, “The photograph has an indexical relation to its subject: it is chemical proof of the presence of its subject in past time under light, a trace of existence like a thumbprint or DNA evidence.” Today however, the opportunity to alter what was real is greater than ever with the widespread use of digital photography editing software. No doubt a plethora of altered truths exist as accepted truths; bended realities that thereby bend the rules of life that we live by. Who hasn’t pictured themselves as though they were in a movie, and then sought out to make some version of that fictional version of themselves real?
In any case, this photograph was taken while my brother and I were walking along railroad tracks, south of St. Louis, at Cliff Cave Park, along the Mississippi River. At this point along the tracks, there is a spot below a cliff face, a hundred or so feet high, that collects the junk that people throw off the precipice high above. As those articles of detritus are heaved over the side of the cliff, their reality is altered, and they lose what they were, and become first missiles for a moment and then a fractured design on the ground below. Something appreciated from above. My photograph took into consideration the new purpose of the wheel as part of a composition with the sticks around it. Like the single-celled organism, it is a wheel and a found object artwork as well, and only the viewer can tell the difference.
Best-
Jason
December 13, 2008 at 12:31 am
The obvious association to make here is DuChamp’s readymade “The Bicycle Wheel.” Not only is the subject similar, but part of the reasoning behind the readymades was what you describe. By taking the wheel out of its place of function on a bike and putting it in a place of art, he was turning it into an aesthetic object.
The difference between the two is that Duchamp was the hand making the transition, whereas you waited until the object came to you, more or less, in nature. The hand moving it from the realm of the useful to the realm of the other was the litterbug who tossed the damn thing in the first place.
So then the obvious question is, like the proverbial tree falling alone, if a bicycle wheel sits alone in the forest with no one to observe it, is it art? Or does it take a passing human to contextualize it? Or does it need to be photographed by a human with intent before it becomes an objet d’arte?
December 14, 2008 at 12:16 am
Art may or may not exist without the manipulatuion and interpretation of objects, ideas and materials; this might be an example of that idea.