discussion – Artist Richard Custer's Blog

Stereotype is defined, in sociology, as “a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group.” (dictionary.com), and the act of stereotyping is to cast someone in a stereotype (same source). Since a stereotype is a simplified conception, it stands to reason that the sources of stereotypes are often themselves simplified (think of thuggish gangsta rappers or satanic black metal musicians). As a veteran of the US Air Force, I often stereotyped Marines as macho imbeciles who couldn’t think for themselves. The verb form of the word “judge” has many different nuanced meanings (dictionary.com), but the common thread is that judgement is, as an act that conclusive after evidence is brought forth and examined. After meeting some Marines at the DoD Weather School at Chanute AFB, I came to judge Marines, on the whole. as honorable and brave people who chose a different path of service to our country.

This verbose examination of the two words is important in understanding the series entitled “Judging America” from Joel Pares. Below is one of the images from the series:

from “Judging America” by Joel Pares

As the viewer can see, the image is a diptych of sorts. It is an animated .GIF file. The first image is a portrait set against a black background. In the example above, it is a white man wearing a tank top. He’s holding a noose in one hand and the flag of the Confederacy in the other. After about 10 seconds, the image morphs into a portrait of someone against a tan background with text at the bottom revealing the identity of the person in the portrait. It’s the same person, but now we see him wearing a casual outfit and carrying a Bible. His name is Jack Johnson, and he’s a full time Christian pastor and missionary.

There is no artist statement on the artist’s website, so all I have to go on regarding the concept of this project are words from a Petapixel.com article:

They say not judge a book by its cover, for photographer Joel Parés‘ series “Judging America,” that’s exactly what he wants you to do… at first. Presented as simple portrait GIFs, Parés wants you to start by judging the book — or in this case person — by his or her ethnicity, profession, or sexual orientation, and then, just as you’ve decided what it is you want to believe about the person you’re looking at, he reveals the reality.

There’s the setup of this project. Now let’s first dive in to the formal elements.

The presentation as animated .GIF files is a novel one for diptych images, and one I have never personally come across. Normally, a diptych is one image made up of two separate frames (think of my Armed and … series), but here we have one frame that contains two images that are presented serially. Obviously, this raises some financial challenges as presenting the project in way that has the intended impact would require some rather expensive computer equipment. The least expensive option would probably require a computer and a pico projector for each diptych. The color balance is consistent throughout, even if some of the digital processing is a bit heavy handed. In some of the images, the HDR-style processing was taken a little too far and gives some of the subjects an almost cartoonish look. In terms of composition, there is nothing really special going on in these images. The portraits themselves are rather conventional. I did, however, note that not all of the images were consistent with their use of the frame. As this is a digital project, this could be dismissed, but it could also pose problems later should Pares ever decide to present printed images.

Now that the formal elements are out of the way, it’s time to take a much more critical view of the images. Pares is presenting these diptychs as follows – the first image is that of a portrayed stereotype, while the second is the reality of that particular person. In each image, we are presented with someone from a different ethnic or cultural background, with one case being sexual orientation and yet another being an occupation. Pares wants us to judge the person, then find out how wrong we were in that judgement when the truth is revealed.

It’s all about the context. Pares removes any context external to the subject (namely, an environment) and, using the relative safety of the studio (where images are created from anything that can be imagined), adds his own context to the subject. In all of these images, we see a blatant projection of a stereotype of a particular subject – a Latino gardener, an Asian nail salon employee, a black thug, a Middle Eastern terrorist, et al. All of these negative images are created from, what I can only assume, is Pares’ imagination as there is no artist statement to explain the process by which he arrived at these stereotypes. In stripping the environment and adding his own context, one wonders if these are not a projection of his own stereotypes and prejudices of those from a culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or occupation that is not his own. We never get to see just the person, we only get to see what Pares wants us to see.

If one sees a man snarling and wielding 2 guns, a woman holding an AK-47, or a white man with a noose, without any other context, how does one not tend to think negatively, especially given the heavy handed nature with which it is presented, especially through his very effective use of color? Again, there is no artist statement, so there is nothing on which to base an answer to that question.

And that brings up the difference between the words stereotype and judgement. Pares shows us the stereotype (from whose perspective?) and wants us to make a judgement from only the evidence he presents. Perhaps this is only the humanist in me, but I believe a majority of people are capable of realizing that there is not enough evidence presented in the images in order to make a sound judgement.

Finally, the viewer is presented with the truth of that particular person. Pares goes from a menacing black color cast to a warm brown color cast, in order to temper the negative judgement made by the viewer in the previous image. For this author, it had quite the opposite effect. The feeling I am being manipulated is closer to the emotion that these images evoke when I view this project. Res ipsa loquitur.

Why can’t an Asian woman attending a graduate program at Stanford also work in a nail salon? Why would we assume that a man with the word “Queer” tattooed across his chest and wearing a boa couldn’t be an outreach worker? Why would we assume that just because one wears glasses and carries a backpack that he’s a nerd?

Pares was effective with one diptych. Jane Nguyen is an Asian lady dressed as an exotic dancer in the stereotype image while in the truth image we find out that she is a widowed mother of three children. When it comes to seeing occupations, the person’s life outside can never be known unless it’s revealed. The occupation of exotic dancer carries with it a myriad of different negative stereotypes. There also exist many different reasons why one would become an exotic dancer.

If this had been a critique on how entertainment and news media portray those of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds as well as sexual orientations and occupations, then this heavy handed approach could possibly take on a greater validity. Better yet, why can’t we see the subjects in their environments and try to see those elements of the environment that might give rise to a stereotype? In this way, the artist’s hand is minimized, and then the selective nature of photography allows for a more natural narrative to flow, and a lot less manipulation of the viewer on the part of the artist takes place.

In the end, I’m left with the feeling that the thesis was developed, but as the project proceeded, Pares failed to adjust his thesis for the results he was getting. Then, instead of then reexamining the results, the decision was made to push ahead anyway and try to force the art to fit into the parameters of the original thesis (this goes back to my issues with conceptual art). Again, without an articulated artist statement, this is all supposition, but a reasonable person could come to this “judgement.” As artists, sometimes the art teaches us. I’ve personally learned a lot about myself in my last couple of projects, and even had to adjust my thesis for one of them as what I learned contradicted my formal assumptions. This is how we learn and grow as artists.

As to the stereotypes and judgements of US Marines, as a veteran of the USAF, it is all in the spirit of friendly inter-service rivalry. Semper fidelis, Mr. Pares!

You may want to grab a drink before you proceed. This is a concept I’ve been exploring for over a year, and I do have a lot to say.

“Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” is a text by Walter Benjamin that explores the loss of the aura of art in this age where images of an original can be mechanically reproduced in large quantities. One means of recording and mass production of an image of the original is, of course, photography. Written in 1936, during the height of the Great Depression, this text came at a time when photography, as a medium, was undergoing a transformation from a hobby of the rich to becoming also a communication tool. The impression that I get is that Benjamin basically blames photography for what he perceived as the diminishing value of art.

To be perfectly honest, Benjamin’s words are just as dry and difficult to read now as they were over a year ago when I had to read them for my Introduction to Critical Theory course, but I digress.

The Industrial Revolution brought with it new ways of mechanically reproducing art. Among these were engraving, etching, and lithography. These processes allowed for infinite reproduction of work. If you wanted an etching from an artist in Chicago but were located in New York, all you needed to do was order one and he could have a copy made for you. In the early-to-mid 19^th Century, research finally brought concepts from many centuries of fundamental knowledge together in order to create a process that could record a work of art exactly as it appeared in reality.

That process, of course, is modern photography. With one negative, countless prints of an image can be made. This ability resulted in a world in which, theoretically, there exists no original creation in terms of the medium. The still (and later video) camera merely records a scene onto a substrate coated with a medium. The scene itself is the original; the photograph is the mechanical reproduction of that scene.

As I understand Benjamin’s text, what separates an original artwork from a copy is the original’s presence in time and space. The Great Pyramid only physically exists at Giza in Egypt. The Alamo exists only in San Antonio, TX. The mountains photographed by Ansel Adams only physically exist at the various locations in the American West. An NFL game only exists for the prescribed time span at the prescribed location of the event.

Consider the wonder and awe you may have felt the first time you saw something in reality that you previously had only seen in a photograph or video. I felt awe upon seeing many landmarks that at one time only existed as photographs and videos in books and on television. These include the pyramids at Giza, the Sphinx, the World Trade Center, the Empire State Building, my first time seeing the F-15E Strike Eagle, and even my first NFL game live at the Houston Astrodome in 1996 (Houston Oilers vs San Francisco 49ers – the 49ers won).

This sense of awe and wonder at seeing an original work in its prescribed presence in space and time are what make up a work’s “aura.”

According to Benjamin, the aura of an original can only exist because of the fact that an original can be reproduced mechanically. In other words, an original can only exist because it can be reproduced. The original and the copy cannot be be separated. This concept is key to understanding what Benjamin had to say. This may seem paradoxical, but in my experience this makes perfect sense.

I consider those places where photography is not allowed such as The Alamo. No mechanical reproduction is (legally) possible inside the Alamo. When I first visited the location in 1991 (part of my town pass from USAF basic training), I really didn’t find anything over which I could get excited. I knew the history of the mission, the Texas Revolution, and those famous historical figures who died fighting there. Armed with this knowledge, I anticipated an experience that I would not soon forget. At the end of my visit, however, I left the Alamo asking myself what all the fuss was about.

(Disclaimer – I grew up in Central NY State, about 20 miles from Cortland, NY and can remember learning about The Alamo each year in history class and wanting to visit it someday.)

Let’s contrast my experience with The Alamo to experience of seeing the Great Pyramid at Giza in 1993. Up to that point in my life, the Great Pyramid (and anything at all to do with ancient Egypt) existed as a photograph in my history texts. Upon seeing it live and in person, however, I felt an awe in the presence of history that I didn’t feel at the Alamo.

Mechanical reproduction allows a work of art to be liberated by the constraints of space and time. Not everyone has an opportunity to travel to Giza, China, France, Washington, DC, etc in order to view the original works. Reproduction brings the art to the viewer’s home so he or she can view it at their convenience.

I may not look it, but this was a good day for me in 1993

It is at the point of creation of the image and that creation’s reproduction that the aura of the original is created. Seeing the photographs of the Great Pyramid created the aura of the original, whereas in the example of the Alamo, no aura is created because there existed no reproduction for me to see. Growing up, I was allowed to spend time with the Great Pyramid and to get to know it, which served only to enhance that aura. The same cannot be said for the Alamo. In fact, because no (legal) reproduction of the inside of the Alamo exists, according to Benjamin, there is no original Alamo; the Alamo simply exists.

Mechanical reproducibility does have another effect – it allows for the creation of art that which has no other purpose but to be reproduced. All of those paper plates with little flowers on them in the grocery store are an example of art made for reproduction (the “Footprints” posters also come to mind). But even art that is created to be mass produced serves to create an aura for the original work. Warhol created much of his art with reproduction in mind. More than 8 million people have visited The Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, PA to see the original versions of pieces that can be purchased in a reproduced format on just about any purse, backpack, folder, canvas… just about any object that can accept an image.

It’s hard to know if Benjamin approves of the trends he outlined when writing “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” On the one hand, Benjamin was a Marxist, so the liberation of art to the people from its lofty location in space and time would seem appealing, as it would seemingly equate to the liberation of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. At the same time, however, he seems to decry the fact that the Industrial Revolution brought us these ways to “destroy” the value of art and give rise to an art that cheapens the experience of creating and viewing art. This can be attributed to the fact that I find this rather difficult to read. Of course, I don’t think Benjamin would approve of some of the ways in which much of the mechanically reproduced art is used, most notably in the pursuit of commercial endeavors.

No discussion of Benjamin is complete without a discussion of Sherrie Levine. I can’t say what motivated her “After Walker Evans” series. For those who may not know, Levine made her career out of photographing already existing works of art. Examples are photographs (most notably Walker Evans) and some Van Gogh paintings (from a book, no less). Is this a subversion of Benjamin? Or is it perhaps an attempt to prove Benjamin correct by trying to strengthen (or even create a new) aura around the work she photographed?

In my mind, the aura around the original Walker Evans photographs remains unchanged. This is because, while she acknowledges the source, Levine is taking a work and making it her own. There are no other elements save the source material for her photographs (which she strives to reproduce exactly as it is). This does start to get into appropriation, but that is an issue unto itself. In the end, I feel that Sherrie Levine neither strengthens nor subverts Benjamin’s theories. Honestly, she more or less exposes herself as a hack who preys upon an obscure (to the general public, at least) theory and exploits it in order to further her own career without having to put the intellectual muscle behind it.

Tag: discussion

“Judging America” by Joel Pares

Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction… A Primer (of Sorts)