“More people should be partisan. More photographers should be partisan. Should call people bastards and point the finger. I wonder (every year pretty much on this blog) why they aren’t. So many photographers profess to be progressive and get outraged about exploitation in photography and the like, yet fail to reflect that in the overwhelmingly dull work that often passes for photojournalism or documentary.
I’m not sure why that is. I guess it’s because there’s still the myth of the objective truth-telling photographer and there is the dominating voice of documentary – which is one of sobriety. But really! The sober voice is a boring voice. You should be shouting abuse and throwing things.
The other reason is photographers are scared of offending those who might potentially give them custom and help them make a living. You don’t want to offend the wealthy and powerful; they own the magazines, the companies, the galleries, the universities, the foundations, they publish your work, they buy your work, they commission your work, they show your work.
Essentially we should be fucking the rich with photography, not literally, but metaphorically. Instead, photography is, as always, serving the rich, it is giving it a right royal tongue-up-the-arse servicing. How did that happen? How does it continue to happen? Or am I missing something?”
The Post-Feminist Slut/Voyeur Artist Statement
Step 1: talk about how your subjectivity is formed in the wake of post-feminism
Step 2: use your fairly attractive body in all your work, photographed in skimpy underwear & rollerskates—it’s okay to look slutty becuz you’re a feminist interrogating self-objectification
Step 3: DON’T WEAR MAKE-UP. It will cause you to not be taken seriously “conceptually”. DO WEAR SKIMPY UNDERWEAR. It will make your work sell like hotcakes.
Step 4: talk about how you are problematizing the traditional relationship between spectator and on-screen fetish object
Step 5: end with the phrase “an unsettling dance of seduction, power, trust, tenderness, loss, and betrayal”
you (don't) have to be depressed to be an artist
— Photo-Soup.ORG (@PhotoSoupORG) July 21, 2016
“I blame what’s happened in art on how expensive it became to be an artist,” he said. “When I came to New York in ’67, a 2,500-square-foot studio was $85.” Without access to such large private studios, he said, many young artists have developed alternate ways of working, like drawing plans for an installation or a sculpture they hope to make but not actually producing the work until it has been selected for a show.
“It’s post-studio art!” he said. “Sculptors who never see the work before the exhibition. It’s designed on the back of a cocktail napkin at 35,000 feet, and then they build it for the first time in Germany.” For an artist who learns to work this way, he added, a studio can become unnecessary, even when one is available. “I’ve been involved for many years with the American Academy in Rome, the most beautiful studios that anybody will ever be offered, and depending who’s on the jury, some years there won’t be a single person who makes anything,” he said. “They sit in these beautiful studios, they put the work on the wall that they used to get the grant and then they just talk. For a year. It’s criminal. You can talk in any room!
– Chuck Close interviewed in The New York Times. July 2016