My entry is long this week. I usually don't have that much to say. However, this subject is different.
Patti Smith is a rock singer and an artist. There was a show devoted to her at the Art Gallery of Ontario last year. http://www.ago.net/patti-smith-camera-solo/ She chose to take photographs using a Polaroid 250 camera. The Polaroid camera was popular in the 1970s. The picture was developed instantly. The print came out of the camera. It was considered convenient and was enjoyed because the image was spontaneous and produced on the spot.
Contemporary digital cameras produce the image on the screen right away. However, the camera itself does not print the image right away. The Polaroid 250 offered a photograph in tangible physical form shortly after the click captured the moment. The Polaroid 250 camera may be studied as a technological invention of its time. It can be compared to a contemporary digital camera.
What I find most interesting about the Polaroid camera as an object in the context of Patti Smith's work is the fact that she continues to use the camera now when other technology is more usually employed. Individuals or groups may consider an object contemporary, even if society as a whole deems it out dated. If I use a Polaroid camera to document my perceptions of the world, then it is a contemporary use. It would be interesting to study individuals and groups who use objects that are considered outdated. What does the object say or indicate about that individual or social group? The use of the horse and buggy in the Amish community is an example. What does the horse and buggy indicate about Amish society compared to contemporary automobiles in North American society as a whole? Some answers are obvious. However, there may be many answers that are subtle or that the groups involved are not aware of. These questions may also apply to Patti Smith's Polaroid camera. A study could be conducted on a smaller scale. Her Polaroid camera could be examined in relation to the technological tools of other contemporary photographers. What do the objects say about the users and their values as individuals or as members of social groups? Conversely, the question could be mammoth? What does Patti Smith's camera say about an individual artist in the world?
On the AGO website, Talbot, director of Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, in Hartford, Connecticut, is quoted: "Smith's works champion the use of photography in its most classical sense as a tool to document a "found" moment,"(Talbot,2013, retrieved from AGO website).
Also, at the AGO exhibit, there were objects from Patti Smith's personal archives. Pope Benedict XV's slippers and Smith's Polaroid camera were together in the exhibit of objects. The exhibit itself was an event where the objects took on new meaning apart from what they indicated about Smith. The objects may simply relate to each other without reference to Smith. The symbolism of these 2 objects is immense. Slippers are what a person wears at home when he/she is relaxed. The Pope is a symbol of authority in the world. We more usually think of the Pope in public wearing regalia. We don't usually picture him wearing slippers. Also, a person's feet are very personal and vulnerable. Feet are far away from the face. The Pope is a public figure more usually identified by his face, not his feet. Feet are what we use to move in the world physically. When we wear slippers, we aren't moving so much. We are more usually at home, relaxed, preparing for rest. The Polaroid camera is a portable device that can be used to catch spontaneous moments on location. Would it be used to photograph the Pope or the Pope's slippers? Where, how, who and why? The juxtaposition of the two objects remains fascinating and incongruous. The link between the two objects is that Patti Smith owns them both. The interrelationship of objects as they are used or significant in individuals' lives can be another interesting subject of research.
The question can be extended to society. For example, what does the shape(and nature) of fitness machines indicate about our society's view of physical health? Certainly, many of the machines are very large and look like instruments of torture. How does the appearance and function of these machines compare to the look and function of the coffee shop in the fitness centre? The coffee shop may be seen as an artifact, and a collection of artifacts (food, tables, cups, chairs, space, windows or lack or windows). Does the coffee shop (seen as a single artifact with contained artifacts) contradict the machines? In our society, stress is considered unhealthy. People using fitness machines do frequently look stressed out. Are the edible objects in the coffee shop healthy? Who says? Maybe Patti Smith could come to a health club and photograph spontaneous moments. People's facial expressions and body language could be captured in the moment. Do they look healthy? Do they look relaxed or stressed out? How do the mechanical fitness objects and the coffee shop with contained artifacts compare? Do they contradict each other? Maybe the Pope could be encouraged to visit the health club during this photo session? Which objects would he choose to relate to? Would he wear his slippers?
No comments:
Post a Comment