American Suburb X

Antoine D'Agata:

"Look at the muck, at the tar… at the black, at the ash, at the junk in his head… I think that I can see inside of his mind, but I can’t… I can only see the evidence, I can only see the art. I can see the mind as a print, as a pixel. Does the work reflect the man? Does the man reflect the work? Does the man serve as a symbol for the work or does the work serve as a symbol for the man? Who is leading who? Who tells the truth, who is the liar? Either way, it is beautiful." (http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/03/antoine-dagata-is-empty-shell-walking.html)

As I was scrolling through the works of the photographers on this website I can across Antoine D'Agata and was, well, interested and confused to say the least. His works were filled with lust and expression and filled with passion and suffering and so much more all at once. They are as the quote above says, beautiful. But what intrigued me most about this article about D'Agata's works was the questioning of his mental state to his artwork. Was he really a dissatisfied artist feeding his inner demons through his photographs? Or was he simply just an artist choosing to express his emotions and the emotions of others through his morphing, seducing images. But, the broader question here is "Does the work reflect the man?" or "Does the man reflect the work?" As artists, we choose to visually capture and express our feeling, thoughts, ideas and opinions and just hope that others understand our internal point of view. And it doesn't always work. People easily misinterperate an artist's vision all the time, and why? Is it that people take visual representations and transform it into something they believe, or do the works of an artist project things that subconsciously the artist was thinking but didn't intend. Would this make the work a reflection of the mind of the artist himself, or do the ideas brought upon the work by outsiders then project onto the artist themselves to a point where they adapt those ideas or characteristics? Just some thoughts.

Sally Mann: 

The second piece that I watched was a short video about Sally Mann's series Proud Flesh. I have always enjoyed this series and hearing her explain more about it definitely made the series more antiquous as she say explains as well as emotional. The expressive process of Wet-plate processing really emphasizes the emotion and idea of maintaining strength through a difficult illness that her husband had. What also struck to me in this video was her explanation for the title of the series. Proud flesh, as she explains, is a layer of ugly, fragile layer of skin that forms before the scar tissues on a horse. Although her pieces appear to show that Larry Mann was still proud of his body even as is weakened, the works were more about his strength yet fragility. The title gives the piece an almost double-meaning. This got me thinking about how a title of a piece or series can tie a certain context, emotion or idea to the images. Calling a series World War II is going to give a more specific feeling than if it were top just be titled Warfare. Or, more abstract titles that can give the viewers more flexibility to form their own emotions or connections to a specific image. The last thing this video talks about briefly is the happy accidents that Sally Mann received from her wet-plate processing. I really like the idea of happy accidents because although you can frame and stage everything just the way you want it, there is always the opportunity for something to slip through the eye of the photographer that makes a picture just the smallest or largest amount more intriguing or successful.

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/02/asx-tv-sally-mann-from-lens-to-photo-sally-mann-captures-her-love-2011.html