|
August 21, 2003
I've been out of touch with what is happening in Australian photography for some time and I'm just begining to reconnect. I came across this issue of Photofile. It looked interesting given my interests in the urban suburban divide.
But nothing from this text is online. Frustrating.
So here is an image by an photographic artist whose work I have seen and whom I think is very good--Destiny Deacon:
Destiny Deacon,
Destiny Deacon, Dance Little Lady(a),1994-2000
Why dolls?
Is it because white Australia did not, and still does not, see black Australians as people?
Do you remember the golliwogs that used to be be inside the houses with white picket fences. Those stereotypes become ingrained over time and cannot be easily thrown off.
Destiny Deacon, Hanging Out Too, 2003
And then it starts getting tricky when white dolls appear and it is photograph of a photograph:
Destiny Deacon, Hanging Out 2003
These are works of art, defined as such by the institution of art.
So how come these are not simple fiats of individual will by lefty curators into reconcilation, land rights, public subsidies for minorties and harmony?
Does the art institution have reasons for constituting these images as works of art? Can they be considered good reasons?
Recall these.
Or this Or this.
The questions about the reasons of the art institution a constituting these as art works need to be posed because these images would not been accorded the status of art work in the 1930s or the 1890s. They would have lain outside the pale of history to use a phrase from Hegel.
The historical dimension of art is very important. If only because pictorial representation has a history.
It's late. Time for bed.
|
