Pieter Hugo and the Hyperexotic
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
A good article about Pieter Hugo in the Guardian.And a bit more forthcoming from Hugo himself:
"And what about the charge that, by taking photographs that are set up to a great degree, he is exploiting his subjects for their 'exotic' otherness?
'I reject that view utterly,' he says, suddenly angry. 'There's always an element of condescension in it, the notion that the people I photograph are somehow not capable of making their minds up about being photographed. And, you know, it always comes from white, liberal, European people, which suggests to me that there is something essentially colonial about the question itself.' "
As opposed to recently on Artthrob:
"CS: Taking photographs of the strange, the peculiar and the marginal, you have been criticised for emphasising otherness and ideas of exotic Africa. What is your response to that?
PH: I have none. I am tired of this question. I am essentially selfishly making work that is of interest to me. I think reviewers and critics (usually South African!) could find far more interesting points of entry into my work. Of course photography is problematic - I acknowledge that - but come on, let's move on."
Hugo's point is good, especially in the light of the
My question though is whether that reads to his mostly white, liberal, European audience. To paraphrase some philosopher, don't look for meaning, look for use. What function does this hyperexotic serve for the audience?
posted by Robert Sloon at 11:26 AM
10 Comments:
That's what I'd be very interested to know. Do people hang the pictures above their dinner tables, or maybe above their marital beds? Is the hyperexotic also the hypererotic? Are they getting a sexual charge from guilty voyerism, as they thrill to the idea of a life of anarchy beyond their wildest dreams? I read somewhere that contemporary advertising makes enormous use of vicarious thrills which the average person is too afraid to take on in real life, but can take ownership of through consuming the product.
Witboystein
Anonymous 1.32, that reminds me of erstwhile SA artist Brad Hammond, who said that much SA art seems to function exactly like advertising. He was/is correct, in the sense that many artists find their hook, establish their brand, and then spend the next 20 years just shifting units.
Of course, our highly appreciative public leaves us with so much choice.
One of the mechanisms of advertising is to continually co-opt the marginal, to turn those who had been outside of their grasp into new target groups. I've no doubt these photographs of impressive marginality are being studied and analysed by ad agencies the world over, seeking to sink their teeth into new African markets. If they had more respect for artists, they would come right out and thank us for the free field work we do for them all the time. But sadly they generally think of us as marginal idiots who don't know how to make a buck.
Nice dog.
the philosopher was Wittgenstein
ja, and wittyboy also said that what one cant speak about one should pass over in silence. it's the final proposition in his trac-ta-tu(oe)s. you poes.
so why don't you just all shut the fuck up?
unless you understand the propositional logic he uses pieter hugo is going to be the closest you get to understanding a hyena.
ps. witty also claimed to have solved the major problems of philosophy, which fundamentally is its use. the primacy of its abstract nature means that it is no use, its just thinking and arguing, like all of you do. cunts. nothing means anything.
what is important is the physical manifestation. if hugo didn't exoticise then what would we have, zip baby. ja, we do get off at the vicarious nature of his images.
but how many other south africans have done the same things, and more prevalently to themselves. somebody recently said 'we have auto exoctised our own bodies'.
think about it. think about why you look, when you look and how you look.
and then piss off.
So if he has 'propositional logic' then Pieter is also a philosopher. It would be really interesting to know what he thinks about all this. Or maybe you can fill us in a little, mysterious 4.12? This is after all a site for arguing, and arguing really helps people think about art and even grow quite wildly enthusiastic about it.
personally i thought this article was shit, british society inevitably overanalyzes pretty much anything it cant understand, and so-called british art journalists even more so. theyre just well-composed, large, interesting photographs, nothing more, nothing less, and theyre interesting because they are rare. fucking bored brits.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home