The Modern Language Experiment presents
there will be others
M In considering the title for this show “There Will Be Others” I am conscious not to take the angle of there will be others to mean there will be other artists in the show, but rather there will always be photography and that photography will always want to replicate it self or be taken to be a medium that refuses to go away; I don’t think photography suffers in the same way as say painting; it has different conversations as regards to its position but not whether its valid or not.
K What’s different about photography and painting is that painting is always seen as an original. With regards to the title there will be others and what you said before about repetition holds true to photography rather then any other medium. I think photography and painting both suffer from an idea of deadness especially today, if they are not dead in some peoples eyes they are definitely half dead. Because they both come from a time of pre-modernity, pre-conceptual thinking in art so there is always skill level and aesthetic questions that deaden the work.
M In the way that you don’t get that with new technologies or even sculpture
K No because these operate in a post-modernity era.
M That isn’t to say that photography is not capable of operating like that I think photography can relinquish its history easier then painting.
K I think in terms of the title there will be others, its not necessarily about having
other artists but other positions. What is interesting for me is how the concept for this was initially born from the discussion we had with Jeremy, Paul and Tina at Lo and Behold Gallery; it brought into focus not only important differing positions for the photographic image but also entry points for Magda, Karl and Thorsten to now contribute to this conversation.
M But what does it (the title) conjure up I felt that it is quite open ended, and yet its suggestive and I like that and it does not necessarily pin itself down to photography.
K So what we can say is that the way we process imagery today has changed. The frequency of image making (through the digital darkroom) has allowed for a vast freedom with printing, multiples. montage and retouching; the possibilities are now much freer.
M But then you have the problem of quality; there are a lot of bad images out there. There is greater access to bad images (internet, iPhone). Photography is very happy to sit anywhere, its a bit of a whore really, its happy to sit with art and also happy to sit with bad documentation photography
K but then in another context that same image could be a wonderful piece of art...
M Yeah that is placement and context
K I think photography suffers more then others. Which is why I think that Paul’s suggestion that the title (there will be others) incorporating an idea of the afterlife is actually very interesting. The afterlife is referencing a time outside of now, outside of the deadness of photography.
M Your quite keen on the word afterlife, because you used it in your text before (a version before this one)
K I think its a good way of displacing the here and now
M You used the term ‘in the afterlife of photography’, does that need more explanation than that, because thats assuming that we agree that photography is dead and we are only talking about its birth beyond that, if that is the case we need to make a position for why we think its dead. I don’t think I agree that photography is dead at all.
K Well maybe its ‘in the afterlife of the original conversation’
M Well I am much more in to that. What is interesting for me is that as this stems from a conversation and we see this exhibition as a continuation of that, especially the panel discussion at the end, then it makes sense to allow the process to run and evolve and not suppress this process by stating a completeness. Of course this is still a position but one that i think is very exciting; this is an extreme model for a curatorial idea.
K The interesting thing about photography today is that it can act as a catalyst rather then the final medium. Artists using photography without producing a photo is quite interesting to me
.
M Photography has always been used as a way to produce something else, artists have always used photography as a starting point to move into video, painting, sculpture.
K But eventually they will all come to ask the same question if you have a photograph thats working on its own why would you need another medium to do it.
M Because its the transformation, the photo is not the end point, the photo is just a part of the process towards the end point.
K I agree i think its interesting when the photograph is the vehicle.
K In terms of what we want for this show I would like a show where all the different artists bump into each other, reflect off each other causing friction and antagonism so that there is an uncomfortable harmony; any other artists that we bring in would add to that, they would cause another angle, deflection and worry.
M I totally agree with that, for me what holds this show together is not curatorial or aesthetic ideology but for this show to have a conversation in another way, visual and verbal, and that it will not be complete it will be fractious and disjointed and will not easily come together.
M So we want the artists in this show to..
K …..deflect, antagonise and disrupt the conversation
M I agree, chaos and disharmony.
Jeremy Akerman
Paul O’Kane
Tina Hage
Thorsten Schneider
Magda Stanova
Karl Larsson
there will be others
M In considering the title for this show “There Will Be Others” I am conscious not to take the angle of there will be others to mean there will be other artists in the show, but rather there will always be photography and that photography will always want to replicate it self or be taken to be a medium that refuses to go away; I don’t think photography suffers in the same way as say painting; it has different conversations as regards to its position but not whether its valid or not.
K What’s different about photography and painting is that painting is always seen as an original. With regards to the title there will be others and what you said before about repetition holds true to photography rather then any other medium. I think photography and painting both suffer from an idea of deadness especially today, if they are not dead in some peoples eyes they are definitely half dead. Because they both come from a time of pre-modernity, pre-conceptual thinking in art so there is always skill level and aesthetic questions that deaden the work.
M In the way that you don’t get that with new technologies or even sculpture
K No because these operate in a post-modernity era.
M That isn’t to say that photography is not capable of operating like that I think photography can relinquish its history easier then painting.
K I think in terms of the title there will be others, its not necessarily about having
other artists but other positions. What is interesting for me is how the concept for this was initially born from the discussion we had with Jeremy, Paul and Tina at Lo and Behold Gallery; it brought into focus not only important differing positions for the photographic image but also entry points for Magda, Karl and Thorsten to now contribute to this conversation.
M But what does it (the title) conjure up I felt that it is quite open ended, and yet its suggestive and I like that and it does not necessarily pin itself down to photography.
K So what we can say is that the way we process imagery today has changed. The frequency of image making (through the digital darkroom) has allowed for a vast freedom with printing, multiples. montage and retouching; the possibilities are now much freer.
M But then you have the problem of quality; there are a lot of bad images out there. There is greater access to bad images (internet, iPhone). Photography is very happy to sit anywhere, its a bit of a whore really, its happy to sit with art and also happy to sit with bad documentation photography
K but then in another context that same image could be a wonderful piece of art...
M Yeah that is placement and context
K I think photography suffers more then others. Which is why I think that Paul’s suggestion that the title (there will be others) incorporating an idea of the afterlife is actually very interesting. The afterlife is referencing a time outside of now, outside of the deadness of photography.
M Your quite keen on the word afterlife, because you used it in your text before (a version before this one)
K I think its a good way of displacing the here and now
M You used the term ‘in the afterlife of photography’, does that need more explanation than that, because thats assuming that we agree that photography is dead and we are only talking about its birth beyond that, if that is the case we need to make a position for why we think its dead. I don’t think I agree that photography is dead at all.
K Well maybe its ‘in the afterlife of the original conversation’
M Well I am much more in to that. What is interesting for me is that as this stems from a conversation and we see this exhibition as a continuation of that, especially the panel discussion at the end, then it makes sense to allow the process to run and evolve and not suppress this process by stating a completeness. Of course this is still a position but one that i think is very exciting; this is an extreme model for a curatorial idea.
K The interesting thing about photography today is that it can act as a catalyst rather then the final medium. Artists using photography without producing a photo is quite interesting to me
.
M Photography has always been used as a way to produce something else, artists have always used photography as a starting point to move into video, painting, sculpture.
K But eventually they will all come to ask the same question if you have a photograph thats working on its own why would you need another medium to do it.
M Because its the transformation, the photo is not the end point, the photo is just a part of the process towards the end point.
K I agree i think its interesting when the photograph is the vehicle.
K In terms of what we want for this show I would like a show where all the different artists bump into each other, reflect off each other causing friction and antagonism so that there is an uncomfortable harmony; any other artists that we bring in would add to that, they would cause another angle, deflection and worry.
M I totally agree with that, for me what holds this show together is not curatorial or aesthetic ideology but for this show to have a conversation in another way, visual and verbal, and that it will not be complete it will be fractious and disjointed and will not easily come together.
M So we want the artists in this show to..
K …..deflect, antagonise and disrupt the conversation
M I agree, chaos and disharmony.
Jeremy Akerman
Paul O’Kane
Tina Hage
Thorsten Schneider
Magda Stanova
Karl Larsson
Events
20th July 7pm
20minute Lecture by Magda Stanova
30th July 2012 7pm
A round table panel discussion, featuring academics writers artists and curators, will debate the themes and concepts put forward by the exhibiton
Paul Halliday | Duncan Wooldridge | Jeremy Akerman |
Paul O’Kane | Tina Hage | Thorsten Schneider | Magda Stanova | Karl Larsson
Publication
To accompany the exhibiton there will be a publication which willfeature the voices of:
Jeremy Akerman | Tina Hage | Karl Larsson | Paul O'Kane | Thorsten Schneider | Magda Stanova | Duncan Wooldridge |
Angus-Hughes Gallery
26 Lower Clapton Rd
(at the junction of Urswick Rd)
London, E5 0PD
20th July - 30th July 2012
Private View 20th July 2012, with 20minute
lecture by Magda Stanova from 7pm
Talk 30th July 2012 7pm
Media
VIEW IMAGES OF THE SHOW
audio There will be Others Round Table Discussion