Comments on: Sarah Charlesworth: Stills

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:49:42 +0000

Although I do not, nor will I ever see this particular piece of work as art, I am however open minded enough to understand how it came to be in the artist mind. For me it becomes more easy to accept when viewed as a curiosity* about life, death and human suffering; or even better as grieving.

The beauty of art is solely contingent upon the person viewing it. What one person see as magnificent and beautiful, another will see as a disgusting vile piece of trash; but does it truly make said object in question good or bad, right or wrong? I don’t believe so.

Look at it this way:

Some may view the color white as the most pure and beautiful color they have ever seen, while others will simply see it as a non color. In India the cow is sacred and the thought of eating one is incomprehensible, whereas other countries simply thrive on the juicy meat. Silver vs Gold. Monday vs Saturday. Football vs Baseball. Cars-Electric vs Gasoline. Democracy vs Monarchy. Chicago style Pizza vs New York. NeoClassicism vs Abstract. Black and White photography vs Color. Rock n Roll vs Country. Does the enjoyment of any one of these things over the other make a person right or wrong? No. It just makes them different than you.

And for those who cannot understand or who aren’t willing to open their mind enough to accept anything but their own beliefs is why wars will never stop, hunger will continue and racism will never end, and that’s truly much more disturbing than this piece of work shall ever be.

*you have to understand my explanation of the artist’s work as curiosity. otherwise please explain why you were looking at pictures of such tragic suffering in the first place.

By: Nissa

Nissa — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:30:33 +0000

This is a horrible excuse for art. It is entirely disrespectful to call this beautiful. Some things are supposed to NOT be beautiful. This is clearly one of those things.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:18:45 +0000

I cannot see these things as an “art” exhibition though in a museum it would be totally appropriate. I believe it is important to have these images and keep them before the public because of the denial that this terrorist event was as bad as claimed (a mere 7 1/2 years later) or, among some terribly radical groups, that it ever happened. The same has happened with the Holocaust and is a reason we have so many photographs from the Holocaust aftermath, so that it could not later be denied. So if this appeared in a museum, totally fine. As art, no more so than photos of the Holocaust.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:21:12 +0000

Her website needs some better design and less images. Hard to find anything. I like her images that you posted. Jonathan Safran Foer’s book was good, but I don’t think it was the same intention as the photographer.

Good stuff

By: jim gerlach

jim gerlach — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:13:36 +0000

Interestingly the Misrach “on the Beach” exhibit supposedly had its genesis in the human form falling from the WTC. There’s also an interesting use of the images in the book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer but its in a context that treats the images with sympathy and respect.

By: Shane Lavalette

Shane Lavalette — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:19:47 +0000

It's interesting that for many viewers the images in Schneemann's grid become "depersonalized" when, in fact, she felt a certain "intimacy" with them.

From an interview on ARTINFO:

It's in memoriam. I had this blind feeling that I had to be as close as possible to these images, to memorialize them, starting in October 2001. Part of the consecration was that in the intimacy of my own studio, with my scanner, I could just get closer and closer to these figures. When I first showed this photo-grid in 2001, people went crazy. They tore down the gallery signage, they wrote obscenities in the guest book. Interesting: that presenting this degree of vulnerability was seen as exploitative and shameful.

That said, I can see how audiences (especially audiences directly effected by the events of Sept. 11) would grieve or even feel anger when looking at her piece. I've seen this piece in person and the effect it had made me feel torn.

By: Todd W.

Todd W. — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:03:35 +0000

I think I had that reaction because treating these events captured on film as art objects de-personalizes the factual, human experience each of those unfortunate people and their loved ones had. It’s worse than just that. She’s introduced an implicit commercial aspect to the horror and pain of these experiences. Imagine someone putting this on their wall or socking it away as an investment. Even in a museum setting, the bulk of the visitors will be treating the viewing as a form of cultural entertainment.

When I notice now the time period these were made, or at least when Schneeman made her statement, the world was a very different place. My mind, certainly, was in a different state, but I think I would probably have been even MORE outraged at that time than I am today because I would have been more sensitive to the issue based on my own experience of the event.

By: Shane Lavalette

Shane Lavalette — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:36:45 +0000

Todd, I know. Or "utterly disturbing," as I put it.

From Carolee Schneeman's statement, October 2001:

In this communal nightmare, fleeting visual attributes of nine lives become clearer by enlargement. Our own vertiginous grief, rage and sorrow envelop each frame, each fragment of photographic evidence -- unexpectedly captured, made public.

Is it that they are public in the first place that makes them vile? That they are now objects of the art world? That they are beautiful, as well as repulsive?

By: Todd W.

Todd W. — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:38:12 +0000

That’s vile and repulsive.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:11:38 +0000

Both of these projects remind me of Aaron Siskind in a less morbid kind of way.