Earth Splits Open, Spews Huge Jet of Magma into Space
Artforum Changes Small Black and White Images in Back-of-Mag Review Section to Color
But, seriously, let's talk about the reason for those little black and white photos. It was not because of some written-in-stone policy of general pretentiousness on the part of the journal (and I had a funny conversation with someone the other day who thought ex-editor Jack Bankowsky was a promoter of turgid writing, prompting me to explain that he was actually for English sentences after the impenetrable jargon excesses of the magazine's '70s and '80s).
No, the tiny image policy was meant as a gesture of respect to the artist and testament of belief in the power of the writer.
We have a tendency to see a photo reproduction and say, "Yeah, I saw that show." The bigger and more colorful the photo the more certain we think we are.
So, by making the images postage stamp-like, the magazine was saying, "Stop looking here, you idiot, listen to what the writer is telling you. And if that sounds interesting, go see the actual work next time."
I'm sure the pressure has been enormous on the part of the collectors to see color pictures of the work they're buying, made by their children.
Also, testaments to the power of the writer are no longer in vogue when increasingly the magazine asks museum professionals to do year end Top Tens (it was out of control last December). You know, the people who write catalog essays and wall labels reducing every work of art to some vaguely uplifting, socially relevant purpose.
[/rant]
|
Earth Splits Open, Spews Huge Jet of Magma into Space
Artforum Changes Small Black and White Images in Back-of-Mag Review Section to Color
But, seriously, let's talk about the reason for those little black and white photos. It was not because of some written-in-stone policy of general pretentiousness on the part of the journal (and I had a funny conversation with someone the other day who thought ex-editor Jack Bankowsky was a promoter of turgid writing, prompting me to explain that he was actually for English sentences after the impenetrable jargon excesses of the magazine's '70s and '80s).
No, the tiny image policy was meant as a gesture of respect to the artist and testament of belief in the power of the writer.
We have a tendency to see a photo reproduction and say, "Yeah, I saw that show." The bigger and more colorful the photo the more certain we think we are.
So, by making the images postage stamp-like, the magazine was saying, "Stop looking here, you idiot, listen to what the writer is telling you. And if that sounds interesting, go see the actual work next time."
I'm sure the pressure has been enormous on the part of the collectors to see color pictures of the work they're buying, made by their children.
Also, testaments to the power of the writer are no longer in vogue when increasingly the magazine asks museum professionals to do year end Top Tens (it was out of control last December). You know, the people who write catalog essays and wall labels reducing every work of art to some vaguely uplifting, socially relevant purpose.
[/rant]
- tom moody 2-02-2006 3:29 am