Rubin talks about a lot of art in his essay, some of which I thought was interesting after searching for it on the Web. Because birds are the subject of countless metaphors and art, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Rubin managed to find bird art that spanned an entire spectrum of themes – identity, mortality, humanity, etc. -- but I guess that's what curators are paid to do. I have to admit that it was nearly impossible to enjoy the essay because of the lack of images that were on the web. But even through the catalog, I can say with confidence that not all bird art is created equally. On page 14, Rubin writes about an artist named Martha Alf and her images of pigeons outside her window sill and how she imbued the birds with human qualities. Seeing the few images that are on the web, this seemed to be the most unambitious art project that I can imagine.
However, I enjoyed Roni Horn's photos of Icelandic birds, as they abstract the back of birds heads and I can't tell if they are photos of the hind of a dog or the back of a nun or some strange feathery sculpture.
Roni Horn, bird
One thing that must be a struggle for curators is where to draw the line about what to include and what not to include. To put Martha Alf's pigeon photos in the same lineage as Joseph Cornell's "bird boxes" is, well, let's just say that I'd be psyched if I was Martha Alf.
Another contemporary photographer that is inspired by birds is Paula McCartney (no relation to Paul) whose Bird Watching uses store bought craft birds placed in natural landscapes. For me, her photographs challenge the idea of the birder with enormous binoculars, but I also understand that the types of birds that she chooses don't necessarily belong in the landscape she puts them in. Her intervention might symbolize her desire to control or subvert nature as well as putting forth her ideal constructed landscape.
Paula McCartney, Bird Watching (cardinal), 2007
The desire to control nature, or rather, the need to intervene with nature, is evident in the efforts of Operation Migration (NYT Magazine, 2/22/09). However, unlike McCartney who stage manages her photographs with store-bought birds, a different type of mimicking occurs when the biologists and conservationists of Operation Migration guide endangered whooping cranes from Wisconsin to warmer climates by dressing up in white suits and leading them in an ultralight plane. The article points out that the costumes are necessary so that the birds don't become too comfortable with people. I commend the project for bringing together a community of people to conserve the whooping cranes, but as the article suggests, its troubling that this endangered species needs to be protected not only from extinction, but also domestication. That humans are in charge of preserving the "wild" nature of animals is bizarre. It seems like we spend all this time teaching parrots to talk, dogs to roll over, and monkeys to run businesses, a la careerbuilder.com, and now the civilized have to teach something to be uncivilized. It's like teaching Eliza Doolittle her Cockney accent after she's been refined.
photo: Mark Peterson/Redux for the New York Times
Ha...I almost posted about Paula McCartney. You and JRay have very different takes on her work. JRay thinks McCartney "(doesn't) objectify and idealize the birds, as nature photography often does." My interpretation of these photographs has always been closer to yours. I see the birds as a focal point where our eyes can rest and contemplate. When we notice the birds are fake, what seemed ideal and charming is suddenly totally objectified. Of course it was already objectified, we are just made aware of its objectness when we know it is fake. It is kind of like thinking a mannequin is real and then realizing it isn't.
ReplyDeletePeople often tell me to look at these pictures in reference to my own work. I often wonder wether people stop to consider what it means to have a fake bird in a forest or if they get it and move on. What do you think? I am pretty sure the museum owns some of these photographs. If you have shown them in print viewings, how have others responded to them? This is an issue I struggle with in my own work.
Oh, hey! There's so much commenting going on, I think my brain might explode! Allison, you're keeping one step ahead of me. I think McCartney photographs these fake birds in a way that is very different from traditional Sierra Club-type photography. The landscapes that she places them in are very unspectacular - no sweeping views or beautiful sunsets. I definitely don't think they fit into the category of traditionally beautiful landscapes. Here the birds are small, whereas in most bird photography the animals fill much more of the frame. She photographs the birds in a way similar to how a person might see them unaided by the optics of a camera or binoculars. That why I see these pictures as no objectifying the birds, or landscape, in the way that traditional nature photography does.
ReplyDeleteI agree but I think the photographs still represent an ideal. The "amateur" style gives them a greater sense of authenticity. These images seem like they were made by a backyard enthusiast or hiker, not a trained nature photographer. It is more about the way we take the exceptional beauty of sierra club photographs and write those expectations onto all experiences of nature. One can't expect to photograph a falcon swooping towards her head on a nature hike so McCartney's photographs become the ideal for the nature hiker/park visitor.
ReplyDeleteLike most photographs, Paula McCartney's photos have gotten mixed responses from viewers, but for the most part pretty positive. I appreciate their subtlety and the fact that she's probably using a normal lens, as opposed to, as JRay pointed out, binoculars or zoom lens. For some I think it might be too subtle and they just move on. I usually show the photos in the context of manufactured scenes, though I'm not sure where I stand as to whether or not McCartney objectifies birds.
ReplyDelete