Though it did not end Michael Fried’s Welling (an early work of his), Cindy Sherman ever since your days as a critic. More recently,
activity as an art critic, ‘Art and Objecthood’, (somewhat in passing), Stephen Shore (in though, another set of terms has surfaced out
his 1967 polemic against minimalist art as a contrast to Bustamante)… you get the idea. of the scholarly endeavours: ‘mindedness’
fundamentally ‘theatrical’ artform, and thus As for conceptual concerns, yes, they and ‘facingness’. Are these extensions of that
one at odds with the best that the modernist play a big role in the book. My reading of the original pair of terms, or do they carry a
tradition had to offer, caused many to wish it Bechers operates in relation to the notion of conceptual weight and nuance that exceeds
had. That essay galvanised an entire generation objecthood as it was first formulated 40 years the Diderotian pair?
of artists and critics who were done with the ago in ‘Art and Objecthood’, for example.
brand of Modernism – which is to say Clement And in order to do that, I have to use as a MF: I don’t think of ‘mindedness’ in
Greenberg’s Modernism – that Fried seemed framework Hegel on genuine versus spurious particular in that light. Again, it’s a term that
to uphold, and their opposition was fierce. By (or good versus bad) infinity in his works on comes ultimately from Hegel and functions
the 1970s it was obvious that contemporary art logic. Also a key passage in Wittgenstein’s early in a somewhat different register. In Why
was heading in a radically different direction, Notebooks. That sort of thing. Photography Matters I have a lot to say about
and for many, the art that Fried championed absorption again (or still), in relation to
– the painting of Kenneth Noland and Jules AR: Particularly with your book Menzel’s – sometimes in tension with – what I call ‘to-
Olitski, the sculpture of Anthony Caro – no Realism, and now with the direct treatment of be-seenness’, which I want to distinguish from
longer belonged to the present. Wittgenstein in the chapter on Wall, it seems as theatricality in the pejorative sense of the term.
Fried did end up turning away if you are engaging more directly with certain In other words, the basic conceptual machinery
from writing criticism in the 1970s, but philosophers and philosophical positions that of my Absorption trilogy is still in play, under
this had nothing to do with the perception have been central to the philosopher Stanley changed circumstances. Put more strongly, I
that he’d become Modernism’s whipping Cavell’s work. I know that Cavell has served argue in this book that serious and important
boy. Unconvinced by his opponents, Fried for a long time as something of an intellectual art continues to be made and experienced
went to work establishing the historical interlocutor for you, but is this book on under a version of the Diderotian regime or
trajectory of the Modernism at stake in ‘Art photography your own The World Viewed dispensation. And moreover that ‘Art and
and Objecthood’, which he did through a [1971; a meditation on Modernism in art and Objecthood’ continues to be a relevant guide
trilogy of pathbreaking books: Absorption and the nature of media – specifically photography to recent events, if the latter, and indeed ‘Art
Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age and film – in which Cavell also discusses his and Objecthood’, are rightly understood.
of Diderot (1980), Courbet’s Realism (1990) debt to the works of Michael Fried]? Are you These are, of course, extremely contentious
and Manet’s Modernism: or, the Face of Painting chasing after an ‘ontology’ of photography? claims, and it takes the whole of my book to
in the 1860s (1996). A different pair of books try to make them good.
– Realism, Writing, Disfiguration: On Thomas MF: As you say, my intellectual comradeship
Eakins and Stephen Crane (1987) and Menzel’s with Cavell goes back a very long way and AR: If you are claiming a persistence in the
Realism: Art and Embodiment in Nineteenth continues to be extremely fruitful for both present of what you call the ‘Diderotian regime
Century Berlin (2002) – seemed to promise a of us, I think. I’m not conscious of steering or dispensation’, is this an implicit claim for
second trilogy, but one now concerned with more into his territory than before, but that the persistence (and continued relevance
Realism, Modernism’s conceptual ‘other’. If may simply be because his writings and or necessity) of Modernism itself? And if
this was indeed the case, then what would the Wittgenstein’s have been acutely present to me so, does this require a new or reconfigured
final instalment look like?… like something since the 1960s. And as I say, my involvement historical periodisation – ie, ‘anti-theatricality’
few would have expected. In autumn 2008 in this book – at least in the key chapter on as transcending the limits of Modernism?
Fried will publish Why Photography Matters as the Bechers – with Hegel comes in part out
Art as Never Before (Yale University Press), a of a new close intellectual friendship, this MF: That’s a killer question, and the truth
book that promises a blazing reentry into the one with Robert Pippin of the University of is I don’t quite know how to answer it at this
criticism of contemporary artistic practice. Chicago. And on another front, my general moment. It’s significant, I think, that in Why
This past spring, the journal Critical Inquiry theoretical stance in Why Photography Matters Photography Matters I simply sidestep the
published an early version of one of the new is more or less identical with that of Walter whole issue of Modernism; what I mean is, in
book’s chapters, entitled ‘Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, Benn Michaels in his brilliant book of several the course of writing the book, the claims I was
and the Everyday’, and I took that opportunity years ago, The Shape of the Signifier [1967]. determined to make concerned the persistence
to ask the author a few questions about what Nor do I think of this book as my version of of the basic problematic of beholding and/or
is to come. Cavell’s The World Viewed – I am involved, objecthood, rather than some further set of
more or less continuously, with ontological claims about the persistence of Modernism,
ArtReview: Aside from Jeff Wall, what other issues, but I’m not aiming at an ‘ontology’ of which would have seemed… ideological, as if
contemporary photographers will be treated in photography. Rather, this book tries to give I had a theoretical axe to grind. Whereas the
the new book? And are they to be paired with a detailed account of the present stakes – the book as it stands in effect says, look, this is
particular conceptual concerns, as Wall is with ‘deep’ imperatives – of a particular body of what I think is at stake in the work of 15 or
‘the everyday’, for example? art photography. In terms of genre, the book so of the most important art photographers of
hovers for me somewhere between history and the past 30 or more years, and if you don’t like
Michael Fried: Most of the photographers I criticism, or rather it partakes of both at the what I’ve done or you believe I’m wrong, you
discuss are extremely well known: in addition same time. had better be able to offer superior readings of
to Wall, Thomas Struth, Thomas Ruff, the art in question. I’m happy to leave matters
Andreas Gursky, Thomas Demand, Candida AR: ‘Absorption and theatricality’ are the that way for the time being.
Höfer, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Philip-Lorca terms of a dialectic, or rather, of a functional
diCorcia, Beat Streuli (his videos), Hiroshi opposition, with deep roots in the writing Why Photography Matters as Art as Never
Sugimoto, Jean-Marc Bustamante… also and thought of Diderot, which has served as Before will be published by Yale University Press
Luc Delahaye, Patrick Faigenbaum, James something of a controlling interest in your work in autumn 2008
Special Focus_Photo.indd 19 11/9/07 14:27:08
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182