photo by Celine Clanet
VYM: Grant Willing and Alana Celii, the architects behind the website Fjord, how and when did all this start?
Alana Celii: Grant and I went out to coffee one night
Grant Willing: It started at a café in Brooklyn, I had the idea to sort of create a website in which people could see a multitude of young photographers' work.
AC: So that night we started brain storming ideas, who to invite, perusing the internet find work, and created a list. Also, this was in June
VYM: This list you created is really interesting. I have this theory that if there was such thing as digital AIDS everyone on Fjord would have it because everyone on it seems to be linked to or aware of someone else on it in some capacity.
Would it be fair to call Fjord a network for networkers?
GW: yeah, I mean there was a way that we found out about most of the people- and then we asked other people to refer others to us. So in a way its like a swingers club of photography.
AC: I think the key idea behind the project is that the internet is this sort of magical creation where everyone in some form is given the ability to become this sort of persona and make these sort of connections
Chat Muthard
VYM: Fjord describes itself as a sort of launching pad for "young up and coming photographers". I think we can all agree that a lot of the people on Fjord are already fairly well known in the internet community.
I read a quote by Hobbes yesterday, "The reputation of power is power". Do you feel this applies to the internet and photography? Does internet stardom cross over to real life? Are they any different?
AC: I think being well known is relative...in terms of Fjord I like that there is a sense of community.
And I agree with Hobbes, I'm obsessed with how we use the internet/metaverse to create an identity that may or may not cross over into real life. It's totally a form of escape; yet it's crossing over into the real world like never before. I think our generation is on the cusps of something either really terrible or really amazing because when it comes to power it can go either way very quickly. I believe that being 'e-popular' can definitely translate over. Just the other day, a boy at school approached Grant asking if he was the Grant Willing.
GW: Due to the anonymity of the internet, people are instantly given a sense of power because there is little self-doubt or consciousness to begin with. Therefore because people are instantly boosted in the internet world by way of creating (often) real life, tangible items, this can carry over into the real world in an effective, but kind of unique way. Its unique because right now there is more and more cross-over between print/real life and a digital world. While there is perhaps a common conception that the real, printed world is more serious- I think that the internet is becoming a venue that can be taken as seriously as a gallery. One of the few things I see lacking in this virtual milieu is actual print quality and the experience of viewing something physical on an intimate basis.
VYM: I think there is something very specific to our generation going on right now. A new "school of photography" which is based entirely on internet relationships that occasionally become real life acquaintances. The thing that separates this "school" from others is our broad geographic locations and our lack of physical interaction.
The greatest part of this is that we are able to see hundreds of other's work instantly, anywhere, at any time. The negative is that we engage in no critical dialogue with each other. What effect do you think these things will have on the next generation of photography?
I suppose I'm asking what the effect of hundreds of people putting thousands of images for thousands to see without a single word being communicated does to us as artists
GW: Unfortunately, maybe fortunately, there will always be a more informal perspective on photography now. Ever since digital, flickr, etc. took over everyone is a photographer. In a sense, though, this is also creating a challenge as photographers now must create work that will rise to the proverbial top of the mountain. I think that in order for photography to remain a desired art such as painting, sculpture, architecture, (any other one of a kind art form) there needs to be a renaissance in the form of a critical approach to general "art photography." The line between snap-shot photography and art is becoming extremely thin with the abundance of new work every day. I think that something will result out of this- the digital revolution is very reminiscent of when Kodak introduced the Brownie camera and everyone could make a photograph. The only large difference I see is that we are now sharing our snap-shots with potentially millions of viewers.
AC: I believe this can not only be said for the next generation of photography, but also for just the general public who consumes thousands of images everyday. A problem we are facing as photographers today is that we are being taught that every image that can be created has been created, and with the transmission of images on a global scale we are consuming images faster than we can even think to produce them. I think that less thought will be involved, that in the case of art photography function will follow form, and it will be less about ideas. I think there should be a forum for us to critique each other's work. To me, it seems like flickr and blogging is typically more about promoting work you like rather than looking at it with a critical eye.
photo by Elo Vazquez
VYM: I entirely agree. I think this has increased our generation's awareness of the aesthetically pleasing photograph and decreased our ability (or maybe just our willingness) to articulate ourselves or defend our work critically. The idea of photography as a conceptual art isn't a very popular one among our generation. Are words a burden to anonymity on the internet? Does this mean we value mystery over personality or opinion?
GW: I think its being split: while the word-less, non-critical approach to photography is obviously the popular one, there is still a lot of great concept based photography coming out. Arguably, though, all work is concept driven- but I think so much work is similar now that we no longer need to express ourselves with words. For a vast majority of work being created nowadays, there is a similar counterpart that has already been created in the past. Because these aesthetics are something we are familiar with, and enjoy, we can take the words out of it and enjoy certain work at a purely visual level. On the other hand, I think that words play a strong part in creating strong, thematically based work. David Lynch speaks about how in his films he cannot write about them or deduce what they are about into words- his final manifestation of a subject is there on the screen. Ultimately, I think it depends on the type of work you are doing and how you want the viewer to interact with it. Right now, visually pleasing work seems to be taking the cake. While I don't necessarily agree with what is going on, I think that is what is happening. I would like to see a resurgence of text incorporated into the final product and then leading into a more direct result. I think ambiguity can exist within specificity, if it is done well.
AC: Not everyone who is making photographs has been taught to approach their creation from a particular structure that involves thinking before creating. I think this is unfortunate. I have to disagree with Grant in that I believe that good work cannot and should not always speak for itself, whether or not it is making visual references to the past is unimportant in it's final meaning.
VYM: That's interesting, Lana. Some people haven't been exposed to those histories and approaches by their own choice and some just because they aren't even old enough to have had that opportunity. In the wake of Ryan McGinley's solo show at the Whitney, do you ever feel burdened by the increasing pressure to network at such a younger age? That because the art world is so youth-centric you have to be 30 when you're 20 and so on?
AC: Yes. Being young is a novelty. I read an article the other day about this Japanese restaurant, Hakata Ton Ton, is coming to New York next month that offers collagen cuisine...restore that youthful glow.
Anyway, I think we are being raised to be go-getters, to be a part as many extra curricular activities as possible, that if we aren't constantly working we will not be on top. We are being conditioned that in order to be successful we need to know people, and we need to know and be known by everyone. I think it's even worse for the generation below us, artists or not, I think is applies to everyone.
GW: I don't think that pressure would be the best description of the feeling. Because most young photographers are showing work on the internet and have experience in what it feels like to be unknown. The pool of "good" photographers is so large now that it is hard to stand out. While I think that there is maybe a push or something along those lines to get your work out there, I also think there is enough room to exist happy without anyone else knowing who you are. I have several flickr friends whom I have no clue what their real name is or email or any form of contact outside of flickr itself. I think the ability to exist as an avatar is appealing to some people. For others, it is just a means to promote themselves- sort of like a logo. I think we should listen to the song under pressure
photo by Gustav Gustafsson
VYM: As a follow up to both of your responses, is the purpose of art school a social one?
AC: Not at our school, haha.
GW: I think it can be- like Lana alluded to, our school (Parsons the New School for Design [formerly Parsons School of Design]) is a true example of an educational institution where you must enter with an idea of what you want to get out of it. The school is good as long as you are motivated- but without motivation I think a lot of kids are lost and try to gain a form of camaraderie through networking with other students. The problem with this might be that they are forming a lone network that is not really connected to anything besides itself (maybe not such a bad thing after all).
VYM: In the new issue of Modern Painters john Baldessari and Michael Craig-Martin discussed their histories in art education. John Baldessari brought up the point that the purpose of art school is to meet the other ambitious artists for networking's sake. He even described it as a "real life Myspace".
GW: From what I've heard almost unanimously amongst everyone I know that goes to art school, every school has its ups and downs. Everyone says the people suck, the facilities suck, the location is good, its expensive, etc. If there is so much sucking, its hard to create this sense of a real-life myspace
AC: I wouldn't go as far to allude to it as real life Myspace. I wish I went to a school where everyone was ambitious as I feel that we are. Maybe it's because I had different expectations going into it. Maybe he's referring to a school that doesn't exist? I think that's why many of us are reaching outside of our local social circles, and going on myspace, flickr, etc. and creating these global outlets.
VYM: "so much sucking", haha.
AC: (grant was giggling to himself about it after he sent it)
VYM: Now that we've discussed the participants of Fjord in full, who are the viewers outside of the very people who make it up? Who is Fjord being broadcasted to? That is a hard question, I suppose. Unless you have some sort of patriot act statcounter that finds people's names and occupations.
AC: I wish.. but then I suppose I'd be a creep. But an amazing hacker.
VYM: Maybe.. Who is Fjord's intended audience? What are Fjord's goals down the road?
GW: The initial aim of Fjord was and still is to create a book in order to appeal to viewers who might not partake in the debauchery known as Flickr. At the same time, though, we created this web gallery to appeal to viewers like you, me, and all others who enjoy using the internet as a tool. The intent of the project is to address one specific vein of where a lot of great, new work is coming from- and then to bring this sect of photographers into another light. Concluding in a creation of a new breadth in which more than the same people will be able to enjoy this great work. From here we are still working on the book deal. We are going to also push other forms of employment of the work- shows, promotional materials, and t-shirts.
Ultimately, the goal and end result of Fjord as an entity is to create a sense of unity within the circle- and to be something where others can look for inspiration.
Fjord is not trying to represent these photographers, rather it is existing as a group of individual photographers. Individual photographers can say that they are a part of Fjord and Fjord can say we have these individual photographers. The mutuality is the core element.
photo by Jonathan Knobel
+++VYM
0 comments:
Post a Comment