Ideas of the norm continue to permeate through all areas of society, from advertisement right through to social peer pressures. It only takes a 30 seconds to watch the most recent Kellogs Cornflakes commercial to see what a “family”, “should” consist of. Or to listen to the mid-20’s generation chat about their panic to be married and settled down before they reach 30.

Pressure to act a particular way has always been a part of western civilized society, however it is only in recent years (last 20-30) that we have seen this normalizing occur within the gay and lesbian community. One artist confronting this normalization is Catherine Opie. In her piece Self-Portrait/Pervert (1994) Opie suggests unease towards the normalization of the gay and lesbian community. By this stage there were sub categories evolving within this overall category, the S&M subculture, for example, was not welcome within the mainstream lesbian community. Therefore we see the same ideologies of normality introduced into a subculture that was previously unaccepted as “normal”.

Self-Porttrait/Pervert (1994)

Opie was intent on focusing on the idea of lesbian identity and by approaching it in this manner expanded the current preconceptions of what it was to be a lesbian. However due to the negative reactions received from the mainstream gay and lesbian community about this piece, there is evidence of the same processes which were involved to create a negative connotation towards gay and lesbians in the early years, happening to the deeper subcultures of the community. Was this negativity due to the fear of these new found accepted (normal) gay and lesbian’s losing their place within society? Was this the fear of being associated with something that was still not considered normal? I would suggest that it was this very fear that Opie was addressing, “normal” is a constructed term, which offers no insight to the individual.

We hear common themes such as “There is no such thing as normal”, which is true however, society still has an acute sense to separate itself from anything they feel is unacceptable to the majority. It is the simple “them and us” scenario.

Just a quick entry to give Mishka Henner and the BlackLab team a huge thank you for inviting us to the first (of hopefully many) Trawling the visual wreckage night in Manchester last night.

For those who werent there, BlackLab is a photographic arts collective which -in Mishka’s own words- is  “..trying to go after Photography’s sacred cows”. The BlackLab team are a firm believer that the photographic market is in a difficult transitional period at the moment, with more emphasis on nostalgia than innovation. Trawling the visual wreckage was their attempt to visualize their “manefesto”.  To do this they created two short films which were a mixture of short video clips from a number of sources; classic films, documentaries and B-movies to name a few.

I’ll be honest here and say it was a  joy to watch with equal parts thought provoking, amusing and totally bewildering. However I don’t think I fully grasped the message. It’s probably fair to suggest that I wasn’t really supposed to. The conclusion I have drawn -rightly or wrongly- is that the films were a process and by that I mean an opportunity for the BlackLab team to attempt to put in words moving images what they are all about and I think by offering this process to be viewed by others, gave them a chance to reflect which allows progression. I feel that BlackLab is about progression, in more than simply progressing themselves but progressing with the minefield that is contemporary photography.

No doubt Mishka is reading this now saying “what shite is Brian talking” but it’s what I took from it all. Apart from that fact it’s a great excuse to get a bunch of like minded people in a room together and chat about what they love, just like an exhibition opening night ;-) .

I have just had my website update by a good friend Luke Roughley. Really happy with the results, and as soon as I sort out all my colour profiling issues it will be up and running at www.brianjmorrison.com

Cheers Luke. You can check out his graphic design work here.

After last weeks look at the purpose of creating awareness of a politically and socially volatile subject by using photography, I have decided to look at another way photography can be used to inform and create a different way of thinking. Taryn Simon gives an excellent talk on her work over at ted.com. (source Edward Hardy)

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO

Her approach to these hidden areas of society is far removed from that of Peter Van Agtmael (for example). As are her processes and –in my opinion- her ability to invoke change. I am not suggesting that work of Simon’s nature will start a “revolution” however her understated images require the viewer so explore. Her work requires an understanding of society, globalization and politics. Simon challenges the viewer to learn and to understand what is happening and why these things are wrong. This attempt to induce questions of our own daily lives and the world outside of our own living rooms is what separates her work from those of horror and gore. It takes no time to understand that a blood cover child being cradled in their mother’s arms is wrong. How can we begin to challenge something if we do not fully understand it?

Check out this blog post by Jim Johnson regarding an article by Chris Hedges on two recent war related photo books, 2nd Tour Hope I don’t Die by Peter Va Agtmael and Afterwar by Lori Grinker. ( orginal source jim colberg Concentious).

Click here and then come back!

I read the Hedges article previous to Jim Johnson’s and the first thing that popped into my head was Sontag’s Regarding the Pain of others. Not only for the reasons Johnson mentions, (“that only those who experience war directly can truly grasp its horrific realities, he departs from her skeptical premise that images of those horrors might convey some understanding or sensitivity and that those effects might be motivating.” ) but for her reference to Georges Bataille and his “death of a hundred cuts image”. The intrinsic link between pain and pleasure, and the disturbing nature of the human condition arbitrating the acceptability of these two seemingly opposing emotions, is surely paramount to this discussion. Unfortunately as Johnson notes, Hedges embarks on a harangue against the government and or the mass media.

Certainly I agree within mainstream media there are elements of nostalgia attached to war but more specifically towards the “warriors” who go to “protect” their nations interests. It is also fair to say that we -as citizens of a democracy- should be privy to all sides of any argument that ultimately affects our lives. The censoring of atrocious imagery from war zones is deigning those citizens the opportunity to visually experience these atrocities (for what ever gain that may be). However as Jim Johnson points out Hedges deconstruction of two photographic books turns into a rant on the devastation of war and how important it is that these book are available to the public to create awareness of such atrocities. With that notion the books surely become nothing less than a documentation of the intensely savage and horrific nature of war. Hedges unwitting foray into the role of Internet freedom fighter, simultaneously devalues the work of both photographers and his own validation. Hedges offers little to separate these books from the many websites that do nothing but collect and display horrific imagery of post conflict encounters.

I suppose a critical point that Hedges as overlooked is the based around the negative aspects of having images such as those in these books widely available. By negative aspects I do not mean the type of negative poppycock the mainstream media would quickly launch into should these horrors reach the hands of a picture editor. Things like “too upsetting for the general public” or “not suitable mass consumption”, would no doubt be order of the day. No, the negative aspects I would be concerned with are linked to desensitization. If I exclude Sontag’s skepticism towards the effects of horrific imagery and focus on how Hedges decrees, “If we really saw war, what war does to young minds and bodies, it would be harder to embrace the myth of war.” This statement is of course true (when removed from the context of the article) the majority of people who were faced with first hand experiences of what war can do would almost certainly be negatively effected by it. However, Hedges is not talking about first hand experiences he is talking about viewing images and viewing images is relative, interpretation of images is diverse based upon the individuals circumstances but importantly viewing images is repetitive. Repetition installs desensitization; the more something is viewed the less impact it holds. If we were bombarded with these types images through the current forms of mass media it would become second nature to us, the value of these images -in whatever form- (for a revolution or awareness) would become lost in a sea of mundanity.

As Johnson points out Hedges has to be admired for convictions yet ultimately, I am left feeling belittled. There is an air of pomposity to Hedges article; he waxes about revolution whilst not offering his readers the foresight of understanding that war is horrific, I am as aware as I will ever be that the atrocities of war for those directly involved with conflict are incomprehensible.