In last week’s post I posited the thought about the necessity of learning a photographic language to understand (and possibly enjoy) post-modernist photography. I wondered if there is a guide to understanding the post-modern photograph that would allow me to gain an appreciation for what is presented to the viewing public. I went down that rabbit hole to see what there was to see.
Oh my.
If there is anything less understandable to me than the post-modern photograph it would be the writing about post-modernist photographs. It’s as if this entire artistic discipline exists in a completely other world that speaks its own language and makes it extremely difficult for non-insiders to truly understand what the artist’s intent is for the work. I cannot fathom the dense, imprecise prose surrounding these efforts. It’s like the authors and artists dare you to try and understand what the meaning and motivation are for the art. The meaning of the work and the critical assessment might be well understood in this fraternity, but alas, I am an outsider.
I wonder if I am missing out on something by not being able to interpret the cryptic writings of post-modernism. Or are the rest of us left out on purpose?
Comments