Allegory is allos agoreuei in
Latin. It means to speak otherwise
(allos=other; agoreuei=to speak) – to tell one story through another.
Originally from literature, allegory had been widely used in art from before
the Renaissance until the emergence of modernism. Since the start of postmodernism, there has been a
resurgence of usage of allegory in contemporary art.
As a newly established contemporary
art medium, photography has a complication with real, especially when it is
used to reflect current or historical issues. Henry Fox Talbot once called photography “the pencil of
nature”, photography record ‘truth’ indexically through reflected light. Representation is cropped out of the
reality context from the moment when the photograph is taken. The photographic
image then reveals a space enabling different narratives, meanings and potential
significance via this de-contextualisation process. Craig Owen (1980, p.69)
says that "Allegorical imagery is appropriated imagery; the allegorist
does not invent images but confiscates them". The photographer does not
invent the ‘truth’ either. He utilises the camera to confiscate the ‘truth’
fragment and use it as a vessel to convey something other. We may say that any photograph is an
appropriated reality hence photography is a medium with the potential for
allegory. The allegorical meaning
“supplants an antecedent one” (Owen, 1980, p.69).
Some contemporary photographic
artists develop allegorical interpretations of the current and historical
cultural, social and political issues through a variety of approaches. This strategy has been widely used in
the Düsseldorf School led by Bernd and Hilla Becher. In this essay, I will analyse how allegorical interpretation
is conveyed via different photographic practices by discussing Thomas Ruff’s
series Portrait (1986) and Andrea Gursky’s Paris, Montparnasse (1993).
Figure 1
Portrait 1986 (Stoya)
Thomas Ruff
Chromogenic color print.
1600 x 1205 mm
Courtesy: Tate Modern, London
Thomas Ruff created series Portrait
in the period of1981-85, 1986-91 and resume to work it since 1998. There are 60 images with coloured
backgrounds made before 1985 in small prints and 129 with neutral backgrounds
made after 1986 in large prints. I
will focus on images in his series made in 1986.
There are 14 images made in 1986
with the identical size of 160cm x 120cm. Each individual face is enlarged enormously bigger than life
size in a monumental way. They
wear everyday clothes set in white neutral background. Are expressionless with deadpan
complexions revealing no emotions at all.
The detail is exposed sharply and clearly with great
verisimilarity. The texture and
colour of the skin can be read almost as though under a microscope. We can even see each hair pore, every
eyelash, and other minute details.
The excess detail in the images
seems to signify something. If we stand in front of these large images, these
details become abstract in our perceptions when we gaze at them for a while. We
might begin to question if this is part of a human’s expressive face. We are so near to these faces but at
the same time they are far away in distance, mute and impassive. This abundance of detail lets us
contemplate that we probably “cannot decide for certain what is signified and
even less what the seen subject is thinking.” (Bate, 2009, p.85) Valeria Liebermann (2001) commented on
Ruff’s Portrait:
“And yet the
viewer could never get beyond the surface of the image, because so little was
revealed of the figures themselves as to their character, individuality or
personality. The sitters
disappeared behind their likeness and left only a precise record of their
external appearance which in turn served as a reflective surface of the
viewer.” (unpaged)
Thomas Ruff took advantage of
photography’s indexical trait and exaggerated to convey his allegory of
real. He used these large prints
to enlarge details to challenge our common perception and let us
contemplate. He used a series
rather than a single image to explore the allegory further. We see the identical composition,
unified background and the same lack of expression in these vast flat
photographic image surfaces. It
could be explained as an allegory of two conflicting social forces and Ruff
turns one (spectacle) against another (surveillance). Bryson and Fairbrother (1991, p.96) commented “They say out
loud ‘I am no-one (special)’; and at the same time, they whisper, ‘but I am
someone special al the same’. These are the latest generation, of surveillance
and spectacle combined.”
Ruff made these images by using a
large format view camera at f-45 with studio flash with umbrella and short
exposure time. (Winzen, 2001, p.38)
Following his tutor Becher, he reduced photography’s medium expressivity
to zero and stripped the subjective characteristics to achieve his visual
strategy. In so doing, he
uncovered photography’s true artistic essence and created his allegory. He made two points on photography
in the 90’s: that photography can only reproduce the surface of things, and
that a photography is also a statement whose accuracy must be verified through
a series of tests, just as a scientist would test out a theory - a single
photograph, like a single test, is not enough (Ruff, 1996, p.108). His series brings out less as
individual characters but more the anonymous and generic qualities that each
sitter embodies. To a certain extent, Portrait conveyed his conviction that
photography can only reproduce the surface of things even though we could
engage with many allegorical issues under such a surface.
Figure 2
Paris, Montparnasse
Andreas Gursky.
Chromogenic color print.
205 x 421 cm
Courtesy: Matthew Marks Gallery,
New York,
His contemporary, Andrea Gursky
normally creates and uses single image.
Paris, Montparnasse is an image measuring 205 x 421 cm. We see a multi storied homogeneous flat
block façade of countless windows. The boulevard in the front is dwarfed by the
height of the block. We cannot see the left and right border of the block,
which makes us perceive that the block might be extended to infinity. Upon a closer look, we can see each
window and its inside with great details.
Figure 3
Detail
Paris, Montparnasse
Andreas Gursky.
Chromogenic color print.
205 x 421 cm
Courtesy: Matthew Marks Gallery,
New York,
Hans Irrek (2000, pp.48-59)
compared the experience of viewing Gursky’s work to an experience on a
Shakespearean stage. We can choose to sit below and near to view specific
detailed performance, or choose to sit higher and further to see the play’s
overview. Due to Paris, Montparnasse’s epic size, we have to step back to see
the overall structure of the building.
From this distance, we see the abstract and static structure we would
never notice if we pass through the block in person. There is sublime in the
vastness and infinity. If we step close to the image, we find every window is
revealed. We see the curtains, the
interiors with lamps, chairs, potted plants and even persons in their own
moment, who did not notice being captured by the camera at all. We know each individual window scene is
probably a home. This becomes
alienated from the viewer as we would never enter or interact with these
thousands of little worlds and we can only stand in front of them and
observe. Galassi (2002) mentioned
the experience of seeing Gursky’s work:
“Our Olympian
detachment makes the familiar strange to us, and, like benign extraterrestrials
who have unexpectedly encountered an inhabited plant, we study the view with
disinterested curiosity, free equally of urgency and malice.” (p.23)
This detachment and distance
creates a space enabling us to engage with the image further from the current
reality we are living in. Who are
those people living there? How
could such a gigantic flat block be built in Paris Montparnasse…
Paris, Montparnasse is a visual
allegory of contemporary culture, politics and society. Gursky once remarks “to go to the
centre-city is to encounter the social ‘truth’, to take part in the magnificent
plenitude of ‘reality’.” (Gursky, 1992, p.7) He appropriated the flat block and
created a social allegory. It seems that this is not only a flat block physical
façade but also a condensed society spectacle, with mass produced homogenous
lives exposed to authorities’ surveillance.
There are neither distorted
perspective lines nor any single vanishing points in the image. Everything in
the image is shown in great detail sharply with nothing out of focus. We know no wide-angle lens or large
format camera can make such an image.
Unlike Ruff’s Portrait (1986),
Gursky applied digital manipulation to his work Paris, Montparnasse. It is one of the early digital works
that Gursky used digital technology for in the early 90’s after his first
digital montage work “Restaurant, St Moritz” in 1991. From Schmidt-Garre’s
(2011) documentary on Gursky, we know that he normally takes several Polaroid
or smaller photos, and then montages them together to achieve his basic
composition before formally involving his large format camera. Paris, Montparnasse is planned this way
and created digitally with a fusion of several images taken from different
perspectives.
Digital montage is Gursky’s
strategy to create his allegory of real.
He uses this approach to represent the world – to get freedom restricted
from the pure indexical characteristic of the photographic medium. This in a way is detrimental to the
intrinsic indexical credibility photography has. Just after the technical development enabling digital
post-photography manipulation, William J. Michell (1992, p.20) says, “From the
moment of its sesquicentennial in 1989 photography was dead—or, more precisely,
radically and permanently displaced—as was painting 150 years before”.
Gursky took up this technology and
disobeyed the Becher’s tradition of objective documentation by developing it
further. The traditional objective
documentation is never an objective one, as Walter Benjamin already asserted in
1931 (p.255) “reproduction of reality now says less than ever about
reality”. The moment the image is
taken it ceases to be objective. Gursky himself neither claims factuality, nor
says he is making a fiction. He
emphasised that the crucial thing is the direct grasp of reality by embracing
the digital technology. He
conflates the documentation realism with the digital postproduction creating a
new allegory of real. He utilised
the new medium specificity and continued to exploit the documentary expectation
of the photography medium. Our
eyes cannot easily perceive his masterly digital manipulation, as it looks so
real. To simplify, we may say that
this truer truth mirrors the surroundings we are living – the post capitalism
globalisation hyper reality. The viewing experience becomes part of the
allegory of real. The montage does
not “falsify” (Hentschel, 2008 p.28) anything; it intensifies the allegorical
interpretation of the current reality.
Owens (1980) alleged that allegory deconstructs the readings of the
pre-existing interpretation and supplants one with another (p.82). We see that Portrait and Paris,
Montparnasse first evoke the literal reading, as a passport or mug shot and a
flat block façade, and then that view becomes replaced by something other. Both artists’ visual strategy is to
create convincingly real but strangely artificial -“data sublime” (Stallabrass,
2007, unpaged) in Ruff ‘s Portrait and subtle manipulations in Gursky’s Paris,
Montparnasse both using large format image making with great verisimilarity.
Under our gaze, the content of the images are intercepted and supplanted
by “something other”. In an
allegory, “the image is a hieroglyph; an allegory is a rebus – writing composed
of concrete images” (Benjamin, 1938, cited in Owens 1980, p.84) “Portrait” is a political
allegory. What is on the
photograph is not just an anonymous portrait but a social and political
phenomenon with multi layered allegorical significance such as surveillance,
democracy and even spectacle.
Paris, Montparnasse is not simply a building’s façade. It is an
allegorical interrogation of our current times, economical, political, and
social globalization hyper-realities.
Benjamin summarized the process of making them strange and alienating
then in order to uncover them. (cited in Owens, 1980, p.85) The machinery of representation by
photography empowered Ruff and Gursky to “super-induce a vertical or
paradigmatic reading of correspondences upon a horizontal or syntagmatic chain
of events”. (Owens, 1980, p.96)
Owens considered this as Barthes’ “obtuse meaning” and elaborates as
something to do with disguise. (p.97) It is identified with “isolated details
of make-up and costume (which properly belong to the literal level)” (Owens,
p.98) and proclaims their artifices through excess.
Photography is an indexical surface functioning as allegory
signifiers. The allegorical obtuse
meaning is the “third meaning” following literal and symbolic ones. It is the third surface, under which we
deconstruct the supposed meanings of the images and reconstruct another reality
with the intervention of obtuse meaning.
Contemporary photography practice draws historical and current reference
from everyday life and reflects allegorical enigmatic and complex realism with
traditional, digital or even hybrid media techniques.
Benjamin, Walter (1977) The Origin of German Tragic Drama Trans. John Osborne, London, NLB
cited in Scott Bryson, et al, eds. Beyond Recognition: Representation,
Power, and Culture. Berkeley
: University of California Press.
Bates, David, (2009) Photography:
the Key Concepts. Oxford: Berg.
Benjamin, Walter, (1985) “A Short
History of Phtography” (1931) in One Way Street and Other Writings. tran. Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter, London:
Verso.
Galassi, Peter, (2001) “Gursky’s World” in Andreas Gursky. New York: Museum of Modern Art.
Gursky, Andreas, (1992. Andreas Gursky. exh. Cat. Cologne: Kunsthalle Zurich.
Hentschel, Martin, (2008) Andreas
Gursky Works 80-08. Hatje Cantz.
Hurzeler, Catherine, (1996) “ Interview with Thomas Ruff”, in Thomas
Ruff. Malmo: Rooseum Center for
Contemporary Art.
Irrek, Hans, (2000) “Shakespeare‟s Stage,” in Gloria
Moure ed. Architecture Without Shadow, Barcelona: Ediciones Poligrafa.
Mitchell, William J., (1992) The
Reconfigured Eye - Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Owens, Craig, (1980) “The Allegorical Impulse: Toward a Theory of
Postmodernism.” (1992) in Scott Bryson, Barbara Kruger,Lynne Tillman,and Jane
Weinstock eds., Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power, and Culture. Berkeley : University of California
Press.
Ruff, Thomas, (2001) quoted in V.
Liebermann, 'Photography as Proving Ground', Thomas Ruff. exh. cat., London.
Liebermann, Valeria, (2001)
'Photography as Proving Ground', Thomas Ruff. exh. cat., London.
Schmidt-Garre, Jan (2011) DVD, Andreas
Gursky - Long Shot Close Up, Halle: Arthaus
Musik GmbH
Smithson, Robert, (1079) ‘A Sedimentation of Mind:
Earth Projects’ in Nancy Holt (ed.), The Writings of Robert Smithson. New York: New York
University Press.
Stallabrass, Julian, (2007) What’s in a
Face? Blankness and Significance in Contemporary Art Photography’,
Available at
Accessed: 03/03/2012.
Schmidt-Garre, Jan, (2009) Long
Shot Close Up – Andreas Gursky. Berlin:
Paris Media.
Winzen, Matthias, ed. (2001) Thomas
Ruff: 1979 to the present. Cologne: Walther
König.
Image Credits:
Figure 1
Portrait 1986 (Stoya)
Thomas Ruff
Chromogenic color print.
1600 x 1205 mm
Courtesy: Tate Modern, London
Figure 2
Paris, Montparnasse
Andreas Gursky.
Chromogenic color print.
205 x 421 cm
Courtesy: Matthew Marks Gallery,
New York,
Figure 3
Detail
Paris, Montparnasse
Andreas Gursky.
Chromogenic color print.
205 x 421 cm
Courtesy: Matthew Marks Gallery,
New York,
Hi Kun!
ReplyDeleteWalead Beshty described allegory in it's most basic sense as when one text is read through another (Abstracting Photography, in Words Without Pictures ed. C., Cotton, 2008)
As in the photograph, the object/subject of allegory is not nominally present, thus demanding the spectator/audience to give a name, unless a taxonomy is already attached unchallenged.
See Wittgenstien's Word Games.
Btw thank you so much for your review!
James x