Revisiting the MoCP

Last week in class we again took a trip down to the Museum of Contemporary Photography to view the "Crime Unseen" exhibit. While I am not always blown away by the shows the MoCP puts on, I found "Crime Unseen" to be a clever premise for an exhibition which presented the viewer with a collection of work that was both connected by a cohesive theme, but also different enough where each artist in the show brought something different to the table.
Opening with Angela Strassheim's work was a strong decision both on part of the gallery as well as out tour guide. I feel Strassheim's photos most directly epitomize the the theme of the show. How does one photograph something that was unseen? This question could be posed towards any of the particular installations of the show, as well as the artists themselves. Strassheim's photos took the most direct and logical approach - you use forensic science to reveal hidden spray patterns from murder scenes long since committed. I was really impressed with the amount of effort it took to get the shots in the first place, which only enhanced the work's value in conjunction with the striking visuals. They are strong in their simplicity, but I wish there was a little something else going on in the images to make the images stand apart from one another a little more, but I imagine that's not the point of this project.
I personally found Christian Patterson's work (which we viewed second) to be really engaging. This is probably because I find a lot in common with my interests in photography. The idea of documenting the supposed tale of an urban legend to find out how much is true and how much is fiction is an interesting thing - especially when you begin to question where the line between fiction and reality really is. I think his work had good variety, though there were a few jarring differences. I was not entirely sure why he selected certain images to be black and white while others relied heavily on color, and I was also not particularly a fan of his "house of cards" image. I think in the context of the rest of the show it did not fit particularly well, though the metaphor is obvious.
Krista Wortendyke's photos on the top floor of the museum were certainly a unique study of not only crime in the city of Chicago, but the effects of seasonal events such as holidays on the human psyche. Everyone knows the winter holidays cause everyone a whole lot of stress, but it is interesting to see how homicide rates spike around that time of year. This project was conceptually very strong, but visually I was left feeling underwhelmed and a little confused at certain points. I did not care for how all the images seem to have been shot in spring or early fall, none of them having any of the visual cues of it being December in Chicago. I would have found it much more compelling to see the scene as it would have been on that specific day one year later. I was a little confused as to the random smattering of landscape-oriented pictures throughout the graph as well. Perhaps if there was a reason behind doing so it would make more sense, but seemingly without reason it is visually disruptive to the overall flow of the timeline.
All criticisms aside, I feel that this show is a valuable and successful accomplishment for the MoCP to check off it's to-do list. I feel this has been one of the more creative and well executed shows the museum has done in recent years, and would like to see what they come up with next.

The Art Institute pt. 2

Our most recent trip to the Art Institute was two fold - Our main goal was to view the works of Timothy O'Sullivan, but first we were treated to a behind the scenes discussion with the Art Institute's head of photographic conservation Getting to go into the underground headquarters of what is arguably Chicago's best collection of photographs was pretty exciting, and seeing some of the prints unmasked and on display was equally interesting. I will say our host was...informative. Although not the most riveting speaker, I felt that I learned a great deal about what it actually means to work for a museum, and the challenges photo conservators face when dealing with unstable chemical processes from many different eras in photography's history. I knew old prints were notoriously fragile, but I had no idea how vulnerable old photos are to not only their chemical make up, but also the things touching the photograph and the environment it is stored in as well. It did surprise me even more to know that c-prints prints from the early color era were the least stable of all existent photographic media. I was also relieved to find out that my digital inkjet prints are not nearly as fragile as what photographers faced in the old days.
Getting the chance to actually step behind closed doors and explore the real inner workings of the conservators' workspace was a pretty unique experience as well. Seeing all the time and effort put into preserving pieces of photographic art, both in house and on the road, really makes you think about how important institutions like art museums are to global culture, history, and education. It makes you realize that art is not merely an expression of inner vision or aesthetic beauty, but a means of preserving ideas for future generations. It takes a lot of effort to keep cultural history alive, and its good to know that so many people are still dedicated to making sure our children's children will be able to see these same photos long after we are gone.

I feel our talk with the conservator was a good preparation exercise for viewing the O'Sullivan prints. I know for me, the lecture allowed me to view the entire exhibition in terms of how the art conservators at the museum want it to be experienced. Its not as easy as just acquiring some work and hanging it on a wall. A lot of thought goes into how particular work is shown. The bit I found very interesting is how many modern art scholars are attempting to bring photography to a museum setting while still retaining the original "essence" of the work. For example, rather than making O'Sullivan's work out to be fine art, they presented it with maps, surveys, and detailed background information - exactly how it would have been seen and experienced by lawmakers who were seeing the western survey books for the first time. This same background information also helped me to appreciate the work to a greater degree. I personally am not crazy about natural landscape shots. However in the context of the time period the photos were shot in, it makes you realize how incredibly difficult it must have been to make it back to civilization with prints of that quality. O'Sullivan working out of a wagon with highly unstable materials in the middle of the high sierras, yet was able to come out with gorgeous, clean glass plate negatives and 3D stereoscopic prints. And although he was simply told to take survey pictures, they have an artistic flair and general curiosity that would be hard to find in any era, much less in a time just after photography was born.