Sight
Unscene, The Virtual World of Judy Fiskin
Judy Fiskin: More Art.
Patricia Faure Gallery
Judy
Fiskin's photographic style can best be described as
deadpan: black-and-white images, two and one-half inches
square, printed out on slick, white, letter-sized paper
and ensconced behind chunky black frames. The subjects
she captures seem equally ordinary – be they desert
scenes, military
buildings, or period
furniture. But
upon extended viewing, Fiskin's photos blossom from straight-ahead
to subtly skewed, and from dull to droll, especially
her popular Dingbats series,
wherein she documents that unique style of Southern California
architecture – the small-to-midsized apartment
building – in all its strangely stuccoed, artfully
appliquéed, and nuttily numbered glory.
Fiskin's
photographs are not documents, per se, as there's no
such intent: There are no captions, no attempts at comprehensiveness
or order. Instead, Fiskin's series exhibits the pared-down,
no-nonsense look we've come to expect from the amateur
academics we call conceptual artists. But her work, though
surely invested in the taxonomies of photography and
the politics of representation, is not simply about process
or tricky rhetoric – it's about seeing. By privileging
the visual, Fiskin's pictures are at once infinitely
more interesting than run-of-the-mill photographic conceptual
art (which uses photography only as a thing to criticize,
or as a language through which to criticize other things)
and more down to earth: Fiskin is one of very few artists
who make art – conceptual or otherwise – that
performs not for us or on us, but through us.
The
exhibition More Art is
a series of photos, most of which have been shown before,
depicting a mix of nineteenth-century and turn-of-the-century
artistic ephemera. All of the subjects – from catalog
illustrations to postcards – are, in one sense
or another, art; by photographing (and in some cases,
re-photographing) such second-string cultural objects,
Fiskin doubly removes them from a concrete art-historical
context. She then smoothes them over with her uniform
style, allowing us to look at them anew, and without
an (apparent) intrusive agenda.
All
of her photographs are untitled, though descriptive parenthetical
phrases are appended. A wax profile of Louis XIV is creepily
lifelike, and made strangely common by Fiskin's cropping
of any royal trappings. The French effigy's weirdly three-dimensional
hair is echoed in a photo of a nautical painting surrounded
by a thick frame of knotted rope, and again in a staticky
shot of a sandpaper painting of George Washington's tomb
(all three, 1992). The oval compositions of a nineteenth-century
mosaic view of Rome (1992), and an Edward Gorey-esque
American mourning embroidery of the same period (1993),
are like darkened keyholes to craft's strangely parallel
life to fine art.
Most
intriguing of all are the shots of illustrations from
furniture and cabinetmakers' catalogs. Their strict functionality
allows for more vigorous conjectural free play: The short
middle limbs of a four-legged couch seem suddenly suggestive;
the legs of an end table, drawn in poor perspective,
flatten into a classic optical illusion (both 1992).
In the one 1994 piece in the show, an illustration of
a dressed window (from an 1896 proto-Ikea catalog) is
anthropomorphized: A curtain of lozenges and stripes
is upstaged by a leopard-spotted demishade peeking out
from its lower half; behind, a windowpane stares blankly
back at the viewer.
Though
the conceptual apparatus of Fiskin's photos is as straightforward
as the images themselves, slippage is provided by her
audience: It's a function of our socially generated attraction
to small blocks of information (be they tabloid headlines,
sound bites, or Fiskin's pictures) and our desire for
narrative, facilitated by our persistence of vision – our
innate need to complete or create a story from available
clues. Warmth is provided by Fiskin's removal of hard
content, but also by our own nostalgia. This is, I think,
why her Dingbats are
so popular, especially in Los Angeles; by removing the
burden of specificity from an ostensibly documentary
activity, Fiskin creates the raw material of a shared
history – like a family album without captions,
or a postcard of a tree-lined street in a small town.
Fiskin's "Art" photographs, though more academically
illustrative of her strategy, perform similarly, by effortlessly
blending the inconsequential into a comfortable canon.
In a city where history doesn't stick, Fiskin demonstrates
a model for a virtual cultural heritage.
– David A. Greene
|