Not quite there yet

[trixtah]

Well, I was going to post up a pic of me sitting very self-consciously on my car de coolness, but I'm having Goddess Visitations of Hell, and my normal l33t pic-shrinking skillz are not working. So, another day.

saluqi and I attended a very groovy exhibition at the NGA on Asia/Pacific photography from 1840-1940 - Picture Paradise. It covered a wide geographical area, from India to the west coast of North America, and all stops in between. This is appropriate because of the roving "crews" (whalers, sealers, sailors, gold diggers, pirates) who created a Pacific economy as colonialisation got underway. And, of course, Northern European colonialisation of those regions is a shared theme. We remarked on the propensity of the colonial elite to build humungous European-style mansions with their cast-of-thousands coolie labour, cut down all the trees and plant oaks in their newly-created parks just like Home (although having lived overseas for a significant proportion of my life now, I know deeply what it's like to miss one's own native foliage. I do prefer what is native to the actual location though).

There was a good range of actual photography styles - historical documentary, landscapes, romanticised "noble savages", bloody awe-inspiring Ansel Adams, the cultural commentary (look at what those nasty Chinese people do to torture criminals), homoeroticism, eroticalisation (is that a word?) of The Other; cultural imperialism, commentary about the cultural imperialism, and on and on. The only problem with the exhibition was that there was no warning about some of the more confronting images (just a warning that some images may not be suitable for children would have sufficed), nor was there much actual commentary on the themes (like those I just identified and more). I don't like it when an artist/curator needs to write an essay on the "meaning" of a work (I dislike art-wank), but I also think a discussion of historical context and the more obvious themes would be in order. For example, all the nameless subjects - I'm sure the Rajah of _stan (pick any) had a name, but it wasn't given with the picture of him in all his finery. Imagine omitting the name of Queen Victoria in any portrait of her.

Perhaps the book that was printed for the exhibition went into the thematic discussion a bit more, but I wasn't going to buy it due to the shoddy nature of the reproductions. It's not that hard to get reproductions of photos right (daguerrotypes and the like can be tricky because of their nature, but still), and for something produced by the NGA itself, it was unbelievable. Highlights blown out, pictures including the frame and thus cluttering up the actual image, incredibly flaky colour balances...

Blah de blah. If you're in Canberra, do go along to it though, if you have an interest in photography and/or the period and region.

Oh, and it inspired a cheezy joke made up by me, due to a cute pic of a duck:

What do you call a collection of insane ducks?
Quackers.

Sorry about that.

Comments

[saluqi.livejournal.com]

Hee! Was an interesting way to pass an afternoon.