'The Detective' by Sophie Calle

Jonathan wrote

Please can we try to debate - ...

I'm not quite sure what debate you're wanting.

Peter wrote

Jonathan - is simply suggesting that the idea of an artist as subject and central character in her own work is a definite and layered enough 'work' so as to suggest a new paradigm.

Shades of Cindy Sherman meets the double agent:) I understand. I just don't see a debate as I see it more as a journalistic recording of performing art then photographic art.

The simple of my thought is, "Okay." "This is what she's doing." "Cool."

I'm a lot more accepting then people give me credit for:)

I haven't looked at the work but it sounds like fun. I'm glad that there are those (Calle et al) out there who think in this way. It's a refreshing change from the hyperseriousness of 'fine art'.

While it is per se interesting, I'm not interested in conceptual photography as it takes away the sole concept of the medium: to make sense out of what is already there.

the sole concept of the medium: to make sense out of what is already there.

When did this become the "sole concept"? Almost from day one, many photographers have shaped their photos rather than simply photographed what was there. Most portraits are "conceptual" in the same sense - the photographer creates the environment and creates the photograph.

John Clarence Laughlin stated that what was interesting about photography was (and I'm paraphrasing here as I don't have the book in front of me) not photographing the object itself, but photographing something beyond the object. I find this to be a useful way of looking at photography - perhaps the opposite of the "snapshot aesthetic" that Maria proposes. It allows a lot more exploration than sticking to one interpretation of photography.

FWIW, I saw some prints last week by Cirenaica Moreira and was stunned. I was almost compelled to spend a month's pay on a print. Like Sherman, she inserts herself in every image, but she creates a very different result than Sherman. Her work can be seen here.

I would add that the Auster connection is very interesting. Auster, in his New York Trilogy, uses a character named Paul Auster. He also writes in circles in the book, using the character writing as a way of both analying and revealing. Sort of a post-modernist way of writing, when you look closely at it.

Roger Scruton, in his excellent essay 'Photography and Representation' concluded that what makes photography a uniqe medium is the fact that it is essentially 'a mechanical process' and as such it cannot be representational (unlike painting or other representational arts)-- photography has no intention to represent something else. It's an old argument and I happen to agree with Scruton and don't see a better way that would differentiate photography from painting, for example.

I don't know if this link is better, but it is another photo from that series.

http://www.dareonline.org/artwork/calle/calle3.html

Scruton is, quite simply, wrong. As soon as one learns darkroom technique or the equivalent in Photoshop, photography goes beyond being simply a "mechanical process" and becomes something more than that. That's the simplest refutation - there is plenty more that just doesn't play in his representation. It's not surprising that he sees photography that way since he comes from the "traditionalist" art perspective, rather than the perspective of people who think art has changed in the last hundred years. And it completely fails to comprehend "conceptual" photography.