The frame of a photograph functions as "a technology itself," as something that organizes the viewer's perception in a way that provokes the intricate processes that accompany any interaction with art (Emerling 48). This interpretation of the frame as a technology ties into the idea of photography as creation, exhibiting "something that did not exist before" (Emerling 49). Lee Friedlander's 'ambiguity of place' furthers this concept because it draws attention to the impact of the photographer's perspective, acknowledging the documentation of a specific space as a representation of a representation, a guide for the frame to depict the artist's specific vision, experience, and ties to the place. Such an idea emphasizes the importance of the frame and photography's status as an ever-changing medium, since both deliberately encourage distinct opinions of a single perspective, even from the initial moments of its conception.
Rosalind Krauss's take on Surrealism mentioned her discovery of photography as a means to an end. To me, this connects with the importance of the frame, since one interpretation of this medium is that it is created not to provide an aesthetically pleasing portrait but instead to inspire discourse through what is included and excluded, an effect of both the photograph itself and the frame that encloses it. What is meant to be viewed as art is not the image that one gains from just observing, but the framework that composes it.
 |
| Salvador Dali, The Phenomenon of Ecstasy (1933) |
Photographs like Salvador Dali's The Phenomenon of Ecstasy display the necessity of the frame in order to visualize "what exceeds or transgresses it," allowing the viewer to discern the intention behind its use (Emerling 57). To me, the idea of the frame in the context of Dali's piece exemplifies the type of insinuations that can be provoked from its proper use. The closeup shots of seemingly unconscious, catatonic, or unwilling individuals and their individual frames add a level of discomfort and mystery that arises from the knowledge that the photographer retained some level of control when creating these images, and that despite his control, resolved to producing images as uncanny as the ones shown. The intentional inclusion and exclusion of the subjects' anatomies provokes discourse that questions the image in relation to its intention and in relation to one's personal reactions. Photography is thus set apart from other visual media thanks to the frame, since it is the frame itself that encourages a dialogue concerning what is within and without.
Emerling mentions that the out-of-field has two functions, the first, its designation of "that which exists elsewhere," and the second, its testimony to "a more disturbing presence, one which cannot even be said to exist, but rather, to 'insist' or 'subsist'" (Emerling 69). Is this designation of an Elsewhere unique to photography? Why do you think so? Is the frame's disturbing allusion to the Elsewhere provoked by the photograph's closeness to reality?
No comments:
Post a Comment