Catherine Lampert’s essay “Family of Own Gender”
is an introduction to The Devil’s Playground, a consolidation of Nan Goldin's work.
Lampert claims Goldin's attitude towards
her portraiture is about exchanging gifts with her subjects, such as moments,
consent and print. She also states that Goldin was a merely a spectator to her generation’s
lifestyle and eccentricity. Although I feel this might be the case, I cannot
help but question if Goldin herself, may have been the director of some
scenarios she photographed.
Lampert also claims goldin's images to be
“Snapshots” and that she allows her subjects to “self define”. I feel it is the
intention of Goldin to produce and capture some of these moments, which leads
me believe that Goldin is defining her subjects and creating compliance so she
could depend on her subjects, enabling her to produce the work she does.
If Goldin's work is vernacular and merely a
voyeur to these situations, why is her photography seen as sub cultural? It’s well
documented that she had close relationships with her subjects and kept
their emotions close, which enabled her to create an intimacy in front of the
camera. I don’t believe goldin's photography to be voyeuristic because of the
clear intention towards the relationships with her subjects.
I believe Goldin’s work to be very personal
and produced because of her relationships with the subjects and certainly not truly
voyeuristic. It takes intelligence to see the exploitation some people may read
within your imagery, and the benefits to producing this genre of work. Being
highly controversial in a world of artist is one way to go down in history, and
who better to produce with than your extended family.
Referencing:
Nan Goldin (2008) The Devil's Playground, London:
Phaidon.
No comments:
Post a Comment