Congrats to Paul on his strong showing at the TED Conference in Monterey. The prints looked great and were seen by tons of famous people.
Congrats to Paul on his strong showing at the TED Conference in Monterey. The prints looked great and were seen by tons of famous people.
Here is a link to the work. It may be his strongest yet.
http://www.paulshambroomart.com/art/...ity/index.html
Good stuff, thanks Tim.
I like the first 5 or 6 the best, the "portraits" of the people in the safety suits. How they stand somewhat awkwardly and haplessly seems an apt metaphor for our (in)ability to understand what security and protection really are, and how to go about it. I also love the saturated backgrounds, dramatic to the point of being ominous. And somehow, grim as the portraits are, the faint trace of irony is also there, which makes them even better.
Long live irony!
The work is ironic?Originally Posted by Martin Miller
Maybe it would be if he got a group portrait of all the different guys in their suits and masks.
Paul, I was hoping to get away with a quick, humorous (even ironic) reply to Claudio's comment, however, this thread actually could be the stimulus for a more extended discussion of intent and meaning in photographs. [Groan!]
When I study the images in the Security series, I find that the suit portraits seem different from the rest. If Claudio sees "a faint trace of irony", I see the suit images as dripping with it. The backgrounds are either desaturated or are faded photographic backdrops. The highly saturated figures stand out as cartoonish, Fischer-Price figures living a make-believe reality. There is nothing "grim" about them except the motivation for the existence of these training centers. I find it hard not to interpret this portrayal as a childlike government response to the security issue. Shambroom himself gives no verbal clue to this reading in his statement, saying only "This work examines issues of fear, safety and liberty in post-9/11 America." However, my impression is only strengthened by the oafish body language present in some. It's as if these trainees think that what they are doing is ridiculous and really have no confidence in the efficacy of what they are being trained to do. For me the irony comes in Shambroom's stated objectivity, "examining the issues" and his real intent, which is to make a political statement.
As I suggested, this may be a case of the essential ambiguity of meaning in photographic representation, either intended or not, but I don't see a viable alternative to my interpretation. Somebody help me out by making another case.
Yeah, I see your point.
I think Shambroom's stuff has always worked on a few different levels, and one of them includes the kind of irony you're talking about.
In general, though, I've felt like his work is motivated by curiosity as much as anything else. His nuclear infrastructure work seemed driven by fascination with the topic. He exuded this the one time I had a chance to talk to him in person. I also sensed that he was horrified by the prospects of nuclear war, and thought the stuff was basically evil, but the pictures weren't coming from such a simple, rhetorical stance. They were more like, "holy sh*t ... look at THAT!" I see a lot of the same spirit in these pictures. Especially the detonated cars.
I agree that there's something tongue-in-cheek about the oafishness/cartooniness of a lot of the portraits. Although that might come from putting someone dressed for high-tech action in a sanitized, motionless pose for a big camera. Kind of like seeing Batman at the mall photo studio.
The ones of "terror town" ... especially the playground pic ... strike me as more ironic than the rest (in the traditional photo documentary sense).
Last edited by paulr; 7-Mar-2008 at 15:04.
I saw this show, when it was at one of the Columbia College galleries in Chicago. I think it's very good work and as Paul mentions, it works on a number of levels. It serves as a document of those outlandish suits along with the underpinnings of the government programs and social forces that produced them and the associated sites. The work is also playful and somewhat ironic, but in a restrained way--which is nice for letting viewers draw their own conclusions. I think the photographer leaves a lot room for ambiguity--which strengthens the work. The technical quality of the prints was excellent, which along with the lighting--makes for a formal presentation.
The reason why I said "faint" trace of irony was because I didn't think that being snarky was his primary motivation, just one of the levels, as others have said. I really see him trying to understand the awkwardness of their situation as a metaphor or barometer of how well or not we are reacting to this hot button issue. It is perceived honestly, in the sense that there is fascination with the technology, respect for the workers, perhaps genuine concern that this isn't enough of a response to this perceived threat, and yes, also, "gee, he looks goofy." The strength of the work for me is that he is being so straightforward (and subtle at the same time).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks