What's new in Arles?
Is photography doomed to be spoken of so often in the past tense?
Obviously, every photograph is, in essence, a past moment, frozen, that we invite to consume in the present. There is a time lag at the outset. Unlike painting, whose temporality can easily be expelled.
But when you come across a brief article on the Rencontres d'Arles in L'Œil magazine, you think, somewhat naively no doubt, that you are going to discover new and original reasons to ask the legendary "little bird" to come out of its box.
But no. These reasons have also been replaced by great causes. For example. We sense something new when Smith's work is mentioned, but if he is singled out by journalist Christine Coste, it is because he "questions our time through the question of identity and gender. Translate: this question works personally on the artist in his body and for this reason there is already a beginning of art in the particular sensitivity that serves here as a prism to look at reality.
In terms of novelty, we are offered a summer revision of the Little Wise Guide to Socially Useful Art. Let's not forget that Lou Reed released his mythical album Transformer in 1972 and that his cover photo would not be tacky in Arles. No comment. So let's say that there is a selection logic that is more akin to a celebrity magazine than an art criticism journal.
But why not? Let's admit that the artist and the subject can count at least as much as the photograph itself. So let's assume that some art press titles talk about art and others focus on art news. We can love them for that. But when we read a report on the Rencontres 2021absent la scène en 2020, we hope for freshness in this case, for want of real novelty.
Something new like 'the relationship Hugo has maintained since the beginning'? Yes, yes. Hugo is very current. Trendy even. Especially since the reopening of the Maison Hugo at 6 place des Vosges. In any case, we are promised an "interesting introspection". An important clarification in case we think that art should bring us something other than what we already have in ourselves. Fresh like what then? Like the New Wave of the 1960s with Raymond Gauchetier? Fresh like a retrospective? The one devoted to Sabine Weiss?
It is fine to respect the great works and artists of the past. It is from them that today's art can be defined. And therefore exist. But it would be nice to learn in a few lines if you missed something important artistically when you were unable to attend an event like the Rencontres d'Arles. On that score, it's nothing. As if L'Œil didn't imagine that we could have such considerations. Or, even worse, as if the press were resigned to reporting on the current state of the art world, where nothing would ever change. The deconfinement also applies to the little bird. Let's not change magazines. Let's move on to another article. Good luck to our photographer friends.
Illustrations:
- Smith - Untitled No. 001 Desideration Series - 2001 - 2019
- Lou Reed - Transformer - 1972