Jeff Wall's interview with David Shapiro is interesting because Wall talks about how he began as a painter before moving to photography and then into art theory (though he doesn't consider himself an art theorist). What I liked was how each transition made sense the way he described it. Essentially, Wall was looking for a new mode of expression and the form that he chose, whether photography or writing, was the only one that could suitably work. For example, his essays on aesthetics and theory grew out of his teaching. He taught for a long time and had certain ideas regarding art history and making notes for his lectures gave him the inspiration to elongate certain concepts into essays, which were then published in retrospectives or in collections. In short, it was an organic evolution and not just a matter of, "Oh, I'm a theorist now," but rather a natural turn of events and mode of expression for one given to teaching, thinking, and extrapolating data from the consciousness and seeking a means of expressing it and finding the traditional form of writing as the most effective means on that front. How he went from painting to photography is interesting as well because he is so elusive in his discussion of this topic. He says of the move, "I can't answer that. If I could answer that question, I'd know a lot" (Shapiro). He evokes the mystery of the artist in that reply and leaves it at that, not wishing to offer any other explanation into the mystery of calling and vocation. For a moment, I thought he might say, "Well, it's easier to push a button and take a picture than sit down for hours with brushes and try to hammer something out," but that may just be my explanation. His discussion about where painting is heading, however, supports my explanation: he states that hands and eyes are effectively the tools that a painter uses for serious art, which is permanent. Painting he says is the "most sophisticated, ancient practice" (Shapiro).

And yet he is in a way a painter, as can be argued with his The Giant, which is a kind of digital painting of modern life. It shows a nude woman superimposed in a shopping mall, but she is imposed not to scale so that she seems enormous compared to her surroundings. Is there a metaphor here? Is the Giant like the elephant in the room, and that elephant being female sexuality? Or does the Giant represent something else? In the end, I suppose that it can mean whatever the viewer wants it to mean because of the subjective nature of art. But such subjectivity might be the cause of fragmentation in society, and Wall's works have been criticized, so says Shapiro, for not being fragmented enough -- which is an interesting note. Shapiro states that there is no interruption in the works -- that they are immediate, apparent, obvious, on the surface. This is partly because that is what Wall is attempting to get at, I believe. He is interested in the surfaces that we project, and by presenting them in a slightly disturbed moment, such as A Gust of Wind, he catches us off guard and shows us what is lurking just beneath the surface. In a sense, this is what is happening in The Giant.

Wall then goes on to discuss the aesthetic of fragmentation and suggests that fragmentation is too in vogue, in a sense -- that the demand from fragmentation is supposed to meet the society's feeling of being fragmented. Wall asserts that it grew out of the avant-garde, but I might suggest that fragmentation has a deeper sociological root. In a sense, fragmentation is what T.S. Eliot is writing about in The Waste Land -- and that poem was written nearly a hundred years ago. However, one could make the case that that poem grew out of the avant-garde as well, so Wall is probably correct in his assertion.

He states earlier in the interview that he falls back upon 19th century painting to provide him with a framework, so for him fragmentation is not the essence of what he is trying to capture. He is looking for a different reality and trying to capture a different picture. He does not want to break with the past but use it to help us try to identify the "now," the present.
His final topic of discussion on using black and white photography as opposed to color was also interesting because he states that "just having one substance to depict all the other substances" is sort of what art is all about: using a limited supply of tools and techniques to tell the viewer something about himself and about reality. In a way, less is more because it narrows the scope and forces the viewer to look at what is there before him. It cuts down on distractions. This idea I thought was rather impressive.

Andres Serrano

Andres Serrano's opening in his interview is actually the answer that I was expecting Wall to make when asked why he chose photography over painting. Serrano says quite openly that he couldn't paint or draw and that taking pictures was easier. This is not to say that there is no art or talent to taking pictures, for that would be absurd. Serrano's career has been made by taking interesting concepts and ideas and photographing them, such as Piss Christ. It gives the subject a reality and immediacy that a painting could not achieve. So maybe it is a good thing that Serrano never felt he could paint well enough to pursue that artistic medium: his calling was in photography, which opened up new avenues.

Apparently, he does not concern himself too much with theory, either, or with how to approach themes. His take is that he used to work in an advertising agency, so knowing that ads often attempt to use sensuality to be appealing, Serrano tries to deliver a picture or image that is "seductive." He wants his work to come off as sexy and appealing to the viewer.

It's also interesting to read what Serrano views as a credible image, as opposed to, say, a 16th century painting: "When people are confronted with an image that has a reality which they can relate to -- like a monochrome of blood, a cum shot, or a piss picture -- it's harder to walk away from it and not react to it" (Decter). It appears that Serrano knows what his audience wants and that's what he aims to give them.

The more the interview goes on, the funnier it gets. I almost laughed when he started describing his Ejaculate in Trajectory series. If this were satire, it couldn't get any funnier. Yet, the fact that the interviewer and apparently Serrano himself (unless he is laughing on the inside) are completely serious. That actually makes it kind of sad. This is art? A photo of ejaculate in trajectory? Used menstrual pads? This is profound commentary about male and female sexuality? Is his audience made up of grown adolescents?

The interviewer in this one is particularly irritating. It appears as though he wants to come across as well-educated and articulate regarding high-concept art and makes a lot of references to theory. Meanwhile, Serrano just says, "Yeah," and "Exactly," and acts as though he is just amusing the interviewer. My reaction to this interview is not a very pleasant one. I feel as though these two are so full of themselves that there is no way to take them seriously.

But maybe I'm being too hard on them. I can appreciate the high concept art that Serrano produces. There is something about his photographs that makes them hard to forget. I can't say exactly what it is that makes it so. Serrano claims it has "criticality." I've never heard this word before, so maybe he just made it up. I do agree that his work has a "disturbing element," which in my mind is not bad. Yet, if some people react violently to his work (as I heard his Piss Christ was smashed by an angry patron a few years back), I can appreciate that, too. Perhaps the smashing of that piece could be called "found art" or "art in motion" or "art in action."

Perhaps Serrano would even agree, because he says "I think art should definitely be more dangerous." Well, I can't think of anything more dangerous than someone attacking art with a hammer.

So Serrano says he will continue to support dangerous artists like 2 Live Crew (I had to laugh again when I read that -- everyone thinks he is 2 Live Crew now) and continue to "walk the line" of artifice and exploitation -- because he says there can be…