A book in the series Other People’s Photographs © Joachim Schmid
Joachim Schmid, the sometimes interesting artist, is working on a not-so-interesting or ground-breaking project called Other People’s Photographs. Schmid is taking amateur photographers’ images off of their Flickr pages and recontextualizing them loosely by category. Essentially, he is creating another typology of the everyday. This would be interesting if we hadn’t already hadn’t already seen this done in a more interesting way, either through appropriation or not.
I understand the nature of Flickr, and theoretically, how it relates to the loosely controlled nature of image dissemination on the internet. However, with that said, even as a trivial exercise, I can only image the types of ethical quandaries being harrowed by your average 35-65 year-old lens-bro lacking an ounce of self-awareness of grand-scheme-ingness. Apparently, and not surprisingly, people are taking serious offense, much to my amusement and endless fascination with social phenomenon in the 21st.
First things first, let’s establish an overview of this project before looking at the incited e-riots. Take a look at his website, then the blog for Found on Flickr, and then his Flickr stream.
Here’s an example of what he does. Flickr user blueblankut shoots this photo. Schmid takes a screen grab of the shot and uploads the picture with Blueblankut’s comments. Blueblankut says, “this is my photo. are you serious? you disgusting thief.” Eventually the patrols of the internet catch on and post inflammatory remarks in an endearingly naive discussion. Then you have things like this:
Now, all this information is fine. It’s a little bit interesting, in a “the public vs. the all-knowing artist” type of way. What I enjoy about this battle is how unaware and silly each party is behaving. With the original photographers, you have illusions of grandeur, a lack of knowledge on contemporary art-making practices, general socially conservative values being demonstrated, and sometimes a default incredulous faith in what the artist is doing (these aren’t value judgments by any means). In response, I would have expected Schmid to not respond to any of this, and continue what he is doing, or perhaps acknowledge the criticism, and simple redirect the naysayers to his website. Instead, he engages the public on their level, and not in an interesting way (see his comment above). For example, here is a segment of his officially “released” statement:
Many of the statements posted here are based on assumptions, and many of these assumptions are not correct. Finding the correct information would have been not too difficult – you could have asked questions. Appearing as plaintiff is easier and apparently more fun for many of you.
I am well aware that in legal terms I am moving in a grey area with many of my artistic operations. I am doing this with a clear conscience, however. (Exploring grey areas is, by the way, one of the main concerns of contemporary artists.) I am always willing to discuss conceptual, political, legal and ethical aspects of my work with interested parties. However, I don’t see any point in discussing such issues with people who come to a verdict based on assumptions, in particular if the verdict is ‘have him strung and quartered’ or ‘burn him at the stake.’ Doomed men are not bound to entertain their judges.
What kind of garbage is this? Schmid apparently abandons conceptually consistency midway through his project to involve himself in petty accusations and passive-aggressive behavior. That’s not at all what I expected, and although disappointing, it’s admittedly entertaining. How can one possibly make work about the endless inevitable anonymity of the internet while engaging with individual people on such a specific, aggressive way. I have no idea what he’s thinking. Here’s to all those that say the internet is just dumbing down my generation.
Comments 11
There are plenty of people in our generation making works about flickr without the pretension – and a whole lot more good humor.
Fernando Sanchez’s Niggas on Flickr for example:
http://thankgodforconceptualart.com/index.php?/projects/niggas/
or even the first issue of Blowing Fog that I put out – which I titled All Images Blatantly Stolen, you know, just to avoid any confusion on the matter.
For me, it’s pretty easy. Yes I stole your image. Yes I’m making a new project out of it. No, I don’t intend to sell it at a profit. No I don’t really care what you think unless you agree that it’s funny.
Posted 05 Apr 2009 at 8:11 pm ¶Someone should explain to him the meaning of “all rights reserved.”
I know that two wrongs don’t make a right, but it would be funny if someone “appropriated” some of Schmid’s original photographs into a Blurb book.
Posted 05 Apr 2009 at 9:14 pm ¶Ian, thanks for the link, you are the all-knowing master of work being made like that!
Derek – http://www.flickr.com/photos/multigrade/3414521993/
Apparently that flickr user is selling 8×10 prints of Schmidt’s photos, haha.
Posted 05 Apr 2009 at 9:47 pm ¶Hi
Things are actually not too difficult to understand. I am genuinely interested in exchange and discussion. There’s only one reason why I do have some photos of my books on Flickr: It’s not because I expect to sell copies of my books through Flickr but because I think that the community whose amazingly redundant imagery I explore and re-contextualize in my work should have a chance to know about my activity.
The photographers whose pictures I actually use, the real snapshot photographers apparently don’t care. The photographers whose work I’m really not interested in at all, those ambitious amateurs and wannabe artists whose photos would never make it into any of my books started a discussion that I found amusing as long it didn’t turn into denunciation. However, if any member of that group would have asked any question I would have been willing to enter the discussion – as I mentioned I am genuinely interested in exchange, even with people who come from far away. Occasionally I even reply to blog postings like this one.
And now for the funny part: That guy who announced that he wants to offer prints of one of my photos for sale may not be aware how difficult it is to sell my work. I wish him good luck knowing how much he’ll need it.
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 7:37 am ¶Have you come across ‘Useful Photography’, they’ve also been playing around with the idea of reappropriating found imagery, but in a really funny way… their website always puts a smile on my face:
http://www.usefulphotography.com/
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 1:55 pm ¶Ian – can you post a link to Blowing Fog?
Joachim – thanks for writing, please excuse the sometimes arrogant tone of this blog – I just can’t help myself on the internet sometimes, I’m sure you understand.
In regards to your comment – as an artist, I can understand being genuinely interested in “exchange and discussion,” hopefully we all are. I was commenting more on the nature of your exchange and level of engagement. I’m not concerned about any ethical issues, there is nothing that bothers me with your process.
Also, they might be responding to the following arrogance:
“The photographers whose work I’m really not interested in at all, those ambitious amateurs and wannabe artists whose photos would never make it into any of my books started a discussion that I found amusing as long it didn’t turn into denunciation. However, if any member of that group would have asked any question I would have been willing to enter the discussion – as I mentioned I am genuinely interested in exchange, even with people who come from far away.”
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 2:14 pm ¶Schmid said:
The photographers whose pictures I actually use, the real snapshot photographers apparently don’t care.
I was under the impression that you didn’t notify anyone when you used their image. Is this correct?
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 3:32 pm ¶I think it’s all quite funny.
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 9:01 pm ¶I am a flickr user. I took a boring photo on a rainy day a long time ago. This week another flickr user tells me about this guy who “steals” images and makes books.
Schmid posted my photo on his flickr account Oct 2008 with no reference to my name. The assumption being that he was the photograper. I only called him a thief this week when i found out.
I don’t call myself an artist although I believe there wouldn’t be many photographers out there who “apparently don’t care”.
He didn’t notify me when he blogged my boring photo or posted it as his own.
I’m sure he’ll post some intellecual reply. He is getting his 15 minutes of fame on the internet.
Schmid said
I am genuinely interested in exchange and discussion.
Given the lack of response to the polite questions above, it appears that you are not interested at all.
Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 1:20 pm ¶haha, Derek, it’s possible he just hasn’t noticed. I have to search google to find out if anyone has responded to comments on blog posts I comment on – most people aren’t subscribed to comment feeds, and most blogs don’t have an email/response feature like good forums. Give it some time
Daniel – I keep forgetting I haven’t put blowing fog up on my website proper yet, it’s still relatively new (although the first small edition already sold out in person, I have to print another one for the people looking to get it through my blog. I think after the second edition I’ll just post a PDF and saddle stitch instructions, then concentrate on the second issue).
You can find info about it here: http://www.ianaleksanderadams.com/blog/blowing-fog-no-01-available-tonight-shop-the-mop-at-desoto-row/
I think I’m going to have to put a Zine section on my website, but I’ll have to figure out how to make dropdown menues first, I don’t want to delete any of my projects
Posted 11 Apr 2009 at 11:50 pm ¶Joachim Schmid: Photoworks 1982 – 2007: Photoworks 1982-2007
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Joachim-Schmid-Photoworks-1982-1982-2007/dp/3865213944/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247438975&sr=8-2
If you have the time, perhaps this book would be of some interest (or not.
Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 10:51 pm ¶Post a Comment