Viktor Koen @ Fraser Gallery Georgetown

(Kathleen Shafer delivers the following review of Viktor Koen's show hanging at Fraser Gallery in Georgetown. The show is up until, well, tomorrow!)

On view at Fraser Gallery in Georgetown are “digitally constructed photographs by Viktor Koen.”

I put this in quotes because, quite frankly, these are not photographs. But I’ll get to that in a minute.

Koen’s creations are beautiful, mystical, and eerie. Using the oft-portrayed-in-art skull theme, he is creating digital monsters, if by monsters you think of feathers, flowers, pencils, and such. Because the images have been taken directly from scanning onto his computer screen, there is an x-ray quality, a sheer quality that is both haunting and inviting. The viewer is haunted by the strange juxtaposition of both organic and metal objects, some easily recognized and some forever leaving you guessing (It’s decidedly ok if you don’t find the answer to the “what is that?” eating at your brain). The viewer is invited into the print, to discover a new object upon each glance. You recognize some of the tools used - a typewriter, for instance - and your mind willingly accepts the object as something different, something unique to the image. Koen’s constructs are dark but wondrous. If you are a fan of Joseph Sheer’s digital moths then you will certainly appreciate the detail in Koen’s images. I bought the ten dollar catalogue, and I never buy the catalogue, because I know I will want to look at these images again and again. Koen's work is a perfect example of how art in the digital age has expanded to create exciting new genres of work.

And now for my problem. Those of you who know me may know I am probably beating a dead horse on this subject - and I have to say again that I truly love this work. Perhaps I am just using this as an excuse to talk about what I love talking about - the changing definition of “photography” that, in my opinion, is ultimately cheating the true photographers. There is nothing photographic about these images - and yes with all this digital art out there we certainly need to come up with some new names for what is being created. Ok, Koen takes an object, places it on his scanner, and layers and manipulates the objects in his computer, and ultimately makes a digital c-print.

There is no camera, there is no lens, there is no film, there is no chemical processing of any kind. So why are these prints being called photographs? I am a photographer. I shoot with a camera, using film, that gets processed, and then photographic prints are made. Maybe I feel a little cheated by the people who can claim to be making photographs, yet don’t even need the tools necessary in photography to make their work. Maybe I’m getting a little sick of all the “artists using photography.” I read between the lines and I hear “well I don’t really know how to properly use a camera so I have an excuse because it’s just a means to an end in my work.” (can you say Gabriel Orozco?)

Koen’s work can be called “digital prints” in the category of “printmaking” because that is what they are.

Photographs, these prints are not.

Comments

[Victoria Restrepo]

I am a photographer, and I also call my work photographs, I haven’t find any other word to describe it. The word photography, which is derived from the Greek words for light and writing, was first used by Sir John Herschel in 1839. This was the original meaning, "paint with light", it wasn't about film or chemicals, it was about light. That's also how the digital camera, and the scanner capture the image, with light.
I agree with you, the term photography is getting confused; the technology is going faster than the language’s ability to change.
Victoria Restrepo
www.vrestrepo.com
art@vrestrepo.com

[AAS]

Yes, the original meaning for photography is to "paint with light." Yes, that is what Koen does with his c-prints. While I think that ever artist has their own right to define their work as they wish (who here thought drilling holes into wood was a form of painting before J.T. declared it to be one?), I also think that calling Koen's work photography (or even "digitally constructed photography", as the Fraser Gallery site referred to it) doesn't give Koen enough credit for what he does. I don't think it explains his process enough. Creating new terms for digital art is needed and at times, I feel like digital artists depend on terms of traditional art to make their work valid.

Where's Mr. Bailey when we need him?

[James W. Bailey]

Dear Ms. Shafer, Ms. Restrepo and Alexandra,

J.T. had to go and let Ms. Shafer post a compelling review on a subject that’s near and dear to my heart during a time when he knows I’m swamped with real life work/art issues, plus a major impending move (yes! I was finally able to find a crack house - sorry, town house - in Northern Virginia that I could afford. BTW: I’ve immediately fell in love with that word town house when I first moved up here. We don’t have town houses in Mississippi because we have real houses. First of all, Reston ain’t a town and furthermore if you live in a place that has walls on two sides that hide the people who live next door to you, then that ain’t a house, that’s an apartment, where I come from!).

All three of you have made some powerfully moving comments about this subject. I haven’t seen the work yet and thought I would hold off making specific comments until I do so – assuming on top of my new mortgage payment to the World Bank that I’ll be able to purchase the gasoline to drive to Maryland, as well cough up the escalated tolls on the Dulles Toll Road that start this weekend. (That reminds me to call Lenny and Kate and see if they might be willing to pursue an NEA grant that would allow the Fraser Galleries to tour some of their exhibitions out here – God knows we need more cutting-edge art in Northern Virginia.)

However, I thought I would break from protocol and share something with J.T.’s readers that touches on the subject. Two years ago I applied to a very well known photographer in Northern Virginia who hosts a cable access television program that profiles area photographers. My “Rough Edge Photography” was just starting to generate some heat and I thought that her program would be an interesting thing to pursue. So I wrote her. And waited for a response. And waited. Eventually, she wrote me back and said in effect, “Thanks, but no thanks.” She politely informed me that she had never seen work like mine before in all her years of photography and that she initially questioned whether or not my stuff was “real photography”. She further informed me that she had passed my images by a panel of “photographic experts” and that they all concluded that my work was indeed not real photography. But the thing that really got to me was this: She went on to say that even if my work might be construed as real photography, my process – not my images mind you, but my process – was too “violent” and that the implied violence of the process might be upsetting to some members of her audience.

For a moment there after I read her response I thought that I had gone to sleep only to have awakened in a Jim Crow segregated community in 1930s Mississippi. I couldn’t believe that I had moved all the way from New Orleans to this progressive highly educated liberal democratic Republic of the Planned Community of Reston only to be confronted by this kind of backwoods lame ass redneck art attitude.

I’m hoping Lenny will remember this story because I think I emailed him the day I got the news that I was too “violent” – I was upset, I’ll confess. I nearly had a redneck moment over it, as a matter of fact! But I got myself under emotional control and decided to respond.

True story – I will not print her email to me because I don’t have permission and respect her privacy, but I’m printing my answer below:

Dear Ms. X,

I want to thank you for your response. I appreciate your thoughts, although I am somewhat disappointed. I wanted to take an opportunity to respond to some of those comments.

First, let me say that I am a big fan of your television program and greatly appreciate what you do. I discovered your show when I first moved to Reston from New Orleans. I particularly enjoyed the show that profiled the unique hand-colored black and white photographs by photographer Carolyn Ann Day. Carolyn was a strong influence on me when I joined the League of Reston Artists. She encouraged me to be brave and daring with my unique style of photography. Because of Carolyn, I was invited to be on the board of the LRA.

Promoting visual arts is a passion of mine and I greatly appreciate the relationship that exists between the Reston Photographic Society (RSP), the LRA and X. In a strange sort of way, your show coordinated all of this: my introduction to Carloyn, my joining the LRA, becoming a board member and becoming a successful fine arts photographer who has enjoyed some degree of critical acclaim.

On a personal artistic level, though, it seems as if I am constantly running up against a conventional strain of thinking when it comes to the definition of what is fine art photography. What is so ironic to me is that I am practicing what I believe to be one of the purest forms of photography. All of my experimental "Rough Edge Photography" images are taken with 35mm black and white film, hand developed and hand printed. Yes, the image negatives and prints are subjected to fire. The negatives and prints are also slashed, cut and peppered with pin pricks. And yes, I do pour foreign substances like gasoline, bleach and other household chemicals into my developing mixtures to explore these photographic experiments. But I use no digital processing whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I have serious issues with the whole concept of digital media. The mistreatment that I subject my undeveloped film, exposed film and prints to is part of my photographic process. Although extreme, it is integral to the final product, just as much as any so called conventional photographer who uses standard dark room procedures and developing chemicals to achieve a conventional print.

I don't say the above to be argumentative with you. I was born and raised in Mississippi and I hope my mother raised me better than that. I greatly respect your position in the photographer community, as well as the opinions held by your panel of experts who reviewed my work. I say it because other established figures in the world of fine art photography say it. I was juried into the prestigious Bethesda International Photography Competition by William F. Stapp, the first Curator of Photography for the National Portrait Gallery. I was given an Honorable Mention Award for my "Rough Edge Photography" piece, "Circle Theatre - New Orleans". I was also juried into the 47th Chautauqua Exhibition of American Art that just opened this past Sunday at the Chautauqua Center for the Visual Arts in New York by Dr. Donald Kuspit, one of the most respected figures in the nation as an art critic and art historian. My selected piece was "Woman at the Tomb", another example of my "Rough Edge Photography".

I believe we are living in the end days of film. My work is an attempt to explore film photography at its purest rawest most elemental level. I can understand that you may not find my images suitable for your audience. It is your show and you certainly have the right to freely determine who you wish to profile. However, with all due respect, I don't know that I really understand why you think that my work is violent. Most of my images center on cemeteries and street scenes in New Orleans. I don't photograph, nor do I presently create extreme images as is commonly defined by violent or graphically sexually content. My process may be extreme, and that I will agree with you on, but not my images. It is honestly very difficult for me to understand how my process could be so intimidating to anyone watching your show.

I will have work on display at the upcoming League of Reston Artists Annual Judged Photography Exhibition at the National Center Gallery at the U. S. Geological Survey in Reston. The opening reception for the show is July 14, from 4:30 - 6:30 pm. I invite you and all the other members of the X to attend this show. I think my work deserves a criticism based upon actual observation. I very much respect the work that the X does to promote and advance photography in our region. However, the definition of what is photography is changing faster than any other art form. I know that my work challenges a lot of conventional thinking among photographers, especially so called purist photographers. Again, I respect their opinions, although I disagree with their analysis. Photography has evolved rapidly since its inception. Especially on the technology front. However, some photographers seek to recover lost elements of photography. Sally Mann, for example, the Virginia photographer who currently has a show at the Corcoran that explores her use of the Collodian Wet Plate method, would be one such example that all of us are familiar with.

I think the knowledge base of photography and the appreciation of photography as a serious art form is enhanced when other points of view are considered and explored. That is one of the major reasons I like and watch your show. I'm sure you are familiar with Elan Magazine. They are doing a profile on my photography for their September issue to co-inside with my solo show of "Rough Edge Photography" that opens at the end of August at the Rachel M. Schlesinger Arts
and Cultural Center in Arlington.

This is not the first time I have felt challenged to defend my "Rough Edge Photography" as a legitimate form of photography, and I'm sure it will not be the last. I hope I haven't come across as being too strident. If I have, please forgive me, but I felt very strongly that I needed to respond to you. I appreciate your consideration of my statement and hope you will consider attending the above mentioned exhibition so that you and the panel of photographers who reviewed my work can see it in person.

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey
Experimental Photographer
Force Majeure Studios

And ladies of the photography club, the fight continues…

[Joseph Barbaccia]

That missive to Ms X is tame for you James.

Any word back?

[James W. Bailey]

Dear Joseph,

I inquired about appearing on the show about a week after the Sally Mann show opened last year. She never responded to my posted letter. I think her program is terrific and gives local photographers some exposure. I was just beginning to hit a stride with my work and was still very much in the mode of having to constantly explain it - that is the process.

During that same period of time I even had my photographic work pulled - but eventually restored - from two group photography shows by the organizers. On one occasion it was a black and white competition. I work in black and white film. Of course, when you start to burn a black and white print all kinds of strange discolorations occur. Indeed, I have some works that almost look like color photos. They eventually agreed and allowed me to keep the work in the show. I also had to submit a statement about the process to Black and White Magazine. They had an open competition for publication earlier last year. I wasn't selected for publication, but I was impressed that they at least gave me a chance to justify that my work is indeed black and white film photography.

I took it easy on the Ms. X because I do like and respect her. See also reminds me of one of my great aunts in Mississippi. My deeply ingrained Southern manners reined me in at the time on expressing how I really felt!

But let me make it publicly known that if the Whitney Biennial tries to deny me my rightful spot in 2006 by questioning the legitimacy of my photography, just wait for the excoriating letter that illegal act will generate!

Sincerely,

James

[James W. Bailey]

SPECIAL ALERT TO THE READERS OF THINKING ABOUT ART:

I have been shut down from any further comment on the subject of photography. Apparently, the U.S. District Attorney's Office reads J.T.'s site. Future posts will have to be made through my defense counsel. Unfortunately, as Johnnie Cochran - my first choice - is dead, I'm not quite sure who exactly is representing my interests. I have also been advised to not say or post anything that could be remotely construed as being intended to influence potential jurors in this case. I'll let the indictment speak for itself.

Indictment and Jury Instructions for Counterfeiting Photography

18 U.S.C. § 2320

TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES - PHOTOGRAPHY

18 U.S.C. § 2320

On or about the 11 day of September, 2001, in the Southern District of Mississippi the defendant James W. Bailey, did intentionally traffic in goods or services, specifically “Rough Edge Photography”, knowingly using on or in connection with such goods or services a counterfeit mark, to wit a spurious mark identical to or substantially indistinguishable from “Real Photography”, which mark is in use and is registered for those goods or services on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the use of which counterfeit mark is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 2320(a).

Jury Instructions for Trademark Counterfeiting - Photography

TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES - PHOTOGRAPHY

18 U.S.C. § 2320

Elements of the offense:

The defendant is charged in Count 1 of the indictment with trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, creating, marketing and selling “Rough Edge Photography” as “Real Photography”, in violation of Section 2320(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of this crime, the Government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That the defendant trafficked or attempted to traffic in goods or services, specifically artistic creations known as “Rough Edge Photography”;

2 That such trafficking, or attempt to traffic, was intentional;

3. That the defendant used a counterfeit mark on or in connection with goods or services, the use of the term “Rough Edge Photography”; and

4. That the defendant knew the mark so used was counterfeit.

First element -- trafficked in goods or services:

The first element is that the defendant trafficked or attempted to traffic in goods or services.

The term "traffic" means to transport, transfer or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer or dispose of.

Second element -- intentional:

The second element of the offense charged is that the trafficking or attempt to traffic was intentional.

An act is "intentional" if done deliberately or on purpose. The Government, however, is not required to prove that the defendant intended to violate the law, only that the defendant acted deliberately or on purpose.

Third element -- use of counterfeit mark:

The third element is that the defendant used a counterfeit mark on or in connection with the goods or services. The defendant is charged with intentionally misrepresenting "Rough Edge Photography", an unregistered untrademarked term, as "Real Photography", a registered trademark.

A "counterfeit mark" is a mark that is spurious, or not genuine or authentic. It is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark in use and registered for those same goods or services on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Finally, a counterfeit mark is a mark the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.

A certificate of registration from the United States Patent and Trademark Office is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark, of the ownership of the mark, and of the owner's exclusive right to use the registered mark. That is, such a certificate is sufficient proof of the existence of a valid registered mark unless outweighed by other evidence in the case. The Government is not required to prove that the defendant knew the mark was so registered.

In determining whether there exists a likelihood of confusion, you may consider various factors, including the type of trademark, the similarity of the design, the similarity of the product, the identity of the retailers and purchasers, the similarity of the advertising media used, the defendant's intent, and any actual confusion. None of these factors, however, is essential to a finding of likely confusion.

The statute does not require a showing that the direct purchasers would be confused, mistaken or deceived. It is sufficient that there is a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception as to any member of the buying public, even a person who sees the product after its purchase. Therefore, it is not a defense that the defendant told the immediate purchaser that the item was not genuine. The test is whether an average consumer examining the product would be deceived into believing that the product was made by the genuine trademark owner.

Fourth element -- knowledge:

The fourth and final element is that the defendant knew the mark so used was counterfeit. This means that the defendant was aware or had a firm belief of the counterfeit nature of the mark. This element may be satisfied through circumstantial evidence, such as the method of purchasing of the goods, the manner of delivery, packaging conventions, and an unusually low price.

If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious and acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth that the mark was counterfeit, then you may conclude that the defendant knew the mark used was counterfeit. However, guilty knowledge may not be established by demonstrating that the defendant was merely negligent, foolish or mistaken. In addition, if you find that the defendant actually believed that the mark was genuine, he may not be convicted.

It is entirely up to you whether you find that the defendant deliberately closed his eyes and any inference to be drawn from the evidence on this issue.

[Scott]

James,

My prediction: Not guilty by reason of insanity! :)

Scott

[James W. Bailey]

Dear Scott,

Thank you, sir! I'm not suppose to say this, in fact I think it's illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to do so, but there is a concept for justice known as Jury Nullification.

All potential American jurors need to know about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.

If you're subpoenaed as a potential juror, please keep this time honored legal tradition in mind. In return, I'll promise to keep my defense (I'll be representing myself, of course) fun and entertaining - unfortunately, I can't promise that it will be a short defense; however, I believe the feds pay their juror's a $12 per diem. If my defense wonders into issues of national security (which I promise it will) the judge will probably have to sequester the jurors in a Motel 6.

$12 a day, free eats and a place to sleep - not a bad deal for a lot of artists I know!

James

[Scott]

James,

I don't think they'd have to resort to subpoenas to find potential jurors for your trial. It would probably be standing room only. Hell, I'd sleep in a Motel 6 for a few nights to get a chance to watch your defense. I'm sure I'd want to see it in person since the nightly re-enactment on Court TV would be nothing but a pale imitation. I'm afraid I'd have to leave, though, when they fit you for your taser belt -- I can't take that kind of courtroom violence.

Scott

[Jame W. Bailey]

Dear Scott,

Taser belt?! Wait a minute, man, I didn't sign up for that! I mean, sure, I'm willing to go to bat to defend the definition of photography as art, but I'm scared to death of electricty. It's one of the major reasons I stay away as much as possible from digital photography. I heard about a fella in Alabama who electrocuted himself to death when he tried to pull a memory stick that was stuck in his digital camera out of its slot with his teeth. True story! This is no urban legend. I was promised by the DA in a pre-trial meeting that worst humiliation I would be subjected to was the forced application of an Esteban Carpio mask if I got out of hand.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm really the right martyr for this cause!

Sincerely,

James