I’m completely intrigued by a new exhibit at the California Museum of Photography entitled Sight Unseen. While the images being displayed don’t have any visual elements in common, the thematic glue is that all of the photographers are legally blind.
Take a second– a medium more or less originally developed with the intention to capture a visual experience for later personal reference or to share with others is being used approximately 150 years later as a means of artistic expression for those who aren’t able, visually, to experience the original frame being documented. Of course, as curator Douglas McCulloh points out in this Time Magazine article (Time? I know, I was surprised too), it makes sense in that the arc of modern art bends toward concept over aestheticism.
Incredible– it sparks so many interesting questions about the nature of art…e.g. Is it appropriate to deconstruct, contextualize, and otherwise critique the images produced by blind photographers as we would seeing ones (for example, placing them into larger movements)? What if, then, we blindfolded a well-known photographer and asked for her to capture a series based upon non-visual sensory experiences? Would we want or expect to know as collectors that those images were taken under these alternative circumstances?
Pictured above is Honey by Pete Eckert, one of the artists included in this exhibition. If anyone on the West Coast gets a chance to see this, please leave comments!
