REPORTS
Ar ri.,rOrgani.at ions
International Conlercnce
AndreaLiu
2
26 Adam \{ag1ar:Koltinuum
R.(hlSonrstin
28 Depth ol Pcrccption
Mi(haelDiniiio
Brian \\cil, 1979 95: Beingin the \lorld
JodyZellen
l0
Prospect.3New Orleans ll
KathrynKramer
3
)J
RoseBond
FEATURES
BOOKREVIEWS
N{igratory Surlaces: An Informal
Economy
and
the
Repair
of
the
Visual
16 l.rrr a Lore o1-His I't-oplr: l he Phorographv ofHoracc I'oolaw
Colonial Archive
Alerander Briei Mair
A.
TimothyP, Cooper
Ncoliheral Brain
8 57 Iliopolitical Screens: Imagc, Pollcr, :rnd the
Jay Murphy
Equivalent Simulation:
A ConversationwithJohn Opera
David[aRocca
t6
EXHIBlTIONREVIEWS
Urrclcrstanding a Photograph
\\irds Not Spcnt Todal l\rv Snrallcr Images Ttrmorrow: Ess:r1sorr tlre
Prcscnt and Futurc ol Pholography
Colin Edgington
2)
r \u r a Sa tz: Elclid s L ca kin g l ,i ght
Almudena[s<obar Lripez
ETC.
4l
l l cdi a R cccncd
2l pontrotto
( lo m e a s \b u Ar c; Ar t ( ,1th e l 9!){h
TimM.ul
24
COVER
its
ns ialaiio n
v i e wo f i h e . y p . e s si s, d e sp ite
frcedan,hel,l.optiveby theqdrden(2012)by
t n e m aSh
, a .ja h ,
Shahz
a S ika i d e ra,t K h o r f a k k an
y ika n d eSt!d
r o
Uiit edA r: b E m l r a i e s. o, u r t e s S
IngvildMelbergEikeland
iinsidecovcr sprcadr
LuciaSommerSUBS(RIpIION
d PRoMOtlot{S Afte.imdse provides a fofum for the dis<ussion and analysis of PhotograPhY,
EDIToR
KarenvanMeenen
A550(IATE
EDIToR
lNTtRt{SChesea B!lkowsk , Crysta K!1, Molly
MANIGIR
Rebecca
CrantEo|ToR|AL
i ndependent fi l m and v i deo, al ter nati v e publ i s hi ng, m ul ti m edi a, and re l a t e d
RockieH!nter DESIGN
Elen SchubertPHOTO
EDIIOR
Jessica
lohnsionpnNTDESIGNER
fields. A publi<ation of the Visual Studies Workshop.
CresoryEdd Jones
lNTtnNE sabethPoancoWEBI,I NAGER
rt'.
moq e, e. om . ! or c r 6a
5lor a
^frq,noee!!br,
A|ern .r
5r uh
+ edr
ii
m onlhy l
rae !-,
nd?1
rlo qe
0 ..1
p 5y
:K od! 1! ! 016. . )
M* r
!q !
alklmorr
a
.dsrs
10 !lr.,mcf
(!351 .al
s!ba, pr o
4676,n 26 tu\
5b
r e: A eiTopos l
1 !!!
roJ0ar!7r)
! r r 0r 5lls m or c
!.i d !3 d r cf!h d i g e si o
trL!
j l i .- i 4 e .r r P,
v5
r r e, oLs ) , h
fs5a arh on
i!rh
ca e aer a! r e
L! , ,
i3. : . d
P, o o L c n
aroi.Airqmoee
4ir{
no+
s idr.c.,dib.tnF3\
i @ tr ,..i
e o !i e n s
Nr 14601
tH
FEATURE
Equivalent
Simulation:
A Conversation
w ith John Opera
By DavidLaRocca
ohn Opera is an American photographer uho works at
the intersection of photographic materiality and lighc
dcri',cd abstraction. Since graduating from the School
of the Art Institutc ol Chicago (rvhcrc hc carned an
MFl\i, Opera has lived and r'r,orked in Chicago. His
work has bccn thc subjcct of recent solo exhibitions in Nen York
(2013),Los Angclcs (2014),and Miami (2014). lhe preoccupation
of his practice in the last ferv vears has centcrcd on thc rclationship
benveen the material origins of photographic processesand the uay
thosc proccsscscan be manipulated to express form, texture, and
tonc. [)rauins on thc most primitivc componcnts of imagemaking,
Opera has reclaimed processessuch as the anthotlpe and cyanot;pe
and applied them to the representation of abstractions as uell as
evcryday objccts. Flspcciallv in his rcccnt work, Opcra addresses
the peculiarity of organic, light-scnsitivc matcrials that give rise
to tu'o-dimensional tableaus. For this reason, many of his recent
picccs cvokc thc paramctcrs, conditions, and effectsof paintings. In
order to reflect on these laLestprqccts, cspcciallv in thc light of his
long history of rvork as a photographer, I discussedthc origius and
do'clopmcnt ol'Opcra's rvork rvith him during the rvinter of 2014,
via phone and email.
DAVID [ARO(CA: You're a photographerwho is known fo] working at
what mi8ht be <alledthe o.igins of imagenaking-that is, with lightsensitiveorgani(mqteriol,indecdwith the rnostelementalor rudimenlary
attributes of photographi( medio. What are you working on now?
J0HN ODERA:In an cxhibition held in Los Anseles in the lrll of
a
201,1,r I showed wall works that are cyanotypc-onlincn
proccss that I've been exploring since 201 l. During this period ol'
cxpcrimcntation and production, I've been continually drarvn to
artists rvhosc u,ork rcturns to photography's chcmical origins while
simultaneouslvquestioning tendenciesin art photography today that
deemphasizesurlace and materiality: I'm reminded hcre ol Barbara
Kastcn's cvanotypc and \hn Dykc brown photogenic paintings
from the mid-tolate 1970s (Ibr cxamplc, I.intitled71/13 from llJ"l1)
as uell as Liz Deschenes's siher-toned sculptural/pltotographic
works (Stereographs
#1 4 lrom 20113).Cy:rnotlpe is one of the oldest
,-./|.87;
F;
7i;,F,.\
ft
-ia
,r
,,
l, r ,
,I
:.,1 r , , , , , 1, , , , i
rr , , . , ,
, 1,
ll..
:
r r
r\ , . , \
r
r.'.r
L,rr r: LLLI
.,1,,
,l
,,
ir
t,L l ir
I
,l- ,,,1 ,.
i.,-.
r.,.r,,
r , .r r ...
l' .
i
r ,- r ,
:.,1 ,
ll
",
,,,..1rr,,
t'.r
,,,lr,l.,
,
r, rr
r
l,rl,
:
,ll,
\ i
,
r,
l:r
|
:r \
\,....,.,;
il
r,,
\t
: li, l, ,
,j
Lrrri.L,L
1 ,r r
II..,r ,::,
i
. i ,,
,. Lr r,)r /,.
.frl ,.
'
|,,rrf
l|rL!!l
lr
,,
,,.
\\1, ,.
\\,\\,i
\\,
.1.,.,rr
:r .rr,l .:rt,r
i ,,
rr,
. ,l r ,.-.i r,L
,,,
I rl . I ru,, r ,..
j r -L r1,.,
r,r
).Ll rrrrt
Lr L,.Ll L
. j|
.,
L\!rL
rrr
,'
Ir,,
L,r,
r, r r;
,, ,. r\,
:,,r
L.\Lr
r,:
,r1rr
)Lr L , .
,l
Ir,r
,,, , \
l ,LrL,rr_.
i 1,,,,
,i ( l ,rl ,.l i
r,rr ,l L
:,1
r
.rr
i
i
rrI!
r.
r r r,
.
1 .1 ,.,.l
I,r
l i LL,1,r.,,1,11,.,
Li ,,L
1 ,,
1 r 1 1 ,1 ,.r
, , , , .l,llL ,
,'.,r
l,.r
r,,l ,L,,r.,tr.r ,L:r rr,.r.l
, i r r \ ', \ \ r r r " r .l 'r l
,r ,.
r r i - L r r , r , . \ \ L ',
,rr,,,,:r,LLIrL,r
, r r . , l .,r ,r
rlr
i : r L r l r , \ l '.
I ,, rl ,l ll- r,-,.
r , , ', L l ' . , , 1 l L r ,1 , , : r , 1 , , , 1 , 1 , r r i , , , r r , . r , . ,
I 1 .,, L ,
t , i :,.
- .; r, rl r:1
1 ,,.,,rL,.r
r l) .r
r .r .
\
LL 1r i r i
1 ,, r.,
r, 1
r .,- .
t,,r ,
1,,..
if;:;-
1l r\ |
.t ,rL
,,
1 .,,,,,
r- Jl,
,
I,
l' ,.,
,,-.
arrermage
FEATURE
iffustr.ted in the rnonograph MP5 Volune ll: (urtis Monn, hhn Opero'
Stocio Yeoponis(20091.
JO: My work leading up to thc .l1P? book was addressing issucs
ol nostalgia in nature photogmphy the "Kodak moment" fict
instancc, composing the world as a/1context and yct, at the same
time, as orl njf contcxt. Photographs byJan Dibbets provcd inspiring
and also orienting for me during this period, especially the way hc
used thc lraming of photographs arilllr the framc of the artwork; for
example, his Tolkbuk II (1998 99) comes to mind in relation to my
piece Windr.,u12O071.
Becauseof my attention to the frame-withinwas
implicidy
a lot of tcnsion-tlrrough-iuxtaposition
a-frame, there
pieces.
in this and other
I rvas lllly aware of the problematic nature ol what I was
18
afterimage
42.6
afterimage
l9
FEATURE
drug-induced hallucination. This includes setting up a scenario
Perhapswhat I'm really wondering about is not so much how
where the viewer's experiencecontinually reiaforces
thzt he or a photograph ri time or is abouttirrl'e,but how the representation
sheis looling at a representationthat sharesqualities with both is itself a kind of spaceor containerrfirtime. Sinceopticsconnect
photographsand paintings.
what wc secconccptuallyto thc act of sight-giving credcnccto
the expectation(or illusion) that when looking at a photograph
DL:Whator where,then,is the rolefol opti(s-ifany? Haveyouovercome we are looking at reality we're always trying to evaluatethe
the mechanical
attrlbutesof th camera.rd (hemlcalaspedsof fln to degreesof distortion in a representationwhile simultaneously
sonehovletun to the radi(.|o ginsof light sensitivityasanimatedby knowing that it's anchorcd to thereal.
natunl rnatelial3?
Doesthis move3hiftus(lo3erto the rarth, or adiyate
youspokeofcarliar?Forone'snind (ouldgotheother DL:Butthe qanotypesandanthotypes
don'tmakethis clain to the ral,
thetnnlcendental
w.y-des(endto the depths-rndbe dl.vrn in by you.wolk! lelationto dght?Theil subjed5een5to be the intimate(oextension
of theil form
(leatures. and(ontent(wheretheirfolm i5 their(ontent).ln thesekindsof organic,
bioluminexence
andfiuoles(en(e,
espe(iallyamongdep-sea
Soup<ouldbecitedaspartof this traiedory no?
light-sensitiv
works,theleis no appealtoa lplesentation
ofthe worldr
JO:The notion of origin is at the centerof my inquiries,I believe. reality,or the real.optics, ii wouldseem,havealwaystenpted us to
(evenif we'vecometo
Soapis surely anchored there as well. It has to do with time, of saythat we see5one t ring'in' the Dhotogr.ph
course. What is time and how did all of these things around admitthat the "thing" is tnnsformedbythe art of photognphy,
andthe
us (and in us, or as us) evolve and grow into such complexity, mediurnitselfl. But whenthe lansis takenaway,andthe filn is takn
traveling along some kind of continuum from conception to away,whatareweto sayis "in" theselatestworks?Hencemysuspicion
entropy? How many times has this "simulation" played out? (in a good sense)that your qanotypesand anthotypesand related
Computer programmersare known to invoke "simulation" when te(hniques
drawus ba(kto ourthinkingaboutpaintingandits modesot
Howdosthis registcrfol you?
discussingrepetition in a sequenceof code. Not necessarily repr3entation.
thinking about a circular or cyclical form (such as Nietzsche's J0: Right. If you take away optics and film you're removing
eternal return of the same),I am neverthelessintdgued by the the expettations
associatedwith straight sight. What's left is the
possibility of materialsinteractingand creating somethingmore
continual z-Dresentationof nature to itself.
akin to the photographic concrete.If anything occurs that feels
"optical" or perspectival,it's merely an illusion (though, to be
rigoroushere,a// 2-D representationisjust that aswell).I suppose
Zl Anthotype(2O12)
by JohnOpera;courtesythe adist
that the anthotlpes and similar works fall into this trap a bit, as
all abstract compositionalspacewill, whether it's a product of
painting marks or photographic capture. What I still can't get
away from, though, is the idea of the lens image, and it doesn't
have to be lrorn a camera or even, physiologically,from a
human vantage point. Call these two modes the chem-optical
and the bio-optical. All photographic material has that double
statusembeddedin it. For me, that doublenessalwayslurks in the
photographic:
background,feeding how we experienceaa7l.hia.g
the haunting trace of our own chemical/biological/mechanical
interface with the world. So my hope is that these works, yes,
leave the literal idea of a photograph behind but still somehow
refusc to let go completelyof that kind of visuality.Have I just
inadvertentlyproposeda theory of allegory for theseworks and
my processin creatingthem?
DL:Yes,lthink so,andpartotyour.(@untwouldthenpromptusto dwell
on the ri(h analogies
anddisanalogies
that appearandrecede
asa resuh.
50, canwe saythat youl wo* turns ow intelestde(idedly.way from what
a photographdepirtsandtowardwhat it is-materially? Thimage,then,
is not an imageof something,but sonehowis, instead,strictly on iDage
of itselfl lf that'3the (as,thenit's one-of-a-kind-an
original,alwaysa
negatiye-as-arlvork?
Andwithsu(hsingulaty (orlackof reproducibility),
it appeaEto fnd anotherwaytowardfu intimacywlthpalntinS.
JO: The materials(or materiality)have becomemore prominent
in my work over the past half-dozen yeals or so. For me, this
shift was about pushing against the program of prepackaged
20
afterimage
e,
o
ii
S E P T E M B E1R
7,2015
O P E N IN G
PICKERART GALLERY
H A M IL TO N N
, EW Y ORK
COL G A T EU N I V E RS I T Y
COLGATE.EDU/PICKER