Still Rock & Roll to Me
I visited NYC on Saturday to check out the “Who Shot Rock & Roll” photography exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. As many of you probably know, I have been researching how concert photographs are produced and used for music publications. It should come as no surprise that I feel very invested in this exhibition. (Soon enough I can actually share my M.A. thesis with you, so a lot of what I write here will make even more sense.)
Let’s get something clear: “Rock” exhibit curator Gail Buckland and I approach concert photographs from two very different perspectives. She is concerned about History, and the capitalization is intentional; the exhibit is intent on creating overarching narratives and letting us know what is Important. I approach photographs from the angle of communication; most specifically I am concerned with how production informs the way culture is communicated. I believe the concert photographs are important, but not because they’re historical. An “unimportant” photograph conveys as much as the Most Important Photographs Ever.
Additionally, don’t think that I’m “hating” the show. As someone who has been engulfed in research for well over a year, my gripes are justified. I definitely think you should spend an afternoon checking it out.
History. The timeframe for this show is so overarchingly broad, that it is bound to leave something out. The question is, whose history is it? Judging by the list of subjects, it’s only The Rock That Mattered. The canon, if you will. I think trying to paint a broad survey of mass taste fails because rock isn’t simply the big moments, it’s about capturing the small events and the bands time has forgot. The smallest the exhibit gets are a lone group photo of the “heads” of the No Wave moment (which those subjects would have objected to anyway) and a Fugazi gig at Maxwell’s. The choice of “canonized” musicians suggests to me that even if the photograph is artistically great or informational, it’s worthless if the subjects aren’t famous. This counters the photographic impulse to document bands in the first place.
Photographers. Who shot rock and roll, indeed. Only professionals, girlfriends, and celebrities apparently. Forgive me if I missed them, but I didn’t see a single noteworthy photograph from a fan. The lack of acknowledging the creative work of fans and simply portraying them as huge crushing masses says more about issues of access and engagement than anything. That said, there were some glaring omissions from professional photographers: Pat Graham, Chrissy Piper, and no contemporary photographers working for any of the busiest music blogs and websites (i.e. Pitchfork, etc).
Exhibit. Thanks to Heather, we spotted the gem in the photo above. (Really? You can’t get someone to fix that in the middle of the night? So embarrassing.) One thing I did notice was the sheer volume of work that was specifically reprinted for the show. Yes, I know photography is reproducible, but the show felt a little less special with the reliance upon new prints.
In the book version of the exhibit, each image comes with an extensive write-up. Here on the walls, photographs were captioned with only the basic information, or they were given the revisionist send-up. The most BAAARF-inducing captions were on the Elvis photographs at the start of the show, which somehow ignored the fact that he was slutting it up in the pictures with many numerous, unnamed women.
The exhibit was divided into the two large sections: the first chunk focused on primarily live photographs, and the other room was focused on portraiture. Most of the portraits were from magazine shoots, but little was said about the publications and audience response. Which makes me wonder if the curators felt the channel in which the images were relayed had nothing to do with the cultural impact.
Omitted from the exhibit were any images depicting photographers at work (sigh, sorry, I love metanarratives). It seems to elide the enormous effort photographers make on a daily basis. To focus squarely on the performer glorifies the the business, and seems like a vain attempt to historicize a failing industry.
Toby makes an LP cover.
The most fun I had was in the “You Shot Rock & Roll” craft area. (Heather, stop mocking me, I know it was for children.) But I loooooved it. Music isn’t simply a consumption process; in the remake-/remodeling of these products do we find meaning. Cultural and personal resonance is what keeps music still vital and what keeps people coming back.
My new CD! (Wait, DIY CD covers?)
