Stéphane Fugier – [↖] Kashka from Studio series (20XX); [↗] Ludivine from Couleurs series (20XX); [<] Anne Laure from Studio series (20XX); [+] Sang Mee from Couleurs series (20XX); [>] Jean Marcel from Extérieur series (20XX); [←] Thierry from Couleurs series (20XX); [→] Sang Mee from Extérieur series (20XX); [↙] Delphine from Extérieur series (20XX); [↓] Jean Marcel 2 from Extérieur series (20XX); [↘] Hélène from Studio series (20XX)
I’ve been giving thought to the re-emergence of surrealism–particularly in photography/image making; I am less interested in distinguishing between ‘oneiric’ and ‘surrealist’–this may have been a utilitarian distinction at some point; however, it now seems to be a feature more of photographers/image makers vanity than anything which actually contributes to greater depth of understanding.
It’s possible that my familiarity with photo history a decade ago was of such limited scope that it might be realistic to think that I was just unfamiliar with examples of surrealist photography. While I’m sure there are scads of folks who have forgotten more about the history of photography than I’ve ever known, it seems that Joel-Peter Witkin and Jerry Uelsmann were the only game in town when I first test the waters of photography with an extended toe.
And surrealism is exactly the right distinction in both cases–since as Wikipedia astutely observes: surrealism was fixated upon creating illogical scenes borne out by photo-realistic depictions as well as a preoccupation with “creat[ing] strange creatures from everyday objects[.]”*
The above definition pretty much encapsulates Fugier’s work. Sticks, plastic bags, apples, fire and apples all employed in an exceedingly unconventional manner. I’ve not be able to find much on Fugier–even his website takes a bit of digging to uncover. However, apparently NY Arts magazine said of his work:
The viewer sees what [they] wants to see, the context contracting and
orienting the possibilities. There is no correct interpretation and
nothing that must been seen or understood. The photographic experience
(experiment) is first and foremost an encounter with a person.
This seems to be pushing back against the notion that the work can or should be deemed surrealist. I see it another way: as a shift from an object focus and a movement towards a consideration of subject. Another good question: what context informed ‘strange’ and ‘everyday’ as far as the original instance of surrealism. How have those contexts shifted in the intervening century. But I digress…
I opened this post by saying that I’ve been thinking a lot about the increasing preponderance of surrealism. It’s basically a crap shoot these days w/r/t whether or not photographers/image makers are surrealist or not–red or black, place your bets and spin wheel.
Why is that?
It strikes me that Dada was a response to the horror of WWI; and: surrealism emerged from the Dadaist milieu. There’s a tendency to see these movements as steps forward in advancement of culture. (I mean they were also EXTREMELY problematic and should be criticized, but again: I digress…)
Loosely, one might argue that dadaism and and surrealism were an effort at a binary response to The Great War–a resounding: no! Keep in mind that Dada emerged almost as if it were twinned with the emergence of fascism–a term few people understand as evidenced by folks who insisted Obama’s regime was both simultaneously fascist and socialist.
Fascism basically said liberalism and democracies are bad, social is bad and totalitarian dictatorships are good. (You’ll already see where I’m headed with this but one personal point first: one thing which never ceases to incense me is the way generally the same folks who critiqued Obama’s regime as simultaneously fascist and socialist are the same people who accuse those of disagreeing with them as being fascists. And slightly more intelligent–and therefore more offensive are the folks who use the term SJW or refer to things as PC. Yes, there are some overzealous progressives–I interact with a half dozen every week. It’s not fascist to denounce someone who is displaying bigotry as a bigot. Especially given that if you do not want to be termed a bigot, you know: stop being a bigot, perhaps? But the thing that folks who throw around the word SJW don’t like is that there perspective is not tolerated, lauded and accepted by others in direct proportion to their own estimation of their intelligence.
Which brings us back to fascism as a the opposite response to WWI from the Dadaist and subsquently surrealist–a sort of this is the way the world works, suck it up and learn to live with it.
Militarism was nearly universal during WWI–there were those horrified by it and those who in what I can only think to term and egregious nihilist sentiment believe that something of human potential was unearthed by wholesale carnage and living (or feeling more fully alive) when faced with death.
Dada and surrealism didn’t stop WWII any more than conceptual art or postmodernism prevented the global war on terror. But were’s still enacting the same cycles over and over. And I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. And while I think Fugier’s work could be more contemplatively realized, his shifting from considering of object to a presentation of humans as subject is at least conceptually satisfying.
P.S. My deepest and most sincere apologies for how things have been on autopilot with this project for the last couple of weeks. My final MFA application was a goddamn doozy–and while I was able to get it in just under the wire, the way those things forcibly constrict your vision is not something I care for and I’ve been struggling to get my head back into the game with this. Not sure I’m totally there yet–but my hope is to extend things out to having a queue again over the next two weeks. That should help. Thank you for your patience and for those of you who wrote in with encouragement–whether or not I responded: your words were greatly appreciated.
*Given an opportunity, I would quibble with the insistence on ‘creatures’ as it contributes undue preference on folks like Ernst; alternately, I do at least understand why the insistence is there–given that once you make it about using everyday objects in unusual ways, you’re practically demanding that someone insist that Dada and Surrealism are not separate movements.
Acetylene Eyes 