Following two years of homelessness, the International Center of Photography has ultimately snuggled into its new Bowery den, and it celebrates the occasion with a bleak, confused exhibition about privacy, voyeurism and pose. Regardless of its new-located permanence, the ICP, as soon as a single of New York’s mightiest institutions, seems to be trying on a youthful new identity as a pop-up museum taking its very first sloppy steps. Possessing shed the stodginess of a midtown workplace developing, it’s now racking up millennial-cool clichés: cracked concrete floors, exposed columns, naked ceilings, and a lobby extended on lunch tables. In designing the new space, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the juggernaut of corporate architecture, has joined the organisation in the kid zone. I half expected to stumble across a castle made of beer bottles and pizza boxes.
The inaugural show, Public, Private, Secret, emulates the design’s spirit of shoddiness. The street-level lobby and basement gallery appear cheap the exhibition is virtually bankrupt. The architects have packed in plenty of square footage, but the low-ceilinged galleries nevertheless really feel cramped. The curators, too, neutralise ambition with meagreness, roving more than the entire globe of surveillance and self-representation, and returning with a couple of narrow, superficial points.
The ICP’s new curator in residence, Charlotte Cotton, conceived of Public, Private, Secret to address a swarm of timely concerns: what we broadcast about ourselves, what we hide, and what other folks see that we can not handle. This is well-trampled ground. In 2011, the MoMA/PS1 curator Peter Eleey place together The Talent Show , a ruminative enquiry into our contradictory hungers for solitude and recognition. The fine performs at PS1 mostly predated today’s incessant tide of tweets, chats and video streams, but delved brilliantly into the culture of self-presentation. In an arena of escalating state and corporate security, the triangle linking artist, subject and viewer keeps shifting.
5 years later, fashions in technology have changed, but Cotton trots out some of the same artists as Eleey did. Once once again, we get Phil Collins’s “Free Fotolab”, an engagingly random slideshow of other people’s old 35-millimetre snapshots. (You would feel that if one organisation could revive an old mechanical slide carousel, it would be the ICP, but somehow pictures kept slipping out of focus.) Sophie Calle also makes an look, as she constantly does when the poetics of peeping come into play. Right here, she’s represented by a lesser work, “The Sleepers”. Calle presented her (empty) bed to friends and strangers, who took turns spending the night while she stood watch and recorded their unconscious vulnerability. The project yielded a lot of pictures of lumpy blankets and tousled hair.
These incursions into what we after called the private domain seem quaint in the age of continuous posts and metadata revelations. Since 2009, Natalie Bookchin has been braiding hundreds of on the web video diaries into “Testament”. Anguished men and ladies reveal to their un-judgmental webcams intimacies that they may possibly in no way inform a human becoming. And Bookchin is there to listen, or at least use what they say as raw material. We learn tiny about every single individual, but hear only a murmuring chorus of pain.
The world wide web is an endless playground for artistically inclined snoops. The rest of us shop for dog food, book trips to Myanmar, study up on quantum physics, and investigation our symptoms, shattering individuality into an evolving collage of curiosities. Artists dip into this info landfill the way Rauschenberg scavenged in junk shops and empty lots. Jon Rafman emerges with “Mainsqueeze”, seven minutes of discovered footage: a loose-bolted washing machine rattling itself into oblivion, interspliced with a sequence of anime porn, a hogtied man in a Kermit the Frog costume attempting to slip his bonds.
This artistry of tapping into the world’s swamp of desires and disgusts need to have been the ICP’s real innovation. Alternatively, it is where the show comes unstuck. Cotton and a group of curators rake through the dung heaps of Twitter, Snapchat, Vine and Instagram, emerging with a multitudinous mess. Scattered screens display feeds of pictures culled by algorithm from social media, a sort of cud-chewing that barely rises to the level of art. “Creators”, for instance, offers an automated update on Warhol’s celebrity culture: a “real-time stream of tweets and image posts aims to reveal the dynamics of the popularity and attain of young, media-savvy creatives”.
The text describes a method exactly where the cultural consumer has grow to be a advertising cog, helping the well-known circulate images they take of themselves being popular. The screen just dishes out tweets about Justin Bieber. Cotton doesn’t marshal this undernourished overload into an argument alternatively, she throws out a lot of disjointed content material and leaves it up to the viewer to thresh.
The ICP’s disastrous reopening represents more than just a curator’s poor judgment or misfired ambitions it exposes a churning institutional crisis. How does a temple of photography adapt to a time when astounding photographs are a Pinterest search away, or a $ 5 app unlocks strategies as soon as guarded by pros? Today’s radically democratised context presents restricted options to photographers and curators.
In the previous, the ICP has tried numerous tacks to shield its uniqueness: digital printing on a monumental scale, shows about politically engaged photojournalists, surveys of street photography or staged conceptual experiments. Now it seems to have offered up, and gone grubbing about in the visually saturated planet at large, substituting quantity for discernment.
Till January 8, icp.org
Copyright The Monetary Instances Limited 2016. You may possibly share making use of our report tools.
Please don’t reduce articles from FT.com and redistribute by e mail or post to the net.