John Menick | Archive for July, 2007

Since I was a teenager, I’ve been more than slightly obsessed with John Carpenter’s The Thing. I’ve probably seen the film a dozen times or more. I’ve read, and highly recommend, the Anne Billson’s BFI study. I’ve defended it to fellow film buffs as one of the best films of the 1980s, period. I even worked at a place called The Thing, gleeful noting on a daily basis the secret connection between my employer and my not-so-guilty pleasure. But this goes way beyond any kind of fandom I’ve ever seen. Way beyond.

For more Thing insanity please see outpost31.com.

From Yahoo News. One is art, the other, not. Maybe.

In a public reading four years ago, William Gibson was asked by a well-meaning audience member whether the viral videos in his novel Pattern Recognition were meant to address contemporary images “without context.” After a slight pause Gibson wryly asked in his dry Canadian-ized southern drawl, “Are you in school?” The laughter subsided and Gibson confessed to having to go away for a while and think about what she was asking. I thought of this exchange when reading Errol Morris’ recent blog entry at The New York Times:

I have often wondered: would it be possible to look at a photograph shorn of all its context, caption-less, unconnected to current thought and ideas? It would be like stumbling on a collection of photographs in a curiosity shop – pictures of people and places that we do not recognize and know nothing about. I might imagine things about the people and places in the photographs but know nothing about them. Nothing.

Morris’ entry is perhaps one of the most thoughtful things I’ve read in The Times in a while, and one can only hope it leads us a little closer to his upcoming film on Iraq. Lurking in the background of his essay is the question of whether or not it’s possible to have a photograph without context. Of course, Gibson’s audience member was being somewhat hyperbolic. There is always some context. But why is there always some remainder of some relation to something outside a photograph? Is it because the very fact of a photograph necessitates context: namely that someone — something — in fact took it?

I would propose a project: create an exhibition or a book or an album of photographs without context. None. Pure semantic self-sufficiency. I can see it now: scientists working around the clock in hazmat suits making sure every scrap of context has been expunged from the premises. A job for real professionals.

I’m not exactly sure why Peacemaker was on NPR this morning, since they covered the gamemaker almost exactly one year ago. Like political art that doesn’t take into account its role as a market luxury item, one has to wonder if politics should really be understood as a video game…

Like most artists in New York, I find the proposed photography permit laws outrageous and more than slightly creepy. Similar laws already in existence for film are not entirely bad, offering benefits for filmmakers far beyond their means. However, the existing film laws are meant to encourage filmmakers, poor and rich, to make their movies here in New York by giving them perks in exchange for meeting very minimal insurance needs. (Contrary to popular belief, million-dollar insurance only costs around a thousand dollars. Even on a low-budget film shoot this is within reach.) However, expanding these permit laws to include any two people with any kind of camera would do the opposite of the existing cinema laws. It would make anyone afraid to take out a camera, let alone come to New York to shoot a photo essay.

Seven years ago, I had an experience that might illustrate just how these laws would be used and misused. In 2000, I was awarded a small commission in a competition to build a new work for the Socrates Sculpture Park in Long Island City, Queens. My project was about Roosevelt Island, the northern tip of which is visible from Socrates. Without going into details, I had to take a number of 8×10 photographs of Queens from the coast of Roosevelt Island. I hired a friend of mine who had a full 8×10 set up, including a medium-sized tripod and a box or two for the camera and its accessories. In total, the two of us could move the entire kit on foot. Our plan was to spend a day on Roosevelt Island shooting and then go home. We were to shoot the view of Socrates, the Cosco next store to the park, the KeySpan power plant, and several lots further south.

Our shoot lasted literally five minutes. After spending that much time setting up, a police car rolled up and an officer emerged asked us what we were doing. We explained. He thought for a moment and asked me to get in the car. My friend stayed behind to pack up and joined us ten minutes later at the RI police HQ.

I don’t remember if the officer was NYPD, state police, private security, or some strange hybrid RI security. It’s a crucial detail, one that has a lot to do with what followed. As I understand it, Roosevelt Island is owned by the city and leased to the state, meaning that different things are run by one of the two entities. For example, the library is NYPL. The area code is 212. However, as I came to find out, the photography permit laws were those of the state.

I was brought to the officer’s boss, who asked me what I was doing. I explained again. He said I needed a permit. I said I don’t need a permit to shoot photographs in New York City. He said you do in New York State, and this island is run by the state. I asked how much it would be. He thought. After a moment of silence, he estimated one would cost about a thousand dollars an hour.

The conversation didn’t go much farther. I asked him where he got the number from and he told me some Mel Gibson movie had recently shot on the island, and that’s about how much they were charged, but he wasn’t sure. (I think the movie was Conspiracy Theory. Didn’t see it.) Trying to reintroduce reason into the discussion I mentioned that Socrates was a local non-profit and that the permit would eat up my entire measly budget in a few hours. He didn’t seem to care. I asked if I could come back without a tripod and just shoot with a handheld medium-format camera. He claimed it didn’t matter, and if I did come back with any format camera without a permit I would be arrested. I asked why I couldn’t take photos without a tripod, yet anyone else could. He claimed it was because I was a professional. I asked for a definition. The conversation circled again.

After a few more rounds, my friend and I left, and over the next three weeks, the park faxed back and forth with RI authorities. I think the amount was lowered, but it was still high enough to devour my entire budget in a day. As a result of this, the project was deeply delayed and eventually did not happen because it could never open on time and budget.

There was another interesting detail. Somewhere in this entirely absurd process I heard that the authorities were concerned I was photographing the KeySpan power plant. I don’t remember if that was part of my initial conversation with RI security or part of Socrates’ fax and phone sessions. At any rate, why exactly terrorists would use a conspicuous 8×10 set-up in full view of the public to photograph a building they want to blow up is beyond me.

At the time, the law seemed real enough. Being a little older and more experienced with obtaining permissions, I wonder whether or not we had more legal options. I don’t believe the RI office had it in for me or for Socrates. I think the officer thought he was being an honest broker. He just couldn’t differentiate between different kinds of film and photo crews. Like the proposed law for New York City, two people with a camera were enough to need warrant a permit. (Although his argument quickly changed into one professional with a camera was enough.)

The proposed photography regulations fit perfectly within a trend that started during the Giuliani administration and continue through Bloomberg: give police new powers to fine or even arrest New Yorkers for actions that were not previously illegal (smoking) or were technically so but were never enforced (jaywalking). Jaywalking is perhaps the most relevant here, because, as many New Yorkers might remember, in the late 1990s the NYPD would suddenly decide to enforce a particular violation for a short period of time, ticket and arrest dozens in a few nights, and then lay off. It will be no different with the proposed photography laws. Most of the time the laws will probably go unenforced. But given any suspicion, need for a quota, or malicious intent on the part of the police, and here come the fines and arrests.

If you are concerned about the new laws you can write the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting. Although, one has to wonder whether quashing the proposal will even matter, since, as the Gothamist points out, police are still seizing cameras without any good reason.

I’m switching hosts, which means this site will disappear from the intertubes for a few days.

Wow.