By Christian Viveros-Fauné
By Miriam Felton-Dansky
By Tom Sellar
By Tom Sellar
By Jessica Dawson
By Tom Sellar
By R. C. Baker
By Tom Sellar
After looking hard at Sharon Lockhart's work for more than 10 years and failing to get what numerous high mucky-muck curators, big-deal museum people, powerful gallerists, and major critics and theoreticianssome of whom have called this artist "insightful," "ingenious," and "inspired"admire, I have decided that often there's nothing in Lockhart's work to get. Sometimes the art world, presented with a vacuum, overinterprets it or assumes that something that says nothing must say somethingwhy else would all these other important people be saying otherwise? Lately, I think this inflation is going on around Roni Horn's photographs of her niece. After a while people are just too embarrassed to admit that maybe there's nothing there.
Lockhart's work is not always so vacant. Sometimes she can be excellent. Her quasi-structuralist, Michael Snowlike film Goshogaoka, of a Japanese girls' basketball team warming up, was a fascinating extension of process art by way of Merce Cunningham. And her early setup photographs of children were striking for how unsentimental yet honest they were. But "Pine Flat," Lockhart's current humdrum exhibition, finds her following up on her latent weakness for passing off hollow theatricality as containing real meaning. The sad fact is that "Pine Flat" is all subject matter and no content.
The three essayists in the slick, thick, handsome catalog argue that Lockhart "embraces ambiguity," that her work is "exceedingly generous," that she was "engaged with the community," and that her pictures exhibit "empathy." In reality, Lockhart is just another photographer who goes someplacea park, a foreign country, a dicey neighborhood, a club, or in this case a small California townand proceeds to take anthropological pictures of whoever is there. Almost inevitably, these photos are little more than expensive trophies all but devoid of psychology, complexity, or insight, let alone ambiguity, empathy, or engagement.
The backstory to "Pine Flat" is that Lockhart "rented a cabin by a creek to escape the unforgiving pace of urban life." This cabin was in Pine Flat, a town of 300 about 170 miles northeast of Los Angeles in the gorgeous foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Over four years Lockhart befriended some of the local children and produced 19 medium-size photographs of them (each in an edition of six with two artist's proofs), as well as Pine Flat, a two-and-a-half-hour film that debuted at Sundance and was screened at Lincoln Center last week.
Sixteen of the photos are on view at Gladstone. All are quite static and follow a pre-approved photographic formula: Subjects are always placed in the center of the frame, settings are constant, and lighting doesn't vary much from shot to shot, nor does scale or camera angle. Each child is pictured against a dark background on a gray cement floor. All the kids are made to appear about the same size. A few wear sandals, a couple don T-shirts, some are in shorts, one is outfitted in camouflage pants, another has a cowboy hat, and a pair look to be dressed in motorcycle outfits.
The problem is that the art world almost always falls for this format, assuming that something is being revealed in this severe singling out. The great August Sander used this reductivist structure to peer into the very heart of a nation. Lockhart simply conforms to the prescription without adding or revealing very much. The results are as generic as ads in a fashion magazine and resemble Rineke Dijkstra's similarly empty pictures of children in the Berlin Tiergarten. Far better examples of what Lockhart is trying to do were produced by Mike Disfarmer, who took pictures of Arkansas locals in the 1940s; Wendy Ewald, who has been working with communities of children since the 1970s; Judith Joy Ross, who makes images of single subjects; and Dijkstra, who photographs adolescent swimmers.
In addition to the 16 photos, two 10-minute film clips are screened continuously. There are 12 clips in all, so to see the entire filmwhich I'm told is more intriguing than the clips on their ownyou must go to the show six days in a row (I have yet to see a single return visitor in my many trips to the gallery). Each clip depicts one or more kids doing something or nothing in the surrounding area. Each section has a blunt, artsy title. There's "Hunter," in which a boy sits with a gun in the woods; "Kissing," which depicts two couples kissing in the grass; "Bus," which shows a boy waiting for a school van; and "Searcher," which depicts a lovely snowstorm in the woods as an offscreen kid hollers, "Ethan, where are you?" Writers on the film make much of this "line of dialogue" and assert that it is haunting and scary. It is not. It's just one kid calling to another.
According to the gallery, Lockhart "focused on the community's youth and the experience of American childhood," and "interacted directly with the children living amidst the picturesque landscapes surrounding the hamlet." As much as I respect her, the bottom line is that Lockhart rented a place in paradise, met some of the white kids there, and took their pictures. These pictures have nothing whatsoever to do with "American childhood" and evince very little real interaction. After thinking about this show I find myself wondering: Did you hear the one about the photographer who went into the wild and brought back something tame?