John Divola: Facts of the Imagination, Mark Johnstone
In 1974 John Divola started his Vandalism series, a body of black and white electronically flashed photographs of the interiors of abandoned houses houses which in some cases he entered illegally. These images are of spray paint markings which Divola made on the interior surfaces (floors, walls, ceilings). The marks vacillate between arbitrary graffiti and systematic conceptual gestures. They function simultaneously as the flat surface of the photographic print, and as planes existing within the rendered space of the image. They have a quality of floating while in actuality existing within a dimensional space. They question perceptual concepts of reality, and the rendering abilities of the photographic medium. Formally, they entertain questions of space, structure, and the nature of the rendered marks within the photographically produced image. As the spray paint vandalizes the houses, the photographs vandalize a tradition of straight photography by having the photographer actively participate and change the landscape that he photographs. When painting an entered space, Divola refers to media outside of photography (performance, painting, and sculpture). Although his act of painting may express an idea developed in and of itself, Divola chose to place the painting in the context of a straight photograph. This makes the painting a means toward a further expressive end, not a phenomenon to be considered only on its own terms. The acts of painted vandalism might also raise moral or legal questions, but their primary value remains in signifying Divolas involvement with the place he chose to photograph.
Divola sought these spaces out as a neutral ground. By returning to the same
place several times, or similar places over an extended period of time, he effectively
mapped out the various forms his images could take. Walker Percy, in an essay
entitled "The Symbolic Structure of Interpersonal Process" (1)
speaks of the psychiatrist in a dual role with his patient as both participant
and observer. Divola is in an analogous position, engaging in the playful vandalism
and acting as midwife, delivering the potential of the place as image. He has
described the act of marking as a spontaneous interaction, which is then re-explored
through the camera. (2) He moved through various
visual experiments in the black and white vandalism photographs spray
paintings of dotted grids, chaotic writhing fields of short curved strokes,
objects frozen and floating (tossed into a scene and flashed). As the series
progressed compositional changes also occurred such as the gradual combining
of the exterior view seen through a window, with that of the interior.
The hybridization of photography and painting has many times enlarged and expanded
variables indigenous to one medium or another. Like any other photographer,
Divola operates within the limitations and abilities of his equipment. There
is a certain kind of displacement of the world by imaging it through a camera,
one that is judged after exposure. By spray painting Divola reworked the image
prior to exposure, and created before the photographic fact. He used paint,
and painted patterns, to directly engage what had been previously left to interpretive
characteristics of the equipment. He knows that the houses will probably be
destroyed and that his photographs will be the only surviving records of his
painting. This eliminates any constraints as a painter and he has been able
to redefine this role as a photographer. He has not systematized a direct representation
of ideas through painting, but has made a space that reflects a sense of physicality,
a sense of the force and change that takes place. Not only is there an interplay
of surface (content) and paint (decoration), but the landscape is also treated
as an extended space through the painting, and as a flat space through the photographing.
What remains problematic for the viewer is a question of what has been added
by means of paint, and what has been subtracted by means of photography.
(3)
While most documentary photographs simply subtract information from a scene,
Divola adds to it before that subtraction takes place. It is thus documentation
of a sort, but with special attention directed to formal properties. It is essentially
urban wall painting graffiti that Divola draws upon, whether entirely
self-generated or unintentionally derived from a secondary source. Historically,
such activity has hardly ever employed perspective. Graffiti has been focused,
rather, on layering and the compositional positioning of elements in a flat
field, with special emphasis on the content of the message. In Divolas
pictures definitive content is missing, suggesting a kind of formalism at play.
But as graffiti is the scratching out of a figure or design, so
Divolas markings operate through interaction with the physical characteristics,
especially the perspective, of the place. The markings serve to contrast and
play against the dimensional space, thus subverting and causing visual reassessment
of the image by the viewer. By means of this ambiguity, playing against perspective
as it is rendered by the medium, Divola has worked between formally rendering
the scene, and documenting his own vandalism.
Much of the graffiti suggest clandestine activities produced under a hood of
darkness, or at least relative solitude. The Vandalism photographs are primarily
flash images and as such exist in an indeterminate time. As this technique became
limiting, Divola sought new activities and maneuvers within the images. As the
phenomena occurring in these photographs multiplied and became more complex,
this particular set of photographs came to a close. The strategy most prominent
in the concluding images is that of the interplay between marks Divola had made
in the building, and the exterior as it could be seen through a window.
Divolas next body of work, by comparison, seems stiffly academic in nature.
Forced Entry done during 1975-76, is a group of photographs which document the
manner of break-in performed in a neighborhood of condemned and abandoned houses
near the Los Angeles airport. Several distinctions between this group of images
and the previous vandalism series are significant. Divola did not perform any
of the acts he photographed, rather he photographed the territory and territorial
markings of others; previously he had marked and established and worked within
what became his own space. The playful aspect is not visually apparent in the
Forced Entry pictures. Although he found it to be a kind of game between the
vandalizers and those who boarded up the houses or policed the area, he remained
an observer rather than a participant. At the same time the acts photographed
are much more violent in nature than any of the previous vandalism which Divola
him-self performed. Doors have been kicked in, windows wrenched open. Also,
the images were all made during the daytime, many with existing light. The photographs
are presented as combined pairs, one exterior view of an entry, the other an
interior view of the same entry. The focus of the piece is initially the entry
itself, its form and suggestive nature (violent). Then the interplay
of elements within each image separately (patterns of light and shadow, forms)
may be examined, and as a result of this, a reconciliation of content is established
between the photographs. The Forced Entry images are operative pairs in which
much of the significance exists as that between the photographs, rather than
in the notation of either experience separately (the witnessing of the interior
or the exterior side of the break-in). We experience an elusive emotive quality
of entering a forbidden space in order to view and experience more completely
this particular action. At the same time the two photographs provide us with
much more information than a staid view concentrated in one image.
The Vandalism and Forced Entry series explore basic tenets of the medium. But
besides being a consideration of qualities directly ascribed to the medium,
they establish Divolas fascination with what is being photographed, as
subject.(4) They are formal investigations not
only of the painting, or the physicality of an altered space, but also the public
consideration of private actions. The circumstances surrounding break-ins and
spray painting established the context by which his imagination could manifest
itself as a reality. But the exterior view needed an equally dramatic and meaningful
reality. A reality which would act as counterpart to complement and contrast
with Divolas painting. (5)
Divolas next body of work is the Zuma series, initiated in 1977 and concluded
in early 1978. This work embodies characteristics of the previous work, yet
introduces new elements sufficient to carry this imagery to a point far beyond
that of the others. The Zuma photographs are in color, as are his spray paintings,
and characteristically employ a wider view, achieved through either stepping
back or using a lens accepting a wider view. A second distinction is that all
the photographs were made within the arena of the same place, an abandoned beach
house previously used by lifeguards. Third, a direct focus of the images is
the interplay between the interior view and that of the exterior, either through
the windows, or doorways, or the destruction of a wall.
Initially what strikes us is the naive, primitive freshness of the color. Color
is a carefully added overlay bold and garish. Divola has become, for
a moment, an action painter manipulating the space of the image through the
colors he uses.(6) He might coyly stripe a wall,
or boldly color in the sunbeam of light thrown by a broken window on a wall.
Fire fighters had used this house as a practice site for training exercises.
Thus the building was sporadically burned and reburned over a long period of
time. In its successive stages of being burned the charred wood and walls provide
a rich chiaroscuro for counterpoint. As the walls were burned Divolas
marks were erased in a random, irregular way, allowing a change in the markings
as the space was physically altered. Observing the burning over a period of
weeks, we are moved towards a visual climax that never occurs the total
disappearance of the house.
Divola had previously worked within the enclosed confines of a given kind of
space. Those early black and white Vandalism photographs exemplified classical
attitudes of picture taking, the images appearing as consciously made documents.
The activities of the marking and recording processes are separated through
strategies of framing. One considers the physical elements, what has been manipulated,
and its relation to the imaging capabilities of the medium (perspective, format,
tonal rendition, framed field). The Zuma photographs are opened up through the
inclusion of what is past the confines of the interior walls, and the introduction
of color variation. Lush colored clouds move across the sky at waters
edge as the ocean and sky are introduced as elements within a new kind of spatial
experience.(7)
Suddenly we find our gaze alternating between the familiar limits of a house,
and that of a receding, indeterminate space. Surfaces and spatial depth are
strangely intertwined in the experience of the photographs. Developmentally
we are provided with a sense of the change that takes place in the opening up
of the building through fire, its near disintegration, providing us with a sense
of movement absent in the previous series. Divola becomes the coordinator of
colored forms in a con-stantly shifting field of visual data. Rather than the
specific acts he performs in this space, our interest lies in his way of perceiving
it. The spray painted marks shift from a primary use, signifying vandalism,
to becoming the residue of Divolas performance, a part within the photographic
whole. The photographs are not only about the repetitive patterns he paints
and images, nor only about his physical interaction with the place. The pictures
frame the formal qualities of his marks and the place, and also suggest a physical
and psychic experience. They are about the temporal patterns that may surface
out of working with a subject, or a place, or an attitude, over a period of
time. In this way the coloration and markings become about the changes in Divolas
perceptions, without particularly signifying a linear sense of time.
This imagery is more expressive than the Vandalism series, and can be considered
as a comparison between the space of the interior (painted, man-made shelter)
and the space of the exterior (both constant and inconstant, malleable only
through how we choose to look at it). The emotive qualities developed in the
interior space are played against those of the exterior. The inclusion of what
goes on and exists outside the house is the means by which the house may be
understood.
The two rhythms that seek a visual reconciliation in the photographs exist in
several states. First there is the house. It exists as a haven, a shelter on
the edge of the ocean, a space in and of itself. Simultaneously it exists as
a man-made space within a world space, separate from and counter to that world
space. As its walls become wild, magical colorations which may angle in a crazy,
confusing fashion, the ocean outside becomes a shelter simply as something most
viewers know about, and in this sense is ordered. We know what to
expect visually from the ocean. It is predictable as a kind of constant, yet
continually varies within that constancy, existing as a duality. The chronicle
of the house as it is burned out and slowly destroyed is played in counterpoint
to the opulence of spectacular sunsets and sun-rises, as seen through the windows
and doorways. Ironically, the disorder of the acts of burning (collapsed structures,
charred irregular forms) serves to introduce more variety and complexity than
Divola could hope to create with his painting on the walls. The presence of
the burned forms overshadows anything that could be considered purely surface
intrigues. The irregular des-truction becomes more bizarre and stranger than
any of Divolas markings. The markings accent the agony of the changing
almost dying house.(8) As Divola
interacted with the house it became the fabricated image (a created metaphor)
while the outside remained the real image. Considered a bit differently,
perhaps the photograph represents the fabricated image, and the piece of paper
in front of our eyes the real image? The game of illusion and reality is set,
not only within the photographs, but between ourselves as viewers and the photographs.
Our own perceptive abilities are challenged and sharpened as we encounter the
increasingly complex elements delivered by the swift, easy action of the camera.
Consideration of the beach house, the building itself, inevitably involves an
examination of the metaphorical content of the images. This distinguishes the
work from the earlier black and white photographs where the emphasis of the
images lay in the formal concerns of the photographic image. In the Zuma series
there is no preoccupation with mechanical virtuosity, medium referents, or means
of connection (structural, sculptural, or conceptual) outside the picture. If
Divola has formulated a private code it is buried within the transactional experience
of photographing the beach house. What becomes interesting is the consideration
of the photographs as the transcription of experience, and the setting of it
at a distance for contemplation. Not only do the pictures exist as a measured
value for Divola, but also for the viewer, who may return to the images and
rediscover new meanings in what had been previously seen in a different way.
And what is more, the imagination, by virtue of its freshness and its own peculiar
activity, can make what is familiar into what is strange. With a single poetic
detail, the imagination confronts us with a new world. From then on, the detail
takes precedence over the panorama, and a simple image, if it is new, will open
up an entire world. Gaston Bachelard (9)
One of Divolas photographs in the series summarizes the directional thrust
of the body of work as the experience, and as what can be imagined. The photographer
has moved to the doorway, the gist of the image existing outside the boundaries
of the house. A post a few feet away on a porch is all that interrupts a landscape
of water, bluish in the haze of a foggy mist. The post is yellowish a little
less than half the way up, depicted at a level so that the coloration is visually
even with the water in the landscape. A rod, alternately striped with light
colored bands, has been leaned up against the post. Broken glass litters the
doorway and trails up the base of the post. This image resolves the activity
and concept of the painting, the dance with the ocean, and the exploration in
the broken house. The garish, brutal coloration is almost nonexistent, the evidence
of any violent actions reduced to a minimum. We have seen the images as a horizontal,
or more linear experience of information, an exploration of the variously active,
visual elements. Now we may also fully perceive them as a layered, vertical
awareness, a celebration of the imagination mutely held high to the rich, slightly
changing, ever present existence of the most natural of earthly elements, the
ocean. Thus exists the balance between the representative and symbolic components
of the photographs. (10)
The house, a rigid form, a secretive box whose inner activities we are witness
to, is an interface of corners and complex markings. We imagine the house, an
inflexible shell, to grow and become a picturesque showcase, which then rapidly
deteriorates. The immense ocean somberly pulses under a flowing sky, together
they are always there, but always a little bit different. The spray painting
could exist as a kind of adjective to the noun of the rooms, the coloration
a value which almost becomes imaginary in its ultra-beauty. A coloring that
almost obscures any opportunity to meditate upon certain images, yet in others
recedes into the blackness of a dark, deep, space. We are offered visions of
what we may be unable to see; we become guests to our own imaginations. We are
magically offered different realities in the same place, encoun-tering opportunities
to see, to perceive, and to discover. A tension, which is both imagined and
real between the two realities, that of the house and that of the space outside
it, is their reason for existence. These "facts of the imagination"
exist in a "magic mode of identification".(11)
As viewers, our knowledge of imagery functions to transcribe the continuum of
the experience into something magical and mystical. Inextricably bound in the
photographs are the mechanics and the imaginative powers of the interactive
experience.
Notes
(1)Walker Percy, "The Symbolic Structure of
Interpersonal Process", in The Message in the Bottle, (New York, Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux, 1977), pp. 189-214.
(2)John Divola interviewed by Mark Johnstone (Venice,
California), October 1978, "When I think of my photographs, I think of
them as being involved with three elements: 1) Myself, my personality and my
disposition at that particular place and time; 2) the nature of the medium and
the way it translates information; 3) the nature of the place and the nature
of the situation. And so all three of those elements interact myself,
the nature of the medium, and the nature of the situation and place. And that
interaction is manifested out as a photograph. So I dont feel like I have
total control, but that all those elements exert themselves and that I am simply
directing, in a certain sense, that interlay of elements." From Dinah Portner,
"Dialog with John Divola," LACPS Newsletter, 4:9 (September 1978),
page 1.
(3) In photography, John Pfahl differs in
the nature of his manipulations. (see Afterimage 6:7 pp. 10-13) The difference
exists in the nature of the directive which is placed in the landscape. By using
Polaroid tests, Pfahl knows how his image will look, whereas Divola is dependent
on the discovery and generation of values through his involvement with the place,
and then in his contact sheets and conse-quent prints. As Divola has pushed
perception in photography, similar motifs have appeared in painting. Cynthia
Carlsons recent work is done on gallery walls, and effects a change of
the space by means of patterned paint. Similar in conception, but not appearance,
is the work of Lynton Wells. "Reality" as it is reported through the
photograph is effectively confused and reinterpreted by his painting on photo
sensitized linen. Wells plays the expressiveness of his painting against the
impersonality of the photographic record, an awareness, it could be argued,
opposite that of Divola.
(4)Divola has expressed admiration for the work
of Frederick Sommer and Walker Evans. But a consideration of the work of Vito
Acconci and Lucas Samaras seems more relevant. Samaras, in Photo-Transformations
(New York, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1975) overly manip-ulates the surface of a
Polaroid print to effect the underlying structure of the image. Consequently
a kind of sign relationship is developed between his personality and the look
effected in his manipulations. Acconcis work is entirely self-dependent.
There is private interplay, training, and an ongoing developed perceptual awareness
crucial to the creation of a piece or performance. He too is in many cases making
public certain private acts, but of a different nature than Divola.
(5)"the characteristic of the strong image
is that it derives from the spontaneous association of two very distant realities
whose relationship is grasped solely by the mind". . ."if the senses
completely approve an image, they kill it in the mind." Pierre Reverdy,
"Le Gand de Crin" quoted in From Baudelaire to Surrealism, Marcel
Raymond, (New York, Wittenborn, Schultz, Inc., 1950) p. 288 (Documents of Modern
Art, Volume 10).
(6)Divola has stated that the two dimensional reproduction
of art events, or art objects, is more interesting to him than experiencing
the original.
(7)Portner, op. cit., page 3 "Id always
wished I had a building with the ocean outside the window, and I ended up going
out to the desert because that was the closest place I could find that would
have a similar type of space outside the window to work with."
(8)Divola clarifies this by describing it as the
linear type of change which takes place in the house, versus the cyclical change
which is occurring outside. As he says, "When the house is gone, I am too."
(9)Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space, (Boston,
Beacon Press, 1969), p. 134. Hugh Dalziel Duncan in Symbols in Society (New
York, Oxford University Press, 1968) says: "Interpretation of forces beyond
symbols might still be interpretations of symbols. Thus, even though we know
the manifest content of the dream is not its real meaning, we must
show how the real meaning can be reached through symbols which are
manifest to us." (page 50).
(10)"Such images as these must be taken, at
the least, in their existence as a reality of expression. For they owe their
entire being to poetic expression, and this being would be diminished if we
tried to refer them to a reality, even to a psychological reality. Indeed, they
dominate psychology and correspond to no psychological impulse, save the simple
need for self expression, in one of those leisurely moments when we listen to
everything in nature that is unable to speak." Bachelard, op. cit., pp.
177-178.
(11)"These are the facts of the imagination,
the very positive facts of the imaginary world." Bachelard, op. cit., page
116. "But the quasi identification events of symbolic behavior can be grasped
only by a qualitative phenomenology. This qualitative scale must take account
not only of true-or-false-or-nonsense statements (water is cold, water is dry,
water is upside down), but also of various modes of magic identification."
Percy, op. cit., page 209.
Mark Johnstone is a photographer and a contributing editor of Artweek. He is
a visiting professor at The Photography Institute at the Colorado College, Colorado
Springs.
"John Divola: Facts of the Imagination" was published in Exposure
19:1 (1981) pp. 38-45, and
Camera (Lucerne, Switzerland); Part I, July 1981; Part II, August 1981.
Mark Johnstone contact rjako@earthlink.net