Binh Danh and his exhibit, "One Week's Dead" reproduces the faces of Vietnam in a way like no other. No greater a testimony could be achieved-Danh says it perfectly. Two hundred and forty-two men died in one week. One week. Danh uses photosynthesis to present these photographs as if they are a part of the leaves and grass. Vietnam was a horrific war, fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia. The presentation of these photographs pays a tribute to the victims that still remain scattered throughout the landscape of Vietnam. Danh's work also functions as a constant reminder that these victims are real-they had families, they had dreams, they fought, and they died for our country. And even though these men have passed on, their souls remain with us. Looking into the photographs is an unexplainable feeling. At first, you cannot exactly decipher what is happening within the artwork, but after two seconds, the face and eyes become more apparent and that victim's soul pops out at you.
Susan Sontag addresses the idea of photography and creating realities in her article "The Image World." She states, "a photograph is not only an image (as a painting is an image), an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stenciled off the real, like a footprint or a death mask." This completely sums up what Binh Danh achieves in his "One Week's Dead." Danh's photographs create a reality of each individual and his use of leaves and grass create a reality of the treacherous landscape that Vietnam is known for. One can easily conclude that Danh's photographs are a way of "imprisoning reality, understood as recalcitrant, inaccessible; of making it stand still" (Sontag 356).
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Deanna,
Since Danh is using appropriated Life magazine photos, how is his work different from the original images? Is there a sense that they portray different realities?
In your journal entry, you make some overly simplistic statements. You could omit these and nothing would be lost in the meaning, in fact it would allow your reader to focus on your more complex ideas.
For example, you write:
"No greater a testimony could be achieved-Danh says it perfectly."
Although you may truly have had a very strong and positive experience with this work, calling it "perfect" eliminates any space for your reader to join the conversation. It would be better to describe the work in detail, and then explain more deliberately why you thought it was so successful.
Post a Comment