Julie Shafer, Devil's Gate, 2018
1 media/julieshafer_devilsgate_2018_thumb.jpg 2020-04-30T19:32:57+00:00 Denise M. Johnson 4ac969f411f8ab69a8061d019e5b50c846dc43d8 337 4 Photo plain 2020-05-18T17:31:15+00:00 42.4488454,-107.2278456 Denise M. Johnson 4ac969f411f8ab69a8061d019e5b50c846dc43d8This page is referenced by:
-
1
media/Screen Shot 2020-04-14 at 5.55.19 PM.png
media/Screen Shot 2020-04-14 at 5.55.19 PM.png
2020-04-23T04:03:09+00:00
Photographic Truth
36
Denise Johnson essay
plain
2020-05-27T23:28:32+00:00
It is precisely the twisted logic betraying the values of Enlightenment elites that Julie Shafer’s photographic practice works to engage. For this reason, Shafer’s Parting of the Ways images are not entirely idyllic. Ready on the surface is evidence of the photographer grappling with deep seated perspectives like Emerson's Transcendental transparent eye and the assumed divine benevolence that grants resource extraction to a privileged few without responsibility for the ensuing ecological destruction and contamination granted through Locke's philosophical rhetoric.
A prepared eye likely finds a rupture on the surface of a Shafer photograph, rather than within the documented terrain. Comparing two photographs of the of the Devil's Gate made by Jackson in 1870 and Shafer in 2018 taken from a nearly identical location reveal a slippage that disrupts the Romantic pastoral view. While each photograph is printed in high contrast–shadows are deep, velvety black and the sandy middle ground is almost blinding white–Shafer’s print is extremely grainy while Jackson’s is crisply precise. The obvious grain in Shafer’s image works subconsciously on the viewer, drawing attention to the state of flat approximation rather than suggesting Enlightenment escapist ideals. Equally, Shafer's more vertical framing works to undermine the idea that the so-called "gate" marks the threshold to an expansive domain free for the taking (Interview with the artist).
While Jackson's photo participates in shaping the illusion of freedom on the horizon through the possession (theft) of land, Shafer’s print directly critiques the notion that any kind of “photographic truth” can be found on the plane of the photographic print, or at the historical site, prompting the viewer to maintain Squadrito's suspicions. For Shafer, what is present in this construction of nature is not a divine presence, but grains of silver that have been exposed to light to communicate a message.
