The Wednesday Lecture, Documentary: Sophie Calle
Wednesday 9th December, 2020, Willow Fisher
For this Wednesday lecture we were to watch a documentary communicating the artistic career of French artist Sophie Calle. Although I was looking forward to this documentary as It explored the life of a female artist I can't say I enjoyed the content or context of her work. I have studied film studies in the past so am familiar with voyeurism in art and media, however I think in the way that the artist has approached it isn't ethical. The concept of her style of working with stalking through photography of strangers she encounters and following reminds me of theorist Laura Mulvey who created the theory on the Male Gaze. Relating this to the technicality of Sophie’s unusual following and recording of people the artist has in a way flipped it, reversing the action to the female gaze. In an interview with an architect discussing the artist and her work he made the valid comment that if this was perhaps a male artist completing these ritualistic journeys of following strangers then it would be recognised as predatory. However because she is a female artist this problematic conclusion is neglected and accepted by the art world which I don't agree with.
She begins by stating that she moved from Paris to New York and in doing so felt isolated, she had no job, no friends and felt she had an absence of communication and familiarity with others and the atmosphere. So to conjure up a mute confidence she decides to follow strangers, documenting them with her camera through photographs including them in her journal and writing about her experience. Through doing this Sophie’s imagination would strengthen with her creating alternate fantasised realities of the strangers as if they were a fictional character in her world. It doesn't sit right with me that Sophie felt she has the power to do this and I find it really unusual and daring, but I don't accept it. The way she talks about these subjects she's captured in her photographs creates the impression that they are hers like she is personifying them and manipulating them into her own reality that she has control of, and I just don't think it's right. A guest in the interview a writer commented that the artist and her artwork has nothing to do with gender, but I strongly disagree with this conclusion. For me it's all about gender and that's the focal point, again linking back to if Sophie was a male artist creating artwork in this way exploring voyeurism on vulnerable and unknowing strangers it would be ridiculed and slated, but because she is a female its deemed art, I just don't understand why. It's not like she is photographing the strangers for the art itself, she is solely focusing on these strangers' possible lives and conjuring up a fantasy about them with them being oblivious. And the way she talks about her work just really unsettles me. For her it's about feeling, and establishing that intimate connection with a stranger, she even commented that she fell in love with a couple of men she was following which I just think is absurd. A writer Paul Auster wrote a novel depicting the artist as a character and even he commented that Sophie was a very persistent woman. Prominent themes that the female artist explores in her voyeuristic work is love and pain, which is reflected in her lonesome feeling of abandonment in New York City, despite her obsessive stalking of strangers. Although I like her more conceptual pieces of work like The Chromatic Diet, reducing her daily meals to colour coordination, I don't find myself fascinated by her photography and writings. So to conclude I didn't enjoy this documentary and don't think I will be reflecting the artists style of work into my own practice as I don't believe it is morally right.