Mick Hartley

At the Whitechapel Gallery, photographer Paul Graham.

Some good photo-journalism to start with (for instance, up the A1 in the early 80s) marred for me by this constant need to over-sell the man (pdf):

Paul Graham is one of the leading figures currently working in fine art photography. In a career that has spanned 30 years, Graham has played a crucial role in the development of photography, constantly challenged and reinvented the medium and its presentation in both exhibition and book form.  

Graham’s innovative approach to image-making refers to and remixes the rich history and traditional genres of photography, creating a unique visual language. Throughout his career, Graham’s working methods have played a major role in redefining what constitutes photography today.  

Hmm. 

Well, he's keen to make political points, for sure: 

Troubled Land, 1985–86, fuses traditional landscape photography with war reportage. These images of Northern Ireland, each containing a discreet signifier such as a Union Jack flag, soldier or political poster, act as a reflection on that society, subtly revealing the struggle over the land itself.  

Subtly revealing? A union jack in every photo? A typical shot shows the top of a pillar with red white and blue paint and…barbed wire wrapped around it. Subtly revealing? Yeah, subtle as a sledgehammer.

In contrast to Troubled Land which was rooted in the physical landscape of Northern Ireland, the final series of images in this section, Ceasefire, 6-8 April 1994, is an ambiguous, abstracted representation of the political. It depicts a tentative halt to the Troubles through a series of cloudy skies taken above infamous flash points of sectarian violence such as Bogside, Newry, Omagh and Shankhill. These images were shot specifically during the three day ‘temporary cessation of hostilities’ by the IRA around the Easter weekend that started the peace process.

In case you didn't get that: several (eight?) pictures – big pictures – of grey cloudy skies. Barely distinguishable one from another. Grey boring cloudy skies…..but above "infamous flash points of sectarian violence".  What?? An ambiguous, abstracted representation of the political? Oh please. 

But back to the subtlety:

Ideas of denial and concealment are also interrogated in Empty Heaven, 1989–95. Through startling juxtapositions of kitsch Japanese pop imagery, portraiture and documentation from historical museums and shrines, Graham created a series of images where the viewer cannot immediately read the significance of the subject. Reflecting Japanese culture’s investment in surface appearances, Graham also points to that country’s hierarchical and structured society and how this intersects with its suppressed memories of the past. 

So – a kitschy sweet wrapper (cartoon kid with big eyes) is placed side-by-side with images of an A-Bomb cloud. See? Japanese culture's investment in surface appearances, intersecting with suppressed memories of the past? Get it? Oh boy. Yes, yes, I think we get it.

And on (perhaps inevitably) to the US:

The series American Night, 1998–2002, places deliberately overexposed images, in which the viewer has to search out their content and meaning, alongside hyper-real colour photographs emphasising the discrepancies of wealth in North American society.  

The deliberately overexposed images are practically white. Search out their content and meaning? No thanks. But those hyper-real  colour photographs emphasising the discrepancies of wealth? Can you guess? Glossy shots of fancy real estate contrast with pictures of urban decay with – in just about every case – some wretched derelict black individual, usually wearing bandages. Every black in these pictures is either a down-and-out or performing some menial job. Whites? Well, there's some fat slob outside a Vegas casino. Subtle? Jesus Christ. Should be prosecuted for racial stereotyping. And over-wheening smugness. And flatulence too, while we're at it.

I went in expecting to enjoy it; I came out not a little annoyed. Well, that's art for you, eh? Isn't it meant to be provocative and disturbing?