Ken Johnson’s New York Times review of the new exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum, Who Shot Rock & Roll, concludes that, “nothing captures the spirit of rock ’n’ roll like video.” The fact being that the exhibit in question shows photography, Johnson’s comments certainly did more than raise a few eyebrows from the featured artists and the countless photographers who capture live shows today.
The exhibit features photos from over 100 different photographers and chronicles the ever-changing face of rock & roll from Elvis in 1955 to Jay-Z in 2009. One of the most prolific rock photographers ever is Bob Gruen, who made an appearance at the museum’s opening event. He reveled in the anti-glamour of 1960s-70s New York, befriending John Lennon, Yoko Ono, The New York Dolls, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, Blondie, The Clash (“the only band that really matters”) and practically everyone else that matters too.
Gruen started taking photos of rock & roll for the same reasons his subjects played it: money and rebellion. His first concert was Pete Seeger and Gruen liked that his music had a message; his songs were about social politics, not just sex and lust. The way he saw it, rock & roll was the folk music of America, music that wouldn’t take “no” as an answer but as a beginning of the discussion. Gruen wanted to relate through his photos the passion of experiencing that type of music and the chaotic excitement of being in the crowd. It meant that his photos were often wonderful mistakes, small moments never meant to be caught, and musicians in a blur of raw emotion: “When the subject isn’t sharp, the feeling is clearer,” he says.
He talked about the shift from film to digital photography because it made his assignments easier and more lucrative. It struck me that he was so accepting of the state of music and his art in the digital age. What my generation seems to be so cynical about – mainstream music and the ‘corporatization of rock & roll’ – Gruen sees it as a passing marker of time. There’s no nostalgia for the Minolta.
However, the question remains: can rock photography be considered art?
As Gruen says, rock is a “bipartide revolution”: both sound and image. To diminish the power of the photograph is just careless. Videos may have a larger scope, but they cannot zone in on a single snapshot moment, capturing someone’s split-second expression that could open up an entire window of a life. To hear music is to create images in your mind about what the music means to you; videos tell you what to think about a particular song and do all the fun parts for you. I believe in the power of music videos and videos of live performances, but to say that they better possess the spirit of rock & roll ignores the fact that photographs can evoke those same incredible feelings.
So what do you think best captures the spirit of live music: Photography? Video? Or can neither of these quite recreate the same experience as being there yourself?
Posted by Eleanor
Posted by Timmy
Posted by Timmy