Consider this: It’s a nice Spring day in 1969. Vito Acconci walks out of his loft in Brooklyn, camera in hand. He spies a subject and begins to follow him. When the man turns a corner, Acconci follows suit. When the man crosses the street, Acconci is not far behind. He snaps pictures of the man’s back when he can. The man doesn’t seem to notice. The man hails a cab. Acconci ends his pursuit. About thirty years later, a collection of photographs entitled “Following Piece” are purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The photographer? Vito Acconci.

It’s a troubling question – when exactly does a scheme of stalking turn into art? Or rather, how can it? At it’s core, it’s not a question we haven’t thought about before. Just take a look at Shane’s and Ayala’s recent posts. We’ve seen it played out time and again with Hirst’s dead shark, DuChamp’s “Fountain,” Picasso’s bull’s head…the list goes on. Acconci’s piece is basically the controversial ready-made, the “please, even I can do that,” only redefined for photography. The result is photo-conceptualism. As its adherent, Acconci is not alone. There are countless others who are no less brow-raising. A few that are worth mentioning:

Long's "A Line Made By Walking"

Richard Long – his “A Line Made By Walking” was exactly that. He walked up and down a particular patch of grass, forming a path that he then photographed. Bruce Nauman’s “Self Portrait as a Fountain” was just a picture of him spitting out water and all Valie Export did in her “Rounding Off” was line herself up against the curved edge of a sidewalk.  Perhaps the best examples are Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince who, in their respective “After Walker Evans” and “Untitled (Cowboy),” were essentially just photographing already existing photographs.

It is interesting to note, however, that the performative aspect of the art is what most people seem to find an issue with. Hardly anyone will debate the artistic value of the rendered photographs. I’m not quite sure what the reason is for this phenomenon. Maybe it’s because people find photographs aesthetically appealing for the most part. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that much of society has been trained not to take a photo at face value (the oft-quoted adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” attests to that, I think). Either way, I find myself increasingly ambivalent towards the genre. I used to love it (hence, the above) but lately, I’ve been starting to wonder: When the culture around me starts to celebrate as art something that, in any other context, would be sufficient cause for incarceration/a restraining order/hospitalization/psychotherapy, shouldn’t I be just a tad concerned?