Photography’s Expanded Field

Q1: The dichotomies of narrative/non-narrative, stasis/movement, etc. lie at the heart of George Baker's “Photography’s Expanded Field.” Ok, some photographs display evidence of some of these notions, but what is the greater relevance of this discussion? Why is he stuck on this idea…is this just intellectual riffing? I say: the latter. He seems to suggest as much with his telling comment that “the reader by this point will not be surprised to learn of how fondly I remember sitting in [Rosalind Krauss’] office conjugating the semiotic neutralization of things like the terms of gender and sexuality…” No, indeed, not this reader. Sounds like a guy who admittedly just likes playing with words.

Q2: Klein groups, semiotic squares….charts. Complex mathematical constructs. This reminds me of the artistic co-opting of “entropy” and other such pseudo scientific jargon. Is this for real? I guess the main questions I have after reading “Photography’s Expanded Field” are 1. what, exactly (not generally), is Baker trying to say, and 2. Why hasn’t he read and then re-read “Politics and the English Language?” He gets a C for clarity. I wish I could assign some value to his content but I don’t really know what it is.