20×24 Studio

Jack Butler’s recent Polaroid works provide us with a visual groundwork toward a genealogical investigation (in the Foucaultian sense) of the subjectivizing power of domestic life. White, middle-class family spectacles of private acts, tacit negotiations, and child abuse are among Butler’s concerns. In perceiving the cyclical quality in the evolution of social mores, Butler links imagery from the ’40s and ’50s (culled from Life and The Saturday Evening Post) together with a passive latter-day phraseology to draw time-bridging connections, as in “Getting Past the Present”. Collectively, the pieces mount a visual polemic against the uses of typecasting, from the stereotype to the Weberian ideal type. The quaternary panels reconfigure the relations of power required in sustaining social essences and ideal and general types (Words of Fantasy/Melody of Truth ) At stake are the forms of rationalization embodied in the deployment of ideal types. In its own way, each piece poses the question: to what extent have we internalized the rationalizations of false hopes and expectations, and with them, the self-victimization they necessarily entail?

These pieces represent a sustained attack on what Foucault has called “the government of individualization,” that is to say, those social practices that impose a determination on the individual and tie him or her to a constraining identity. In juxtaposing images and text, Butler draws out the operations of “disciplinary technologies” within the workshop of the home, in the production of the “docile body” (in both genders, as he points out, and with special emphasis on childhood and adolescent development) concurrently with the “productive body” (both sexually as well as materially). The texts are imbued with a contemporary banality (The Mind of a Failed Father ) and must be read not as illustrative of the images, but as equally symptomatic of the strategies of, rationalization in relation to excesses of power. Overall, Butler’s work makes a valuable contribution toward demystifying a social climate in which a “return to family values” has coincided with an unprecedented and unimagined trend toward domestic violence and homicide.

Here Chris talks with Polaroid guru and 20×24 Holdings Executive Director John Reuter about all the intricacies of Polaroid, the technology and who’s stepped in front of the 20×24 Camera.

Using the 20×24 recently was such an amazing way to shoot and really took me back to enjoying the art of photography. Can we first start by asking you to give us a brief explanation of the cameras history?
The Polaroid 20×24 Studio had its genesis at the height of the Polaroid Corporation’s reputation as a cutting edge company creating exciting consumer and professional instant photographic products. Edwin Land, the founder ofPolaroid was still very active in the company’s research and development. Riding high on the success of the SX-70 product line, Land and his group turned their attention to the traditional peel apart film that professional photographers used. In the marketplace, a 4×5 inch was the largest film sold, but that was about to change. Polaroid embarked on a program to make the film available to professionals using 8×10 inch view cameras as well as some very specialized larger cameras that Polaroid itself would produce. In the push to create the 8×10 Instant processing system, Dr. Land directed his engineers to push further and called for the creation of a prototype format of 20x24inches. In addition to the 20×24 unit, theresearch group also produced a 40×80 inch camera. This successful reception of large format Polaroid film led to a project to create multiple 20×24 cameras in 1977 and 1978. The research group headed by John McCann built five general purpose 20×24 cameras as well as several others designed for scientific and military use. Polaroid embarked on a program to bring this technology to photographers and artists, allowing access to Polaroid staffed studios in Cambridge and Boston, MA. In exchange for use of the cameras and film, these artists donated a portion of their production to the Polaroid Collection. These artists included Chuck Close, Andy Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg.

That’s some incredible history and so amazing that the cameras are still in operation today.Do you know what happened to the 40×80 Inch camera?
The 40×80, created and owned by Polaroid since 1978 was later sold to artist Gregory Colbert, who used it to make large scale image transfers. Artists such as Chuck Close still used it until Colbert dismantled it in 2008. There is no longer any Polaroid film for it.

For people that aren’t familiar with the operation and mechanics of the camera can you give us an insight into how the camera works and produces such a large format Polaroid ?
It is remarkably similar to any peel apart process. The negative gathers the light on silver crystals and transfers the image information directly (BW) or through dye developers (colour) that migrate to the positive material once activated by the reagent, which activates the silver or dye developers present in the negative and begins the diffusion transfer process. In 20×24 the processing machinery is contained in the back of the camera. with a pair of motor driven 22- inch rollers. The film is in roll form and each individual exposure is cut off as it exits the processing rollers, setting up the camera for the next exposure.

Has the film always been made by Polaroid? And when they announced they were ceasing production on Polaroid film, how did that effect the operation?
The film has always been made by Polaroid. All of the stock they manufactured was always large, 44 inches for the positive and 60 inches for the negative. The trick was picking Out the cleanest and best performing sections of a
given base roll and then optimizing a reagent for the selected cut. We knew as early as 2004 that Polaroid would be exiting the film business and planned accordingly. Initially it led to increased business, despite our assurances that we were not going away. And how many 20×24 cameras that you know of are alive and working right now? There are six working all in one” cameras, the five original production models and one hybrid, based or) an early prototype and a new front end. There are also over a dozen field cameras with removable cassettes made by the Wisner Company. Unfortunately, they were not well designed or manufactured, and all but one are not in use today. 20×24 Holdings have commissioned Mammoth Camera in California to build 2 new units, which we expect to be completed by the end of the year.

How did you come to work with the 20×24 camera – it wasn’t a planned out career path right? More something that you fell in to? I was an artist who used Polaroid film for my work in graduate school at the University of Iowa in the late 70’s. Upon receiving my Master of Fine Arts degree, I expected to teach on the university level. When that did not happen, I interviewed at Polaroid for 2 jobs, one a research studio and the other the 20×24 studio, which was just starting up in the fall of 1978. I was actually not interested in the 20×24, I much preferred the research photography position and in fact accepted that, even though I was offered both jobs. After a year a half, the position became open again and this time I accepted.

Andy Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg and Julian Schnabel have previously used the 20x 24 Polaroid Camera for creative projects. Can you share an insight in to working with such artists?
I was present when Andy Warhol was photographed; I would not characterize his session as “working” with the camera. I adored Robert Rauschenberg and my time with him was very special, although he was distant from the actual production. Julian Schnabel was perhaps the most impressive, fearless in his use of the machine, going against all expected use of the medium. It is always a privilege to work with such accomplished artists, and you feel pride that you can bring the most of the experience of the camera to take advantage of their vision.

Are we right in saying that the highest price paid for a Polaroid was of Andy Warhol for $254K?
I guess there’s plenty of interest and intrigue surrounding Warhol. Honestly. I was not a fan then. I felt it was a superficial session, it only lasted a half hour. My opinion of Warhol changed greatly when I visited the Warhol museum in 1997. I did not regard him as a serious artist until I saw his early work.

Can you give us an insight into the shoots you were present on with him?
I really felt that he was barely there, he was incredibly guarded, a prisoner of his fame.

Lady Gaga, Presidents, film stars…there is a long list of identities who have posed for the camera. Who else has found themselves in front of the lens of the 20×24 with you?
My favourites: Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton, David Byrne. Alec Baldwin, Chris Rock. Spike Lee, Ringo Starr. Paul Simon, John Malkovich, Jodie Foster, Susan Sontag. Al Gore. Sting, Danny DeVito. Dalai Lama, Bill Bradley, just to name a few.

And what about photographers – who are some photographers that have used the 20×24 over the years?
Again, some of my favourites: Tim Burton, Robert Wilson. Chuck Close, Mary Ellen Mark, Bill Wegman, David Levinthal, Timothy Greenfield- Sanders , and Joyce Tennseon.

Where are the more adventurous places the 20×24 camera has found itself?
Death Valley, the swamps of Hilton Head,South Carolina. Hotel lobbies in old Miami Beach and the forests and lakes of Maine.

And what’s one of the more outrageous things you’ve witnessed being shot?
You know I cannot tell the truth about that.

If you could have one 20×24 Polaroid on your wall from over the years which would It be?
I have several, images of my children. Hands down.

Interview reproduced with permission of Monster Children, may not be reused without permission.