QT, greetings.
You and I have never spoken together, so, first, let me thank you for putting in the time and resources to make this forum possible. It is the most important web community that I follow -- invaluable to me, really.
Certainly, I agree with you, Colbert's work is powerful. But part of that is the subject, part the sheer size. The same can be said for much advertising copy. There are a lot of powerful billboards put up in Times Square. Art?
I come back to the advertising world parallels (as did the Times reviewer) in part because the work seems to be a product of the advertising world -- the style and scale of Colbert's images invite the comparisons. It feels ... packaged. As you note, it is obvious that Colbert did not make at least some of the images; we know that he did not print the images. That's why I asked how the images are made, and who made them. If they all came out of the BBDO Seidman art department, and were given Colbert's name for marketing purposes, would you feel the same way toward them?
And I do find it a fair criticism to observe that Colbert's images are derivative of other work. Can derivative works be considered original art? Maybe. In some sense all work is derivative; we all grow out of a culture and a tradition; I recognize my own debts. Certainly derivative works are entertaining. Readers of JK Rowling's Harry Potter series tie themselves up in knots over this. The Harry Potter series draws deeply from other authors' works, in obvious ways. The series is greatly entertaining, but will people in time consider them enduring works of literature? The same questions can fairly be asked of Colbert's photographs.
You write: "Where is the dishonesty and lack of integrity?" The question of honesty (I only asked the question) is suggested by Colbert's description of his work as coming from an "encaustic process" instead of an inkjet while trying to finesse the issue by leaning on the use of "handmade Japanese paper," with the clear inference being that the images themselves are handmade, as in a platinum/palladium print. And that bit in the following sentence about the images being mounted "without explanatory text" to encourage "openended interaction," on the heels of the "encaustic process" bit, sounds more like a rationale for not explaining his medium to the public.
As for the question of integrity, I was referring to the questions, already mentioned, regarding the provenance of the work, and the lack of candor surrounding a very expensive media circus. It may be, at the end of the day, these questions would be resolved in Colbert's favor. I am only asking the questions that his work suggests to me. I am sceptical, but I am not answering them.
Best,
Sanders McNew
Bookmarks