Gregory Colbert

[tim atherton]

I'm sorry Don - I still don't understand what it is that you object to or what is apparently upsetting you about this work?

Unless you view the work with the same literalistic approach that believes the bible when it says the world was created in seven days I just can't see what the issue is?

Would there be a problem if the works had been painted?

"The hawk is flying through the "monks" head?" sorry, I don't understand that?

[Naveed Nour]

I am glad that Colbert did what he did. The very least he did was bringing me to this blog. It is interesting to hear from all sides, and as somebody suggested, I actually went to some of your sites and was impressed by the quality of all your work.

I wished that I was on CNN, or even less, just on any network or even better, any well known museum. As far as art (expressing oneself) goes, if we are not doing it just for ourselves, the work does not end with the signature on the piece. I would say that art is just a small percentage of the hole game. Well, Colbert seems to be good at his game, or maybe even lucky. And many of you guys who have exhibited or intended to do, know what I mean.

I just closed my first major solo exhibit after photographing for more than 20 years. As I don't get Colbert's coverage, I tried to be at my show as much as possible. The reason for that was to see how people react to my work and how they feel when they leave. As an artist, if you think to display your work, you should do the most for your audience, so that they are rewarded for taking the time to come and see your creation. As far as I have read or heard, Colbert did just that.

Most people who attend a show are not photographers and don't care about the technics, and if they buy, as long as the "investment does not fade away", they will be happy. The new inkjets are supposed to last just as long as silver prints.

Then there is the content. Real or not real, photoshop or no photoshop, the "idea" is the first and most important part of the art. If it does what it is supposed to do, then the artist succeeded. But if the art does something else to the audience, that the artist did not intend, then he/she did still succeed because the work triggered a thought, reaction or anything else that would otherwise be muted.

To All of you , no matter what your comment, thanks for making me think beyond Colbert's work.

[Don Miller]

Tim, do you have an argument to make? Or is name calling and negatively characterising someone you disagree with all you've got?

Colbert says:

"What you see here is what I saw through the lens of my camera. There is no trickery"

I have no problem with photo montages. I do have a problem with people misrepresenting their work.

If you represent your photography as something it is not, then you are lying and cheating the viewer/buyer.

[tim atherton]

I rather thought that was what you meant (but it wasn't clear whether you objected to anything other than 'straight" photography or not), but from your vague descriptions, I'm having trouble understanding which images you consider to be montages? I haven't noticed any.

The two you seem to mention are a boy sat next to a cheetah - aparently a "straight" photgraph and also the hawk flying by the monks head - ditto. Are you looking at some other images?

[tim atherton]

"Yet he needs to create false scenes to make his work "better"."

Again - what do you mean? That he managed and directed the shots? That much is obvious (how often do you see and orangutan and a child going boating together...?)

[Sanders McNew]

Tim, greetings.

I think this thread goes back to the question of how Colbert created the work, or if he did. Obviously, he did not photograph the images of himself swimming with whales or sari-clad women. How do you parse through those? Does Colbert take credit for them for imagining them? For giving directions to the (nameless) photographer who took them for him? And what's up with those photos, anyway? Why did Colbert feel the need to interject himself into the photographs? The choice seems incongruous with his subject, if we are to take him at his word about the impetus and purpose of these images. What does that choice say about the mind and values of the photographer?

Judging from the posts to this thread, the prevailing view is that these are questions not worth pursuing, and that we should just accept the images without question. I, personally, don't have a problem with them as inkjet prints. I am much more troubled by the sense that I am looking at ad copy productions when I look at them, and the seeming lack of candor regarding the circumstances of their creation only adds to that unease. If the photographs carried a "Rolex" logo on them, would people still react so favorably to them?

Sanders

[tim atherton]

"the question of how Colbert created the work, or if he did. Obviously, he did not photograph the images of himself swimming with whales or sari-clad women. How do you parse through those? Does Colbert take credit for them for imagining them? For giving directions to the (nameless) photographer who took them for him? And what's up with those photos, anyway? Why did Colbert feel the need to interject himself into the photographs? "

I have no problem with that - filmmakers do it all the time "a film by xyz" doesn't mean he pulled the focus, write the script, directed the light etc etc. and they often insert themselves in their own films ("documentary" or otherwise. And Cindy Sherman and many other photographers have also included themselves in their own work. For what reason - ask their shrink - but if it works, it works and vice versa.

I don't happen to like the work that much - is it art? commercial art? straight photography? or what - doesn't really matter - and I'm sure it appeals to people with several gigs of Enya or Nakai on their iPod's - that's just personal taste(I'm not even sure the moral character of the photographer even matters that much - are they spinning a good spiel or honestly describing their work, or honestly describing what they believe their work is about? A good deal of art that addresses the great human themes of love, beauty, spirit etc has been made by artists who were real assholes as human beings - same with many movies - yet the work still seems to stand).

But I think what Don is saying is that Colbert says in his spiel and the news piece he took what his camera saw and didn't manipulate (i.e. collage) his images. But he believes that not to be the case and that Colbert is fibbing. Yet I can't see any of the images that appear to be "faked" in this way. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding

Personally I think the "mobile" gallery is the coolest bit of the whole venture and a nice piece of architecture.

[tony schanuel]

I just got back from Los Angeles where I saw this exhibit .
IT IS INCREDIBLE !
AS a photographer and Digital artist I must say that this was a once in a lifetime experience of visual delight.
No more needs to be said from me it stands on its own genius.

Tony Schanuel
www.schanuelart.com
www.schanuelphoto.com