well... he is probably one of the more (most) important contemporary photographers (or at least artists who work exclusivley in photogrpahy...) currently working
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
He is also in this week's issue of Time magazine.
More probably a good publicist.
He's a good stage producer. Has a future in Hollywood if he chooses.
Most importantly he's convinced people with money to support his efforts. I should be so lucky.
Sounds a lot like what Osar Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson, and others were doing . . . . 150 years ago. Except that what they did was much more difficult with the technology of the times since they not only staged the scenes, they then created composites from their multiple staged scenes.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
In that NYC has a huge hand in deciding what photography is "important" this is undeniably true. My opinion (being worth precisely nothing) is somewhat different.Originally Posted by tim atherton
I'm wondering (really, this isn't rhetorical) what makes "faux documentary" important? Why is Wall's stage set photograph The Destroyed Room more important than one of countless photographs of the real destruction of New Orleans? Say for example, Chris Jordan's Real estate office, St. Bernard Parish. That is, why is a photograph that is a reference to a historical event (or a reference to a painting that itself is a reference to a historical event, or at least an old tale) more important than a photograph of an actual historical event?
Bruce Watson
he's 60 or so years old now, I doubt he needs a new career... the retrospective is the result of 35+ years work. I also doubt he really needs that good a publicist.
Hollywood was influenced by his work a generation or so ago, as was the whole Strutynsky group (at one point he was set to take over the Dusseldorf School from the Bechers) along with a whole generation of photographers working in colour.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
The NY Times also loves another erstwhile film maker -- Al Gore. So much for their taste!
I saw the show a few days ago. Its great. I only had one problem. Because of size limitations in available printing stock many of his large "light box" works are assemblages of two separate transparencies seamed together. The seams, and the transparent “tape”, are clearly visible, much more than in the other occasions I’ve seen his work. Its shoddy and distracting. The curators should be somewhat embarrassed. Also on display are some of his huge black and white prints. These I found less effective. Other than that it’s a fine show from an important artist. Note - his scenes are staged, but are not tableaus in the Gregory Crewdson mold.
Generally people have a disconnect with events, unless they go to a certain location, or happen to be a part of those events. Thus every view is that of an outsider, or we are at the mercy of the media to put their view of events forward for us to consider. Manufactured reality speaks of that disconnect that many of us feel.
I don't think it is more important. Quite simply it is another viewpoint. However, when it is fine art, can that disconnect to an event that is all too quickly forgetten carry any future relevance? Too often these styles remind me of various paintings that somehow were commentaries on Chairman Mao; unless you grew up in that era, or read about Chinese history, the relevance of Chairman Mao became meaningless.
I have read some articles about Jeff Wall in the past (like in PDN). I think he has some interesting ideas, though in a way he borrows from a commercial photography approach to stage his images.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks