Edgar Martins and the NYT controversy

[QT Luong]

Recently, the NYT pulled out a piece based on large format photographs by Edgar Martins of abandoned construction projects, after it was discovered that images were digitally altered (see http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/07/...n-are-raised/).

Now Edgar Martins is replying to the critics: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2009/07/...at_i_know.html

I personally think that Edgar Martins does very interesting work (see his website), however, while I am still trying to understand what he is saying, I am wondering, do you have to be able to express yourself in such a way to fit into contemporary art photography :-) ?

[Darin Boville]

Too funny. I've been following this but hadn't seen Martin's response. His text is painful, sophomore philosophy artspeak. He's claiming it was all purposeful attempt to incite a debate about the conceptual underpinnings of photography etc etc etc blah blah blah.

The art world seems to produce lightweights like this by the bushel. It's a sign of what a intellectual backwater art is--utterly dwarfed by the achievements in science, literature, film...

This is my favorite line from the Martins text: "Do these constructions expose a previously unannounced way of working by the artist?"

The "constructions" are his images. He used to claim there was no digital manipulation. So this translates as "Did you catch me in a lie with these images?" he then goes on to dismiss the question.

He seems to feel that since he sees no "truth" in the world these is no need to tell the truth, indeed, it would reflect a hopelessly unsophisticated view of reality to value such a thing.

Morally, he is an empty shell.

Intellectually, he is a bore.

His work is thankfully forgettable.

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

This is good, too.

Aperture much to their shame, has embraced Martins' lie in an Orwellian way. Here is the current page for "Topologies" http://www.aperture.org/edgar-martins-topologies.html

It used to say "With artful composition and controlled framing--but no digital manipulation--Edgar Martins creates sublimely beautiful views of often un-beautiful sites."

Now they've dropped the "but no digital manipulation part" without a footnote or explanation. Selling books seems to rank high above integrity there as well.

Amazon still has the original text (same as Aperture's with the addition of the offending text): http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Martins-...8914959&sr=8-1

Shame on Aperture.

--Darin

[Jim Michael]

My favorite: To look at these photographs is to rehearse one's own exclusion.

[QT Luong]

I don't particularly like the work he did for the NYT, but I thought some of his previous series, in particular Approaches and Accidental Theorist that are in Topologies were strong. Honestly, I am not sure what in the context of art "no digital manipulation" ads to the work, other than some virtuosity that is besides the point. Would his reputation have been different without the "no digital manipulation" stance ?

[BarryS]

Talk about butchery of the English language! Martins seems to be incapable of stringing together two sentences into a coherent thought. The near complete lack of grammatical structure and incoherence dwarf the pretentiousness--and that's saying a lot.

[jnantz]

i read his response two times
and still i have no idea what he was saying.

[MIke Sherck]

It's too bad (but entertaining!) that he thought that something like this would help his position. I'm not familiar with his work other than what was shown and removed by the Times, but the sheer incoherence of his statement makes me uninclined to look it up. Sometimes the best way to respond to controversy is just to say "I'm sorry" and leave it at that.

[Darin Boville]

I don't particularly like the work he did for the NYT, but I thought some of his previous series, in particular Approaches and Accidental Theorist that are in Topologies were strong. Honestly, I am not sure what in the context of art "no digital manipulation" ads to the work, other than some virtuosity that is besides the point. Would his reputation have been different without the "no digital manipulation" stance ?

Well, for one, he would never have gotten the plum New York Times assignment. If this is any indication his career thus far might have been very different.

He has greatly benefited himself via his lies.

--Darin

[sun of sand]

Why would someone feel the need to lie about waiting for half of forever for perfect light if it were not for the millions asserting that waiting forever for perfect light is godlike

Would ___ be thought more honest having not being caught using ______ lighting technique
yes, obviously

Would he be? No


Better question to ask IMO is if _____ had told us
Would we STILL insist the same
I bet a large %age would


How many others
I dunno
Probably 95% of us including myself?
flol

Pepple talk about Delicate Arch being so important to us culturally or whatthefever
Never been there
Know what I think of as being important
My water
My air
My soil
...Life?

Water is fked up
air is fukd up
soil is fkd
people are living longer ...with cancer and aids and orange skin and fake tits and criminal histories and hatred and superwalmarts and substandard living conditions andhunger and asphalt and

Perhaps if we were more moral than we believe ourselves to be we wouldn't need delicate arch to remind us of what we have lost
I mean, national parks are not there for us to enjoy nature
They exist because of how much we've fked sht up
We protect them so because we know well we will continue to fk sht up in the future
I have a tree in the yard that needs just as much protection but the company thinks nothing of cutting out its core
Neither do those down the road demanding service who btw are the ones giving protection to the company to fk up the tree
I'd bet one of em neighbors considers himself a treehugger

Just a ranking system
If you believe rung 3 is a better place to be than rung top o fking ladder that's great
in the end I believe rung 3 permits others to reach rung 4 and 5 and 6 and 7