Andy Goldsworthy

[r.e.]

Recently I went to the Storm King Art Center in the Hudson Valley in New York State to see his Wall. As some of you know, Goldsworthy is among other things a photographer. Do the photographers here consider his photographs to have value in themselves, or to be no more than documentation of his other work?

This being a large format site, I realize that there may be some debate about whether this question is permissible. However, Goldsworthy does shoot 6x17, and I assume that his work is of interest to large format photographers, especially landscape photographers, architectural photographers and photographers of works of three-dimensional works of art.

As an aside, if you happen to be in the Hudson Valley, Storm King and Dia:Beacon, which are only 21km/13 miles apart, are very much worth a visit.

Thanks.

[rob cruickshank]

I seem to recall that he considers the photographing of the pieces as an integral part of the art, not simply as documentation of a performance.

[r.e.]

Yes, and he markets his photographs, and his books, accordingly.

My question is what people here think about his photography. Having done a search, it looks like he has never been discussed on this forum, which kind of surprises me given the content of his work.

[BarryS]

I became interested in Andy Goldsworthy's work a few years ago. Initially, I thought of him as a conceptual artist and a sculptor, but after getting a few of his books, I came to appreciate his work as a photographer. His photographs go far beyond pedestrian documentation of conceptual art pieces and I consider the photographs inseparable from the transitory works he creates. If another photographer documented his work, it would be another animal entirely. I wouldn't say this is true of all his art, but in a large part of his body of work--the idea, the execution, and the photograph are tightly bound.

I have no doubt that Goldsworthy has sufficient talent to have defined himself as a photographer if he had desired the label. I'm sure a successful conceptualist/sculptor with photographic skills brings in far larger checks than a photographer with a conceptual bent--especially at the time Goldsworthy was building his career. So, we have every right to claim him as one of our own.

[Struan Gray]

Goldsworthy's photographs show me his view of his art, what he thinks is important. Photographically his time sequences are probably the most compelling things, but even the straight documentary shots are more specific than experiencing the sculptures in the round, and act like a good caption to illuminate the art and its purpose.

One of my favourites:

http://www.goldsworthy.cc.gla.ac.uk/...g=ag_03622&t=1

[Stofjas]

very interesting.
Here in sunny (too sunny at the moment) South Africa i know a landscape artist that does the same. He does his art in interesting places and then takes photos of it and it is these photos that he has that he sells, together with a small map of the location of the art itself.
This is where it is interesting. the images is not actuall very good. Strijdom van der Merwe does not see himself as a photographer and wants the photos to just be a representive of the art, not the art itself. So when you are buying the image you are not buying the art, but a representation of the art. I have some of his work, and even though the photography isnt great, the art is. check his work here:
http://www.strijdom.co.za/

[r.e.]

Thanks for that Stofjas. Like van der Merwe, Goldsworthy's work is not always ephemeral. The stone wall that he and others spent two years building at Storm King Art Center isn't going anywhere anytime soon