Burtynsky

[tim atherton]

Went to see a Burtynsky show this past weekend (Not the more recent China work - but a retrospective group covering from his early work to the Three Gorges work).

I must say I was underwhelmed. I'm still not quite sure what it was about the work that didn't click for me. The prints were gorgeous. Some individual photographs were quite intriguing. But overall they left me cold.

By contrast, when I went saw a bunch of Gursky and Struth photographs at the Tate Modern a few years ago my experience was they were far better than I expected and I came away from them excited and wanting more

[Paul Kierstead]

I really enjoyed Burtynsky a great deal, except the ship-breaking, which I didn't care for. I think "cold" might actually cover it nicely for quite a bit of it; it was part of the feel that appealed to me. Struth doesn't do it for me, at least what I seen at the Tate. I left Burtynsky quite inspired.

As an aside, I went to see Chris Pratt's exhibition last week, and it was very inspirational, with wonderful light and composition. (He is a Canadian Painter for those who don't know him).

[tim atherton]

As I walked around I had the feeling that apart from the obvious - "the environment" - I wasn't really sure what else the work was about. And that seemed a fairly blunt and repetitive stick (schtick?).

In the end I left thinking that in part they really weren't that much different from a bunch of National Geographic photos, just taken with a 4x5 (or 8x10 for the earlier work) and printed a bit larger - In this Months Editions: Ship Breaking in India; The wonderful world of Marble Quarries; Big Oil in Texas etc.

(as someone else there said - but maybe that's why they are so popular).

In the end a felt they lacked real depth as a whole body of work.

It was a bit of a disappointment though - I liked his book a certain amount - although it never quite grabbed me. An I thought that when I saw a whole show of the prints they would make more sense

[Paul Kierstead]

Heh, I am facsinated by modernist collections of geometric shapes; I found the quarry stuff and refinery to be extremely interesting. The recycling, so-so. I am not sure it is about something; some photography is more abstract ... maybe just about texture, or light and form, or the absolute gleam and pristine nature of a industrial plant which is essentially making toxins (in the meta-sense); hmmm ... maybe those were about something. Or the beautiful geometry and neatness (as in tidy) of a mine, which is quite unexpected.

OTOH, I find his "biggest and best" shtick to be a bit gimmicky, but I guess it does help market it.

[Walter Foscari]

Never been a big fun of Burtysnky myself, I agree that he hasn't added much to this trend. Recently saw his China exhibit in a Toronto gallery, and some of the images were impressive indeed but beyond the initial wow, somehow none of them really stuck to my mind as really good images do.

He's undoubtedly an excellent businessman, his Toronto Image Works has grown into a huge enterprise in only a few years, and his business skills are reflected also in his ability to market himself as a photographer. His prints go for several grands, yet they appear to sell extremely well.

A recent NYTimes article just hit the nail on the head I think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/arts/design/28john.html?ex=1137128400&en=3d07cb505b430915&ei=5070

Walter

[Bruce Watson]

People have made similar complaints about Ansel Adams in the past - that they felt his photographs were too somber. Cold and analytical, that sort of thing. Me, I like his work a lot. I also like some of Burtynsky's work. He is perhaps popular because of his technical expertise, perhaps because of his "beauty-in-destruction" thing, perhaps other reasons. I don't know.

It is difficult to explain to someone why we like the things we like (thus the rise of art critics ;-). The short answer is, we just do. It has been like this throughout human history, and this is largely responsible for the wide range of things from which to choose, from foods to art. The human mind is a strange and wonderful thing.

[tim atherton]

thanks for that NY Time article - I was starting to think it was just me...

Says it a bit more forcefully than I might, but I think it hits the nail on the head from my perspective.

Maybe there will be a chance for questions when he gives a talk here in a couple of weeks :-)

[Mike Boden]

I've never heard of Burtynsky before so I did a Google search. I came across the following website that hosts quite a number of his images. www.cowlesgallery.com/Burtynsky.html (http://www.cowlesgallery.com/Burtynsky.html)

Anyway, after studying his work a little, I came across the feeling that he's simply a landscape photographer. But instead of capturing the beauty of the land as most do, he's capturing the destruction and industrialization of the land by the human race. Futhermore, as it's been stated already, the images certainly have a cold feeling. In addition, they aren't necessarily interesting or challenging compositions, but that works to his advantage. I feel that if he strictly adhered to the typical compositional rule of thirds or balance or symmetry or tonalities and so on, as well as adjusting the exposure to fit within the film's latidue, then the composition itself would be competing with the subject matter. Thus, he's simply trying to document the subject, and for this, I think he's hit the nail squarely on the head. I also think these images were created to provoke the viewer to think and question what we're doing to the world.

On another note, I found myself exceptionally interested in his shipbreaking photos of Chittagong, Bangladesh, because of another contempory photographer who recently had permission to photograph the shipbreaking yards. His name his Michael Reichmann, and the contrast of his photos against Burtynsky's is striking. You can check out a few of his photos at www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/ship-breaking.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/ship-breaking.shtml). Anyway, I feel that Michael's images all have a beautification to the subject matter whereas Burtynsky's does not, and I also think that Michael's images of this series are more about the people within the landscape versus the landscape itself. At any rate, the contrast is undeniable and interesting to compare.

[Paul Kierstead]

Interesting comparison, Mike. I have met Micheal (on a workshop I attended) and have followed his website (and hence work) for several years, close to when it began. IMO, he is a better street photographer or photojournalist (his early work as a photojournalist is quite excellent) then he is landscape photographer, even if he concentrates on the latter nowadays. I would agree with your assessment as to the ship-breaking photo's, but I think it reflects the respective photographers strengths.

I find the term "simply a landscape photographer" to be curious, as it has a pejorative tone. Is this a negative in your opinion? In anycase, I think his photo's are more abstract and interesting then "simple landscape", though OTOH I would tend to suggest that great landscape photo's transcend documentation of a beautiful scene. OTOH, I tend to not read too much, so I never really got his message about man's impact, etc; For me, every action causes some effect and it is not so simple to divide it all up into good/bad from an ethical or moral point of view. Now for man's survival, it is pretty easy to tell what is bad, but I don't consider that to be necessarily a moral question, just one of survival. Whether man *deserves* to survive is a moral question left unanswered by Burtynsky.

[Mike Boden]

Hi Paul,

I most certainly did not intend to associate a negative or pejorative tone to landscape photography. In fact, I entertain the thought that I'm a landscape photographer myself. That's where my passion lies and what I'm drawn to.

At any rate, what I inteded was that in simple, plain, pure, and unembellished terms, if you break down the essence of his imagery, he's a landscape photographer. Another way to look at it is if you take away the pretension of his name, his reputation, his allure(or aversion), and of his image's connotative, symbolic, and monetary value, we're looking at a landscape photograph. At least by my definition, which is rather broad. He chooses to capture the industrialized and manufactured landscape whereas Reichmann and so many others try to capture the landscape of beauty, surrealism, ethereality, or otherwise. Each has it's own place. Hence, the reason why it's art.

[Paddy Quinn]

So many people seem to be falling over themselves to say that Burtynsky is the best thing since marmite on toast, it's worth reading that Times article (extracted):

Edward Burtynsky, the Canadian photographer whose large, sumptuous and numbingly clichéd color pictures are in a big exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, specializes in a familiar genre that historians have called "the industrial sublime." ....... he frames the subject so that it not only fills the entire picture but also, you can't help imagining, extends almost infinitely in every direction.

The effect is disorienting, awesome and alarming. The extremely detailed images often look like scenes in a Hollywood thriller. But Mr. Burtynsky has more high-minded motives. He wants to show people how human activities have altered, for better or worse, our experience of the earth's natural topography. ....

One of the problems with Mr. Burtynsky's photography is that he uses the same pumped-up pictorial rhetoric of shock and awe in almost every one of the more than 60 works on view. This produces a monotonous effect and, what's worse, a loss of representational credibility. By applying the same compositional formula to every subject, from California tire dumps to new buildings in China, Mr. Burtynsky hammers away at the idea of the global proliferation of industrial production, destruction and waste. But he leaves out a lot of information, too.

....making bad things appear visually seductive and good things look scary is one of photography's oldest tricks....

Some visitors may observe parallels between Mr. Burtynsky's work and the photographic catalogs of industrial structures by the Germans Bernd and Hilla Becher and the photographs of spectacular modern subjects like rock concerts and big box stores by Andreas Gursky. The works of the New Topographers, like Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz and Frank Gohlke, who with almost scientific objectivity have documented the effects of human activities on landscapes of the American West, also come to mind.

The difference between the works of those artists and Mr. Burtynsky's is that they mostly avoided conventionally picturesque approaches to their subject matter. Mr. Burtynsky's photographic vision is closer to that of National Geographic magazine. Though technically impressive and, because of its scale, important-seeming, it offers nothing about photography or about the world that we have not already seen in the works of countless other proficient, globe-trotting photojournalists whose names have faded into the oblivion of artistic mediocrity...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/arts/design/28john.html?ex=1137128400&en=3d07cb505b430915&ei=5070

[Paul Kierstead]

Don't care for Marmite.

And I think it is worth seeing and judging for oneself if possible. The Times is hardly infallible, though I do value their opinion.

[paulr]

It's one reviewer's opinion, not the whole Times ...

I do tend to agree with the reviewer, but as Tim said, I might not have said it so strongly. I can see these pictures having a lot more impact for anyone who hasn't spent a lot of time looking at similar work that came before it. If you have looked a lot at struth and gursky, and the new topographics guys before them, you might find yourself wondering what Burtinsky's work has to add to the mix.

Even beyond that, one nail the reviewer hits on the head is the question of point of view. Burtynsky seems to have an agenda, but can't seem to make up it's mind what it is. He seems to be showing us evidence of the dark side of industry (as have a million others before him), but without much regard for what he's actually looking at. Like compacted metal at a recycling plant ... what does the artist feel about it? The same thing he feels about the strip mines or open dumps that he photographs in exactly the same manner?

i don't have any fundamental problem with the idea of "estheticizing evil," as some critics have called the phenomenon. i think finding form is an essential way for us to find understanding and even complicity in a horror that we bear witness to as an artist. but there's a difference between finding form as a part of finding deeper understanding, and finding form as a kind of habitual prettifying ... an activity that can be seen as a distraction from real understanding.

[Frank Petronio]

I used to do corporate annual reports in the late 1980s - early 1990s. He would make a great AR photographer for a resource industry or Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.

But the big corporations and design firms aren't so extravagant with their assignments anymore so I'm glad he found a profitable gig in the art world.

If you want to see some nice quarry photos (http://frankpetronio.com/galleries/stories/stories-05.html) check out mine, which predate his ;-) Everytime I visit the Eastman House I am confronted with his duplicate shot of a quarry wall (it such an obvious photo that thousands have probably done it before). I think that is my problem with his work - it is the obvious shot, the first take - every shot. Given his significant funds and access, where is his thoughtful photo process?

Other than being able to afford to travel and make really big, high quality prints, where's the beef? It's no different than hundreds of other MFA shows...

[tim atherton]

"I can see these pictures having a lot more impact for anyone who hasn't spent a lot of time looking at similar work that came before it. If you have looked a lot at struth and gursky, and the new topographics guys before them, you might find yourself wondering what Burtinsky's work has to add to the mix. "

That's an aspect I hadn't really considered. The show was at the Edmonton Art Gallery - which has a collection of about 40+ images I think that made up the exhibit. I'd say that for the majority of people coming to see the work looking at these kind of big colour photographs is a fairly new experience. While I'm coming to it having spent many years looking at Gursky, Struth, Esser, Eggleston, Misrach, Behan/McPhee, Southam, Shore, Sternfeld etc - as well as the B&W "guys" - Adams (R), Gowin, James, Baltz, The Bechers, Nick Nixon, Basilico and so on. and in Franks words "Other than being able to afford to travel and make really big, high quality prints, where's the beef?" - like a lot of Canadian stuff (but not all) it's second string at best

(we have and celebrate Can Lit - which is all very nice and well, but with a few exceptions no one else has ever heard of these "Great Canadian Writers"... same in music etc - though when we are good, we are very very good - Mr. L Cohen, Michael Ondaatje, Joni Mitchell, McLuhan, Glenn Gould - and never forget William Shatner :-) No I know I'm going to get stomped on by the Great Beaver of Canadian Wrath

"It's no different than hundreds of other MFA shows..." and not as good as some - just better financed

[paulr]

I think you guys have an amazing number of great musicians relative to Canada's size (that list you just posted is what, like 5% of Canada's population? ;) .... kind of like Ireland and writers.

[Paul Kierstead]

If its not the best-of-all-time-catagory, its crap seems the be the message I get here. OK.

I don't pay attention to the art world at all. I go to galleries and museums regularly and enjoy it (or hate it, or be indifferent to it...) . I never heard of Burtynsky until I seen his exhibition. I think perhaps a lot of you have been turned off by some hype or something, I don't know, but it has to be something; otherwise, he wouldn't be worth the effort of writing a negative review. So I suspect there is some subtext I am not getting here. I also generally don't read what the pictures are 'about' before seeing them; I have found it heavily colors my vision, often for the worse. Quite frankly I don't give a shit if the artist accomplished what he set out to do, I care if it does something for the view, possibly in spite of the artists intentions.

Frank, I think you are blinded by your own 'involvement' here. Outside of sharing the same subject matter, your shots are not remotely like his. Yours are interesting in their own right, but very different; his are quite formal and cold, yours are less formal and more about the quarry then his are.

And tim, you are unduly harsh. Do you only read first-string authors? God, that has to be boring.

[paulr]

I don't think anyone's saying his work is crap. But it's fighting for attention in an arena that's very crowded right now ... and one that has extremely high standards. We're wondering what his work has to offer in that context.

[tim atherton]

Paul K, the use of the term "cliched" in the first line of the NY Times review initially came across as somewhat harsh to me. But the more I consider it, the more accurate it seems. The work is quite obviously trying to do what so many have done before (and Burtynsky and his curators firmly set his work in the new colour/new topographics tradition among others) - but he doesn't seem to be doing it any better than anyone else has (indeed - is probably not doing as well as many of the up and coming second and even third generation Dusseldorfers), nor taking it in a new direction.

Hence the "wondering what Burtinsky's work has to add to the mix. " or "where's the beef?" comments - the work is makes claims to belong to certain bodies of photography, but it doesn't stand scrutiny when placed alongside them by comparison. Certainly not on a consistent basis.

For one example, I would really compare Burtynskys work with that of photographers at a similar point in their working/artistic careers like Jem Southam or Jim Cooke (or even the somewhat younger Elger Esser). To me Burtynsky comes across as bland and - yes - cliched, by comparison

The the National Geographic comparison is entirely appropriate, where month after month you can see very well produced, technically proficient but ultimately disposable (store it in a big pile in the basement) photographs - and lets move on to see what nice colourful treats there are next month.

"Do you only read first-string authors? God, that has to be boring." Of course I didn't say that - I read many authors - but these days I try not to make (or believe) claims that this weeks latest hyped-up author out of Toronto/Vancouver/NY is the next Garcia Marquez or Kundera or Calvino or Sebald. Occasionally they are - most often they aren't.

What is boring is reading what turns out to be another yet poorly written third or fourth rate novel that got a good review.

I'll see what happens if I have the chance to ask Burtynsky next week

[Frank Petronio]

I only bring up my work out of jealousy and coincidence. In spite of my nit-picking, my hat's off to the guy for being so ambitious and hard core. It takes a lot of self-promotion and confidence to put yourself out there so I can tear it apart when I haven't done a fraction of his work.

But... if we are being critical of the entire genre of New Color/New Topographics (now thirty years old...) then his works seems to follow the path created by others. And Gary Gladstone's annual reports of the mid-1980s....

What about Chris Jordan's work? Large color in the same genre - by all accounts Chris is a great guy and hard worker - but couldn't you apply the same criticisisms to his work as Burtynsky's?

[tim atherton]

"I only bring up my work out of jealousy and coincidence. In spite of my nit-picking, my hat's off to the guy for being so ambitious and hard core. It takes a lot of self-promotion and confidence to put yourself out there so I can tear it apart when I haven't done a fraction of his work. "

I'd certainly have to agree - he has worked extremely hard at and succeeded at making a name for himself. Which - like it or not - is what it takes....

"What about Chris Jordan's work? Large color in the same genre - by all accounts Chris is a great guy and hard worker - but couldn't you apply the same criticisms to his work as Burtynsky's?"

Roundabout answer... I have almost exactly the same problem with Burtynsky's fellow Canadian Polidori - though I find Polidori less ambiguous. Although he has flirted with the art world and done some nice books - in reality he is still an architectural/editorial photographer at heart - albeit one who has poked the boundaries a bit by incorporating some of the new color/topographics/Dusselforf School stuff into his commercial and editorial work.

Anyway - after seeing a post on here I looked at the recent New Yorker with Polidori's images from New Orleans - and I had the same " it doesn't quite grab me and I can't quite put my finger on why" response as I did to the Burtynsky show. Now, when I read you post I took a quick check in to Chris's site to remind myself of some of his images - and there was his work from N.O. (which he has talked of briefly on here). Again, it's really hard for me to quite say why, but Chris's stuff just - of the self-same subjects - just catches me in a way Polidori's didn't. It's subtle, and they are playing with the same paintbox but for me there is something there in Chris's work that isn't in Polidori's (one - but only one thing - I think Chris is much less ambiguous about what he's doing and why he's doing it than both Burtynsky and Polidori - he is both saying "hey - we produce all this crap really sucks - whether you agree with that or not :-) - but he also says - wow - cool - when I saw all this it was just asking to be photographed and I really get excited about how it all "looks" - about how great a photograph it makes - and he is apologetic about neither).

Finally I looked at Chris's other work which I know quite well - and for most of it - even when it's things he's photogrpahing that Burtynsky might have already covered - again, I usually find just a subtle something there that is lacking for me in Burtynsky. it's really hard to place - but after looking at a whole series of Chris's work I just come away in the end going - yeah...

And Chris still very much plays with colour and form and scale - especially with stuff in amongst the "ugly" - but I do find (or more feel) something else there too.

[tim atherton]

anyway..

If I can make it, I should get my chance to find out first hand:

http://www.edmontonartgallery.com/programs/Prog_act_events/Art101.htm

[Peter Sibbald]

Hey Tim et al,

Just stumbled on your forum while searching for stuff on the New Topographers. People keep telling me because of my new work (wwww.petersibbald.com... look under Recent work/Land Use), I should be educating myself about that group. There is a coldness and an intentional neutrality that springs from the post modernist critique (damnation more like) of the social documentary tradition from which I spring and I'd like to think that my stuff has a little more heat... though probably at my jeopardy when it comes to arts council juries. I did stumble on an interesting new body of work by a RISD prof Steven B. Smith (http://www.stevesmithphotography.net/) whose new book (produced by Duke U.) won a big prize from the Honickman Foundation. He has a one hour talk akin to the Ryerson Kodak lectures webcasts at http://ilecture.oit.duke.edu/ilectures/ilectures.lasso?ut=22&id=744

Cheers,
Peter