Burtynsky / china / 8x10 or 4x5 ? slides or color

[giancatarina]

i've just bought the Burtynsky's book called China...
i have few questions..
is it made in 8x10 or 4x5 ?
is it slides or color neg ? Which film ?

i'm using an arca F line, 80xl, 110 Xl, 150 apo sironar S... they are consider to be the best current lens, but i found that my pictures are not as precise as the burtynsky one's... so i want to understand why.... Thanks

www.giancatarina.com

[Frank Petronio]

His website shows him with a Technika.

By precise do you mean detail and sharpness? It may be his printing method - he does own a large professional color lab in Toronto.

Or maybe Fuji gives him their special "pro-stock" film that is specially made for world-class photographers?

[Michael Gudzinowicz]

http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/showcases/meet/artist_e.jsp?artistid=815

He's been using an 8x10 Phillips and 4x5 Linhof. Your equipment is good enough.

And he also owns: http://www.torontoimageworks.com

Good luck.

[tim atherton]

If I recall correctly - he uses a Technika (actually, Technika's - plural - I think)

Film - he uses colour neg, but I'm not sure which - I'm guessing one of the 160 films - he does a test to make sure everything is sharp by shooting Polaroid type 55 and then checking the neg with his 10x loupe - that gives him a close idea of how it will look enlarged to 50"

He used to use 8x10, but as travel got more complicated and he could afford the best new optics he went to 4x5 for much of his work. I think his lens roundup sounded pretty much like the sort of lenses you have

He also prints at his own (pro) lab either traditional darkroom or now also some scanning and digital output to C type paper I think. I'd say his colour enlargers are also probably state of the art in terms of lenses.

[Frank Petronio]

His C-prints at the Eastman House look good but nothing different than what you would expect from a 4x5 color neg handled well, good lenses, etc.

[David K.]

I did see his China exhibition in Toronto last year, and the prints were large (typically 40 x 50) and although he shoots colour neg. I would have assumed they were 8 x 10.

Some of his previous work was definitely shot 8 x 10, so never really gave it much thought. If it was shot 4 x 5, I would have to say the prints were as good as anyone could expect from that size neg.

Overall the exhibit's most effective images were of the ones of great scale , so the large prints helped to convey that message.

[John Brownlow]

I heard an interview with him on CBS a few weeks ago. He seems like a very pleasant guy although his pictures mostly leave me cold. His personal history is very interesting (industrial background). He's shooting a bunch of extended time-lapse stuff right now with digital cameras remotely sending time lapse pictures, trying to prototype something for use in China. The results will be movies, not photographs.

[tim atherton]

I agree his work is cold, but art isn't necessarily (or even) about beauty. And despite what we may think of iut, his work seems to be highly regared in the art world

[Paul Kierstead]

Or, perhaps, beauty has a larger scope. I find tornado's (the funnel) to be an immense thing of beauty, or the mushroom cloud from a nuke rising majestically into the sky. Or perhaps one might see beauty in the science as Feynman did (http://www.fieldstudy.com/Classes/Announcements/feynmanquote.htm is a great story). Most things in the world have some sort of beauty. To restrict fine art to the beauty associated with pretty landscapes and women (ok, etc.) would be a terrible, terrible thing and make the world a poorer, boring place.

[John Brownlow]

a tire junkyard is not beautiful to look at, even if technically of high quality

maybe not for you, but my photography is all about the beauty of these kinds of places

www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=58667955&context=set-1167892&size=l (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=58667955&context=set-1167892&size=l)

[Kirk Gittings]

"Art is a thing of beauty"

Art can be a thing of beauty, even if it is not about beauty. Indead, much of history's great art is not about beauty. For instance Picasso's "Guernica" or Poussin's "The Rape of the Sabine Women".

[tim atherton]

First, Trisha Romance is enough to make Reese Witherspoon cuddling a kitten throw up it's so saccharine.

"I see his type of images at ANY retail art store in any mall or fine art store anywhere" o you frequent art galleries where the photographs run from $10,000 to $50,000 and up? That's where you will find them. Burtinsky's work sells like hot cakes to private collectors.

Dictionary definitions are almost always pretty useless apart from finding the correct way to spell something. (through simple definition from a more mainsstream dictionary would be "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects" the "Heritage Dictionary" has oversimplified for it's readership by substituting beauty for aesthetics. Unfortunately they don't mean the same and two words are not interchangeable and the simplistic result is misleading).

Van C - you are talking much more about decor and art to match your sofa. I not that the greatest selling artist of 2006 was Picasso. Your terribly limited (and limiting) definition of art would exclude certain of his works, along with those of Goya, Grunewald and many others through history.

You a really talking much more about kitsch - which is fine (bateman , fatali etc) than fine art. But don't try and confuse the two.

[tim atherton]

in addition, the best defintion of kitsch comes from Kundera:

Kitsch, he argues, isn't primarily about bad taste or the vulgarities of popular devotional images: kitsch is "the absolute denial of shit". Kitsch is that vision of the world in which nothing unwholesome or indecent is allowed to come into view. It's the aesthetics of wanting to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. Kitsch excludes shit in order to paint a picture of perfection, a world of purity and moral decency.

Milan Kundera kitsch as “the absolute denial of shit.” His argument was that kitsch functions by excluding from view everything that humans find difficult to come to terms with, offering instead a sanitised view of the world in which “all answers are given in advance and preclude any questions.”

In its desire to paper over the complexities and contradictions of real life, kitsch, Kundera suggested, is intimately linked with totalitarianism. In a healthy democracy, diverse interest groups compete and negotiate with one another to produce a generally acceptable consensus; by contrast, “everything that infringes on kitsch,” including individualism, doubt, and irony, “must be banished for life” in order for kitsch to survive. Therefore, Kundera wrote, “Whenever a single political movement corners power we find ourselves in the realm of totalitarian kitsch.”

For Kundera, “Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch.”

Most of the work and defintions you quote bear this out.

Great photogrpahy has always been the antithesis of this - Atget, Evans, Sudek, Friedlander, Eggleston etc

[Paddy Quinn]

Van

Most people do not display things not beautiful in their homes, you do not display ugly furniture or anything else. We don't go hanging garbage cans on our walls or have photos of them, or of our tire disposal sites, mines, etc. Things like these are more documentary, interesting enough to view in the right place like a public gallery. If you want to have in your living room images of industrial sites, that is your business, but that is not the norm. That is not art, it is documentary. Art has no other purpose other then give us joy, something to beautify our surroundings or beautiful to look at.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) just because you say it, it doesn't make it true.

Many many people buy the work of Burtynsky and Gursky and Struth and the Bechers and others (for real or in reproduction) to hang on the walls of their homes and offices. The posters of this kind of work sells like hot cakes at museum shops of the Tate Modern, SFMoMA and so on. You are simply wrong in what you say. Of course if you take view from Walmart art sales you could say so, but art isn't usually judged by the lowest common denominator and highest volume of sales. My favourite dogs playing poker on velvet would be one of the greatest pieces of art in all history if that were the case

[Michael S. Briggs]

You'all need longer memories. We have done the subject of Van Camper's restricted and limited definition of art and his rejection of Burtynsky's work as art before: http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503665.html. We are not going to persuade him.

[John Brownlow]

yeah, well he can take back that crap about what people on their walls though. He'd have a shock if he saw my walls, I can tell you.

[Jim collum]

>You'all need longer memories. We have done the subject of Van Camper's restricted and limited definition of art and his rejection of Burtynsky's work as art before: http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503665.html. We are not going to persuade him.

that's it.. i was having a real strong sense of deja vu on this thread... the other is almost identical

[tim atherton]

What you are talking about in general is more properly called popular commercial art.

He is quote a good discussion of why it's a good thing that it isn't popular opinion that defines something as art. Like all apologies the fit isn't perfect, but it makes the point - here in relation to the the New Scottish Realists.

http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_edwardwinkleman_archive.html

"When you introduce words like "shit", do you really think I respect your opinion?" It is of no concern to me, though your response certainly confirms Kundera's definition of Kitsch - which applies well to the works of Bateman, Romance, Vettriano, Geddes etc.

Finally, I wonder, do you have this on your wall:

http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/Cosmology/time-goya-painting.gif

or this

http://www.abcgallery.com/G/goya/goya67.html

http://www.abcgallery.com/G/goya/goya145.html

http://www.wga.hu/art/p/poussin/1/09plague.jpg

http://www.postmodern.com/~fi/morbid/doc/grunewald_st-ant.htm

http://webed.vw.cc.va.us/vwbaile/Media/Raft.jpg

or even this

http://arthistory.heindorffhus.dk/goya-PtgShootings-3-5-1808-large.jpg

and so on - there is so much art that doesn't come anywhere close to your limited definition of "pretty"

Compare any of those to Trisha Romance - and - well - you can't. Her work doesn't even belong the same universe

http://www.artandnature.com/romance.html

http://www.artandnature.com/romance/generousheart.html

http://www.artandnature.com/heartandsoul.html

I'd rather hang up a Gursky anyday

[Jim collum]

well.. i just got a copy of Burtynsky's China.. and it contains some beautiful images, many of which i would gladly have hanging on a wall in my home

[Jim collum]

>When 80% of the population likes something and is buying, that is what counts. People buy what they like. When a bunch of people believe a doctor is doing a great job, when in fact the medical association finds him to be incompetent, that is not the same thing. People are not trained to know the difference, but it does not require training to know if you like an art piece or not

problem is, your list of 'art' is a bit too exclusive for the majority. I'd say there's a very small percentage of U.S that's ever heard of Bateman or Trisha.. .even smaller in the rest of the world.

If popular vote defines 'art', then i'd say that popular art (http://www.kmart.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=155509&Ne=1001&N=3264&categoryId=3264&pCategoryId=1001&gpCategoryId=466) is much closer to your definition.

[Jack Flesher]

Jim: Did you remember to grab me a copy of Burtinsky's China while you were a the bookstore getting yours?

[Paddy Quinn]

"I've listed earlier many books I own of famous artists showing different styles of art (Batemen, Rockwell, Rembrandt, Muench, Adams, etc) and you call this exclusive? What about your industrial and kitsch images? "

I think you miss the point - Bateman, Rockwell, Romance and friends are the embodiment of Kitsch.

That you can put "art" Rockwell, Bateman and Rembrandt in the same sentence and appear in other posts to see them as virtually equivalent displays a frightening lack of discernment, artistic or otherwise. (If you had included "trisha romance" it would be downright obscene)

[John Brownlow]

Oh, we're discussing 'normal'. I thought we were discussing art. Hey ho.

[Jim collum]

"problem is, your list of 'art' is a bit too exclusive for the majority. I'd say there's a very small percentage of U.S that's ever heard of Bateman or Trisha.. .even smaller in the rest of the world."

"I've listed earlier many books I own of famous artists showing different styles of art (Batemen, Rockwell, Rembrandt, Muench, Adams, etc) and you call this exclusive? What about your industrial and kitsch images? You think industrial images in homes is normal? Wildlife, children story telling, landscapes, etc, are far more popular for living room walls then industrial images of dams/tire recycling yards, etc. There is no debating it."

The popularity isn't my point or arguement, it was yours. you brought up the fact that the popularity of your artists defined them as artists. I'm arguing that your list isn't all that popular, that for the majority of the people in the US, and in the world, your artists are unknown. My point is if popularity is the deciding factor in art, then my link beats yours as fine art

[Jim collum]

pdf of Butynsky's CV (http://www.metiviergallery.com/pdf/burtynsky_cv.pdf) . I don't know... at least the 'art' world considers him an artist, and $25,000 is a lot to be selling copies of documentary photographs.

so i'm assuming that Shore, Misrach, Meyerowitz, Kenna don't qualify as artists either.

[trigger]

Nice to see this discussion at least partly resolved, as it started straying a bit. I'd like to add my two cents, though, as I know there are a lot more people lurking than the two that have written lately.

"Art" is not subjective. Art is defined by the Art World. Art World is a term introduced by Arthur C. Danto and familiar to anyone who has ever taken freshman courses in any arts or aesthetics -related subjects. Art world consists of professionals and opinion makers on the field of art - critics, curators, gallerists, journalists etc.

Jorge states that most people do not want to keep images of trash and rubbish on their walls. I believe he is right on the money. In fact there is a beautiful pair of Russian conceptual artistists who study this very thing: what do people want to have on their walls? You can check it from here: http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html

The fact that people want to keep this on their walls does not exactly make it good.

Most people may not want to keep Burtynsky on their walls - but that might be a temporary thing. The defenders of classic artists - say for instance Leonardo Da Vinci or Vincent Van Gogh - tend to forget that most old masters were the young rascals and iconoclasts of their time. They were seldom approved by the majority, if they were in fact ever appreciated during their lifetime. We all must know the story of Van Gogh never selling a single painting in his lifetime.

Burtynsky as an artist is not exactly the most threatening or cutting edge one, but I still like his works, and an artist he is, nothing to do with technical photography. I must say however, that I find more art elsewhere.

At the same time I must admit that I believe in the staying power of the deadpan aesthetic far more than any stylistical gimmick or say Trisha Romance, of whom I had never heard before.

[Gordon Moat]

Well, since I happen to be lurking here tonight, I took a look at:
http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424134772/andreas-gursky-gran-canaria.html

Just on a first semester art foundations aspect, the composition is on the Golden Section division. Doesn't mean I like it, but then again some of the Gursky images remind me a bit of Mondrian. Interesting that Norman Rockwell came up, and I should add in Andrew Wyeth; both of whom have been considered illustrators by some art historians.

Granted the art historians, big galleries, museums, and auction houses seemingly define art more than formal considerations, though those ideas and opinions are ever changing. We might see future art history texts featuring Gursky, Burtysky, or even Richard Prince . . . perhaps even countless other individuals we could either agree or disagree on whether or not they qualify as artists. I see nothing wrong with not liking the artwork of any artist, even past masters, those who are famous, or those who get large sums for their works. However, we are not the ones writing the next art history texts.

A formal education in art can give some idea of interpretting so-called works of art. Those interpretations can lead to favourable or unfavourable conclusions. When I saw the Burtysky exhibit at MOPA, I was quite impressed by the images, and I can honestly state his work was one of the pushes for me to return to large format imaging. While my return to large format was mostly for commercial imaging reasons, I can forsee working large format images in my fine art photography. I don't expect to get the recognition, nor the large sums of money, nor even the criticism of a Burtysky or Gursky, but I can learn from what they have accomplished.

I recall being in the Houston Museum of Art with my mom, and commenting about an Impressionist exhibit there. While I liked some of the images, I was actually critical of others, mainly on a formal level. I overheard some comments from other people viewing the exhibit questioning how I could possibly be critical of such recognized masters of fine art (painting in this exhibit). I think anyone who creates works of fine art (I have done oil paintings, mixed media, and photography) or has exhibited their fine art, has at least a little qualification to pass judgement on works of art. While I don't agree with many of the comments in this thread, I do respect the opinions and views of other artists.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Van Camper,

I don't see anything wrong with being selective. No reason to revue an era or genre just to make a point, or state an opinion. I have found that the "majority" has not been constant, nor consistant. Of course, I only achieved my art degree in 1998, so my time in the world of art has not been long. I think you made some good points, but I don't hold the same views. In a way, I think even finding something that might be considered a bad example of art could be something that can teach us more, even if it is only a desire to do better.

Anyway, I will have to return to this discussion later, since it is getting late here. Thanks for the response, and have a good night.

[Jim collum]

Gordon, I was commenting about the diversity of artbooks I have collected, due to the following comment by someone else.... "problem is, your list of 'art' is a bit too exclusive for the majority

i don't think you've gotten my point. you've been aruging that burtynsky and that genre aren't art because they are not 'popular', the majority of people wouldn't hang them on their walls. my point is, if you stand outside a KMart in a small town in Nebraska, and poll the people coming out, then your list (exceptions are Adams, Rembrandt) is not popular either. i'd wager than few, if any, of the people walking out have heard of Muench, Bateman, Trisha (i'd never heard of her before this thread). Given your criterea of the majority of people consider it art to be art, then few of your choices will qualify. You, me, and the people who read this forum, are *not* the majority. The people who read the National Enquirer and watch Jerry Springer are (at least in the U.S). And if it's the majority who decide on what's art, then velvet Elvis and poker playing dogs are right up there.

just so you don't misinterpret... i *don't* consider popularit as a criteria for art

[Gordon Moat]

Good morning Jim Collum,

Actually, the works of Burtynsky and Gursky qualify as "art" in my opinion because I find them to express a creative vision. The reason I have such an opinion comes from having a degree in fine art, the fact that I still exhibit and create works of art, and I can see some of the formal aspects of their works; rather than using some formal checklist of criteria. That does not mean I like everything they have done, in fact I think some of their images are cr&p. I also have no interest in having others agree with me on my opinion, because I know from experience that there is rarely concensus opinion in the world of art.

The popularity notion is one I have heard previously. If popularity were a criteria, then Thomas Kinkaid might be considered an "artist". I think the "majority" should only be the majority of artists and art historians . . . which is actually a very small percentage of the general population, certainly not a "majority" as many might expect . . . . maybe minority would be a better term. So in a way I agree with you that the general public should not be deciding what is art, nor what is not art.

I would prefer an even stricter criteria for those at lofty heights, or with great claims of being artists. That criteria would be that their works become a part of art history texts, and art history education. So far, I don't think that has happened for many photographers. Of course, if we went that strict on a definition, then even I could not claim to be an artist.
;-)

A few months ago, I went to an exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, which featured Basquiat, Jasper Johns and Thornton Dial. My mom went with me to the exhibits. While I thought the Basquiat works were quite interesting, my mom nearly thought they had no place being in a museum of fine art. I didn't think that much of the works of Thornton Dial, though I did find some of them interesting. We both like the Jasper Johns works on display. Quite often the more controversial works are the ones that get the most negative attention, though art historians already recognize all three of those individuals as artists. Compared to Basquiat or Thornton Dial, neither Gursky nor Burtysky are controversial. Of course there are still some people who feel photography does not qualify as art at all, but they don't write the art history books.

There have been formal boards (often museums in the past) that decided what was art. There have also been movements in art done as a form of protest against those formal boards opinions. At the times of those past movements, many of those works were not considered art. Yet the interesting aspect is that later art historians recognized those individuals as artists, and saw the artistic merit of their works. We don't know if future art historians will recognize Burtynsky, Gursky, et al as artists, and even if that happens there will remain many other artists that will not agree with the art historians.

[Gordon Moat]

Good morning Van Camper,

I hear similar arguements like you have typed, that popularity and public opinion drive who are artists and what is art. Perhaps this is a more modern notion, though indeed many of the old masters starved or thrived due to the frequency of commissions from wealthy patrons. I recall that Vincent van Gogh only sold one painting while he was alive, and that sale involved a reluctant purchaser whom Vincent owed an unpaid debt. Definitely van Gogh was not popular while he was alive, so in a public centred viewpoint, he was not an artist.

I find it interesting when some people deride industrial images, especially when people like Charles Sheeler already established that genre many decades ago. Okay, so wealthy patrons, Ford Motor Company in the case of Charles Sheeler, helped get his work recognized in his lifetime, but could we claim that Sheeler was more of an artist than van Gogh, or even a more successful artist simply because he was more popular in his lifetime?

Whenever someone wants to get really controversial, often Jeff Koons is mentioned. He was astock broker prior to entering the world of art, so it could be said he was already successful, and he even had a ready list of people who might find his work interesting. Koons only comes up with concepts, then has others actually craft his works. Oddly enough, the "works" of Jeff Koons have been in museums, netted him lots of money, and even influenced other artists like Damien Hirst. So that would make it: sells his works for lots of money, is displayed in many museums, and his works are liked by certain segments of the public. Funny enough, Jeff Koons has now made it into some art history texts. The controversy remains due to the fact that many other artists do not consider his approach as art. Going with one of the things you pointed out, Jeff Koons has been very successful at marketing, though perhaps we should call what he is something else, a new term: marketist.

I don't like your public approach, because it elevates people like Thomas Kinkaid to the lofty heights of elite artists. I would rather remain relatively unknown, and less financially successful, than to be the equal of Thomas Kinkaid. The world of art is not the NYSE, nor NASDAQ, and success in the public eye (or wallet) as a criteria seems to me as devaluing creative endeavours. Marketing art works is not fine art, it is business and advertising.

I have nothing against someone making money off their creative endeavours, but I don't correlate that to someone who merits historical consideration as a great artist. Just because someones works and images end up by the thousands in malls across the US seems too loose a measure of greatness. Sure, some of the people here would really like that, especially with all the income it could deliver. There were probably several artists in van Gogh's time that made a living from their works, yet we might not hear about them, nor know them now; they were successful enough to make a living from art, but despite the public success, they were not memorable enough.

This comes right back to Burtynsky and Gursky. Both have financially gained from their works. Both are a little controversial. Quite likely both are good at marketing. Enough people like their works to buy them, though maybe if we could find a larger group of people who don't like their works, that might enable us to discredit them as artists . . . sort of a mob appeal scenario. Maybe we are just asking the wrong questions; perhaps success and financial gains should not be criterias for determining who are artists.

So what criteria, other than public appeal, do you use to determine if someone is an artist? What criteria do you use to determine that someone is NOT an artist? No need to answer those; I don't feel we can apply a checklist of conditions to art, and like I stated previously, there is rarely concensus opinion in the world of art.

[trigger]

Nice to see the discussion continues. :D

There indeed have been occasions when art has been tried to define by a formal boards. Somehow I get the impression that this comment is directed at former eastern block and the artistic tendencies there... I'm sorry if I am wrong.

To be precise I have to remind, however, that "art" is decided by a formal board every time a major art prize is handed out, be it Deutsche Borsche foto award, Nobel in literature or whatever. That is, of course, if the jury is not one person, which occasionally happens.

I remain faithful to my original statement that art indeed is defined by the Art World. What I left out before is the role of peer recognition - artist contemporaries also belong to the network that defines art.

It is clear, however, that this definition by Danto is not complete and opinions on art change a lot over time - read the early part of the list of previously mentioned nobel laureates in literature and there are a lot of names you have never heard.

The people that get picked by the art world generally also get the financial reward. Collectors covet the works by the winners of major prizes, for example. Furthermore - what Vancamper defined as works supported by the paying public has not been necessarily so in the history of art. Reneissance, for instance, was supported by couple of rivalling boom-economy families in Italy. Some evidence suggests that they really had no idea what they were paying for, and they really just hired the best makers of religious artists to do whatever they wanted - the artists, that is.

This reminds me a bit of the Russian noveau elite shopping for football clubs in Europe, or the way some Californian indian tribes used to select their chiefs. Whoever destroys the most wealth gets the title. Pity the guy who finishes second, though.

[trigger]

"Enough people like their works to buy them, though maybe if we could find a larger group of people who don't like their works, that might enable us to discredit them as artists . . . sort of a mob appeal scenario. "

Nicely put. The mob appeal scenario makes Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling two on the list of greatest writer-artists and authors of all time, while James Joyce would rank really low. That's about right, isn't it?

[John Brownlow]

compared to this discussion, counting angels on the heads of pins seems like a worthy scientific endeavor

[trigger]

Oh, the uncrowned king of the group arrived, placed the discussion in it's true proportions and showed us all how unworthy and stupid we are.

[trigger]

Yes, VC, that was exactly my point.