Gregory Colbert

[Emre Yildirim]

I just came across this website:

http://www.ashesandsnow.org/

While reading under "Vision"....

The Ashes and Snow exhibition includes more than 100 large-scale photographic artworks, a one-hour film and two nine-minute film haikus. None of the images have been digitally collaged or superimposed. They record what the artist himself saw through the lens of his camera. While Colbert uses both still and movie cameras, the images are not stills from the film. These mixed media photographic works marry umber and sepia tones in a distinctive encaustic process on handmade Japanese paper. The artworks, each approximately five feet by eight feet, are mounted without explanatory text so as to encourage an open-ended interaction with the images.

Sounds very interesting. I'm wondering what kind of format he is shooting with (it doesn't mention anywhere) and what sort of processes are involved. The prints are pretty big...does anyone know more about this exhibition?

[Frank Petronio]

My non-photographer civilian friends saw the show in SoCal and raved about it -- must be popular.

Some of the large popular shows in the big cities - that one in NYC with the exposed human body systems - or the guy who did all the intimate animal "portraits" - are very well produced and crafted, even though they weren't done with LF cameras the exhibit techniques alone are worth seeing.

[Sara P]

Emre..
The show is here in LA...at the Santa Monica pier...it's housed in a building called the Nomadic Museum...it's made out of cargo
containers...It leaves the 14th of May...It's well worth the visit, the images are amazing... It will be traveling through the US, and
Europe...
sara p

[Walter Foscari]

Read this NY Times' article for a review of the show when it hit NY last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/arts/design/12ashe.html?ei=5070&en=109153d45eca1878&ex=1146196800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1146056651-irkrbYR0bjrp5kMwmuS1DQ

[Larry Mendenhall]

My wife and I -- very fortunately -- stumbled onto the show while in town for a business trip. We really had no idea of what we were walking into, but needless to say we were overwhelmed by the photos, how they were presented and the Nomadic Museum itself. Pictures on the web don't really do it justice. It's amazing.

Apparently the prints were made by Jon Cone using a d'Vinici printer. Here's a link:

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/category.530/it.I/id.40/.f

I'm not sure what format Gregory Colbert used to shoot the pictures.

Larry

[Brian Ellis]

For those interested, www.ashesandsnow.com.

My son sent me the "books" ("catalogues" from any other exhibit but to call these little works of art "catalogues" wouldn't do them justice). The show itself must have been fantastic.

[paul stimac]

His photographs are humbling. I'd like to see more.

[Sanders McNew]

"These mixed media photographic works marry umber and sepia tones in a distinctive encaustic process on handmade Japanese paper."

Meet the newest artspeak for "inkjet print." (Follow the link in Larry Mendenhall's post above.)

The images are remarkable but the hype surrounding them is hard to stomach.

Sanders McNew

[clay harmon]

Re: the process he uses. The interviews and comments he has made have been somewhat (and by my lights, deliberately) vague. Putting all these puzzle pieces together, I'm guessing it amounts to inkjet prints on very nice Japanese paper that have subsequently been waxed (thus the somewhat misleading moniker 'encaustic', which has a very specific meaning in the painting world)

[Sanders McNew]

Clay, "deliberately vague" is being charitable. They are inkjet prints. Fancy inkjet prints, but inkjet prints all the same. All the mumbo-jumbo about "encaustic process" is just the latest "giclee" marketing dodge away from the notion that a computer made the print so that people will think them "handmade." (Note the reference to "handmade Japanese paper.")

Jon Cone printed Colbert's work for him. Here's the blurb from Cone's site, referenced in Mendenhall's post above, which explains exactly the process:

"Jon Cone is currently formulating a unique ink set for a major project for photographer Gregory Colbert. Using a D'Vinci software system in his own private studio on a 64" Roland SolJet printer that he has specially modified for very thick hand made sheets of paper 110" long x 44" wide, this photo shows how a big printer in a tiny space can be used to produce jumbo sized fine art prints! More of this work can be seen at AshesandSnow.org."

Colbert's work troubles me. On the one hand, the work has undeniable power. On the other, his is, quite literally, a manufactured celebrity. He dumped many millions of dollars into the project; bought himself his own gallery to show his work in; underwrote an incredibly-expensive mass marketing campaign when the show was in New York, with signage and print ads everywhere; paid Jon Cone to print his work for him; and so on. Was Colbert a photographer or a project manager?

At the end of the day I am left with questions that trouble me. Where is the honesty in the way these images are presented to the public? Where is the integrity in this work? How did Colbert make it? Did he make it? Where did the money come from to underwrite such an enormous effort? Is it okay to buy your way into the ranks of accepted photographers? I live in New York but I did not go to the show -- I was (and remain) divided over the immense marketing effort put forward in its behalf. But I seem to be a lone voice in this respect.

Sanders.

[clay harmon]

Sanders,

I too was amazed at the level of professional marketing savvy that was used when this work hit the street. The website alone makes it clear that this was not pulled together during a one-night espresso-fueled creative binge. It is very clearly a long term, very well organized and orchestrated effort. That said, I am with you in that I find the deliberate obfuscation that continues to swirl around the proper name for inkjet prints to be both sad and funny. They are what they are. Why try to hide it?

[tim atherton]

"Ink Prints" plain and simple is by far the best term

[clay harmon]

How about decepto-types?

[Kirk Gittings]

Ink prints......I agree with you Tim and it is more consistent than "ink jet" with the names of other proceses. Most proceses are named by the materials used like "gelatin silver" or p/p rather than the mechanical process. Otherwise enlarged silver prints would become something like "optically projected gelatin silver"

[tim atherton]

John Szarkowski suggested it to me and it really does seem a good, simple, concise term.

[clay harmon]

The only problem I see with 'ink print' is that photogravures are also ink on paper. Entirely different mechanism for getting the ink in the paper, not to mention the difference in appearance. Most names for mediums implicitly suggest both the materials and the process. It still has a little odor of deception and deliberate imprecision, like calling a food "low fat" or "low calorie". I just don't know why there is this aversion to the term ink jet. That is how they are made. What is the problem? The prints should speak for themselves, IMHO.

[Sanders McNew]

It's an interesting but worn debate.

I agree wtih Clay that it's either troubling or amusing that this medium already has a commonly-accepted name -- inkjet print -- but people keep trying to find a euphemism for it that removes the association with computers.

Outside the hothouse debate among photographers, the general public has a hard time accepting the notion that "art" comes out of a computer. Or that there is value in a print that can be exactly reproduced thousands of times with the push of a button. That is why the marketing machine that is Gregory Colbert (let's not forget the original subject here) looks for a euphemism for "inkjet print" -- does anyone here know what an "encaustic process" is? -- and emphasizes the "handmade Japanese paper" in his ad copy.

Sanders McNew

[tim atherton]

"The only problem I see with 'ink print' is that photogravures are also ink on paper"

and they are called... photogravures, not ink prints

"Most names for mediums implicitly suggest both the materials and the process"

"Gelatin Silver hmm - not really (unless you are a chemist)? Platinum Print? not much different from the term ink print in terms of it's descriptor. Salt Print? Orotone? There are no real rules. The users and developers of the processes came up with their terms through time and usage. How usefully descriptive of the materials and processes is Van Dyke Print or Ambrotype?

You can also go for "pigment ink prints" as another option - most photographers in both cases adding in the type of substrate used - "on cotton rag paper" or whatever

[clay harmon]

Encaustic painting is a process where the pigment is mixed with beeswax and applied to the chosen substrate. It actually is one of the oldest known painting methods.

I suspect that the prints just have a layer of renaissance wax applied to them after printing to give them a mild sheen and increase the dmax a little bit. Platinum printers have been doing this for over a hundred years.

[tim atherton]

"I agree wtih Clay that it's either troubling or amusing that this medium already has a commonly-accepted name -- inkjet print -- but people keep trying to find a euphemism for it that removes the association with computers.

Outside the hothouse debate among photographers, the general public has a hard time accepting the notion that "art" comes out of a computer."

Incorrect on both counts really. If there is move for disassociation, it is probably to remove the processes from the conception of the prints resulting from $99.99 home desktop printers of 8 or 9 years ago. Colour went through a similar problem - people either associated colour photographs with the cheap processes of the local high street lab and their holiday snaps or gaudy over the top advertising work. Yet now a majority of good photographic art today is probably being made in colour. That the work may be partly or wholly computer generated isn't a problem

Again, I don't think the "public" (if that is your concern) has any issue that art can come out of a computer. The art world certainly doesn't have that problem. And it isn't generally "the public" that define s art (thank goodness - or we end up with Trisha Romance or Kinkaid as the high watermark of contemporary art...!)

[Sanders McNew]

Tim, greetings.

I am often wrong. Look at me! I'm stuck in film, in silver gelatin, in black and white. A concatenation of poor choices! HOWEVER, I think you should be just a bit more open in your estimation of art. You should come by and see my collection of Kinkaids ... truly stunning on the wall. :-)

I hope this note finds you well.

Sanders.

[tim atherton]

"Look at me! I'm stuck in film, in silver gelatin, in black and white." - I have no issue with that at all - just hat it isn't the only (even though it is one very good way).

"You should come by and see my collection of Kinkaids ... truly stunning on the wall. :-) "

hmm - I'd rather not.. you might not like the resulting mess :-) All of us have to draw the line somewhere - mine is somewhat above Kinkaid and Romance....

[clay harmon]

Tim, I have no problem with inkjet prints. My point really is that the quality (or lack of quality) in a print is self evident. Giving it a name adds nothing. Just as in black and white silver gelatin. I have seen plenty of silver gelatin prints that stink. Some of them have even come out of my own print washer. It still seems to me that people are going to great lengths to give ink jet prints a new name (and some uspcale 'association' or cachet) when their attributes should (and do) speak for themselves.

"Incorrect on both counts really. If there is move for disassociation, it is probably to remove the processes from the conception of the prints resulting from $99.99 home desktop printers of 8 or 9 years ago. Colour went through a similar problem - people either associated colour photographs with the cheap processes of the local high street lab and their holiday snaps or gaudy over the top advertising work. Yet now a majority of good photographic art today is probably being made in colour. That the work may be partly or wholly computer generated isn't a problem"

[tim atherton]

"My point really is that the quality (or lack of quality) in a print is self evident. Giving it a name adds nothing. Just as in black and white silver gelatin. I have seen plenty of silver gelatin prints that stink. Some of them have even come out of my own print washer. It still seems to me that people are going to great lengths to give ink jet prints a new name (and some uspcale 'association' or cachet) when their attributes should (and do) speak for themselves."

My problem with this is (and why I dislike the term "inkjet") is that the technology got saddled with the name when it wasn't used to produce high end, high quality prints but rather low end desktop colour reproduction as a cheaper alternative to office laser printers and as an improvement over dot matrix pritners.At that time the technical quality was really quite poor.

Now the quality and technology has increased by leaps of magnitude, but the name is still in many ways linked or associated to its introductory phase and the poor quility it produced then.

[tim atherton]

further - imagine colour film and print technolgy was only initally developed with the invention of the 1970's mini-lab and then only later did high quality larger format colour enlargers, better quality film and papers and enalrger lenses etc come along. But as a result every colour print is always call a "mini-lab" print - explains what I am getting at?

[Kirk Gittings]

"Ink" prints are printed on an "inkjet" printer. The name inkjet print has no logic and is not consistent with medium names in photo or other art mediums. I have a friend who is a really famous painter with shows at the Corcoran, Castelli Graphics etc., who airbrushes with enamel paint. He does not describe his medium as "airbrush paint". His medium is always listed as "enamel on canvas" or "enamel on paper".

By the way, at my recent museum show, I had no trouble selling "pigment ink" prints to the most knowledgeable of my local collectors, the curator of art (a photographer himself), the museum director and the museum foundation (for the permanent collection)--all bought "pigment ink" prints that they knew were printed on an "inkjet" printer.

[Kirk Gittings]

Clay, by the way you should use your full name here. It makes it easier to find examples of your work (some of which I think, by the way, is extraordinary). I always like to look at the work of people that I am having a discussion with. If they do not have some descent work to show somewhere, it is hard to take them seriously. That is certainly not the case with you.

Calling something an ink print is not deceptive. It is simply more accurate because it describes the actual medium instead of the delivery system. The "verbal laziness" you use to describe your prefered medium is not a virtue. I simply prefer more accuracy. From your site:

"First, virtually everything currently shown on this site is printed either using platinum-palladium or gum-platinum. In general, when I refer to platinum prints, I am using a generic moniker to describe everything from prints made with a combination of 50/50 platinum/palladium to 100% pure palladium. This verbal laziness is common in the alt-process world, and we excuse our terminological imprecision because we feel ever so virtuous about everything else we do."

This was very enlightening. I have always found it curious the way P/P people so vehemently attack digital printers. I used to do P/P. I still do silver. So what? Dick Arentz does digitally enlarged negatives, a slippery slope. You link to him on your site. Why would you care so much? Ahh.......you are defending virtue. Traditional processes have virtue. You may find virtue in a particular medium, but I find that an odd concept to say the least.

[clay harmon]

Kirk,

First, I have posted my full name now. Sorry.

First, my site. The quote you made was intended to be ironic, self deprecating and funny, because I think a fair number of alt-process people do take themselves a little too seriously. And your point is well taken: verbal sloppiness is rampant in the photo world. For what it is worth, when I sell work through a gallery, the print is labelled accurately. I do not call a print with no platinum in it a 'platinum print'. In fact, if anything, I err the other way and often label a print as a "palladium print" when it in fact has a fair amount of platinum. I'm sure this is all TMI, as my daughters say (too much information).

Next, I did not mean to imply that calling something an ink print is deceptive. I was really trying to say that I think it is just sort of ... redundant. I have no quarrel with inkjet prints. I am not attacking inkjet prints. I make them myself and I own a few. It is really not my 'main' medium, but that is a personal decision based on a lot of things that I am not sure I can even articulate fully. I certainly do not think it makes me superior in any way. In fact, as long as you promise to tell no one, about 50% of my work now is done with digital negatives. So I am not the purist you seem to think. The only point brought up by this thread is the seeming attempt to hide the provenance of Colbert's work behind the moniker "Encaustic print", which I find sort of funny and sad at the same time. To me, the work speaks for itself. It's big, sentimental and apparently beautifully printed. Why wrap it up in more mumbo-jumbo?

'Ink print' is fine with me. As far as I know, that name has no specific historical process implications. I do sort of laugh when I see nonsense like "platinum giclee" and so forth. But whatever. I really don't "care so much" We'll all manage to live through it.

As for being a snob, well, frankly, I'm just above that sort of common behavior. (HUMOR ALERT!)

[clay harmon]

Just noticed my post had two 'firsts' That'll teach me to post when munching on a salad. So either ignore one 'first', or change the second 'first' to 'secondly', or just roll your eyes and say "sheesh"

[Michael Mutmansky]

Kirk,

"Calling something an ink print is not deceptive. It is simply more accurate because it describes the actual medium instead of the delivery system."

I've got to take exception to that statement, as there are many processes out there that use ink in some manner, and because of that some use the delivery system as part of the naming convention. To call an inkjet print an 'ink print' flies in the face of all the other ink and paper processes out there that could just as well be called an 'ink print'.

Everything from the oldest illuminated manuscripts to gravure, bromoil, suibokuga, comic books, and the money in your wallet all fit this definition. For some reason people feel it is worthwhile to be a little more precise about what the process is with other printing methods, and it seems that there is an obfuscation in the mind of artists that are unwilling to use the term 'inkjet'.

As Tim said:

"Now the quality and technology has increased by leaps of magnitude, but the name is still in many ways linked or associated to its introductory phase and the poor quility it produced then."

There is clearly a second class connotation at least among some people, and I think this is a self-imposed problem. Clay isn't ranting against inkjet prints, he is merely questioning why the prints have such an unnecessarily flowery and cryptic name. I don't generally sell inkjet prints but I have a show coming up that will probably have a series of them included, and I will call them 'pigment inkjet prints'. It's straightforward and honest, just like me (mostly).

---Michael

[Kirk Gittings]

Clay,

Its been a rough week and I just feel like arguing. I agree with you about Colberts deception and we all know why that is being done. Same with silly names like Gicle. I was taking issue with you taking issue with Tim over ink vs. inkjet.

Frankly I wish I had Colberts resources and marketing. If I had the time resources and a staff of ten I would love to explore a dozen or so mediums that I haven't like gravure for instance. So on top of making a living in photography and trying to do my art I am only able to explore one arena deeply at a time and I am already seeing at the ripe age of 56 that I probably will not get to explore many of the things I would like to.

[clay harmon]

Kirk,

No offense was intended on either of our parts, and none was taken, I hope. The only two points I was trying to make about the ink versus inkjet nomenclature was "why bother?" and that the work ends up speaking for itself. I agree with you that Colbert's marketing is impressive and enviable. Sort of sets a new benchmark. Wow.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael I fail to understand your point. If I have a print hanging on a wall at a gallery and call it a pigment ink print someone is going to confuse it with a comic book? Ridiculous. And an ink print is a flowery name? It is one thing to disagree with Colbert over his obvious bullshit. It is another to disagree with the simple honest term ink print.

My friend mentioned above who airbrushes uses automotive paint. Are you saying he should call his medium "airbrushed automotive paint on canvas"? To be consistent you should call your other prints 'contact printed platinum/ paladium prints" or something. To be honest with you I don't see anyone care about what digital printers are calling their prints but the p/p guys or the odd silver printer and they are losing the battle.

[Sanders McNew]

"Sort of sets a new benchmark." Gosh, I sure hope not.

After wondering whether I was the only curmudgeon who finds Colbert's work disturbing in its excess and vanity, I went online and found most everybody raving about his work. The one notable exception was the March 12, 2005, New York Times review which savaged it for all the reasons that have troubled me. The critic, Roberta Smith, speaks highly of the architect Colbert hired to build the gallery, though she adds that Colbert finished the interior in a style that is "Anne Rice by way of Pottery Barn."

Smith calls the exhibit "a kind of vanity production." She notes the derivative nature of Colbert's work:

"Mr. Colbert's sepia-toned images prove once again that while colonialism may be dead or dying, its tropes are ever with us. ... Many of these images are striking for their simplicity, serenity and how-did-they-do-that? drama. Who doesn't love majestic animals, or ''nature's masterpieces,'' as Mr. Colbert calls them? But you would barely think twice about these photographs if you saw them framed under glass in a Chelsea art gallery. They're too derivative.

"They take us back to nature along the familiar routes of fashion photography, spare-no-expense ad campaigns and National Geographic cultural tourism. They evoke Richard Avedon's 1955 fashion classic ''Dovima With Elephants,'' Irving Penn's images of stoic Peruvian peasants, images of the young Dalai Lama and bus stop posters for expensive spas. They hark back to the 19th century, when early photographers traipsed the globe to record the alien glories of empire for the folks back home, and the early 20th, when Isadora Duncan was photographed dancing among Greek ruins."

The exhibit concluded with a film, its narrative written by Colbert and read by the portentous Laurence Fishburn, complete with sentiments like: "I want to see through the elephant's eyes. I want to dance the dance that has no steps. I want to become the dance.'' After several more observations about Colbert's appearance in the film as the only "white guy" surrounded by African and Asian women, children and big game (you can guess Ms. Smith's sentiments here), Smith concludes: "This exhibition pulls out all the stops to sensitize us to the natural world, but mainly it reveals that selfless sincerity is often close to overweaning egomania and that the path between them is unconsciousness."

The complete review is at this URL if you want to read it through:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DC143CF931A25750C0A9639C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=1

Sanders McNew

[tim atherton]

"I've got to take exception to that statement, as there are many processes out there that use ink in some manner, and because of that some use the delivery system as part of the naming convention. To call an inkjet print an 'ink print' flies in the face of all the other ink and paper processes out there that could just as well be called an 'ink print'. "

but as far as I recall none of them "are" called that?

I feel "ink print" is the good basic term adapted in many cases depending on the process and materials to something like "pigment ink print" (and some may choose dyes for stronger colours say and those could a "dye ink print" etc).

"These mixed media photographic works marry umber and sepia tones in a distinctive encaustic process on handmade Japanese paper."

Colbert's stuff really doesn't do it for me, and I'm still not entirely sure what he means by encaustic - but the whole thing about the handmade Japanese paper etc a). One of the exciting things about digital/inkjet printing the the ability to print photographs on many different types of substrate - and b) It's exactly the sort of spiel you see on many a mediocre alt-photo type site trying to justify all the time and effort that was put into the process

Finally - - wow - what a load of sour grapes. The history of art (and also photography) has a good few in it who were extravagant and effective promoters of their work and had the funds to do so - some made good work others not so good....

[clay harmon]

Well, for what it's worth, I am more impressed by the marketing juggernaut than anything in the photos. My first impression is that it all seems a little precious and twee. No pictures here of a human corpse eviscerated by a lion. That happens too, if you think about it. Not that I would want to look at that either, but this whole kinship with the animals things seems like the over-the-top idealism often seen in someone who has never fought off a vicious domestic dog (I delivered papers in my youth, and I have no idealistic ideas that animals love us like there is no tomorrow). Anyway, it apparently makes some people feel really good to look at this work, and I guess that is not a bad thing.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Kirk,

If I have a print hanging on a wall at a gallery and call it a pigment ink print someone is going to confuse it with a comic book? Ridiculous. And an ink print is a flowery name?

I am suggesting that the term 'ink print' is not truly a proper way to define an inkjet print because the world is loaded with processes and methods that just as suitably could be called 'ink print'. All of them came before the inkjet print. I'm not suggesting that anyone will confuse a cheap offset print with a printer spurt print, but in deference to the world of existing ink on paper arts out there, I think the name should be indicitive of it's origins in some manner, as is a rotogravure and photogravure.

Most alt process printing processes didn't need to have a name more specific than the primary vehicle used (silver, Pt/PD, carbon, etc.) because there aren't enough variations in the processes to require distinctions in that manner. And in cases where variations did show up, the name of the process was generally made more specific in some manner, not less specific. That's what happens in an increasing complex environment as specialization increases.

Now, if inkjet prints were the first ink on paper process, then I would have no problem calling them 'ink prints'. But they aren't and it is somewhat disrespectful of the other media that use ink on paper to upsurpt a generic name that can rightly describe an entire category of images.

When I used the term flowery, I was referring to the Colbert designation, not 'ink print'.

Ultimately, I haven't seen a single legitimate reason to not call them by their commonly given name, and I will continue to do so. It simply strikes me as aggrandizement to do otherwise, but if someone is comfortable doing so, it's not really my interest to change them, unless they have appropriated a terminology that is or was of a meaningful different process at some point, like calling them 'carbon prints', as has been done by some photographers.

---Michael

[Kirk Gittings]

Long before (years) I ever made an ink print, I thought the term inkjet print was a misnomer as was the term Gicle.

"I haven't seen a single legitimate reason to not call them by their commonly given name"

I personally don't give a hoot about common usage if the common usage is wrong or misleading.

The plain fact is that for generations in most artistic media a piece of art is identified by the materials used NOT by the delivery system. What do I care what the general public's common terminology is? I rarely deal with the general public. For better or worse I operate in the art world and have since 1970 and the common means of identifying art in the art world is by the media used.

Perhaps it is as simple as that-our backgrounds are different. We are coming at this from a different point of reference.

[QT Luong]

Colbert's work troubles me. On the one hand, the work has undeniable power. On the other, his is, quite literally, a manufactured celebrity.

Who ever becomes famous and succesful without benefiting from promotion ?



He dumped many millions of dollars into the project; bought himself his own gallery to show his work in; underwrote an incredibly-expensive mass marketing campaign when the show was in New York, with signage and print ads everywhere; paid Jon Cone to print his work for him; and so on.

None of this would have been sufficient if the work had no power. And why is it less honorable to
represent yourself than play by the rules of established galleries ?



Was Colbert a photographer or a project manager?

Why should that be mutually exclusive ? There are many advertising photographers who run large studios that require complex project management skills as well.



At the end of the day I am left with questions that trouble me. Where is the honesty in the way these images are presented to the public? Where is the integrity in this work?

Where is the dishonesty and lack of integrity ? (remember one is innocent until proved guilty).



How did Colbert make it?

I'd certainly be interested to learn that as well, but why should any artist be under obligation to reveal
his methods ?

Did he make it?

Obviously he did not take the pictures in which he appears himself, and credits "Colbert and collaborators".





Where did the money come from to underwrite such an enormous effort?

Rolex is acknowledged. It also seems that the exhibits earned a respectable amount of money just from ticket sales. And then, there are print sales... But again why would that matter ? Salguado worked on no less monumental projects despicting the human condition. Did it matter that he was able to do so because at one point he was the only photographer present during Reagan's assassination attempt ?



Is it okay to buy your way into the ranks of accepted photographers?

Nobody can do that. What made him accepted is his work. He had a vision and found a way to mobilize resources to make it happen, not the other way around. It took him 14 years of full-time work to complete the project. Many other careers have been built in less time than that.

[Sal Santamaura]

"...(remember one is innocent until proved guilty)."

As far as the US is concerned, that's true only true in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion.

[Sanders McNew]

QT, greetings.

You and I have never spoken together, so, first, let me thank you for putting in the time and resources to make this forum possible. It is the most important web community that I follow -- invaluable to me, really.

Certainly, I agree with you, Colbert's work is powerful. But part of that is the subject, part the sheer size. The same can be said for much advertising copy. There are a lot of powerful billboards put up in Times Square. Art?

I come back to the advertising world parallels (as did the Times reviewer) in part because the work seems to be a product of the advertising world -- the style and scale of Colbert's images invite the comparisons. It feels ... packaged. As you note, it is obvious that Colbert did not make at least some of the images; we know that he did not print the images. That's why I asked how the images are made, and who made them. If they all came out of the BBDO Seidman art department, and were given Colbert's name for marketing purposes, would you feel the same way toward them?

And I do find it a fair criticism to observe that Colbert's images are derivative of other work. Can derivative works be considered original art? Maybe. In some sense all work is derivative; we all grow out of a culture and a tradition; I recognize my own debts. Certainly derivative works are entertaining. Readers of JK Rowling's Harry Potter series tie themselves up in knots over this. The Harry Potter series draws deeply from other authors' works, in obvious ways. The series is greatly entertaining, but will people in time consider them enduring works of literature? The same questions can fairly be asked of Colbert's photographs.

You write: "Where is the dishonesty and lack of integrity?" The question of honesty (I only asked the question) is suggested by Colbert's description of his work as coming from an "encaustic process" instead of an inkjet while trying to finesse the issue by leaning on the use of "handmade Japanese paper," with the clear inference being that the images themselves are handmade, as in a platinum/palladium print. And that bit in the following sentence about the images being mounted "without explanatory text" to encourage "openended interaction," on the heels of the "encaustic process" bit, sounds more like a rationale for not explaining his medium to the public.

As for the question of integrity, I was referring to the questions, already mentioned, regarding the provenance of the work, and the lack of candor surrounding a very expensive media circus. It may be, at the end of the day, these questions would be resolved in Colbert's favor. I am only asking the questions that his work suggests to me. I am sceptical, but I am not answering them.

Best,

Sanders McNew

[karin]

I am a lay person. I am interested in knowing if there is any feeling that the pictures are not 'real'. Does the scale seem right between foreground and background? Is anyone thinking that the works are composites?

Karin

[Kim Urr]

Inkjet Schminkjet...the work is powerfull. I find a sense of my own strength and a sence of the power and peacefulness of life through the images. Why debate the "how" when the strength and pure beauty of the visions stand alone?

[Shane_6590]

Well.. being a "non-photographer", I wasn't going contribute my two cents. However, the more I read of the whining/bickering/nitpicking/complaining/<insert your word here> / etc... the more I felt compelled to tell the negative folks to get over yourselves.

You sound like a bunch of debutante high school girls talking amongst yourselves about Doctor So-and-so's daughter who just got a new BMW for her 16th birthday... and how you now hate her for it... and you won't hang out with her anymore. You should hear yourselves.

Who gives a crap how it was printed.. how much was spent on the website (or other marketing)... who paid for it.. how famous the photographer is now.. blah blah blah blah... the work captures a core connection we all should slow down and appreciate more.

For the bulk of the population... none of it matters. They just look at the final results, which totally amazed me I might add, and decide how they feel about it. We don't need any of you to go on and on about what term was used to describe the print process... It just makes you sound loike an angry little girl.

[Warren Weckesser]

Check out this video about Colbert (http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/showbiz/2006/05/07/natpkg.ashes.and.snow.cnn) on CNN.

[Don Miller]

I find it interesting that the comments focus on "inkjet" and not photoshop. As compositions, does the means really matter? Only civilians may consider this traditional photography, and as Shane points out, they don't care. He does call it "photographis artworks", and I think that's fair.

As far as the work, I find it way over the top. The heavy manipulation leaves me with no feeling for the human subjects. Although Elephants are always cool.

[Don Miller]

After viewing that news piece, I'm disappointed in Colbert. I wonder if he even realizes the CNN editor shows his claim of his process is false.
The sin of ambitious males. He probably has quite a few legitimated captures that are spectacular. Yet he needs to create false scenes to make his work "better".

[tim atherton]

What are "legitimated captures"...? What do you mean by "false scenes" ?

(and why on earth does anyone care?)

[tim atherton]

- I'm with the "shrill schoolgirl" take on all this I think.

[Don Miller]

Did you actually look at the photos? He's claiming human/animal interaction as the basis for this project. The hawk is flying through the "monks" head? That's some monk. He talks about natural behavior of the cheetah - "scent marking". Who sat on the rock first, the boy or the cheetah?

Forest for the trees.

[tim atherton]

I'm sorry Don - I still don't understand what it is that you object to or what is apparently upsetting you about this work?

Unless you view the work with the same literalistic approach that believes the bible when it says the world was created in seven days I just can't see what the issue is?

Would there be a problem if the works had been painted?

"The hawk is flying through the "monks" head?" sorry, I don't understand that?

[Naveed Nour]

I am glad that Colbert did what he did. The very least he did was bringing me to this blog. It is interesting to hear from all sides, and as somebody suggested, I actually went to some of your sites and was impressed by the quality of all your work.

I wished that I was on CNN, or even less, just on any network or even better, any well known museum. As far as art (expressing oneself) goes, if we are not doing it just for ourselves, the work does not end with the signature on the piece. I would say that art is just a small percentage of the hole game. Well, Colbert seems to be good at his game, or maybe even lucky. And many of you guys who have exhibited or intended to do, know what I mean.

I just closed my first major solo exhibit after photographing for more than 20 years. As I don't get Colbert's coverage, I tried to be at my show as much as possible. The reason for that was to see how people react to my work and how they feel when they leave. As an artist, if you think to display your work, you should do the most for your audience, so that they are rewarded for taking the time to come and see your creation. As far as I have read or heard, Colbert did just that.

Most people who attend a show are not photographers and don't care about the technics, and if they buy, as long as the "investment does not fade away", they will be happy. The new inkjets are supposed to last just as long as silver prints.

Then there is the content. Real or not real, photoshop or no photoshop, the "idea" is the first and most important part of the art. If it does what it is supposed to do, then the artist succeeded. But if the art does something else to the audience, that the artist did not intend, then he/she did still succeed because the work triggered a thought, reaction or anything else that would otherwise be muted.

To All of you , no matter what your comment, thanks for making me think beyond Colbert's work.

[Don Miller]

Tim, do you have an argument to make? Or is name calling and negatively characterising someone you disagree with all you've got?

Colbert says:

"What you see here is what I saw through the lens of my camera. There is no trickery"

I have no problem with photo montages. I do have a problem with people misrepresenting their work.

If you represent your photography as something it is not, then you are lying and cheating the viewer/buyer.

[tim atherton]

I rather thought that was what you meant (but it wasn't clear whether you objected to anything other than 'straight" photography or not), but from your vague descriptions, I'm having trouble understanding which images you consider to be montages? I haven't noticed any.

The two you seem to mention are a boy sat next to a cheetah - aparently a "straight" photgraph and also the hawk flying by the monks head - ditto. Are you looking at some other images?

[tim atherton]

"Yet he needs to create false scenes to make his work "better"."

Again - what do you mean? That he managed and directed the shots? That much is obvious (how often do you see and orangutan and a child going boating together...?)

[Sanders McNew]

Tim, greetings.

I think this thread goes back to the question of how Colbert created the work, or if he did. Obviously, he did not photograph the images of himself swimming with whales or sari-clad women. How do you parse through those? Does Colbert take credit for them for imagining them? For giving directions to the (nameless) photographer who took them for him? And what's up with those photos, anyway? Why did Colbert feel the need to interject himself into the photographs? The choice seems incongruous with his subject, if we are to take him at his word about the impetus and purpose of these images. What does that choice say about the mind and values of the photographer?

Judging from the posts to this thread, the prevailing view is that these are questions not worth pursuing, and that we should just accept the images without question. I, personally, don't have a problem with them as inkjet prints. I am much more troubled by the sense that I am looking at ad copy productions when I look at them, and the seeming lack of candor regarding the circumstances of their creation only adds to that unease. If the photographs carried a "Rolex" logo on them, would people still react so favorably to them?

Sanders

[tim atherton]

"the question of how Colbert created the work, or if he did. Obviously, he did not photograph the images of himself swimming with whales or sari-clad women. How do you parse through those? Does Colbert take credit for them for imagining them? For giving directions to the (nameless) photographer who took them for him? And what's up with those photos, anyway? Why did Colbert feel the need to interject himself into the photographs? "

I have no problem with that - filmmakers do it all the time "a film by xyz" doesn't mean he pulled the focus, write the script, directed the light etc etc. and they often insert themselves in their own films ("documentary" or otherwise. And Cindy Sherman and many other photographers have also included themselves in their own work. For what reason - ask their shrink - but if it works, it works and vice versa.

I don't happen to like the work that much - is it art? commercial art? straight photography? or what - doesn't really matter - and I'm sure it appeals to people with several gigs of Enya or Nakai on their iPod's - that's just personal taste(I'm not even sure the moral character of the photographer even matters that much - are they spinning a good spiel or honestly describing their work, or honestly describing what they believe their work is about? A good deal of art that addresses the great human themes of love, beauty, spirit etc has been made by artists who were real assholes as human beings - same with many movies - yet the work still seems to stand).

But I think what Don is saying is that Colbert says in his spiel and the news piece he took what his camera saw and didn't manipulate (i.e. collage) his images. But he believes that not to be the case and that Colbert is fibbing. Yet I can't see any of the images that appear to be "faked" in this way. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding

Personally I think the "mobile" gallery is the coolest bit of the whole venture and a nice piece of architecture.

[tony schanuel]

I just got back from Los Angeles where I saw this exhibit .
IT IS INCREDIBLE !
AS a photographer and Digital artist I must say that this was a once in a lifetime experience of visual delight.
No more needs to be said from me it stands on its own genius.

Tony Schanuel
www.schanuelart.com
www.schanuelphoto.com