NY Times really likes this guy. 2 articles in 2 days

[Bruce Schultz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/magazine/25Wall.t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/arts/design/24wall.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th

[tim atherton]

well... he is probably one of the more (most) important contemporary photographers (or at least artists who work exclusivley in photogrpahy...) currently working

[John Bowen]

He is also in this week's issue of Time magazine.

[Walter Calahan]

More probably a good publicist.

He's a good stage producer. Has a future in Hollywood if he chooses.

Most importantly he's convinced people with money to support his efforts. I should be so lucky.

[Brian Ellis]

Sounds a lot like what Osar Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson, and others were doing . . . . 150 years ago. Except that what they did was much more difficult with the technology of the times since they not only staged the scenes, they then created composites from their multiple staged scenes.

[Bruce Watson]

well... he is probably one of the more (most) important contemporary photographers (or at least artists who work exclusivley in photogrpahy...) currently working

In that NYC has a huge hand in deciding what photography is "important" this is undeniably true. My opinion (being worth precisely nothing) is somewhat different.

I'm wondering (really, this isn't rhetorical) what makes "faux documentary" important? Why is Wall's stage set photograph The Destroyed Room more important than one of countless photographs of the real destruction of New Orleans? Say for example, Chris Jordan's Real estate office, St. Bernard Parish. That is, why is a photograph that is a reference to a historical event (or a reference to a painting that itself is a reference to a historical event, or at least an old tale) more important than a photograph of an actual historical event?

[tim atherton]

More probably a good publicist.

He's a good stage producer. Has a future in Hollywood if he chooses.

Most importantly he's convinced people with money to support his efforts. I should be so lucky.

he's 60 or so years old now, I doubt he needs a new career... the retrospective is the result of 35+ years work. I also doubt he really needs that good a publicist.

Hollywood was influenced by his work a generation or so ago, as was the whole Strutynsky group (at one point he was set to take over the Dusseldorf School from the Bechers) along with a whole generation of photographers working in colour.

[Dick Hilker]

The NY Times also loves another erstwhile film maker -- Al Gore. So much for their taste!

[David Louis]

I saw the show a few days ago. Its great. I only had one problem. Because of size limitations in available printing stock many of his large "light box" works are assemblages of two separate transparencies seamed together. The seams, and the transparent “tape”, are clearly visible, much more than in the other occasions I’ve seen his work. Its shoddy and distracting. The curators should be somewhat embarrassed. Also on display are some of his huge black and white prints. These I found less effective. Other than that it’s a fine show from an important artist. Note - his scenes are staged, but are not tableaus in the Gregory Crewdson mold.

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . . why is a photograph that is a reference to a historical event (or a reference to a painting that itself is a reference to a historical event, or at least an old tale) more important than a photograph of an actual historical event?

Generally people have a disconnect with events, unless they go to a certain location, or happen to be a part of those events. Thus every view is that of an outsider, or we are at the mercy of the media to put their view of events forward for us to consider. Manufactured reality speaks of that disconnect that many of us feel.

I don't think it is more important. Quite simply it is another viewpoint. However, when it is fine art, can that disconnect to an event that is all too quickly forgetten carry any future relevance? Too often these styles remind me of various paintings that somehow were commentaries on Chairman Mao; unless you grew up in that era, or read about Chinese history, the relevance of Chairman Mao became meaningless.

I have read some articles about Jeff Wall in the past (like in PDN). I think he has some interesting ideas, though in a way he borrows from a commercial photography approach to stage his images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Bruce Watson]

OK, maybe I didn't word that as succinctly as I should have. Let me try again:

Why does the "art world" (museums, critics, rich private collectors) perceive that a photograph that is a reference to a historical event (or a reference to a painting that itself is a reference to a historical event, or at least an old tale) is more important than a photograph of an actual historical event?

[tim atherton]

OK, maybe I didn't word that as succinctly as I should have. Let me try again:

Why does the "art world" (museums, critics, rich private collectors) perceive that a photograph that is a reference to a historical event (or a reference to a painting that itself is a reference to a historical event, or at least an old tale) is more important than a photograph of an actual historical event?

I think that comes down to: is photogrpahy about documents or pictures

(to which ther eis no simple answer....)

[David Louis]

Bruce - Because they recognize that the higher function of art is to add something to that which already exists. Up until the beginning of the 20th century, similitude dragged down photography as an art form. Stieglitz was one of the first to recognize that content, more than form or subject matter breaths life into art. Its what lies beyond the four corners of the photo that counts, otherwise we’re all just looking at pretty pictures, or sometimes not so pretty pictures.

[adrian tyler]

I saw the show a few days ago. Its great. I only had one problem. Because of size limitations in available printing stock many of his large "light box" works are assemblages of two separate transparencies seamed together. The seams, and the transparent “tape”, are clearly visible, much more than in the other occasions I’ve seen his work. Its shoddy and distracting. The curators should be somewhat embarrassed. Also on display are some of his huge black and white prints. These I found less effective. Other than that it’s a fine show from an important artist. Note - his scenes are staged, but are not tableaus in the Gregory Crewdson mold.

interesting point, like seeing a "super-police-investigation-movie" from the 80's and they are all looking intently at a 256k ibm pc with 2 128k floppy drives... "new technology" dates in a very unattractive way, there is a big retrospective of the first wave of "video artists" here in madrid at the moment and i was very dissapointed in general, only a few artists, bill viola for example, work managed to trencend this fact...

[John Bowen]

The NY Times also loves another erstwhile film maker -- Al Gore. So much for their taste!

Ah come on now, without Al Gore's invention of the internet we wouldn't be able to communicate via this medium :D

[tim atherton]

Ah come on now, without Al Gore's invention of the internet we wouldn't be able to communicate via this medium :D

something he never actually said...

[Bruce Watson]

The NY Times also loves another erstwhile film maker -- Al Gore. So much for their taste!

Move it to the Lounge.

[Steven Barall]

If you give the critics something to write about they will generally take you up on it. Also, there is nothing wrong with pretty pictures if that's what you are about. Last week I gave my little cousin a photo of herself with her great grandmother that I took recently. She will look at that photo thirty years from now and she might think that it's the best and most important thing she has. Believe me, it's nothing more than a pretty picture.

Do you think that someone will look at one of Wall's photos thirty years from now and think that it's best or most important thing that they have? Will the memory of seeing one of those photos make the past live again? His photos are what they are. Large oddities perfectly suited for the large egos of the museum staff, gallery owners and collectors.

That said, they might be great and I will go see them this week or next because you just never know. I think you always have to let an artist do their thing and don't blame him if people like his work.

[paulr]

Do you think that someone will look at one of Wall's photos thirty years from now and think that it's best or most important thing that they have?

Impossible to say, but what some people are banking on is that it will seem like one of the more significant examples of art in the late 20th/early 21st century.

There's nothing wrong with a picture being pretty; but if it has no qualities besides prettiness, it gives us precious little to think about or talk about. and it's very unlikely to be a representation of how people (or artists) see the world at the time of its making that's different from other times.

[paulr]

I think you always have to let an artist do their thing and don't blame him if people like his work.

Absolutely.

It's sad when people gang up on someone simply for getting some recognition (deserved or not ...)

Likewise it's sad when people gang up on others simply for liking something. As tempting as it can be.

[D. Bryant]

something he never actually said...

From a trans-script of a CNN interview by Wolf Blitzer March 9, 1999.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/

Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

So he never actually said that he invented the internet, though I'm not sure what his level of support as a US. Senator was for "creating" the internet, but he did sponsor the 1991 National High-Performance Computer Act and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure Technology Act of 1992.

Much more information about Gore's legislative history concerning the internet can be found of course on the internet.


Don Bryant

[tim atherton]

From a trans-script of a CNN interview by Wolf Blitzer March 9, 1999.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/

Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

So he never actually said that he invented the internet, though I'm not sure what his level of support as a US. Senator was for "creating" the internet, but he did sponsor the 1991 National High-Performance Computer Act and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure Technology Act of 1992.

Much more information about Gore's legislative history concerning the internet can be found of course on the internet.


Don Bryant

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp