Coca-Cola at Fine-Wine Prices?

[Martin Miller]

Anyone care to make a stab at helping me understand the artistic concept behind Jeff Wall's light-box image "Just Washed" which just sold at auction for $120,000?

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424954855&page=1

[Ash]

Anyone care to make a stab at helping me understand the artistic concept behind Jeff Wall?

That's as far as I read, hah! No sorry. I find his work dull at best. The light box was probably worth more than the print.

[Michael Graves]

Don't let your jealousy get the better of you. Study that image closely and you'll see the delicate....no, that's not there.

The intricate composition suggests the work of Paul Caprinigro....uh....wrong again there.

The exquisite subject matter of the fine crystal against the.....no, wait, that's a dirty wash cloth against an old washing machine.

JEEEZZZZ!!! WTF were those morons THINKING to spend that much money on that kind of crap?????

[JW Dewdney]

Boy! You guys, I have to say, can be real rednecks sometimes! Your comments are reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's analysis of modern art (these artists are clearly incapable of rendering the human figure accurately). Nobody's telling you you have to like the work, or buy it. Leave it to those who see value in it.

[David Karp]

We do that as performance art every day in our house. My six and four year olds help us out.

[Brian C. Miller]

...morons...

That about wraps it up for both producer and consumer, eh? :rolleyes:

[Randy H]

Damn! I'm definitely in the wrong business! My darkroom is in the laundry room, and look at all those millions of dollars of opportunity I missed. Hell, if a greasy rag sells for that much, I wonder how much I could get for a pic of my wife's granny panties? :eek: Before and after pics. hmmmmmm....:rolleyes:

[riooso]

COME ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

Richard

[Brian C. Miller]

Boy! You guys, I have to say, can be real rednecks sometimes!
Ah knows which aynd uf this here shotgun tew hold, aynd which aynd tew poynt.
(Did you know that Ma and Pa Kettle lived in Kelso, WA?)

Seriously, though, I can't imagine the person with that kind of money to blow on that kind of "artwork." Maybe its from a corporate art fund, like Microsoft. You wouldn't believe the crap that's on Microsoft's walls. Maybe its the art director's way of getting back at Microsoft.

In theory, the rich are supposed to appreciate the finer things of life, not blow money like snot out their nose. (Dynamic photo needed, will sell for $200,000) Fine wines, fine food, fine artwork. But instead its these ass-wipe pictures that are getting gargantuan sums. I would at least expect that the person with money would buy something from someone who shows talent.

I don't understand why anybody should be muzzled about asking the obvious question: WHAT THE F---??

This really brings up the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember that? "Ohh, what fine thread! What amazing colors!" And the little boy cried, "HE'S NAKED AS A BLUE JAY!" And for ever after the emperor was known as The Streak. (Anybody remember that song?)

[matthew blais]

I think if you stare at it for about a gazilion hours you'll see the face of the Virgin Mary.

That's gotta be it..

[JW Dewdney]

Yeah - well... my point is that some of the greatest artists and composers in the world had their work spoken of in similar tones at one point or another (let's look at Tchaikovsky, for example - people used to RIOT at his concerts because they thought it was so bad!). Some people are just ahead of their time - and those that are, sell work at high prices.

But to me, comments like this just smack of some pretty DEEP provincialism. It sounds ignorant and petty. It's uncalled for and I think people saying such things grandstand their own ignorance and look ridiculous.

I say - "if you don't understand it - don't judge it!". Perhaps one of the people making such judgements would care to give us a critique about representation and photography, and PRECISELY what the context/meaning of this photograph actually IS?

Anyway- very few individuals buy his work - the ones that do, are usually euro art collectors with good means. And I'm sure they buy as investment (well- anybody collecting art does). What about THIS one?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/tangled-up-in-blue/2006/12/15/1166162322316.html

Pricing is determined by what someone's willing to pay for it on the art market. It certainly must have value to SOMEONE, right? Houses sell for a LOT more than that - why don't you get all upset about that?? Or the cost of a ferrari - or a hummer? Surely - paying over $100K for a car for someone to drive around is far more outrageous for you, morally speaking than a cultural project like this..??

As for the microsoft observation - well, I don't know specifically what work you're talking about - but DID hear that Billy Bob Gates had the works of 'the masters' digitized and sequentially displayed on plasma screens around his home. To me - I can think of no greater testament to absoulute philistinism.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yeah - well... my point is that some of the greatest artists and composers in the world had their work spoken of in similar tones at one point or another (let's look at Tchaikovsky, for example - people used to RIOT at his concerts because they thought it was so bad!). Some people are just ahead of their time - and those that are, sell work at high prices.

Yeah well, those geniouses come once in a blue moon, I really doubt this guy is one of them, or ahead of his time. Look at the work of Burtinsky et al..... same kind of thing with different themes. What you call provicialism could also be called honesty...there is nothing wrong with saying, "that looks like crap to me"....even if it does not to others.

OTOH, you gotta hand it to the guy, he is laughing all the way to the bank while we are here bitching about his crap... :)

[JW Dewdney]

... and you're among the worst of 'em Jorge!
(i.e. making uninformed and myopic judgements)... :)

I doubt the artist sees much of the money. Guys - you should just stop thinking of it as photography. Because it's not. Not in the sense that you understand it. Maybe that would make things make more sense to you.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

... and you're among the worst of 'em Jorge!
(i.e. being opinionated about things you know nothing about)... :)

Ah, I see. I suppose you do because you can "appreciate" the crappy shot.....just shows how much YOU know... :)

I doubt the artist sees much of the money. Guys - you should just stop thinking of it as photography. Because it's not. Not in the sense that you know it. Maybe that would make things make more sense to you.

It does not, if it is not photography, what is then? Enlighten us oh great one!

[JW Dewdney]

Ah, I see. I suppose you do because you can "appreciate" the crappy shot.....just shows how much YOU know... :)

I modified my comment slightly from when you paraphrased it Jorge.

But to respond fairly to your comment; well ... yes, sure Jorge. If you want to take that as evidence for my ineptitude - then, I say - you go right along and think what you want to think. It's what you do best. Don't let me get in your way.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily INTO it. I've never seen it before.. I'm not a exactly a huge fan of his. But I think that he puts an INCREDIBLE amount of work, thought, consideration and sheer effort into each of his pictures. FAR more than you, Jorge, or anyone on this forum ever would, or could. And for that, sure - I respect him.

It's not really work that you can really 'get' just by giving it a quick look. The more effort you put into it - the more it rewards, to a point. Hence my defending the work.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I modified my comment slightly from when you paraphrased it Jorge.

But to respond fairly to your comment; well ... yes, sure Jorge. If you want to take that as evidence for my ineptitude - then, I say - you go right along and think what you want to think. It's what you do best. Don't let me get in your way.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily INTO it. I've never seen it before.. I'm not a exactly a huge fan of his. But I think that he puts an INCREDIBLE amount of work, thought, consideration and sheer effort into each of his pictures. FAR more than you, Jorge, or anyone on this forum ever would, or could. And for that, sure - I respect him.

It's not really work that you can really 'get' just by giving it a quick look. The more effort you put into it - the more it rewards, to a point. Hence my defending the work.

Trust me, it would take a much better photographer than you to get in my way of thinking, but moving along.....you are kidding with the INCREDIBLE thing you say right?.....here you go...took all of one minute to make....wow!

[Brian Ellis]

Some people have way more money than they need. The artistic concept is knowing who they are, where to find them, and what sort of foolishness will bring out the checkbook.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Some people have way more money than they need. The artistic concept is knowing who they are, where to find them, and what sort of foolishness will bring out the checkbook.

LOL....yeah Brian, we have to admit there is some element of envy here.... not about the photography though.....

[JW Dewdney]

Trust me, it would take a much better photographer than you to get in my way of thinking, but moving along.....you are kidding with the INCREDIBLE thing you say right?.....here you go...took all of one minute to make....wow!

Wow. Jorge! What a genius. You're absoulutely BRILLIANT!!
That's like saying you can write the same sentence written by william shakespeare (which, I'm sure you could!). But it would only be you copying, once again. There wouldn't be the same meaning to the words at all - there would be NO larger context for it... and most tellingly... you are only looking at it in the most superficial way imaginable, and judging it on those terms.

i.e. - you don't get it. Clearly you're not capable of doing so. So just 'let it go'...! It's O-KAY. (not saying YOU, Jorge - just part of my illustration - in case it gets misconstrued)


It reminds me of a joke.
Q: what's the difference between modernism and postmodernism?
A: with modernism - you say "my six year old can do that", and with post-modernism you say "my twenty-six year old can do that".

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

you are only looking at it in the most superficial way imaginable

Ah I see, you are soooo deep and intellectual that the rest of us don't get it huh?...typical BS. Have you stop to think that it is not that I don't get it, but that it is you who are full of it?..... Apparently those who do not agree with your "zen" like view of photography are close minded and opinionated.....or it could be that we are not easily fooled.....unlike some others who seem to "see" the deeper meaning... ;)

PS. Being that you think the wash cloth shot is BRILLIANT.... your sarcasm has little effect.. :)

[tim atherton]

Anyone care to make a stab at helping me understand the artistic concept behind Jeff Wall's light-box image "Just Washed" which just sold at auction for $120,000?

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424954855&page=1

That's fairly cheap for a Jeff Wall piece. I think the Aussies paid about a million bucks for one recently

[JW Dewdney]

Okay - this is NOT AT ALL done in the same vein or sentiment (just need to clarify) - but I think it would be very enlightening for the discussion at hand. This is a very famous piece of art, VERY important by all standards in the artworld. It was done by Marcel Duchamp (french artist) for the 1917 (if you can believe that!) armory show in NYC. It's an unaltered urinal, signed by the artist. $1.7 million.

http://www.thecityreview.com/f99scon.html

See also: Piero Manzoni;

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/tags/auctions

Let's talk about this because it's a more extreme example of the phenomenon that we're discussing here... and therefore far simpler. THEN - we'll get on to the other stuff.

[Eric James]

I think the Wall piece is a better deal.

[Colin Graham]

Well, the Duchamp piece was Dadaist, an organized rebellion against the pomposities of art and the bourgeois. Has Wall made such a declaration? Other than symbolic, that is...(serious question)

(Not that there's anything wrong with paying huge sums of money for folderol! It's the only hope I have :-D)

[JW Dewdney]

Colin - it's just that my point was that we were discussing what sort of subjects are 'fit' for consumption as art (at least the way I understand the discussion). Others had a problem with using such a 'lowly' subject as dirty laundry as a subject - so it's controversial. I am suggesting that this is really nothing new to art, all movement labels and 'ism's aside, and such 'inappropriate' subjects have done pretty well on the art market in retrospect.

[Colin Graham]

I understand. I honestly dont know much about Wall's work, but am curious if there's any sort of manifesto to it. I generally don't believe in 'statements' as qualifiers to serious art, but thought I give him the benefit of the doubt.... Also, to paraphrase Voltaire, I'd defend to the death your right to love crap! ;-)

[Martin Miller]

Ok, I suppose I invited the rants with my thread title, but I am interested in serious discussion of the piece. All I found so far is the following excerpt of an article (full article at http://media.macm.org/biobiblio/wall_j/wall-lussier-ang1.htm).

"Another of the artist’s interests becomes more explicit during this period in the production of new work. These are more manifestly preoccupations concerning formal components of the image. Deriving from the still-life, works such as An Octopus (1990), Diagonal Composition (1993) and Diagonal Composition 2 (1998), as well as A Sunflower (1995) and Just Washed (1997), are presented as the fruits of the artist’s reflections upon plastic concerns. Having abandoned philosophical metaphor and technical performance, Wall rediscovered in simple domestic subjects an occasion to reformulate modernist questions: plane, colour, form. Other somewhat different images such as Swept (1995), Sunken Area (1996) and Green Rectangle (1998) are definitely situated in this approach but appear to have been almost entirely voided of the anecdotal content."

I can believe that in this picture Wall abandoned "philosophical metaphor and technical performance" and I know that he is a major intellect on the contemporary art scene. However, the proposition that he "reformulated modernist questions of plane, color, and form" somehow just does not ring true for me. My problem may well be that I have real sympathy for modernist strivings and this proposition, in my opinion, seems to trivialize their achievements. At any rate, one can only understand this work as a conceptual piece and I have trouble appreciating the motivating concept.

[Chris Strobel]

Here is an original of mine titled 'Black Sun'.I will accept bids starting at $35,000.00 PM me if interested.

http://upload.pbase.com/image/54456512.jpg

[JW Dewdney]

Well - not really. No manifesto as such. But you'll be disappointed every time if you approach it from the perspective of what's called 'fine art photography' - a shallow endeavour even at the best of times (but certainly not without it's pleasures!!). You really need to put the whole aspect that it's a photograph behind you, and come at it from an art-historical perspective. There's pretty good stuff to be found there. But - I think, the more you understand and have studied fine art, art history and esp. contemporary art - the more you'll appreciate his work. I think - one of the things that really affirms the high prices his work gets sold for - is that there's a whole generation of kids, well, adults I guess - very visible in the art market, who are doing very similar 'theatrical' work... 'theatrical' in the sense that they are 'artificial' setups... in the way that a Titian painting was, for example, but this kind of stuff is really popular now. And wall's just the original progenitor of this sort of work.

[JW Dewdney]

Ok, I suppose I invited the rants with my thread title, but I am interested in serious discussion of the piece. All I found so far is the following excerpt of an article (full article at http://media.macm.org/biobiblio/wall_j/wall-lussier-ang1.htm).

"Another of the artist’s interests becomes more explicit during this period in the production of new work. These are more manifestly preoccupations concerning formal components of the image. Deriving from the still-life, works such as An Octopus (1990), Diagonal Composition (1993) and Diagonal Composition 2 (1998), as well as A Sunflower (1995) and Just Washed (1997), are presented as the fruits of the artist’s reflections upon plastic concerns. Having abandoned philosophical metaphor and technical performance, Wall rediscovered in simple domestic subjects an occasion to reformulate modernist questions: plane, colour, form. Other somewhat different images such as Swept (1995), Sunken Area (1996) and Green Rectangle (1998) are definitely situated in this approach but appear to have been almost entirely voided of the anecdotal content."

I can believe that in this picture Wall abandoned "philosophical metaphor and technical performance" and I know that he is a major intellect on the contemporary art scene. However, the proposition that he "reformulated modernist questions of plane, color, and form" somehow just does not ring true for me. My problem may well be that I have real sympathy for modernist strivings and this proposition, in my opinion, seems to trivialize their achievements. At any rate, one can only understand this work as a conceptual piece and I have trouble appreciating the motivating concept.

I used to find his work dreadful, pedantic... until I worked with him for awhile. Seeing the work and the process really made me change my view. But that's me. Nobody said you have to like it. Nor does anyone else 'have to' like it.

[JW Dewdney]

Here is an original of mine titled 'Black Sun'.I will accept bids starting at $35,000.00 PM me if interested.

http://upload.pbase.com/image/54456512.jpg

that's gay.

[Colin Graham]

If you abandon metaphor and ability, what's left? Essentially, meaning can be assigned to any snapshot. I'll gladly admit that I'll probably never get it, and I'm not entirely sure that I want to. An artist should have contempt for his materials, not his audience, and Wall's statements sound little better. But I do not begrudge Wall his successes, far from it. In the cultural void the world is becoming, I'm glad to see any art being sold at all.

[JW Dewdney]

Well - I have to admit - I've always wondered what might become of his work if he weren't so damned articulate! But Colin - the knife you're putting the work under would make ANY art suffer, don't you think? ('if you abandon metaphor and ability')

[Colin Graham]

Well, why not? I know I sure suffer, lol. Seriously, good question, I'm glad I'm just an aspiring craftsman, not an artist. It's always been hard for me to approach work like Wall's because it just doesn't speak to me... But I also wonder if I'm simply too short sighted and merely need the tempering of an era or the combined weight of a movement, such as Dada, to make it more palatable to me. The inertia of tradition is a powerful aesthetic.

[JW Dewdney]

well - wall would shoot me for saying it. But think of it as postmodernism. at least in terms of the context of other work called that. It all TENDS to be quite cool, rational, ironic sometimes... sort of anti-emotional. Often very tongue-in-cheek.

[Chris Strobel]

Maybe to you, but its a verbatim copy of a piece hanging in the LACMA, I kid you not, only difference is theirs is red on white canvas, definately not 'GAY' to the curator.And since when do we start dissing members work on this site.I'm hurt :(



that's gay.

[JW Dewdney]

I was just messin' with you. It's really brilliant - but only now that I know it's hanging at lacma.


:)

[Colin Graham]

I've been looking at the Untangling peice and it does remind me of Goya (I'm a big Goya nut), but with none of the nuanced dementia of Goya that makes it extraordinary. I guess that is why I distrust Wall's work, there are no inroads to artistic personality that I can see other than the coolness and detachment that you mention. That's what I like in journalism (but am hard pressed to find). Maybe the irony of the reversal of passion in journalism and art is the point..

[JW Dewdney]

it also really doesn't help that it's photography - with all the associations and baggage/problems that go with that. There's at LEAST the same amount of consideration that goes into his work as into the work of an 'old masters' painting, however. Every nuance and gesture is gone over and done and re-done hundreds of times. Really. So - I figure - if nothing else - you've REALLY got to respect the work ethic. There's probably quite alot to be said for seeing the work in person.

[Chris Strobel]

It really is hanging there along with one that literally looks like someone threw a bucket of paint on the canvas and called it a day.I don't get it.But then I only have an IQ of 30 :(


I was just messin' with you. It's really brilliant - but only now that I know it's hanging at lacma.


:)

[Colin Graham]

You sound as if you've been there JW...I dont doubt it's hard work and a laudable effort. I just cant reconcile the effort with the impact. But thanks for giving me much to mull over. I guess I'll leave it to my ancestors to sort out.

[JW Dewdney]

It really is hanging there along with one that literally looks like someone threw a bucket of paint on the canvas and called it a day.I don't get it.But then I only have an IQ of 30 :(

You IQ 30 people think you're SOOO superior to us 25s... don't you???!!!

(bastard!)

[r.e.]

Anyone care to make a stab at helping me understand the artistic concept behind Jeff Wall's light-box image "Just Washed" which just sold at auction for $120,000?

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424954855&page=1


I can tell you this...

The actual image is so different from the internet image that there is no point in evaluating the image on the basis of what you see on the internet.

As far as I can tell, from a quick scan, the four pages of discussion in this thread do not include a single post from someone who says that he has seen a Jeff Wall photograph.

I noticed this statement in particular:

Yeah well, those geniouses come once in a blue moon, I really doubt this guy is one of them, or ahead of his time. Look at the work of Burtinsky et al..... same kind of thing with different themes.

Last week, I saw MoMA's show of Jeff Wall's work. About three years ago, I saw the National Gallery of Canada's show of Burtynsky's work. A high school kid who said that they are the "same kind of thing with different themes" would deservedly get an F. Let me go further. The quoted statement is not just ridiculous, it demonstrates ignorance on the most elemental level.

To answer your question... If you want to understand the concept behind one of Jeff Wall's photographs, go and see the photograph. Because trying to understand his work, or evaluate it, without seeing it, up close and personal, is a waste of time.

I'd also like to add that the Jeff Wall exhibit at MoMA is really busy, and that when I was there, there were people from all over the world who were spending a lot of time with the photographs. Draw from that what you will.

I haven't decided yet what I think of his work. Indeed, I'll be going to the show to have another look in late May.

The only thing that I am sure of is that I am learning a lot more from looking at Wall's photographs than from reading posts in this thread from people who get their kicks from trashing him, but who have never seen his work.

[Brian Ellis]

"(let's look at Tchaikovsky, for example - people used to RIOT at his concerts because they thought it was so bad!)."

Wrong composer. Tchaikovsky was immensely popular in his time and if there were any riots at his concerts I've never read of them (not that I've read everything ever written about him so I could have missed something but I've read a fair amount). My guess is you're confusing Tchaikovsky with Stravinsky and the riots at the premiere of "Le Sacre du Pintemps"

But more to the point - since you've criticized those of us who see little merit in this work, why don't you tell us the artistic merit that you see in it? That was, after all, the question asked by the OP. I don't ask this to be argumentative, while I think it's pretty worthless I'm open to being educated and pursuaded otherwise by someone with the knowledge and taste to appreciate it, as you apparently do.

[Colin Graham]

r.e, I can only respond that I liked Goya's work before I traveled to the Prado to see it. Wall's work doesn't make me curious enough to seek it out. I freely admit I may be shortsighted but I live a 'fur piece' from MoMA and would like more evidence than popularity before I hitch up the mule. But this is where these types of discussions start to implode and I'll say goodnight now.

[r.e.]

r.e, I can only respond that I liked Goya's work before I traveled to the Prado to see it. Wall's work doesn't make me curious enough to seek it out. I freely admit I may be shortsighted but I live a 'fur piece' from MoMA and would like more evidence than popularity before I hitch up the mule. But this is where these types of discussions start to implode and I'll say goodnight now.

Colin,

I don't hold a brief for Wall. I am simply saying that it is not possible to evaluate the work that is at this show without seeing it. That may be inconvenient, but it is a fact. The gulf between the images at the exhibit and what one sees on the internet is enormous.

I say that as someone who has seen Wall's images on the net and in books and has wondered what it is all about.

When I got to MoMA, I found out that what I was seeing on the museum walls and what I have seen on the internet and in books is just not the same thing.

I'm still trying to figure out what I think of his work. Which is why I am going back for a second look later this month. And I'm not doing that because I have a lot of spare time on my hands.

By the way, I've seen a lot of Goyas. If that is what you expect from Wall, don't waste your time. On the other hand, I don't think that I'd like to evaluate Goya on the basis of a 3"x4" .jpeg on the net, which is pretty much what the net offers as reproductions of Wall's work, and which is qualitatively not the same thing as seeing a connected series of backlit transparencies on the order of 15'x20'. The only thing missing from the internet reproductions of his work, apart from the fact that backlit transparencies and internet .jpeg images are just not the same thing, is the content. In the 3"x4" .jpegs, the content isn't there. And that is a big problem if one chooses to evalute his work based on a tiny image on a computer screen.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Last week, I saw MoMA's show of Jeff Wall's work. About three years ago, I saw the National Gallery of Canada's show of Burtynsky's work. A high school kid who said that they are the "same kind of thing with different themes" would deservedly get an F. Let me go further. The quoted statement is not just ridiculous, it demonstrates ignorance on the most elemental level.


LOL....let me guess, an art school graduate or teacher. You do not need to see Weston's pepper #30 in person to realize the genius of the guy, or an early Caponigro print, yet it seems in your erudite and intellectual way (And BTW I always thought of intellectuals as people who have been educated beyond their intelligence) you are telling me I have to see the photograph backlit to judge it's merit and content?

If the exhibition at MoMA was busy, perhaps it was because people were asking "WTF?!?".....

You might be correct and the high school student might get an F from an art teacher, he probably would get an A from a science teacher who does not suffer fools gladly...or the BS that gushes from the art world. ;)

[JW Dewdney]

There you go - making fun of the educated, again, Jorge. Anything you want to tell us?

[JW Dewdney]

"(let's look at Tchaikovsky, for example - people used to RIOT at his concerts because they thought it was so bad!)."

Wrong composer. Tchaikovsky was immensely popular in his time and if there were any riots at his concerts I've never read of them (not that I've read everything ever written about him so I could have missed something but I've read a fair amount). My guess is you're confusing Tchaikovsky with Stravinsky and the riots at the premiere of "Le Sacre du Pintemps"

But more to the point - since you've criticized those of us who see little merit in this work, why don't you tell us the artistic merit that you see in it? That was, after all, the question asked by the OP. I don't ask this to be argumentative, while I think it's pretty worthless I'm open to being educated and pursuaded otherwise by someone with the knowledge and taste to appreciate it, as you apparently do.

Well - it was the guy that wrote the nutcracker... I sure thought it was Tchaikovsky. Clearly it's enough of an inappropriate comparison to get me in trouble though!
His work doesn't really light my candle enough to bother defending it. I'm not interested in defending his work, or sing it's praises any more than I already have. I just DON'T have enough energy for it - and I'm sure I'd mess it up enough to do it a real disservice. But I AM interested in defending the right of people to do work they want without being attacked unfairly. That's all.

I'll have to find something on this composer for you -for reference.

[JW Dewdney]

Brian - after doing a little bit of googling.. I'm thinking it must have been stravinsky I was thinking of. Regardless. Now popular artists once reviled.

[r.e.]

Jorge,

There are some important differences between Wall and Burtynsky, starting with the fact that Wall's images are out and out fictions. This is basic to an understanding of what Wall is doing.

I am saying that I do not believe it is possible to evaluate Wall's work on the basis of a tiny internet image. I say that because I saw, with my own eyes, what the difference is between the actual images and what I have seen on the net. The problem is not just the fact that the real images are transparencies, it is (a) that the internet images lose the content and (b) that the work is interconnected. You can accept what I am saying or not, as you see fit. I guess that I'd be more impressed if you were speaking as someone who has actually seen his photographs.

Go down one floor at MoMA from the Jeff Wall exhibit and have a look at the print of Ansel Adams's Aspens. For anyone who has seen that photograph only in a paperback book, the MoMA print is a revelation. I am saying that there is an even bigger difference, a really big difference, between the Jeff Wall photographs that are on the walls at MoMA and the copies on the internet. That's all. Not complicated.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

There you go - making fun of the educated, again, Jorge. Anything you want to tell us?

Depends of what you call "educated"...clearly it seems to you "educated" and being able to BS are the same thing.... this is all I wanted to tell YOU...not "US".

[JW Dewdney]

About the ONLY thing I could even IMAGINE to be similar between the two is an interest in the relationship with the body and the printed image (i.e. big prints). Wall's work is almost PURELY social in it's subject matter (at least on the surface - the photograph at the beginning of this thread doesn't really fit that however) - I wouldn't say that about what I've seen of Burtynsky's work however.

[Mark Sawyer]

There's at LEAST the same amount of consideration that goes into his work as into the work of an 'old masters' painting, however. Every nuance and gesture is gone over and done and re-done hundreds of times. Really.

Odd, for an artist who has "abandoned technical performance"...

[JW Dewdney]

Depends of what you call "educated"...clearly it seems to you "educated" and being able to BS are the same thing.... this is all I wanted to tell YOU...not "US".

Sorry - I was just trying to get up your ass a little bit, since you'd made such a comment (which I felt to be clearly targeted).

[JW Dewdney]

Odd, for an artist who has "abandoned technical performance"...

explain that?

[r.e.]

I'd like to ask one thing of the people who are commenting in this thread and who are criticizing Jeff Wall. Have any of you seen the MoMA show? Have any of you seen his original photographs elsewhere and, if so, which ones?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

There are some important differences between Wall and Burtynsky, starting with the fact that Wall's images are out and out fictions. This is basic to an understanding of what Wall is doing.

I am saying that I do not believe it is possible to evaluate Wall's work on the basis of a tiny internet image. I say that because I saw, with my own eyes, what the difference is between the actual images and what I have seen on the net. The problem is not just the fact that the real images are transparencies, it is (a) that the internet images lose the content and (b) that the work is interconnected. You can accept what I am saying or not, as you see fit. I guess that I'd be more impressed if you were speaking as someone who has actually seen his photographs.

Go down one floor at MoMA from the Jeff Wall exhibit and have a look at the print of Ansel Adams's Aspens. For anyone who has seen that photograph only in a paperback book, the MoMA print is a revelation. I am saying that there is an even bigger difference, a really big difference, between the Jeff Wall photographs that are on the walls at MoMA and the copies on the internet. That's all. Not complicated.

Funny, in this same forum people doing digital work tell me the method a print is made it is not important, that the content is everything. Now you come along and tell me that I have to see the print in person since I must judge not only by content by how it was made and presented.....perhaps the way it is made and presented gives it a little bit more attractiveness, but as far as content goes, it is lacking any interest. An ordinary shot of an ordinary thing. In contrast look at Weston's Pepper #30, an exquisite shot of an ordinary thing.

As to Adams prints, well I have seen most of his work in person, and while prints like Moonrise, Clearing Storm, etc, etc, were fantastic, I also saw some that were pretty crappy...or at least printed less than optimal. In fact they looked better in reproduction than in person.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sorry - I was just trying to get up your ass a little bit, since you'd made such a comment (which I felt to be clearly targeted).

I guess I was the one who got up your ass...huh? Spotting art school graduates BS is a gift I have... ;)

[r.e.]

Jorge,

What I said is perfectly clear. Let's not waste one-another's time.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yeah, usually the comment done by "intellectuals"..."ah, he just doesn not get it"....typical.

[Colin Robertson]

Every year the city of Edinburgh holds an Art festival. A couple of years ago, co-incidentaly, two Artists staged exhibits which were simply empty rooms. Each offered an interesting and ironic expalation of what their own particular empty room meant. So, you might ask, "what if somebody walked in without knowing the story of the exhibit"? Could they 'get it'? No. And what if you went into the 'wrong' empty room???
It seems we are now prepared to accept Art which has only what we could call 'attributed value'. The original image as posted here is important and valuable only to those who know and buy into its provenance. If accidentaly left in the street 99% of the passing population would consign it to a dumpster, since as a 'photograph' it is devoid of meaning or emotional resonance. However, as some here have tried to hint, this thing is not meant to be viewed as a photograph. It is a commodity in the same way that a rare postage stamp is. You use a stamp to post a letter- so a historic stamp is worthless as a stamp. It might, though, have enormous value as a collectors piece just as long as everbody accepts that its valuable (Apply the dumpster test).

[JW Dewdney]

Yeah, usually the comment done by "intellectuals"..."ah, he just doesn not get it"....typical.

yeah.. bastards! You tell 'em, Jorge!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

yeah.. bastards! You tell 'em, Jorge!

I hope you are including yourself in the "them", right?

[JW Dewdney]

why, of course! Party of one here.


I'd try to say something here about trying to open your mind to seeing things in more than one way... but I suspect you're a bit closed to that. It's okay. I'm sure I'm just as closed to other things in my own ways. We all are in some way.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

why, of course! Party of one here.


I'd try to say something here about trying to open your mind to seeing things in more than one way... but I suspect you're a bit closed to that. It's okay. I'm sure I'm just as closed to other things in my own ways. We all are in some way.

See, this is exactly the insufferable arrogance which is taught in art schools. that somehow a crappy work must have a "deeper" meaning and people like you must enlighten the masses....get over yourself bubba, being able to say "this is crap" is not being closed minded, is being honest....shit looks like shit no matter which way you look a it, but then how would art graduates justify the tuition they paid if they cannot get out of school and write something like "departing from philosophical metaphor"....whatever that means.

[JW Dewdney]

Jorge - come on. Is that the best you can come up with?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge - you're boring me. you'll have to do a lot better than that.

LOL.......why would I? You are not worth the effort.

[JW Dewdney]

ouchie! my ego...!!! OOOOOOHHHHH!!!!!! you.. you... you...!!!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

wow...great comeback........ LOL

[Alex Hawley]

There you go - making fun of the educated, again, Jorge. Anything you want to tell us?

Being "educated" is the only way of having any praise for the photo of discussion. My redneck butt brain still thinks it stinks. Any teenager or college dorm dweller can make the same photo any day of the week and its probably been done many thousand times.

Have to compliment Wall on the way he gets the "educated" to spend that much money on something of so little merit. That's the real "art" here.

[Colin Graham]

By the way, I've seen a lot of Goyas. If that is what you expect from Wall, don't waste your time. On the other hand, I don't think that I'd like to evaluate Goya on the basis of a 3"x4" .jpeg on the net, which is pretty much what the net offers as reproductions of Wall's work, and which is qualitatively not the same thing as seeing a connected series of backlit transparencies on the order of 15'x20'. The only thing missing from the internet reproductions of his work, apart from the fact that backlit transparencies and internet .jpeg images are just not the same thing, is the content. In the 3"x4" .jpegs, the content isn't there. And that is a big problem if one chooses to evalute his work based on a tiny image on a computer screen.

r.e, I can't believe I'm clarifying this, but I don't expect all art to look like Goya. I only mentioned him because I used his work in a previous example, as did a review of the photograph Untangling.

On another note, it's not difficult to tell things about composition or originality from a small sample. Postage stamps have led me to explore Dorothea Lange's work. And no, I don't expect Wall's work to be like her's either. I spent around two hours last night during my involvement with this thread looking into Jeff Wall because I was curious. If I was an artist, I'd love to have that sort of consideration from a potential audience.

[Doug Howk]

The Art Con-a-sewer(sp?) has of late been indicating by their purchases that theatrical & concept photography is on the creative cutting edge. 20-30 years ago it was snapshot or New American landscape that was all the rage. It just proves that money & good taste do not usually co-exist. If you need an artist statement or pontification by curators in order to appreciate it, then it will not stand the test of time.

[Martin Miller]

Notwithstanding the unseemliness of all the mudslinging, there is an underling point to the disagreement. I have had the experience of acquiring a taste for art that I did not at first grasp, so I am open to that possibility and willing to suspend first impressions. However, the art that I warmed to gradually did not evoke an initial aversion quite so much as "Just Washed". I have to say that other works by Wall more stimulate my curiosity, but none have grown on me to any great degree. I even recently had the opportunity of seeing Wall talk about his work and found him very articulate, hard working, and very serious about his art.

I have not seen this particular work in person. (I have others of Wall.) However, my experience has been that that seeing work in person only changes my general impression if the work needs a large scale either for impact or because of intricate detail that gets lost in a small image or because of subtle tonality/color. Evidently scale is not really important for "Just Washed" at only 18 x 20", and there appears not to be intricate detail that must be appreciated, or even subtle color.

It has been suggested that the work need not stand on its own without accompanying explanation because the artist's explanation of his intention is part of the art work as a conceptual package. I do not have a problem with this notion in general; I certainly have had the experience of coming to appreciate a work with explanation and may not have otherwise. It would seem that if the explanation is part of the work, then it ought be linked to it in some way. I also find it curious that one of the complaints of the early postmodernists about late modernism was that the images themselves did not support the ambitious claims made for them by the artist. One could make the same criticism of late postmodern work.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian - after doing a little bit of googling.. I'm thinking it must have been stravinsky I was thinking of. Regardless. Now popular artists once reviled.


Yes, it was Stravinsky who provoked a riot as I mentioned, not Tachaikovsky (who did write the music to The Nutcracker but whose music never provoked a riot AFAIK). But regardless, that was just an aside.

When I was studying art I had several instructors who were wonderful at explaining the work of an artist whose paintings weren't immediately obvious and appealing. So I was genuinely sorry that you elected not to explain this one. I'm not close-minded about any form of art and I realize that it often takes a certain amount of knowledge to understand and appreciate some artists. Of course it's entirely possible to possess that knowledge and still not appreciate his or her work. Nevertheless, in the case of some artists (of whom Wall is apparently one) a certain amount of basic knowledge is a prerequisite to understanding and appreciation. I clearly don't possess that knowledge in the case of Wall. So I'll do a little research and see what I come up with.

[Brian Ellis]

Notwithstanding the unseemliness of all the mudslinging, there is an underling point to the disagreement. I have had the experience of acquiring a taste for art that I did not at first grasp, so I am open to that possibility and willing to suspend first impressions. However, the art that I warmed to gradually did not evoke an initial aversion quite so much as "Just Washed". I have to say that other works by Wall more stimulate my curiosity, but none have grown on me to any great degree. I even recently had the opportunity of seeing Wall talk about his work and found him very articulate, hard working, and very serious about his art.

I have not seen this particular work in person. (I have others of Wall.) However, my experience has been that that seeing work in person only changes my general impression if the work needs a large scale either for impact or because of intricate detail that gets lost in a small image or because of subtle tonality/color. Evidently scale is not really important for "Just Washed" at only 18 x 20", and there appears not to be intricate detail that must be appreciated, or even subtle color.

It has been suggested that the work need not stand on its own without accompanying explanation because the artist's explanation of his intention is part of the art work as a conceptual package. I do not have a problem with this notion in general; I certainly have had the experience of coming to appreciate a work with explanation and may not have otherwise. It would seem that if the explanation is part of the work, then it ought be linked to it in some way. I also find it curious that one of the complaints of the early postmodernists about late modernism was that the images themselves did not support the ambitious claims made for them by the artist. One could make the same criticism of late postmodern work.

Thanks Martin, that's exactly what I would have said if I could have said it as well.

[r.e.]

r.e, I can't believe I'm clarifying this, but I don't expect all art to look like Goya.

Colin,

Sorry, I should have been clearer in what I was saying. What I mean is that Jeff Wall's show at MoMA is fun, irreverent and frequently amusing. He reminds me more of Magritte crossed with Breugel than Goya. I went with two friends who knew nothing about Wall, or his internal references. It's nice to know when he his playing with sources (as it is with people like Eliot and Pound), but it is not necessary. The images do stand on their own and they are a pleasure to look at. The enjoyment of the people in the gallery was palpable. As the New York Times review says: "These are outright gorgeous, fully equipped all-terrain visual vehicles, intent on being intensely pleasurable while making a point or two about society, art, history, visual perception, the human animal or all of the above." I think that the reviewer's phrase "intensely pleasurable while making a point or two", putting the pleasure before the point, is dead on.

My overall reaction was, "This is such a refreshing change from all that photographic seriousness". You know, the kind of photographic seriousness that is so much in evidence in this forum. It seems to me that this whole side of him is being missed in this terribly serious, dare I say overly-serious, discussion. Reading this thread is like listening to people argue about Gulliver's Travels on the premise that it is a work of non-fiction :)

I suggested that it is important to see the actual works (which will be travelling to two other museums) because I was floored at the discrepancy between what I saw on the wall and what I saw on the internet. One specific example, the work called "in front of a nightclub". Here it is on the net: http://time-blog.com/looking_around/2007/03/photobloggers_like_the_indispe.html I can only say that that reproduction (which for one thing is not the whole image) bears very little resemblance to the actual image, which gives a completely different visual impression and contains a lot of content that is is simply not visible in the reproduction (at least on my computer screen). Postage stamp images, to use your analogy, don't have 10-15 people in them, and tiny little details like carefully positioned debris on the ground.

Isn't this one of those photographic forums where people frequently talk about how the net doesn't properly display images? I mean, the people on this forum constantly post images with a qualification, such as this comment from today (with apologies to Gene): "For some reason any color upload I do to this forum gets muted color, the original is much more vibrant." How come this applies to the people who post on this forum, but not to Jeff Wall? :) Don't artists go to museums in part because a van Gogh or a Monet on a wall is not the same thing as a van Gogh or a Monet in a book? Is it not evident that large scale pieces, like Guernica or Monet's paintings from Giverny, come across differently in real life than on a computer screen? For me, at least, the difference between seeing one of Monet's large-scale paintings on a wall and seeing one in a book is stunning, and no, I don't think that you can judge his Giverny paintings by looking at them in a book. They are a pale imitation of the real thing. And the viewing distance is completely wrong.

If you are able, go see the show. Above all, you'll have fun, a concept that in this conversation seems to have gone missing in action :)

P.S. For someon who dabbles in photography, one of the pleasures of the MoMA show is the number of times one finds oneself asking "How did he do that?" :) And if you happen to have Vittorio Storaro's books, it is perhaps worth spending a few minutes with them, especially volume I (The Light), beforehand.

[r.e.]

I've just discovered that there is one site on the net where one can at least see some of the detail in Wall's images. The Tate Gallery in London had a show of his work in 2005-6, and they have the images from the show on line together with areas of detail. Here, for example, is A Sudden Gust of Wind: http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/infocus/section3/img2.shtm It's a pity that one can barely make out the figure on the far left in the distance, if one notices him at all, because he is important to the composition. But to its credit, the Tate, unlike MoMA on its site, conveys the message that a lot of information is lost when one reproduces these works on the net, and attempts to make up for that. Unfortunately, the humour in the original just doesn't fully come across, probably because you have to look hard at the reproduction just to figure out what is going on. When you see this work live, at 8' x 13', 250cm x 400cm, the first and immediate reaction is a smile. For me, this is one of the images that brought to mind Bruegel, although it in fact draws from a woodblock print by Hokusai.

[JW Dewdney]

The Art Con-a-sewer(sp?) has of late been indicating by their purchases that theatrical & concept photography is on the creative cutting edge. 20-30 years ago it was snapshot or New American landscape that was all the rage. It just proves that money & good taste do not usually co-exist. If you need an artist statement or pontification by curators in order to appreciate it, then it will not stand the test of time.

I think that 'good taste' is a pretty arbitrary notion. Talk about cultural relativism. I think that's where a lot of people get messed up and irate - they assume that notions of taste are absoulute and unchanging. Not to be 'negative' but realistically and accurately - it's all really quite meaningless until we (arbitrarily) establish emotional connection with one thing or another.

[JW Dewdney]

Being "educated" is the only way of having any praise for the photo of discussion. My redneck butt brain still thinks it stinks. Any teenager or college dorm dweller can make the same photo any day of the week and its probably been done many thousand times.

Have to compliment Wall on the way he gets the "educated" to spend that much money on something of so little merit. That's the real "art" here.

What you like tends to be dictated by your culture. The 'academics' are just another culture, not higher or lower... just different, and slightly isolated - just as all cultures are from eachother to different degrees. Just as you probably won't find the chinese eating too many pupusas in their cantons...

[JW Dewdney]

The Art Con-a-sewer(sp?) has of late been indicating by their purchases that theatrical & concept photography is on the creative cutting edge. 20-30 years ago it was snapshot or New American landscape that was all the rage. It just proves that money & good taste do not usually co-exist. If you need an artist statement or pontification by curators in order to appreciate it, then it will not stand the test of time.

you mean - like andy warhol -or john cage? Or the impressionists?

[JW Dewdney]

Yes, it was Stravinsky who provoked a riot as I mentioned, not Tachaikovsky (who did write the music to The Nutcracker but whose music never provoked a riot AFAIK). But regardless, that was just an aside.

When I was studying art I had several instructors who were wonderful at explaining the work of an artist whose paintings weren't immediately obvious and appealing. So I was genuinely sorry that you elected not to explain this one. I'm not close-minded about any form of art and I realize that it often takes a certain amount of knowledge to understand and appreciate some artists. Of course it's entirely possible to possess that knowledge and still not appreciate his or her work. Nevertheless, in the case of some artists (of whom Wall is apparently one) a certain amount of basic knowledge is a prerequisite to understanding and appreciation. I clearly don't possess that knowledge in the case of Wall. So I'll do a little research and see what I come up with.

Okay- Stravinsky - regardless - I was pretty blown away when I found out about that. It's nice in a way - it shows a certain cultural continuity which I find kind of affirming - and it just goes to show you that open-mindedness isn't such a horrible thing.

Sorry not to take on the photo. I'd never seen it before and really dont' know much about it. It doesn't excite me so much... but I'm sure some people find it fascinating. I DO think this work is quite interesting - especially in light of his other, more involved work. I used to judge his work as being 'dull' (much like others here) and once I got closer to the work and met the guy, and saw the amount of effort and care he put into it - it became much more engaging for me. There's REAL humanity there. IF you care to look. What bothered me about peoples' initial reaction on this thread was that they were reacting to the SUBJECT MATTER - and not the photograph, or the larger context - something I consider to be very important.

People SAY that a work should be able to stand on it's own. But this just isn't viable. It's not true, and, I think - it's hypocritical to suggest. Clearly - if you were to take your prized Adams or Caponigro print and present it to someone in the middle-ages, it might garner an EXTREMELY different reaction. This has been shown time and time again by anthropologists to be the case. Aesthetic objects are EXTREMELY dependent on cultural context for their validation. But because we are PART of our culture - and inseparable from it, because we absorb it unconsicously - we are 'programmed' by it and make our decisions according to this unconcscious 'learning'. Proof of this is in our preferences for different fashions (first skinny ties, then fat, then skinny - then medium... etc etc..).

These arbitrary preferences are also very common at different times for different generations of species... like the bullfinch for example - it's been discovered that the females of the species have preferences for males with varying tail lengths during different epochs. So what am I driving at here - talking about bullfinches? I'm suggesting that what we are in fact discussing is fashion and cultural preference - there is no absoulute. This is about as subjective as it gets (obviously)... so - that's why I take some offense to people 'attacking' this work, or other work, they don't like. Hell - there's lots of stuff that I don't understand (possibly including wall's) - that I try not to pass judgement on. It's not my thing. No big deal. Why get one's panties all in a knot over it?

[Alex Hawley]

What you like tends to be dictated by your culture. The 'academics' are just another culture, not higher or lower... just different, and slightly isolated - just as all cultures are from eachother to different degrees. Just as you probably won't find the chinese eating too many pupusas in their cantons...

Bull pucky! Total bull pucky.

[Colin Graham]

r.e- thank you for the well thought out post and the link. I do like some of his earlier work, I didnt realize Milk was one of his and missed it looking around last night. After Invisible Man is also pretty f*ing excellent. Anyway, he clearly has an eye. However, if only for illustration the jury's still out for me. But my interest is piqued. Thanks again.

[JW Dewdney]

Bull pucky! Total bull pucky.

eh? can you clarify?

[Alex Hawley]

No. If that's not clear enough, nothing will be.

[JW Dewdney]

r.e- thank you for the well thought out post and the link. I do like some of his earlier work, I didnt realize Milk was one of his and missed it looking around last night. Also After Invisible Man is also pretty f*ing excellent. Anyway, he clearly has an eye. However, if only for illustration the jury's still out for me. But my interest is piqued. Thanks again.

Well - the big thing about Wall is - for me - that it doesn't FIT into the 'narrative' of,let's say LF fine art photography. It's not part of that culture even. I guess a good analogy would be responding to a thread on the forum - but placing that response in another thread. It would draw the ire of others. Wall's taking part in a dialogue that's part of the art world. But, because he's visible, and makes photographs, we see fit to judge him as part of THIS world, which he ain't. It's NOT an homage to AA, for example. He's not taking his inspiration from densitometers... like some people here, say. It's really quite analogous to the problems that academics had with non-representational painting, when that first started happening. People took offense to it for it's lack of sensitivity to representation, with the assumption that the whole world needed to be representational.

[JW Dewdney]

No. If that's not clear enough, nothing will be.

Well- clarify your position, please, if you wish to participate. Are you saying that you don't believe in cultural relativism - and that there is only one definition of 'good art', 'good taste' or 'good photographic work' - and, if so, could you please define what it is, then, or provide an example?

[Colin Graham]

I just have trouble with symbolism that seems evacuated by design. If art could be thought to have a lowest common denominator (saints preserve us!) it's symbolism. Is it anything more than a gimmick to say I don't need that technique thing or even metaphors or ability...'Having abandoned philosophical metaphor and technical performance, Wall rediscovered in simple domestic subjects an occasion to reformulate modernist questions: plane, colour, form'... How as a viewer can I find anything there when even the three elements mentioned also seem utterly forsaken? Should I even try?

But I sincerely do hope photography expands way beyond my ability to grasp it. Anything to perpetuate its practice and commodity (for want of a better word) is fine by me.

[JW Dewdney]

Sure! of course, Colin. I quite agree. Vacuous 'symbolism' always sucks. That image seems fairly inaccessible - without knowing about the whole. I'm sure it's just something he's exploring. It funny how the people who are the most visible and sell for the most money aren't allowed to explore and fumble around.

[Colin Graham]

Ha, very true! I'd hate to 'practice' with a billion foot-candle light on me.

[r.e.]

Well - the big thing about Wall is - for me - that it doesn't FIT into the 'narrative' of,let's say LF fine art photography. It's not part of that culture even...Wall's taking part in a dialogue that's part of the art world. But, because he's visible, and makes photographs, we see fit to judge him as part of THIS world, which he ain't. It's NOT an homage to AA, for example

You have hit the nail on the head. That is why, in my last few posts, I called the big canvases on the wall at MoMA "works" instead of "photographs", why I drew analogies to painters rather than photographers, why I disagree so completely with the idea of comparing him to Burtynsky, and indeed why I referred to Vittorio Storaro.

Thanks for making the point so succinctly.

[tim atherton]

Of course, just because you don't like something or understand something (or both) doesnt mean it's bad. That's simply arrogance either or ignorance.

[Chris Strobel]

You IQ 30 people think you're SOOO superior to us 25s... don't you???!!!

(bastard!)

Ahh but take heart, when you listen to classical music that'll raise you up 10 points to a whopping 35, and if its John Cage maybe even 40!







:D

[r.e.]

There's one other thing that I'd like to say.

There are suggestions in this thread that art world academics and well-heeled people with no taste are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to foist Jeff Wall on an unsuspecting public :)

My personal impression, having gone to the MoMA show, is that people genuinely enjoy his work. And I was particularly struck by the number of young people who were at the show.

I can't square a lot of what is being said in this thread with the reaction that I saw at the exhibit, unless I am prepared to assume that all of those people who were obviously having fun looking at his work, including myself and the friends that I was with, are just plain stupid :)

So I guess what some people are saying is that the curators at the Tate, MoMA and the two other US museums that will be exhibiting this show are nefarious, and the people who are going to these exhibits in large numbers, and who are enjoying themselves, are all idoiots :)

In the defence of these people, I'd make the observation that they have at least made the effort to see the work before trashing it :)

[Brian C. Miller]

In the defence of these people, I'd make the observation that they have at least made the effort to see the work before trashing it :)

Ah, east coast elitism. :) You have to fly in just to view artwork without "philosophical metaphor and technical performance" merit.

What's wrong in viewing it as it is, as the artist intended it? No philosophical metaphor, no techinical performance. Wall might as well be screaming, "I'm making crap and you like it! Thanks for the paycheck, sucker!" Perhaps Wall is the Andy Kaufman of photography.

[r.e.]

Ah, east coast elitism. :) You have to fly in just to view artwork without "philosophical metaphor and technical performance" merit.

What's wrong in viewing it as it is, as the artist intended it? No philosophical metaphor, no techinical performance. Wall might as well be screaming, "I'm making crap and you like it! Thanks for the paycheck, sucker!" Perhaps Wall is the Andy Kaufman of photography.

Brian,

I made the point that the Wall exhibit is going to three US museums. The next stops are the midwest (Chicago) and the west coast (San Francisco).

Personally, I don't agree that the statement that you and others have quoted is correct as a description of Wall's work. I also don't agree with the idea, rather paradoxically also put forward in this thread, that internal references are a bad thing. See my earlier post, referring to Eliot and Pound. Or read W.H. Auden's poem that assumes knowledge of a particular painting by Bruegel. Or for a quick course in literary and visual reference, just have a look at anything written by a guy named Northrop Frye.

I've already said, in detail, why I think that one should see these works in person. You can accept what I said about that question or not.

I'm simply saying to people, if you can see the work, see it. Give it a chance. Especially before you call it nothing but an artistically bankrupt money grab. If you see it, and don't like it, I would love to know why. I'm not sure myself what I think of Wall's work, and I would like nothing better to discuss it with people who have actually seen it, and who don't say that they hate it sight-unseen.

There is one thing that I am going to repeat. Mr. Dewdney really has managed to express the issue succinctly.

Cheers

[JW Dewdney]

Ah, east coast elitism. :) You have to fly in just to view artwork without "philosophical metaphor and technical performance" merit.

What's wrong in viewing it as it is, as the artist intended it? No philosophical metaphor, no techinical performance. Wall might as well be screaming, "I'm making crap and you like it! Thanks for the paycheck, sucker!" Perhaps Wall is the Andy Kaufman of photography.

HA! He lives on the WEST coast!!! - thereby neatly invalidating your entire argument!



(might as well try to have fun while we discuss, right?)

[JW Dewdney]

What's wrong in viewing it as it is, as the artist intended it? No philosophical metaphor, no techinical performance. Wall might as well be screaming, "I'm making crap and you like it! Thanks for the paycheck, sucker!" Perhaps Wall is the Andy Kaufman of photography.

The point is - you can never view ANYTHING devoid of context - whether that context is a LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR context (i.e. advertising, etc.. which forms our taste for 'commercial photography') or whether it's something that exists in a certain culture. I don't think, FOR EXAMPLE, that the work of Aaron Siskind would be much understood outside of the context of mid-century painting - it's just that it was something SO ubiquitous, and the context so readily available - it made the work readily available.

It's simply that the contest upon which this work is made - is specialized. IF you follow that stuff, then it makes sense. If you don't - you might as well discuss batting averages to a person like me, for whom it's utterly meaningless.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So I guess what some people are saying is that the curators at the Tate, MoMA and the two other US museums that will be exhibiting this show are nefarious

No nefarious, they are simply raising mediocrity to the sublime.

and the people who are going to these exhibits in large numbers, and who are enjoying themselves, are all idoiots

Taste has nothing to do with idiocy, but you would think that trained photographers would know how little effort and thought was inviolved in making a picture like this regardless of how it is presented.

[r.e.]

Jorge,

The MoMA show, and the controversy that it has generated, is the real reason behind this thread. Or so it seems to me. And in any event, that show, because it is a major travelling exhibit, and because it reflects Wall's work generally, is what is worth talking about.

Myself, I'm not interested in a discussion that is about jumping all over one photograph that frankly is not, by itself, representative of the guy's work.

If that is what you want to do, cool.

Some of the people in this discussion have gotten beyond that.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

The MoMA show, and the controversy that it has generated, is the real reason behind this thread. Or so it seems to me. And in any event, that show, because it is a major travelling exhibit, and because it reflects Wall's work generally, is what is worth talking about.

Myself, I'm not interested in a discussion that is about jumping all over one photograph that frankly is not, by itself, representative of the guy's work.

If that is what you want to do, cool.

Some of the people in this discussion have gotten beyond that.

You are wrong, the controversy on this thread is about this one piece and the price it was sold for, you were the only one who has mentioned MoMA and are stuck on it.

If you want to move on and continue with your art speak, be my guest. But dont come to this forum and tell people who do not like a photograph that they "don't get it" or that they don't know what they are talking about because as surprising as it might seem to you, some of us are probably much smarter that you and JDW. It is not arrogance or ignorance to say "I think this is crap".

If you in fact read this thread you will see that with the exception of you and JD, the consensus seems to be that the people who bought it were taken for a ride.

[r.e.]

Jorge,

Thanks for explaining that I was speaking out of place. No doubt the consensus is correct, and I apologize for failing to salut. I'll shut up now. As they say, children should be seen and not heard.

[tim atherton]

[I]
Taste has nothing to do with idiocy, but you would think that trained photographers would know how little effort and thought was inviolved in making a picture like this regardless of how it is presented.

it's not as if photography is that difficult in the first place.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

I'll shut up now. As they say, children should be seen and not heard.

So I guess you are following your own advice, huh?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

it's not as if photography is that difficult in the first place.

Exactly my point, they only require good vision, the mechanics are easy....this photographs has little of both.

[r.e.]

So I guess you are following your own advice, huh?

That is so funny :). Yes, I was indeed talking about myself. It's called "self-deprecating humour." It didn't even occur to me that you might think that that sentence - Children should be seen and not heard - was a reference to you.

Hillarious.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

That is so funny :). Indeed, I was talking about myself. It's called "self-deprecating humour. It didn't even occur to me that you might think that that sentence - Children should be seen and not heard - was a reference to you.

Hilarious.

Well, I guess you failed to consider there is truth in self deprecating humor...

[r.e.]

Well, I guess you failed to consider there is truth in self deprecating humor...

The whole point about self-deprecating humour is that there is truth in it :)

Man, you need to see a Woody Allen film. Or read some Samuel Clemens ;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The whole point about self-deprecating humour is that there is truth in it :)

Man, you need to see a Woody Allen film ;)

Ah....should have known you consider yourself a child.....figures....

[Brian C. Miller]

HA! He lives on the WEST coast!!! - thereby neatly invalidating your entire argument!
You're going to buy me a plane ticket and accomodations to see the show?? Wow, you're a really swell guy! And here I was looking at the Seattle Art Museum for upcoming shows. After all, I can afford the $5.00 bus fare. But San Francisco? Uh-uh.

(I just bought an Omega D5-XL with dichro head. You think I got money now?)

[r.e.]

Good grief, Brian,

You're in Washington State. If you are interested in seeing the guy's work, and San Francisco is a problem, just fire up to Vancouver. I mean, that's where Wall lives and works. In your neighbourhood.

Don't even think of saying that Vancouver is too far to go :)

There are images in the US travelling show that you will "get", as a resident of that part of the west coast, even though you are on the American side of the border, on a level that someone from, for example New York or Toronto, won't.

It is so cool to go to New York, walk into the pre-eminent modern art museum in the United States, and see images that are so rocognizably about the west coast of North America, artistically, geographically, historically (in the case of two images, archeologically) and socially.

[Doug Howk]

Beginning under the stewardship of Steichen, MOMA has been part of the NY hucksterism trying to foist on us provincials another trend in photography ( see Szarkowski's Mirrors & Windows for an example). Sorry but I'm not buying into the latest art world con job. As I said before, Wall's & similar work will not stand the test of time. For those who have bought into the con - whether paying or emulating, good luck with your investment of time or money. Seems to me the Dada joke is being replicated in the photographic art world (another signed urinal).

[JW Dewdney]

Hey Doug - since you're into the 'conspiracy theories' and everything... you should read Serge Guilbaut's "How New York Stole Modern Art" or something like that. It's actually a VERY good book. He suggests that modern abstract art (the american variety) was actually an FBI plot to attract attention away from the socialist art being done at the time (these were the anti-communist days) - in league, of course, with the patrons of taste, the museums, etc. etc...

[Doug Howk]

JWD, thanks for the suggestion. I notice that Amazon also recommends Diana Crane's Transformation of the Avant-Garde: NY Art World. I'd probably include Pollack, Warhol & Maplethorpe in my NY con list. Its all about marketing.

[tim atherton]

Hey Doug - since you're into the 'conspiracy theories' and everything... you should read Serge Guilbaut's "How New York Stole Modern Art" or something like that. It's actually a VERY good book. He suggests that modern abstract art (the american variety) was actually an FBI plot to attract attention away from the socialist art being done at the time (these were the anti-communist days) - in league, of course, with the patrons of taste, the museums, etc. etc...

I don't think it's disputed now that during the Cold War the CIA funded art - to a significant extent - through various front foundations (the Ford Foundation among others), funding gallery shows, criticism, journals exhibitions to Europe, commissions etc in order to counter the cultural side of communism and Soviet Art. Abstract Expressionism especially benefited from this quite substantially.

Of course, such actions are nothing new - culture as an arm of Empire goes back at least a couple of Millenia

[Martin Miller]

I was at a bookstore last night and saw the MOMA exhibition catalogue for the current Wall show. In Peter Galassi's accompanying essay he made the point that Wall's career has been characterized by a highly experimental approach to picture making. He said this:

"Wall's improbable triumphs would not have been possible without his less successful experiments - and it is part of our pleasure to debate which are which."

Obviously, the pleasure is not all his.

"Just Washed" did not appear in the book and assuming that the book contained all the works on display, one could infer that Galassi may have considered it one of the "less successful experiments." I'll give Peter a call later this morning to find out.

[Colin Graham]

You know if Wall is getting people so fired up about what they believe in, he has filled not a small obligation, regardless of what you think of his work.

[Steven Barall]

It takes a special kind of person to compare airing one's views to something Adolph Hitler did. What a moron.

[tim atherton]

It takes a special kind of person to compare airing one's views to something Adolph Hitler did. What a moron.


I'm not so sure - Kitsch and it's associated attitude of sentimentality was at the heart of how the Herr. H. managed to exert control over almost a whole nation.

People think of Kitsch as being funny or cute, but it's essentially much, much more dangerous - and at the heart of a lot of what passes for "art".

summed up you could say (from the dictionary of Sixty-three Words), Kitsch is: ''the need to gaze into the mirror of the beautifying lie and to be moved to tears of gratification at one's own reflection.''

This is the real power of art in its most destructive form

[r.e.]

I was at a bookstore last night and saw the MOMA exhibition catalogue for the current Wall show. In Peter Galassi's accompanying essay he made the point that Wall's career has been characterized by a highly experimental approach to picture making. He said this:

"Wall's improbable triumphs would not have been possible without his less successful experiments - and it is part of our pleasure to debate which are which."

Obviously, the pleasure is not all his.

"Just Washed" did not appear in the book and assuming that the book contained all the works on display, one could infer that Galassi may have considered it one of the "less successful experiments." I'll give Peter a call later this morning to find out.

I don't think that that photograph is part of the show. At least, I have no recollection of seeing it.

One of the things that is clear as one walks through the exhibit is that Wall has not moved in a straight line, but rather has gone in a variety of directions. If you see the show, you can judge for yourself whether these directions are all equally successful. For me, they are not. The show could have been a lot "safer", but personally I think that it is a good thing that MoMA is presenting a broad range of his work.

[tim atherton]

One of the things that is clear as one walks through the exhibit is that Wall has not moved in a straight line, but rather has gone in a variety of directions. If you see the show, you can judge for yourself whether these directions are all equally successful.


Apart from the NY times article (http://tinyurl.com/37npgu)

there is another good one here that picks up a bit on what you say above

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070303/WALL03?gateway=work

(originally from the Globe & Mail)

[Doug Dolde]

This makes a sucker for one of Reichmann's $20K workshops look thrifty.

[JW Dewdney]

It takes a special kind of person to compare airing one's views to something Adolph Hitler did. What a moron.

I know you are but what am I?

That's not what I said. I was comparing hitler's critical method for evaluating art with some of the posters'.
I'm sorry if that didn't come across in some way - but I think I was pretty clear.
Please make the attempt to read and understand before spewing.

[Eric Rose]

I just wish I could get into that clique. Pass my name along will you, I want to be "discovered".

[Jim Galli]

The OP should apologize to Coca Cola.

[Martin Miller]

Eric, Peter said that he liked your work and could see you at 8PM tonight. After that he's tied up. Hope you can make it.

[Ben R]

More to the point and something we should all be thinking about, how the hell do we get our musings of the mind, however mundane or frankly awful looking, to be accepted as the art that drives these kind of prices? Seems to me that people are buying a concept not a photograph and selling the concept is what is making prices like this. Who cares what the photo is, that isn't important, it's buying into the culture that counts right?

They told me I'm not gay enough to sell my art, I think I know exactly what they meant...

[JW Dewdney]

Ben - it's TOTALLY buying into the culture - that's the thing that seems to count. It's the funny thing about it. It's no different from purchasing the $50K BMW to get respect from your peers. Just a different world, where people have about four more zeroes to play with.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I know you are but what am I?

That's not what I said. I was comparing hitler's critical method for evaluating art with some of the posters'.
I'm sorry if that didn't come across in some way - but I think I was pretty clear.
Please make the attempt to read and understand before spewing.

You are not only a moron, you are a hypocrite as well. I suppose your Hitler crack was aimed at me, but when I mispelled your initials unintentionally you got all upset about the JEW thing....not only are you an ass, you are the worst kind, one with no balls....

If you compare me to Hitler, well then I guess he had the right idea....

[JW Dewdney]

You are not only a moron, you are a hypocrite as well. I suppose your Hitler crack was aimed at me, but when I mispelled your initials unintentionally you got all upset about the JEW thing....not only are you an ass, you are the worst kind, one with no balls....

If you compare me to Hitler, well then I guess he had the right idea....

what on earth are you talking about jorge? I never said anything like it. go take your meds and calm down.

[JW Dewdney]

I would appreciate it if you'd stay out of my hair on this thread, should it continue. I will respectfully return the favor. I don't see anything good coming out of the discussion. Clearly we're at odds on some points. So - whatever. I'm not interested in the drama.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I was comparing hitler's critical method for evaluating art with some of the posters'.

So I guess this was written by someone else, huh?....When I mistakenly jumbled your initials I in fact did not say anything bad or offensive about the jewish community or your jewish heritage, yet you, in your cowardly way, imply some of us behave like Hitler and don't even have the balls to come out and say it plainly.

You demanded an apology when I made a mistake even when I did so unintentionally, yet you have written this with all the intention to make an insult, so now is my turn to demand an apology. If you think you can take me on, take your best shot.... trust me, I will be against an unarmed opponent.

[JW Dewdney]

sorry. you can't provoke me. I'm just not interested.

if you actually care to go all the way back to the first page - you'll see that this comment was made LONG before you chose to grace us with your presence.

[Marko]

Hey Johnatan,

"My Settings - Miscellaneous - Budy/Ignore List..." will do wonders for your sanity, trust me... ;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

sorry. you can't provoke me. I'm just not interested.

if you actually care to go all the way back to the first page - you'll see that this comment was made LONG before you chose to grace us with your presence.

The initial comment was, btw, good way to start, calling people red necks and comparing them to Hitler. But the last one was not. In any case, I see the kind of man you are...

[JW Dewdney]

Hey Johnatan,

"My Settings - Miscellaneous - Budy/Ignore List..." will do wonders for your sanity, trust me... ;)

Thanks man. I think I will.

[Mick Fagan]

I have just read this entire thread, interesting reading.

I have personally seen the Australian Wall photograph which cost a million dollars. In fact I have now seen it almost monthly since December 2006, every time I visit my state gallery.

What is even more interesting to me, is that the Wall picture is hanging almost alongside a Warhol picture, of almost identical size and proportion.

I can say, I don't like the picture!

Technically, it's brilliant. I understand exactly how difficult it is to do mural sized and billboard sized photographs, as I was doing them in the eighties, mainly Duratrans, but not always.

As to whether or not it is worth the million dollars that the gallery paid for it, well the gallery paid a million dollars for it, so at it's last sale, that is what it is worth. The Melbourne gallery picture of Wall's photograph will be the last made from the master, which I assume means the gallery has bought the rights as well, or they hold the original negative/transparency.

There are at least two previously manufactured copies of this milion dollar picture somewhere in the world, what will be really interesting is to see how much they sell for when they do eventually get re-sold. As the State Gallery here will probably never sell their Wall hanging, that is about the only way we will see if it's worth that kind of money.

By the way I think the Warhol picture is a far better picture than the Wall hanging alongside it.

I don't particularly like Warhol, but I think his work is interesting and sometimes quite innovative.

Mick.

[Lazybones]

I saw "Picture for Women" at the Pompidou when I was in Paris a few years ago. I don't know if it's worth all that cash, but it certainly does have cultural worth.

[Ben R]

Ben - it's TOTALLY buying into the culture - that's the thing that seems to count. It's the funny thing about it. It's no different from purchasing the $50K BMW to get respect from your peers. Just a different world, where people have about four more zeroes to play with.

You couldn't buy the cheapest and smallest BMW here in the UK for that amount! :)

[paulr]

Unless you've looked hard at the body of work that this comes from, you might as well be criticising poetry written in some language you don't speak, based on the typography. That's about the depth of the criticism and observations i'm seeing here.

As far as calling someone who happens to have $120,000 to spend on his art collection a "moron" ... I'll let someone else puzzle out the logic of that. Needless to say, I'd like to be that stupid some day.

Personally, Wall's work isn't my favorite, but I was happy to see his big retrospective at the Modern. It answered a lot of questions for me, including "what's the hype about?" And some of the pieces were stunning.

[Colin Graham]

Certainly we're entitled to discuss it while we're deciding? Maybe Wall's work is esoteric and remote as cuneiform tablets buried in volcanic ash, but if I stumble on it, I'm likely to grunt once or twice. ;)

[Brian Ellis]

Hey Doug - since you're into the 'conspiracy theories' and everything... you should read Serge Guilbaut's "How New York Stole Modern Art" or something like that. It's actually a VERY good book. He suggests that modern abstract art (the american variety) was actually an FBI plot to attract attention away from the socialist art being done at the time (these were the anti-communist days) - in league, of course, with the patrons of taste, the museums, etc. etc...

I've never read Guilbaut's book and don't plan to if he seriously suggests that abstract art was an FBI plot. The two best books I've read about the world of contemporary art in general, and in particular how art "isms" start, become "in," make people (mostly dealers) rich, and then go into hiding when it's time to find a new one and start the cycle all over again, are Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" and Calvin Tomkins "Off the Wall." Both make the point that contemporary art at its highest level is a world that consists only of two very very tiny groups, those who get rich selling it and those who are already rich and so can afford to buy it. Everything and everyone else - critics, publications, museums, etc. - exist to serve these two groups. Of course they serve their own interests as well - if not for the two primary groups the critics would have no jobs, the magazines would cease to exist, the museums would be limited to showing the same old stuff over and over, etc. etc. - but that's just a happy coincidence.

[cyrus]

I've never read Guilbaut's book and don't plan to if he seriously suggests that abstract art was an FBI plot.

Read Francis Stoner Saunder's highly respected "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters" - and you'd be surprised to what extent this Cold War mentality was intentionally injected into the arts. The US was secretly directly and indirectly funding (aka bribing in some cases) all sorts of artists and cultural organizations and promoting intellectual trends in the name of fighting communism. Several very famous artists, editors and cultural icons were secretly on the CIA payroll.

So, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the FBI was thinking along these lines.

[Martin Miller]

Thanks, Brian, for bringing up an important aspect to this discussion. I read recently on some blog that at the last Paris Photo Show Yossi Milo had sold all of the new works by Loretta Lux before he had even unpacked the crates. I am not privy to exactly what happened but, on the surface, it would appear that investment/speculation was the prime motivation at play. It would be my guess that this was the reason for the unexpectedly high price paid for "Just Washed." A major retrospective at MoMA does wonders for the prices of even your "less successful" works. I am thinking about giving it a try.

[Tom Westbrook]

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/excremental-value.html

[Daniel Otranto]

Think of Jeff Wall like Cezanne or Van Gough or Monet. Those guys were tired of placing value in the surface appearance so they got very nerdy and started playing around in techniques of painting like Jeff Wall does with his digital photo illustrations...are they even photographs? for all we know he might have made that picture out of 45 different negatives as this is the way he builds pictures...a little bit like how those early modern painters did...or its like coltrane jazz...its unlistenable wanking for those who dont play saxophone. I really like Jeff Walls stuff.

[paulr]

...or its like coltrane jazz...its unlistenable wanking for those who dont play saxophone.

or for those who just haven't listened enough to him (and to the traditions he came from). I love Coltrane, and am not a sax player. But I've been listening to him (and Miles and Bird and Mingus) long enough that I barely remember the first times I heard 60s jazz and thought "Huhh???"

It's like anything else. The Impressionists were ridiculed when they first appeared; so were the cubists. Now all that work is so comfortable and familiar and old fashioned that people buy decorative posters of it.

[Ben R]

says it all really...

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/WTD210.gif

:)

[JW Dewdney]

or for those who just haven't listened enough to him (and to the traditions he came from). I love Coltrane, and am not a sax player. But I've been listening to him (and Miles and Bird and Mingus) long enough that I barely remember the first times I heard 60s jazz and thought "Huhh???"

It's like anything else. The Impressionists were ridiculed when they first appeared; so were the cubists. Now all that work is so comfortable and familiar and old fashioned that people buy decorative posters of it.

That was the simple point I was trying to make - though I think you made it better.

[JW Dewdney]

Sorry - I shoulda said CIA. I get those two mixed up - even though they're worlds apart in certain ways. Well - I think it makes a certain amount of sense. Culture begets political view and, in many cases, dissent. There was a lot of stuff going on in the world at the time which was QUITE critical of capitalism and mass culture. You could say it was sort of an early form of what punk rock was TRYING to be (nihilism at it's core). I think the most visible expression of it was the Situationist Movement (also COBRA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist

Small, it was - though very potent! An argument could be made that it was the SI or Situationist International that made May 1968 even possible in the first place. Kind of fascinating to read about! But regardless, the CIA are no dummies. They know how opinions are swayed. They know how tastes are made, so I think it makes good sense to put the serious capital into directing public tastes.

It would be interesting to find out the relationship between the CIA and NEA. I think also that the river will generally flow where you dig a trench - that is to say... if you support certain kinds of work with funding, you'll get some pretty encouraging results.


I've never read Guilbaut's book and don't plan to if he seriously suggests that abstract art was an FBI plot. The two best books I've read about the world of contemporary art in general, and in particular how art "isms" start, become "in," make people (mostly dealers) rich, and then go into hiding when it's time to find a new one and start the cycle all over again, are Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" and Calvin Tomkins "Off the Wall." Both make the point that contemporary art at its highest level is a world that consists only of two very very tiny groups, those who get rich selling it and those who are already rich and so can afford to buy it. Everything and everyone else - critics, publications, museums, etc. - exist to serve these two groups. Of course they serve their own interests as well - if not for the two primary groups the critics would have no jobs, the magazines would cease to exist, the museums would be limited to showing the same old stuff over and over, etc. etc. - but that's just a happy coincidence.

[Colin Graham]

Think of Jeff Wall like Cezanne or Van Gough or Monet. Those guys were tired of placing value in the surface appearance so they got very nerdy and started playing around in techniques of painting like Jeff Wall does with his digital photo illustrations...are they even photographs? for all we know he might have made that picture out of 45 different negatives as this is the way he builds pictures...a little bit like how those early modern painters did...or its like coltrane jazz...its unlistenable wanking for those who dont play saxophone. I really like Jeff Walls stuff.

Hey, I love Coltrane too, and Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, and Sonny Rollins. Also Jean Sibelius and Igor Stravinsky, also X-ray Spex, Sonic Youth and the Butthole Surfers. I cant even hum.... I'm sure there were plenty of musicians that detested Coltrane, but I suspect they knew he could play. I know Wall has an eye, and is responsible for some world class compositions, but the question for me is what makes his work more than mere illustration? How is Sudden Gust of Wind original, or After Invisible Man?

[paulr]

... but the question for me is what makes his work more than mere illustration? How is Sudden Gust of Wind original, or After Invisible Man?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What it is about the work that would make it 'mere illustration' ... (and what you do you mean by that)? And what would make it unoriginal? 'After Invisible Man' is unlike anything i've ever seen before. Is it derrivitive of something you've seen?

[Martin Miller]

Paul, "After Invisible Man" is intended by Wall to illustrate a scene from Ralph Ellison's novel, Invisible Man. I won't argue that is "mere" illustration. I think it is an immensely imaginative work despite being avowedly illustrative. Actually, it is my favorite image of all Wall's work. Admittedly, I have only seen it in reproduction, but it still managed to engage me.

[Colin Graham]

I think it's an amazing photograph, and very powerful, but much of it's gravitas comes from Ellison's book right? It's not his own vision. That's my point. I also really like the Gust of Wind piece. But again, it's a reworking of another piece of art, a Katsushika Hokusai woodblock carving. I'm not trying to be a snob about it, I was wondering if I was missing something, and thought maybe someone could shed some light on it.

[tim atherton]

well - this is a reworking of - you know - that passage from the bible

http://www.anthroposophy.org.nz/images/Crucifixion,%20The%20Isenheimer%20Altarpiece%20.jpg

and this is based on a story from Greek Mythology


http://www.beloit.edu/~classics/main/courses/classics150/museum150/perseus/images/medusa.gif

and this - probably the most revolutionary and influential painting of the 20th Century - was based in good part on a postcard (i.e. a photograph) of a group of African women in the same poses.


http://moma.org/images/collection/FullSizes/333_1939_CCCR.jpg

I don't think any of them are "illustrations" (in the most reductive and narrow sense of the word) Nor are they unoriginal.

[r.e.]

A pretty fine work of art that draws rather directly form an earlier work of art: http://poetrypages.lemon8.nl/life/musee/museebeauxarts.htm

You can assume that Wall has read that. It is routinely taught to Canadian high school kids, at least outside Quebec, as part of the basic English curriculum. Hey, maybe it even influenced him.

Sorry if Breughel's The Fall of Icarus doesn't look like much on the internet. In real life, it ain't a bad painting :)

Then there's Shakespeare's plays, Joyce's Ulysses, etc., etc., etc.

[tim atherton]

A pretty fine work of art that draws rather directly form an earlier work of art: http://poetrypages.lemon8.nl/life/musee/museebeauxarts.htm



based on an even older story...

[r.e.]

based on an even older story...

Yup :)

[Colin Graham]

Interesting examples. Of course it's true that most art is derivative; I guess Wall's seems more 'literal' by very nature of the properties of photography, and I'm sure I am penalizing it unfairly because of it.

I am often more interested in my reaction to art than the art itself, no exception here. Been an interesting thread with a broad spectrum of reactions from everyone and it's helpful to me on many many levels to try to look at mine as plainly as possible. Hope I wasn't a crashing bore.

[paulr]

Interesting examples. Of course it's true that most art is derivative ...

I wouldn't say these are examples of art being derivative. Derivative art is usually understood to be art that cops another artist's vision or style or technique or point of view ... that doesn't offer anything new on its own.

Tim's examples are all of artists with unique, original visions that made reference to earlier works (or used them as jumping-off points). Picasso takes inspiration from the postcard (as he did from Delacroix in a whole series based on the French artist's paintings), but the final work is unmistakeably Picasso's.

Wall's image pays homage to Ellison's novel, but its look and technique and impact aren't like anything else I've seen.

[r.e.]

Hope I wasn't a crashing bore.

Scepticism plus an open mind is a long way from boring :)

See the show and come to your own conclusion. Given where you live, a day or two in San Francisco, enjoying a beautiful city and seeing a show that by turns makes one smile and makes one think, does not sound to me like hardship :)

[Colin Graham]

Good point Paul. Derivative was not the correct word to use, and I meant nothing derogatory by using it. I only meant that most art has its roots in something else, and that is a natural progression.

I am to a great extent relieved by this because I'm becoming increasingly aware that I've been putting a lot of odd restraints on my own work and feel a lot of possibilities opening up.

[Colin Graham]

Thanks r.e., I just might do that.

[Daniel Otranto]

People hated Atgets work too and he died penniless IIRC.

Aesthetics should be born, not followed.

[scrichton]

It takes a special kind of person to compare airing one's views to something Adolph Hitler did. What a moron.

I hate to say it but that statement in itself is moronic. Hitler hated modern Art, tore the Bauhaus to shreds and destroyed the berlin culture of artistry and modern movements. Due to nothing other than his own personal opinon. He was no more or less opionated than others. He just had a big army that listened to him. Plus an entire contry that though he was doing the "right" thing.

Banksy the graffiti artist is put in Jail by those in power and has become a modern artisitc hero with his simplisitic images. Such as Wall's.

Art is all perceptual, my girlfriend won a BAFTA film award last month in glasgow for a 5 minute film of an air raid siren in a field of sheep. It was beautiful. Nothing more. Others hated it.

Back to the main point though. I had a lengthy discusssion about hitler tonight and genocide and war aside, he liked classical art and really didn't understand modern art. Therefore the comparison is a just one.

To prove this ... as a tester go and look at the bauhaus literature... berlin street diaries and then finally open your opinons. Remember Von Braun made america win the space race ... One of hitlers closest friends, not all of the hitler nazi stuff was evil.

[Melchi M. Michel]

I hate to say it but that statement in itself is moronic. Hitler hated modern Art. . .

I don't want to take sides here, but the comparison to Hitler was clearly meant to discredit Jorge's point of view by association. I think what Jorge meant to point out was that this is a well-known logical fallacy (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html ). Somewhat like implying that anyone who paints landscapes is like Hitler (i.e., since Hitler painted landscapes), and that his/her arguments should therefore be distrusted.

See also Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_rule

[JW Dewdney]

I don't want to take sides here, but the comparison to Hitler was clearly meant to discredit Jorge's point of view by association. I think what Jorge meant to point out was that this is a well-known logical fallacy (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html ). Somewhat like implying that anyone who paints landscapes is like Hitler (i.e., since Hitler painted landscapes), and that his/her arguments should therefore be distrusted.

See also Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_rule

You don't even know what you're talking about - so please leave the oblique slander back in high school, okay?
Making a statement like that is ignorant and irresponsible. If you have a personal issue with me, then please e-mail me directly - and I'd be happy to attempt to clarify.

[JW Dewdney]

Imy girlfriend won a BAFTA film award last month in glasgow for a 5 minute film of an air raid siren in a field of sheep. It was beautiful. Nothing more. Others hated it.

Please excuse the slang - but that's fuckin' brilliant! Is it on the 'net anywhere where one can see it?