PDA

View Full Version : Jem Southam, Hirschl Gallery, London



Rory_3532
28-Nov-2003, 10:19
Did anyone see this show (www.hirschlcontemporary.co.uk/artist_k/#)? If so, impressions? There was an interesting article about Southam just before the show opened in the weekend supplement to the October 12 edition of The Independent.

Francis Abad
28-Nov-2003, 13:04
I did not like the photographs (i.e. subject matter and composition). Apart from their large size I did not feel there was anything special to them. Perhaps shooting 8x10 is enough of a selling point (I wish that this was so because I also shoot 8x10) but I thought the photographs to be less than ordinary (drab even).

darter
28-Nov-2003, 18:06
Rory, I like his work. It offers a change from the standard pastoral scenes or the unsubtle iconicness of much landscape photography. There is something a little edgy about them. England can be very drab, and he turns this into something intersting IMO. I have to admit though, that I was put off by the nauseatingly pretentious prose, citing "geopsychology" and stating that his images "seem the locus of some primal energy." What is an 8x10 plate camera - one that was converted from a plate camera or one that still uses them?

The URL I found to work best is http://www.hirschlcontemporary.co.uk/artist_k/index.htm

tim atherton
28-Nov-2003, 18:43
"Rory, I like his work. It offers a change from the standard pastoral scenes or the unsubtle iconicness of much landscape photography. There is something a little edgy about them. England can be very drab, and he turns this into something intersting IMO. I have to admit though, that I was put off by the nauseatingly pretentious prose, citing "geopsychology" and stating that his images "seem the locus of some primal energy." "

Some of the methodolgy of psycho-geography has been adopted quote strongly by the post-(new)topographic movment, especially in europe. Such social landscape photographers adopting especially the idea or practice of ‘derivé’ - which is central to the practice of pyschogeography. Derivé (to drift) has been described as random, creative but politically motivated strolling through the city. Rather like a contemporary form of flaneurie - the social landscape photogorpaher as flaneur - which hasa lot of validity going back to Atget, through Evans to contemporary photographers such as Basilico or James.

tim atherton
28-Nov-2003, 18:49
"I did not like the photographs (i.e. subject matter and composition). Apart from their large size I did not feel there was anything special to them. Perhaps shooting 8x10 is enough of a selling point (I wish that this was so because I also shoot 8x10) but I thought the photographs to be less than ordinary (drab even)."

Is not this the case for most of our surroundings? Why single out only the extraordinary for our hotogorpahs. Perhaps if you find such scenes merely ordinary or drab it may be you are not looking closely enough or paying enough attention? "Every situation is ordinary and every situation is also unique". The hard thing to do is find it. It's easy to take photogorpahs of dramatic mountains or pictureseque streams or or technicolour sunsets - it is much more of a challenge to photograph the world that the majority of us inhabit most of the time.

Aaron_3437
28-Nov-2003, 23:09
I thought his work is honest and pleasantly framed.

Jon_2416
29-Nov-2003, 00:45
"hotogorpahs"? Easy on the ale, Tim...

I didn't find the hotogorpahs too interesting.

Jon

Francis Abad
29-Nov-2003, 03:32
"Why single out only the extraordinary for our hotogorpahs. Perhaps if you find such scenes merely ordinary or drab it may be you are not looking closely enough or paying enough attention?"

Hi Tim. I do try and pay close attention to everything I do. I just did not like this particular work. I was not looking for drama or sensational, grand landscapes. I just looked at his work and made a comment based solely on that. I am glad you like his work. I did not. Please try not to pyschoanalyse the reasons why I did not like it or my motivations or biases. I have none in relation to the work I observed. It was not to my liking and that is all.

tim atherton
29-Nov-2003, 09:45
Jon - more like the 2/1/2 year old trying to take over the keyboard...

Francis - sorry - I didn't mean that to come over as personally as it sounds - I should really have said "we" and "one".

Personally, I often feel that if someone likes or dislikes a photograph it has worked - and it is often valuable to try and understand why we like or dislike it. But if we are indifferent to a photograph - for me, that is much more of a problem.

"I just did not like this particular work. I was not looking for drama or sensational, grand landscapes." But you did say there was "nothing special to them". What is the "something special" that makes an image interesting for you? Or more specifically, what is it in these iamges that is lacking?

WHat is the opposite of drab and ordinary for you?

Francis Abad
29-Nov-2003, 10:22
Thanks for clarifying Tim. I realise that using the word "special" might imply something akin to AA's Clearing Winter Storm. But that is not my meaning nor did I make a stab at defining it in my comment. Ordinary or drab is not related to subject matter as used in my comment. More like a feeling that the pictures strike me as not well executed (maybe you can say this involves better contrast, or composition, or paper, or whatever other variable EXCEPT subject matter). There are plenty of ordinary, everyday scenes which when executed properly (again, what this means is really a matter of personal preferences - e.g. nice pleasing tones, nice lines, etc.) are extremely beautiful and thought provoking (e.g. "I never noticed that before"). Maybe that is the special attribute I look for in pictures. Grand scenes are just, well, grand and they normally speak for themselves (and the good timing of the photographer to be at the right place and the right time of course). Ordinary scenes (i.e. the everyday undramatic visions we encounter) can be made to sparkle at the hands of someone with a great eye and great technical mastery. In this body of work I did not see that. Others certainly have though and that is good. (In relation to photographs, the opposite of drab and ordinary for me is elegant and well-executed).

tim atherton
29-Nov-2003, 10:33
thanks Francis.

In this context, how do you feel the following work compares with with the Southam

http://www.tataralexander.com/view_all_photos.asp?art_key=73&rec_no=1

http://www.shanahanphotos.com/peninsular1.htm

Francis Abad
29-Nov-2003, 10:51
Thanks for the links Tim. Great body of work by both men and good use of near-far perspective (almost similar styles by both photographers in terms of this technical quality alone - do they know each other?). I must say though that some of the photographs I bet would look pleasantly different if done in B&W. The compositional qualities of both photographers as evidenced in these online galleries is alone worth a trip to their live exhibits. I want to see those large prints for myself! Thanks again.

Steve J Murray
30-Nov-2003, 09:28
Having just looked at the website, I have to agree with others that feel this work is somewhat drab. I have a thousand photos in my reject bin that look no different than these (maybe I should publish them!). Unfortunately, "art" has always been more conceptual than anything. Art is shaped and defined by the critics and the artists themselves. I do really like a wide range of photographers, but I think in the "art world" a lot of stuff is judged by standards other than aesthetics, originality, historical or documentary value. Whatever standards are used, I am completely dumbfounded as to what they are! I guess I'm not an artist!

Donal Taylor
30-Nov-2003, 10:19
Really - Rembrandt, Cezanne, Goya - conceptual? And by contrast what is photography defined by?

"but I think in the "art world" a lot of stuff is judged by standards other than aesthetics"

which particular set of aesthetics exactly? These images, for example, have a very clear aesthetic and follow closely to a certain tradition - part of which pre-dates photography.

"originality" On the contrary originality is one of important elements in most art, so often lacking in a lot of photography. Take the recent edition of B&W for a simple example - there was hardly an original piece in there. Most was completely derivative - even the Mary Ellen Mark work.

"historical or documentary value" well, that's not art is it - it's documentary photography - forensics, medical photography, historic building surveys, pseudo-sociological or political examinations of certain human conditions. It's not meant to be art - it's record.

Paul Kierstead
30-Nov-2003, 10:22
There seems to be an ongoing rebellion against "beauty" in the photographic art world. I see where they are coming from. The end result is a lot of stuff which seems ordinary or downright ugly. I am not sure I like all of the results, but at least it isn't another mountain/lake scene in golden light. Or a slot canyon in Arizona.

Steve J Murray
30-Nov-2003, 15:39
In response to Donald. By "conceptual," I mean that an image is created out of an intention to be a certain way, whether it is meant to be different from what came before it, or some other theme. This certainly happens in photography as well as other forms of art. No argument there. I'm guessing this "drabness" was intentional (you mention an historical precedent). I hope so anyway. But by doing so, the artist has now jumped from ordinary gut level, immediate aesthetics, to one where the viewer has to think about why the photograph is drab. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the photographer thought these images were aesthetically pleasing. In this case I don't. But I also don't care about the concept of drabness in landscape photography, if that was the case. You get what I mean? Either way I am not liking these particular photographs.

Asethetics is always a debatable thing, isn't it? Most of the photos in question I personally found to be aestheticlly uninteresting. I also found them to be only as original as my own rejects. Sure, a lot of photography is not original. Never said that is wasn't. Actually, a lot of photography that was meant to be a historical record is also appreciated asethetically. The two are not mutually exclusive. As usual, it comes down to personal taste in the end when it comes to enjoyment. I don't always understand the tastes of others, so I have to operate out of my own personal aesthetic.

I do think that many artist and art collectors have other standards besides aesthetics. I have seen a lot of modern art that either has nothing to do with aesthetics, or the aesthetics involved are a lot "looser" or broader than my own, which certainly may be the case. I am admitting I don't really understand the tastes of others, when you get right down to it. But I do have an opinion, and so do you, which is the way it should be.