Does anyone here actually know Andreas Gursky personally, met him in person, or has seen him work? It seems crazy that he can keep his process such a secret for so long.
It's a pipe dream, but I hope he Googles his own name, finds this thread, and elucidates us with his process. Of course he would probably berate me for being so nosy.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway, do people in this forum like his work, or not so much? A couple of you guys seem to disdain his work.
I liked his early work quite a lot, although that diminished considerably after I learned just how much manipulation he does during post-processing.Originally Posted by manfrominternet
IMO, he's not so much a photographer these days as he is an artist and I'm not as interested in art generally as I am photography specifically.
There's nothing secret about his methodology at all. It's been described before, and basically involves a lot of tedious PS manipulation using large format film multiples. Some of that kind of work has been simplified hence by even newer digital tweaks or enhanced speed. It's all very small scale in comparison to what the movie industry does these days in terms of manipulation. In principle, school kids could do it. But Gursky goes after a particular academic appeal, much like Wegman did with his weimeraner dog pictures before, with their posed classic art analogs. It's targeted to a haute audience, in contrast, for example, to the bottom of the barrel kitchy appeal of Peter Lik's equally manipulated LF images. To me, it's still just painting by those who don't wish to actually paint, but use computers instead. The craft of stitching is currently running amuk, and will become passe soon enough, just another cute novelty that will gets lost in the rear-view mirror once everyone takes it for granted as routine.
Ignore the obvious overbearing critic. I'm a fan.
This is quite an interesting statement that could be fodder for a whole other thread.
I have no disdain for it; I just think that photography is the wrong pigeonhole, and that the prices being paid are beyond ludicrous. He has a wonderful sense of balance and pattern and knows what he wants to do with it. You take an early classic like 99 Cent. He stumbled onto to a promising subject where he wanted a lot of detail in a busy pattern study presented as a strong horizontal, where all that detail could be brought out in an especially large print using view camera controls. So he took multiple shots. But then there were certain architectural elements (window dividers etc) which he found distracting, so needed a way to remove them. And it was essentially a street photo with people randomly moving in the scene of slow format work, so did his best at the time, and then reconstructed the stitch of frames afterwards. Clever; but people in Hollywood have been paid for decades to routinely do special effects one way or another, and few people even remember their names. ... Then you've got that big freeway overpass span stitch. It no doubt has way more impact when displayed huge and somewhat overhead rather than in book form. That's because, just like some of Clyde Butcher's work, it's not meant to be viewed as if from outside the scene, but as if within it, and in this case, looking up from below. That's clever and he did it well. But I don't know why the art critics would see genius in this, since muralists and stained glass workers have already been using the same kind of strategy for centuries, and it's routinely taught in art history classes. And when it comes to value, after something like this has had its day of being featured in a public venue, it's clumsy to store and apt to be sold to some collector who will torture it either under skylights or some other form of UV-abuse. A number of these have already faded it seems. But obscenely rich people apparently pay other people to think for them and help them throw away wheelbarrows full of money just for the bragging rights. Again - just trying to add a little common-sense perspective to this. I'd be a lot more impressed by someone walking up to the 99 Cent store with a panoramic film camera and bagging the shot at some "critical moment" as-is; but then that would have meant the usual distortions brought on by very wide angle lenses which Gursky didn't want. So I get it.
Really? Well, have at it then...
To clarify what I meant by my comment within this thread, though, let me add that my interest in art has more to do with creating my own than appreciating that of others.
And for a variety of reasons, my chosen medium is photography, so that's naturally where my interest lies.
Having gone all-in on photography as the medium I use to create my personal art, I have little interest in other art mediums -- for example, mixed-media collage and sculpture rarely pique my interest -- even though I know I may well benefit from exposing myself to them, as many do.
But life is short and my time is ultimately limited, so I am comfortable being a bit myopic and happily limit my exposure to art created by others to that which is created by photographers.
I honestly have no need or desire to ever become a generalist and focusing my attention on what interests me strikes me as being the most efficient and productive approach to help me realize whatever potential I have in creating my own art.
To that end, while I personally photograph in a small niche that is practiced and/or appreciated by only a few, I do spend a lot of time looking at the work done by other photographers -- preferably in print rather than online, hence the reason I've accumulated a modest collection of photobooks (417 as of my count last week ... yikes!) -- studying the results they achieve, as well as the techniques they use.
Obviously, this is the approach that works best for me and I make no claims that it will also work well for others.
As always, YMMV!
I was told by someone who was in LA when he took that picture that he got the 99 cent store to actually remove the glass...obviously he worked out some deal with them as you used to see a cropped version of the picture overlaid with the owner wearing a 99 cent store apron on all the 99 cent trucks on the freeway. His former teachers, the Bechers, thought he started to go too far with the digital manipulation. But you could also look at him as updating a timeless subject matter, the shop window display, and see a clear lineage from Atget, to Walker Evans, to Lee Friedlander and Lewis Baltz, and then Gursky. But I'm telling you guys Gursky is seen as very retrograde and 90s now, now you should take pictures of storefronts like Zoe Leonard. and write a poem about the president while you're at it.
"retrograde and 90s"... I guess being at the top of the art/fashion market is like being a supermodel. Never look back; there's always someone younger and skinnier coming along to take your place. That said, I do intend to check out some of the names you mentioned earlier.
I admire his determination, but some of his subject matter is just too nervous for me; same reason I have zero interest in rap music, overty busy neo-jazz, and "street art" (spray paint vandalism, as far as I'm concerned). I don't see why something done even 1890's should be necessarily be seen as "retrograde". Anything of real notable value should stand a test of time measured in centuries, not a few years. But all this kind of work will literally fade into oblivion long before that is possible. Everything about digital seems to involve becoming rapidly obsolete as something even more catchy arises in succession.
To everyone reading this thread,
1.) What are your very favorite photographs by Gursky?
2.) Why are these your favorites?
Here's a link to all of his published works, for your convenience: http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works
I might as well go first--
(From his earliest to latest works)
1.) Gas Cooker http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1980/gasherd
2.) Klausen Pass http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1984/klausenpas
3.) Dolomiten, Cable Car http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...miten-seilbahn
4.) Rias Bajas http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1988/rias-baja
5.) Dresden http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1988/dresden
6.) Ruhr Valley http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1989/ruhrtal
7.) Niagara Falls http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work.../niagara-falls
8.) Mulheim an der Ruhr, Angler http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...der-ruhr-angle
9.) Krefeld, Chickens http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...refeld-huehner
10.) Salerno I http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1990/salerno-1
11.) Karlsruhe, Siemens http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...lsruhe-siemens
12.) Genua http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1991/genua
13.) Sha Tin http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1994/sha-tin
14.) Schiphol http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1994/schipho
15.) Hong Kong, Stock Exchange II http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...-kong-boerse-2
16.) Dusseldorf, Airport II http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...rf-flughafen-2
17.) Rhein I (as opposed to the second version, Rhein II) http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1996/rhein-1
18.) Toys "R" Us http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1999/toys-r-us
19.) Copan http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2002/copan
20.) Baihrain I http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2005/bahrain-1
21.) Pyongyang III http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...-5/pyongyang-3
22.) James Bond Island I http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/work...-bond-island-1
23.) Storage http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2014/lager
24.) Media Markt http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2016/media-markt
25.) Ibiza http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2016/ibiza
26.) Darkroom http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2016/dunkelkammer
27.) Browns http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2016/browns
28.) Utah http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2017/utah
29.) Tokyo http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2017/tokyo
30.) Mobile No.3 http://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/2017/mobile-nr-3
Yeah, it's a crazy list, I know. Just while copy/pasting these links, I've noticed just how much I like his earlier works more than his later works. As of late, it seems like Gursky is slowly entering Jeff Koons territory, an artist I despise for multiple reasons. With Gursky's early work, you can clearly see his technical command and the relatively unique content of his works, as compared to his fellow Kunstakademie students. I particularly like the fact that Gursky doesn't work in series. He treats each photograph as a painting of sorts that encompasses all he wants to say about the content being shown. I also like the angle from which the photographs are taken. They're generally taken from a god's eye view, a point that is difficult to reach. Photographs like Schiphol and Dolomiten, Cable Car have a meditative aspect that parallels the experience of being near a Rothko painting. Thanks to digital technology, Gursky's middle and later period are marked by increasingly impossible photos. Atlanta, Copan, and Baihrain I come to mind, among many others. In his later work, you can see that he fully embraces the abstract qualities rendered by digital photography and manipulation. See Utah and Tokyo. His mobile phone photos are actually quite good. Above all, I admire that Gursky has done something that is extremely difficult for any artist - he created an original and recognizable style that is very much his own.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks