I lot of artists get an "in" with dealers and galleries and other insiders who push their work for the relationships they have with the artist and for profit. Sometimes it just being different style or edgey makes it desirable whether it stirs anyone's soul is another matter. Their work isn't necessarily that good.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Recent Yale MFA Q&A video:
Also, don't discount Crewdson's work without being familiar with his work, for example his Sanctuary series may have more appeal to the members of the forum here.
Last edited by ic-racer; 3-Oct-2020 at 11:14.
Remember, as well, "the reproduction is not the art". Crewdson's work interests me but I don't think it translates well over the internet.
I'll withhold judgement, or other comment, until I've had a chance to see the work in person.
Was that a veiled insult to those whom you think just don't "get it", hornstenj? That works both ways. And "how-to" books don't have anything to do with it. I never stated I disliked Crewdson's images. But it's theatre, it's own kind of "craft". All kinds of effective photos have been posed or arranged somehow; and I suppose one could argue that every picture in existence is a surrogate for something else psychologically, and not reality. But a good illusionist never shows his hand; and in this case, every image does in fact look staged to me, a bit over the top, simply too accessible message-wise. Yes, if his work were shown nearby, I'd take a look, but not go very far out of my way like I would for the real Edward Hopper.
Last edited by Drew Wiley; 5-Oct-2020 at 13:42.
I just saw An Eclipse Of Moths at the Gagosian in LA this past Saturday and left feeling impressed, yet bemused. While his latest opus isn't Struthian in size, they are rather large, certainly his largest works. Seen from further away, the images look great, but, upon closer inspection, you can see a ton of digital artifacts and chromatic aberration, things that you didn't really see in Beneath The Roses (shot on a Sinar 8x10, I believe), which I also saw up close when I perused the hallways of United Talent Agency (apparently UTA's owner is a major collector of Crewdson's work).
I wonder what other reasons made him turn away from large format and film in general. He did mention that film photography is sort of a blind art - you don't really know what you're getting until you process it. That's actually one of the draws for me. I also don't like the immediacy and, err, cheapness of digital photography. By cheapness, I mean you can take photo after photo of the same very same thing to your hearts delight, without worrying about processing and scanning fees. That said, I also simply hate taking dozens of photos of the same exact thing and trying to sort out which version I like best. I'm not saying it's wrong, it just doesn't work for me.
Viewing distance is important for real life and any reproduction of it
Eyesight definetly varies
After age 35 I started using the front row of any live performance and movies
Now we may never have movie theaters, concert halls and mosh pits
Local to me they are building a daylight drive in movie screen in the useless parking lot of a closed Mall
I fully expect soon we we will insert images into our heads
We have already made the blind see with wired brain video
Tin Can
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks