What do YOU think of this photography?

Very well stated. Also thanks for some background info. :)

Personally, I would prefer to view these photos printed and at the wall in an exhibition.


Arjay said:
Gebert's photography IMHO is following the tracks of artists like Bernd and Hilla Becher and their followers. The Bechers - as you might know - developed a certain style of conceptual architectural photography and have many followers in Germany, such as e.g. Thomas Ruff, Thomas Struth, Andreas Gursky et al.

The unprepared viewer of their photographs is often confronted with a certain closedness, or difficulty of interpretation. How, for example, could you decipher a series of photographs just of trees (as in the case of Gebert)?

As with any new direction in arts, these pictures at first appear enigmatic, and their aesthetics seem inaccessible. But again, as with many areas of new art, this is a question of semiotics, i.e. of understanding or deciphering the artist's set of self-imposed rules, symbols and allusions.

So, when a viewer is first confronted with pictures like these, he might feel that he is looking at a piece of art that has come directly from the ivory tower and that seemingly might only be readable by the chosen few who know the intellectual world of the artist in greater detail. I feel that this is a little short-sighted:

If you compare these kinds of notions with those that the art public might recall from first seeing photographs by the Bechers, by Andreas Gurstky or Thomas Ruff, it quickly becomes obvious that the work of these artists - while at first perceived as inaccessible and enigmatic - have their own aesthetics and beauty which unfolds itself to the viewer as he has seen more of this type of work.

Saying this, I am very well aware that I am only describing a path to understanding these pictures, not necessarily of appreciating them as beautiful. Beauty - as always - is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Art doesn't depend on what all of us feel when creating... We all feel... Art's domain is communication through the centuries and cultures, and positioning a unique style forever, as Giacometti or Botero: they don't require a special effort from fools. The whole world just adore them. Even if some try to go against them. These shots are fading away.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Some art is like beer. Most people do not like it the first time they taste it, but somehow many of them get over it and start to like it..... Sometimes it can be rewarding to try to like it a couple of times before you dismiss it. Then again I tasted mango beer today, I will not try again
 
sig said:
I think you are on to something here.... I am as shallow as a teaspoon, but I still try not to say this and this sucks und so weiter just because I do not understand it or do not invest time into it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's not what I said. Appreciation requires understanding - that's all.

The discussion we have here reminds me of something I heard someone say when I recently visited an arts gallery:

"That's trivial - even my child is capable of producing such scribble". And I've heard such statements far too often to not feel offended by them.

Why not just say "I'm sorry but I don't understand this." At least such a statement would still entail the possibility to learn something new...

And it would also be a little more honest.
 
Last edited:
The photos do not interest me. Whether or not there is "art" in them is of little relevance to me, because their appeal isn't strong enough to keep me looking long enough to find it.

I've seen other work by photographers that seems to me to be collections of random snapshots. For me to qualify a photo as a piece of art, the photographer must have manipulated the image in some fashion, even if that's only to play with exposure or shutter speed. The world has many, many wonderful photos that I would be reluctant to consider "art" because they faithfully and realistically capture a moment of reality.
 
Arjay said:
I'm sorry but that's not what I said. Appreciation requires understanding - that's all.

The discussion we have here reminds me of something I heard someone say when I recently visited an arts gallery:

"That's trivial - even my child is capable of producing such scribble". And I've heard such statements far too often to not feel offended by them.

Why not just say "I'm sorry but I don't understand this." At least such a statement would still entail the possibility to learn something new...

And it would also be a little more honest.
Click to expand...

I tried to say I agree with your statement. Maybe you did not invest enough time in understanding it :)
 
Thanks sig, I just wanted to make sure you weren't feeling offended, because that certainly wasn't my intention. :)
 
Creagerj said:
I definitely like his presentation, it really comes together there. Individually, the photos don't have much merit.
Click to expand...

I'd go one step further and suggest this guy has no compositional skills, in the individual, or multiple sets.....Sorry, his exposure is dead on, but it needs more. I'm no art critic by training, but, come on, these are images could have taken from a beginner that needs someone to tell him how to improve the image and composition. I would have deleted all or most these in the editing stage.

I'm happy he found a market for his work, but, it's not my taste.

How did he get his "Art Photographer" status anyway?

This 1st post on my viewpoint may not be well excepted by some. but, the OP did want an honest viewpoint on him from the replies.
 
Last edited:
Quote: Originally Posted by DNG
How did he get his "Art Photographer" status anyway?

http://www.klemms-berlin.com/en/ulrichgebert/
__________________
regards, Antti

On that link, I went to the "further Images" link and I liked 8, 9, 11...they were better and had some emotional content. He does hit for me here and there. I'd think though, that a level where you have gallery shows, there would be a higher percentage of better images. No?
 
DNG said:
I'd think though, that a level where you have gallery shows, there would be a higher percentage of better images. No?
Click to expand...

Since I know very little about art, I guess I shouldn't get into a discussion...

However, I believe that conceptual art like this shouldn't be judged from the individual images.
 
I like the work. I'm not sure I love it but I like it.

I can understand how some people don't care for or don't appreciate this kind of work. However, arguments like "this guy has no compositional skills" or "I could've done that" show a clear ignorance of what this kind of art is about.
 
DNG said:
Quote: Originally Posted by DNG
How did he get his "Art Photographer" status anyway?

http://www.klemms-berlin.com/en/ulrichgebert/
__________________
regards, Antti

On that link, I went to the "further Images" link and I liked 8, 9, 11...they were better and had some emotional content. He does hit for me here and there. I'd think though, that a level where you have gallery shows, there would be a higher percentage of better images. No?
Click to expand...

zumbido said:
If your expectation is constant emotional stimulation, read romance novels or rent Stephen Spielberg movies. I honestly don't mean that to be flippant or offensive, but quite serious. There's room in the world for all sorts of art, and a lot of it isn't about "emotion". It might be about examining a problem, building a mythology, engaging the viewer philosophically by erecting or destroying a facade... or a million other things. If you're not interested in that, it's your choice, but it certainly doesn't make it "not art". If anything, exactly the opposite. It doesn't take any artistry to manipulate people's emotions.
Click to expand...


Quote:
Originally Posted by DNG
How did he get his "Art Photographer" status anyway?

http://www.klemms-berlin.com/en/ulrichgebert/
__________________
regards, Antti
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't need all images to show emotion, but it seems we all strive for composition in our images, so they are just records of a tree, or dog laying down... There is certainly a place these too. Maybe a better angle or different lighting may be order for gallery shows and the rest for family albums. I just expect more in gallery shows, I don't want see family album images in a show...to be fair, some images were fine, I may not get all of the images, and some were just snap shots without any purpose other than to record the subject. And, maybe that's the point after all., I just don't get some of it.
That's OK too. I will keep reading this topical thread to glean more understanding.
 
Last edited:
Can there be different aesthetics around the globe?

As in music tastes?

As in architecture?

As in literature, poetry, ...

As in cuisine. ...

So why are we so narrow to reject what we don't know, don't understand, why calling other people's art bad?

Art is free, for the creator, for us to decipher.

Off with narrow un-mindedness. I would say and hope. But I will be lambasted as you like now. Sorry to popp bubbles of self-conceit etc etc here.
 
I think his works kinds of illustrates what I don't like about the work of some artists nowadays. I get the feeling that in order to stand out in the masses, some come up with concepts and intellectualize the creation process to a point that few understand it. So these works are shown in galleries frequented by the art intelligentsia, that decides who is good or not based on the trend of the month or who smoked the most on a given day. Finally, one buys a series of tree frames and hangs it in the big hallway of his house. But when mother comes to visit from Lubbock, Texas, she says "why the hell did you hang these tree pictures for ?". So he discreetly changes the converstation and hide shamelessly the fact that he paid $10'000 for it ;)

A bit cliché maybe, but in art right now (not specifically photography), I get the impression that artists try more to come up with something "new", than doing what they really enjoy and inspires them.
 
Anybody can take any kind of photos of anything, and it is fine with me. In fact, most people do.

BUT

If they start calling it art, and somebody has to explain it to me WHY this may be art, then I am gone.

My definition of art, is that if it has to be explained it isn't art anymore.
 
I like many of the photos in the second link. I have a hard time describing exactly why, but on some level I'm attracted to the color and composition of many of the images.
 
I think maybe I should go though my drawer of rejects. Some in that drawer look very much like the second post.

4327159124_7ddde35765.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom