What do YOU think of this photography?

[gho]

I do agree with arjay, that Gebers photography is looking very much as if he is influenced by the famous Becher school.

As far as I understand, this style does not require that a photograph stands on its own, a photograph is rather an instance that points to a more general concept. So, the more photographs you take from a single 'subject matter', so to say, the more the general concept becomes visible. Quite interesting. I tried this once with chewing gum vending machines last year with my flexaret. I had the feeling that the vending machines would disappear soon.

And so they did. Or at least, they are not refilled and cared for anymore...

 

[sevo]

Great new art is often hard to understand and may even be shocking THEREFORE (omitted middle in logical terms) anything that is hard to understand or shocking is likely to be great art...

A potential fallacy that I yet have to see in real life - other than the "but that is no art" bourgeois crowd every other Sunday at the modern art museum...

Sevo

 

[Chris101]

... For those that very much 'appreciated' the work posted as an example, would any of you be so bold as to try to describe your appreciation? What hits you, what develops, what lingers and how it lodges in your mind on a longer-term basis?
...

Sure. Take a look at Gebart's triptych called Bloody Mess. The triptich itself worlks in a compositional sense, so it holds to a modern aesthetic that way, the colors are believable, and the scene looks quite ordinary. As it turns out the messed up rooms depicted have been the scene of incredible violence prior to the camera's intrusion. The scene has transcended time - the violence that happened can still be imagined, possibly more violent than it actually happened. In any photograph, there is an element of what you see, and what you imagine in the picture. This shows none of the action, all of that takes place in the viewer's imagination.

That thread runs through the various series - the pictures of each series show a point in time where not much is happening. They all show scenes where something has either recently happened, or is about to happen. The numbered dogs, the forest, the hedge trimmer, and the rocks on stands. All stagnant, but all with the potential of being animated, and involved.

Gebart seems to be showing us the edges of an action filled and exciting reality with his "boring" scenes. It brings us the viewer into an active role of creating the action by following a logical analysis - we get to decide what happened, or happens next.

For those who do not like his work, that is fine. His work is not "pretty" in the sense of images that would win popular photo contests. And pretty pictures, with lots of action and tension are traditionally thought to be "good". But good pictures are quite common these days.

These pictures are not about that, but rather the other 95% of the time. The indecisive moments if you will.

 

[wgerrard]

Why is it so important to label some photographs as "art"? Are we expected to alter our perception and appreciation of an image solely because its creator intended for it to be considered art?

If I find an image mundane and boring, I won't feel an obligation to change my opinion if someone says "It's art".

An image stands by itself, regardless of labels.

 

[250swb]

I think the main fault in the OP's argument is that he thinks 'art' should exist to entertain him in some way.

Its the common complaint that people feel 'art' should exist on another plain and exaggerate the real world beautifully, rather than report an aspect of the real world that the artist finds intriguing and worthy of an intellectual or emotional response. Of course beauty and the traditional pursuits of composition or subject can be an aspect of such art, but equally ugly and banal concepts are just as valid.

My contention is that the OP shouldn't assume the images are directly meant for him as a 'photographer'. The photo's will be recognised by day trippers and tourists, and there dislocation into a gallery will change the meaning from perhaps one of a simple momento to highlighting a wider activity and social mores. Thats just a 'for instance', but I think its arrogant to think that an art gallery full of photographs is for photographers to to enjoy, just as its arrogant to assume a gallery full of paintings is for painters. Not forgetting that good art is not just something you like, it is something to understand and decide to disagree with, and that disagreement is just as valid a response as any other. So it would be nice to think the artist in the OP's link would be happy enough the OP didn't like it, its at least a response that shows signs of life and some intellectual thought.

Steve

 

[Doug]

Turtle makes some thoughtful points, IMO. It seems the Gebert conceptual genre stands not as individual pieces but in groups for mutual support. I think I see what he’s doing, but don’t see much interest. The docent commentary struggles to inform, limpminded and pretentious. I’d appreciate plainer speaking, but can appreciate the difficulty in verbally describing a visual art.

 

[Gid]

A joke can't be art? Art has to have a meaning that you can find?

It seems to me that if something is labelled as art by the cognoscenti and you don't agree then you must be of the uneducated and unwashed. I prefer free will - if I like it, I like it, if I don't, then I don't Being different, of itself, is not enough.

 

[paulfish4570]

good art does not "entertain" me. but it does provoke passion. jackson pollock's work had interested me for decades, but i had not seen it except in print. no matter how good a print, it cannot possibly offer the texture of the real thing. when i finally got to nyc january before last and visited the met and moma, the "interest" was overcome by provocation. finally, i understood the passion his work holds for many. it was the same for paul klee. his work, too, had held me interested for many years. then i got to stand see his work, up close. where pollock surrounded me, i surrounded klee. they were both so provocative in diametrically opposed ways.
the work offered in the OP's post does not provoke me one way or another, but it certainly may provoke someone else ...

 

[Jason808]

Well, for those who like that sort of thing, I should think it is just about the sort of thing they would like.

 

[sevo]

Art means that even the most unwashed may have their own opinion... The strange thing is that the really disadvantaged and uneducated kids I have conducted through museums could generally appreciate almost anything in there - at least appreciate it as an admirable effort beyond their own scope.

It is the middle-class, middle aged crowd that usually insists that any new development in art that happened after their twentieth birthday ought to be prohibited.

 

[Gid]

It is the middle-class, middle aged crowd that usually insists that any new development in art that happened after their twentieth birthday ought to be prohibited.

That seems to be a bit of a generalisation . There is a large step between don't like (or appreciate) and prohibit (fortunately).

 

[bmattock]

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.

I agree, which is why I only said that I did not care for it. I really don't know what the artist intended to convey or what his qualifications to use a camera happen to be. I only know that if I was his intended audience, he missed the mark. It may be that others get more from it than I do, and that's fine.

 

[wgerrard]

It is the middle-class, middle aged crowd that usually insists that any new development in art that happened after their twentieth birthday ought to be prohibited.

As one affixed in the first category, and well beyond the second (unless I live to 122), I have to say I'm not interested in prohibiting anything someone chooses to call art.

That said, I think photography occupies a unique place among those activities typically labelled "artistic". As a creative process, art entails making something up or transforming something that already exists. A photograph freezes a slice of something that already exists. I am reluctant to consider the image that results as a deliberate work of art unless the photographer did something to alter the image beyond setting exposure and framing the scene. I.e., an image that accurately and faithfully reflects the scene in front of the lens is not art.

That distinction has nothing to do with the impact, worth, etc., of an image. We can be indifferent about deliberately created works of art, and stunned by snapshots from a point and shoot.

So, I can agree that the photos linked to by the OP are meant to be considered art, while simultaneously thinking it's unsuccessful art.

A lot of people won't agree.

 

[martin s]

...

Just curious - how in the world do you write English so well?

martin

 

[nonot]

Personally, I have no time for it whatsoever,

Some art just requires that you take a little more time with it than others. I have to say that after seeing the Mona Lisa first hand I probably would never have waited in that lineup had I not studied that painting for much of my school career, Personally I thought it was a bit boring and exhibited traits of it's period I think were presented better by other painters. I'm sure though that I will find time for the Renaissance here and there, even though I was let down by what's said to be the ultimate example of it. I hope you don't let one piece of conceptualism stop you from taking the time to find the works that do speak to you, as I'm sure they are out there.

I like them though, the second example more than the first.

 

[DNG]

.....snip
So, I can agree that the photos linked to by the OP are meant to be considered art, while simultaneously thinking it's unsuccessful art.

A lot of people won't agree.

I agree with this summery of wgerrard's post. We all have different taste for sure, and although, I may not like all of the images to this artist's type of expression, It does cause me re-think what ART is according to the artist examples....So, His stuff does cause me to think about his images, and why did he take them..Maybe, that's all that is needed for his work to be successful.

 

[DNG]

A joke can't be art? Art has to have a meaning that you can find?

Wee Gee....
Very Funny images....dozens of Ladies wearing sunglasses looking at the sky..all at the same angle and wearing the same head gear

....Art can be funny (A joke makes you laugh, yes?)
I have no clue on what that image means, but it is funny, and fun to look at!

 

[wgerrard]

...It does cause me re-think what ART is according to the artist examples....So, His stuff does cause me to think about his images, and why did he take them..Maybe, that's all that is needed for his work to be successful.

Thanks for the reaction. However... I don't find the photos in question to be compelling enough to motivate me to think about them. If art is going to be successful vis-a-vis me, then it needs to prompt a response that says, at the least, "Keep looking." If that doesn't happen, I certainly won't blame myself or feel an obligation to look a second or a third time.

That's the thing about art. It is whatever someone says it is. Some of us will look at it and say, "Meghhh...", and others will look at it and say, "Wow!". No one is keeping score and no one is obligated to work hard at liking something just because someone else called it "art".

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Sure. Take a look at Gebart's triptych called Bloody Mess.

[...]

These pictures are not about that, but rather the other 95% of the time. The indecisive moments if you will.

That triptych is the best thing in that pdf portfolio, I think. It's arresting both in a conceptual sense, as abstraction, and in its literal subject--it works on all levels, for me.

I love "indecisive moment"!

As for being entertained by art...some of it is supposed to do that, and I appreciate it when it does. Has anyone seen the Urs Fischer sculpture show that was at the New Museum recently? If it's still there, walk through--it's completely silly and fun and isn't supposed to be anything more...and as a result it has a real integrity to it...I left the gallery feeling as though everything in the world was kind of amusing to look at.

 

[DNG]

Thanks for the reaction. However... I don't find the photos in question to be compelling enough to motivate me to think about them. If art is going to be successful vis-a-vis me, then it needs to prompt a response that says, at the least, "Keep looking." If that doesn't happen, I certainly won't blame myself or feel an obligation to look a second or a third time.

That's the thing about art. It is whatever someone says it is. Some of us will look at it and say, "Meghhh...", and others will look at it and say, "Wow!". No one is keeping score and no one is obligated to work hard at liking something just because someone else called it "art".

Yes, I don't find HIS art compelling to look at a second time. But, now, I may look at others art for a few more seconds anyway, and try to see what the artist is communicating. But not for too long though.

But I may take stab at this style, to see if I can do a better job of communicating than this photographer. Just another challenge to expand my scope of imagery a little. I may fail horribly.(probably will) ..That's OK, I will learn something though.

EDIT: Image added. So, This type of art is to convey an idea. the image has the elements of the idea, but not the actual end result of the idea itself... Am I close? the person looking at the image will follow through in their mind what the elements are suggesting as the intent of the elements.