RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I did a bit of gallery hopping yesterday with some fellow RFFers, and we happened into the Stephen Wirth Gallery where there was a solo exhibition of Doug Rickard photographs from his 'New American Pictures' series, which is an obvious reference to Jakob Holdt's infamous American Pictures. If you know that work, then you'll get the tone of 'New American Pictures'. Upon seeing the work, our first thought was that the images were taken with a toy camera—something with a plastic lens—but there were all sorts of little odd distortions throughout the images. A fellow from the gallery popped out and eagerly explained Rickard's process, which is explained below and at the gallery site. He also informed us that Rickard was getting a solo show at MOMA in NY:
"Rickard’s methodology involves dropping himself into the immersive 360-degree experience afforded by Google Street View. With an informed and deliberate eye, Rickard finds and decodes these previously photographed scenes of urban and rural decay. He re-photographs the images as they appear on his computer screen, freeing them from their technological origins and elevating them to a new documentary plane, revealing the devastating effects of an increasingly stratified American social structure. The low-resolution images that Rickard favors have a dissolved, painterly effect, and are occasionally populated with figures who acknowledge the camera, but whose faces are blurred by Google for the practical purposes of masking their identity. The photographs are thus imbued with an unexpected, surreal beauty and visual power."
So, basically Rickard sits at home in Sacramento, California snapping pictures off his computer screen of distressed neighborhoods as photographed by Google Street View. As much as I found the images haunting and fascinating to view, this bit of information put me off a bit. Prices for the photos ranged from $2500 - $6000. We wondered whether Google gets cut. I'm sure this has been discussed/mentioned here before, but in a day that included seeing photos by Penn, Fan Ho, and several other "real photographers", this work has stuck with me since.
Images here.
/
"Rickard’s methodology involves dropping himself into the immersive 360-degree experience afforded by Google Street View. With an informed and deliberate eye, Rickard finds and decodes these previously photographed scenes of urban and rural decay. He re-photographs the images as they appear on his computer screen, freeing them from their technological origins and elevating them to a new documentary plane, revealing the devastating effects of an increasingly stratified American social structure. The low-resolution images that Rickard favors have a dissolved, painterly effect, and are occasionally populated with figures who acknowledge the camera, but whose faces are blurred by Google for the practical purposes of masking their identity. The photographs are thus imbued with an unexpected, surreal beauty and visual power."
So, basically Rickard sits at home in Sacramento, California snapping pictures off his computer screen of distressed neighborhoods as photographed by Google Street View. As much as I found the images haunting and fascinating to view, this bit of information put me off a bit. Prices for the photos ranged from $2500 - $6000. We wondered whether Google gets cut. I'm sure this has been discussed/mentioned here before, but in a day that included seeing photos by Penn, Fan Ho, and several other "real photographers", this work has stuck with me since.
Images here.
/
Last edited:
Moriturii
Well-known
Is this what passes as "Gallery worthy art" now days? Oh my goodness, It's the equivalent of people standing around a sideways urinal in a gallery and going "oh yeah, I know totally what the artist was thinking, it's so deep its blah blah blah"
HCB, Alfred Eisenstaedt, André Kertesz etc rolling around in their graves.
Sad times.
HCB, Alfred Eisenstaedt, André Kertesz etc rolling around in their graves.
Sad times.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Maybe 'different' times.
Regardless of what the masters are doing in their graves, I found the work to be powerful in the same way as 'American Pictures'. There, now all that's left is to shake and zip up. /
fotomeow
name under my name
is this "art", i dont know. but it certainly is a way to describe how some visual images are used in the modern era: this thread is definitely in the right category of "Philosophy of...". To me, and as stated above, this is a far cry from the personalized street shooting we know so well: Winogrand, Friedlander, Frank, etc.: This is a very depersonalized image capture, in the modern era of mass photocopies and remote ways to capture our lives.
Google Street is one avenue: public photos to map our world, but REAL people are caught in the photos, hinting at the public vs private issue of fotos, the shrinking privacy of our local neighborhoods, and a broad way of documenting our current world. It will be very interesting to have Google Street shots every 5-10 years of the same places to compare and contrast: urban decay, gentrification, etc.
This guy sitting in his boxer shorts in Sac copying and manipulating Google images: makes me think of a DJ who mixes and matches OTHER peoples work/art. yet the images are priced at $6000?? tis the modern age .....
Google Street is one avenue: public photos to map our world, but REAL people are caught in the photos, hinting at the public vs private issue of fotos, the shrinking privacy of our local neighborhoods, and a broad way of documenting our current world. It will be very interesting to have Google Street shots every 5-10 years of the same places to compare and contrast: urban decay, gentrification, etc.
This guy sitting in his boxer shorts in Sac copying and manipulating Google images: makes me think of a DJ who mixes and matches OTHER peoples work/art. yet the images are priced at $6000?? tis the modern age .....
Images are interesting and appear like poorly executed street photos. However, since he's basically exploiting Google's technology, it just doesn't seem original to me. It makes me think more like he's an alien peering into the underbelly of our society.
When I think of the good street work here that strives to focus (no pun intended) on the same social blight of our country, done by people like Walker Evans, HCB and others, there is one finite element missing: there is no connection with the subjects because he was not there.
After thinking about that and looking at the print prices, I just take it as a way to take advantage financially of what is really the basic issue facing our country.
I'd rather spend my money on prints from RFFer's who document this subject personally on a day to day basis.
When I think of the good street work here that strives to focus (no pun intended) on the same social blight of our country, done by people like Walker Evans, HCB and others, there is one finite element missing: there is no connection with the subjects because he was not there.
After thinking about that and looking at the print prices, I just take it as a way to take advantage financially of what is really the basic issue facing our country.
I'd rather spend my money on prints from RFFer's who document this subject personally on a day to day basis.
My case in point. This is nice original work.
MickH
Well-known
Nice enough pictures. It's up to the punter if he or she wishes to part with their hard-earned for the prints.
I wouldn't.
Of course, I could trawl thru Google and take the same snaps myself.
I wouldn't.
Of course, I could trawl thru Google and take the same snaps myself.
Last edited:
DougFord
on the good foot
Well, the guy can certainly edit, imo.
Any implied reference to 'American Images' is contrived marketing at best.
Some excellent images with strong compositional elements that tweak my sense for such things.
The perspective is different from most street work, which gives it an added dimension on a number of levels for me.
O.K. so who's gonna have their buddy drive them around town while you take some snaps whilst sitting on the roof the RV?
Any implied reference to 'American Images' is contrived marketing at best.
Some excellent images with strong compositional elements that tweak my sense for such things.
The perspective is different from most street work, which gives it an added dimension on a number of levels for me.
O.K. so who's gonna have their buddy drive them around town while you take some snaps whilst sitting on the roof the RV?
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Actually this is not much more than decoupage using old Life magazines or similar. Good luck to those who show it and those who buy it. I'll sell them copies for $25 this gives me a profit, pays a printer.
I think I'll set up outside of the MOMA and sell my 'work'. Additionally I'll be videotaping for stills and I'll sell the video into wide distribution... aghhh.
I think I'll set up outside of the MOMA and sell my 'work'. Additionally I'll be videotaping for stills and I'll sell the video into wide distribution... aghhh.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
+1. Nicely summed up. I noticed the unique effect of the perspective, too. There is a detachment when viewing these images. They are printed fairly large, and the focus is soft throughout. Hanging on a wall, you can't help but want to step back, so there is that effect as well.
O.K. so who's gonna have their buddy drive them around town while you take some snaps whilst sitting on the roof the RV?
Sounds like fun. Local LEOs might not agree though.
/
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I like this kind of thing. Sort of like Thomas Ruff's "jpegs", context is everything.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
+1. I like to look at this kind of work. I wouldn't buy a print, but I might buy a book of the work.
/
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
It works for me
It works for me
Ray,
I have similiar feelings about this work. I find the images striking and they remain in my brain.
Is it art? Silly to try answering that question, since there's an infinite number of definitions. Is it interesting? Definitely.
I think the most profound thing about this work is that it throws down a gauntlet (intentionally or not) of "Don't get too comfortable with the status quo, photographers." This is the same kind of challenge that Daguerre and others threw into the culture of Only-Painting/Sculpture-Is-Art.
To me, Google Street View images are just data sitting there waiting to be used by anyone. And should Google get a cut? Not in my opinion... unless they want to pass it along to we who've had our privacy yet again infringed upon. Buy, hey, that's the new world.
It works for me
Ray,
I have similiar feelings about this work. I find the images striking and they remain in my brain.
Is it art? Silly to try answering that question, since there's an infinite number of definitions. Is it interesting? Definitely.
I think the most profound thing about this work is that it throws down a gauntlet (intentionally or not) of "Don't get too comfortable with the status quo, photographers." This is the same kind of challenge that Daguerre and others threw into the culture of Only-Painting/Sculpture-Is-Art.
To me, Google Street View images are just data sitting there waiting to be used by anyone. And should Google get a cut? Not in my opinion... unless they want to pass it along to we who've had our privacy yet again infringed upon. Buy, hey, that's the new world.
DougFord
on the good foot
media editors.
With high speed digital video like that of the new Red cameras, the reams of data are going to be inexhaustible and fertile ground for the creative scavenger.
The artistic value and monetary worth are debatable.
duncanhill
Seeing Cities
This is just flat out plagiarism. Degrades photography as an art form, something people like Stieglitz worked really hard for. I guess people will soon start photographing movie screens and their TVs and claim the photos as theirs, rather than the cinematographer that actually shot it.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Ray,
I believe his work is also on display in the new Pier 24 exhibit. Darren won the prize for guessing how he made the images. I was thinking a plastic lens.
Kent
I believe his work is also on display in the new Pier 24 exhibit. Darren won the prize for guessing how he made the images. I was thinking a plastic lens.
Kent
I did a bit of gallery hopping yesterday with some fellow RFFers, and we happened into the Stephen Wirth Gallery where there was a solo exhibition of Doug Rickard photographs from his 'New American Pictures' series, which is an obvious reference to Jakob Holdt's infamous American Pictures. If you know that work, then you'll get the tone of 'New American Pictures'. Upon seeing the work, our first thought was that the images were taken with a toy camera—something with a plastic lens—but there were all sorts of little odd distortions throughout the images. A fellow from the gallery popped out and eagerly explained Rickard's process, which is explained below and at the gallery site. He also informed us that Rickard was getting a solo show at MOMA in NY:
"Rickard’s methodology involves dropping himself into the immersive 360-degree experience afforded by Google Street View. With an informed and deliberate eye, Rickard finds and decodes these previously photographed scenes of urban and rural decay. He re-photographs the images as they appear on his computer screen, freeing them from their technological origins and elevating them to a new documentary plane, revealing the devastating effects of an increasingly stratified American social structure. The low-resolution images that Rickard favors have a dissolved, painterly effect, and are occasionally populated with figures who acknowledge the camera, but whose faces are blurred by Google for the practical purposes of masking their identity. The photographs are thus imbued with an unexpected, surreal beauty and visual power."
So, basically Rickard sits at home in Sacramento, California snapping pictures off his computer screen of distressed neighborhoods as photographed by Google Street View. As much as I found the images haunting and fascinating to view, this bit of information put me off a bit. Prices for the photos ranged from $2500 - $6000. We wondered whether Google gets cut. I'm sure this has been discussed/mentioned here before, but in a day that included seeing photos by Penn, Fan Ho, and several other "real photographers", this work has stuck with me since.
Images here.
/
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
How on earth is this plagiarism? Who's being plagiarized? Nobody took these photos--they were taken automatically at intervals by a computer mounted on a moving car.
If this is plagiarism, then every photo ever taken is plagiarism.
I think the entire world of art splits in two with Duchamp. If you think that R. Mutt urinal is funny, you're probably going to like Warhol, hip hop, found poetry, and stuff like this. If the urinal leaves you cold, this probably will too.
dallard
Well-known
I believe he gets around plagiarism because he's photographing his computer screen so he can claim that the photos are his and it is technically true. Although that makes me wonder if I could go around his exhibit and photograph his photographs then send them to a gallery claiming them to be mine.
dallard
Well-known
They could make manure sound like the Mona Lisa.
Honus
carpe diem
I guessed plastic lens as well. That being said, I found the work to be very interesting. Very imaginative idea, reminiscent of Warhol's work using popular iconography. His curation of the millions of possible images was excellent as well.