interesting Gursky article

Boris, Thanks.

Bobby,

I have not seen one in person, but there is nothing in the reproductions I have seen or the critical acclaim I have read that would make me want to. It does not matter what I think of his work, I just wanted to point out the shift in the art world around seamless Photoshop collage since the 90s, because I had my own experience with this to relate too. I am not impressed by the art statement or the work, speaking as someone with 18 years experience making digital collages using Photoshop. Regardless of whether my work resonates with you or not, my point of view is not unfounded, or uninformed. i spent 15 minutes alone with my daughter in the King's Chamber within the Great Pyramid in 2004. There was an ambiance, atmospheric experience, in that room that is hard to quantify. I can apreciate that kind of thing, but big does not always mean better for me. I have seen Gregory Crewdson's large scae work in person and do not feel their large size contributed any more to my liking this work. I also saw cindy Sheman's clowns up close and dislike then just as much as I do the smaller verions I run across online. I doubt very seriously that seeing Gursky's images up close would have much of an effect on my opinion.

I may seem like a Philistine, but I find the whole thing about Gursky's work to be an Emporer's new clothes situation.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you have to see them in order to judge, I was just curious as they are quite different when viewed in person, but probably not so much that it would change your opinion of them.
It's funny, having read the whole article with it's multiple references and comparisons and long winded theory. It basically boils down in the end to he doesn't like them.
Like sitting in the Rothko room at Tate modern, I don't know what they mean or represent, but they induce a calm over me. Somethings should just be simple.
 
Thanks PKR,

I appreciate the education. What I see in Gursky, more than this, is his debt to stock photography, like those endless rows of colorful tulips shot with a long lens in Holland. That aesthetic is fine for what it is, but it does not speak to me, no matter how large or perfect it can be made in Photoshop, or how scholarly the artist statement. I would suggest another headline could be "Have Art Schools Ruined Art. If you get a chance, rent the John Malkovich film, "Art School Confidential," a hilarious send up of the art world that is all too true.

[ QUOTE=PKR;2096117]Hi Charlie-

I don't know your level of knowledge or interest but - beginning at the 9th frame (post #1009) is a series on the Dusseldorf Art Academy, Bernd & Hilla Becher and their progeny:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95325&page=41

There is no need to like any of the work, but an understanding is important to all of us who take photography seriously - I think..[/QUOTE]
 
The article is a tough read, it so grammatically awkward, and so formal. The writer tries so hard not to seem lost. It reads like a Google translation, or Jill Johnston in the Voice. 😱
Click to expand...

I clicked through to the authors original dutch (flemish) version of the essay.
Reading that makes it a lot clearer what he is trying to say. There is some subtlety that got lost in translation. I agree or go along with a lot of the observations, but I do not share his harsh conclusion of Gursky.
I also have the impression that the author does not have good technical understanding of the techniques that Gursky uses. He seems to suggest that what he has done was only possible with exclusive digital capture technology. Most of his images are shot on 4x5 and 5x7 slide film, hardly exclusive or cutting edge. Artists have always used newly available technology, it is too easy to conclude based on that that the artist is only motivated by capitalism and profit. I'm sure he is concerned about how he is positioned in the art market, but it is also possible to ignore all that and just look at the images, and judge them for what they are. There are plenty of people who over the last 20 years have had access to the same technology, and have not managed to produce memorable images with it. There are also lots of great self promoters in the art world who are also not producing such interesting work.
 
I don't like the amount of manipulation in his work, but nonetheless find his images visually striking. He is also fresh, as in not looking like a copycat of other artists.
 
I think it's nearly impossible to discuss Gursky without having seen some real prints of his work.
His work does not look impressive on screen or even in a book, but gets a complete different impact on a museum wall!!
If you see him at work and how much time he puts in a single picture ..... That might also change your view on his work, which looks very ordinary on the surface.
 
How many of you have actually seen the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Ceiling, or Guernica. You don't have to actually see them to have an opinion about their content. You may love the graphic sinplicity of Gursky's work or dismiss it's banality. Both are valid reactions. You may question the monetary value of his work has acheived, just as you may wonder why ARod makes so much money with the New York Yankees. For the record, I have seen Guernica, and the actual workmanship looks shoddy compared to the reproductions I have seen in books. I still think it is a masterful work, even though it looks like Picasso painted it with a roller while having his lunch. The "meaning" of the image overpowers its technical acheivement. I feel the opposite way about Gursky"s images. As to the amount of time involved, I agree, digital manipulation on that scale can take many hours. My own digital collages, which I print 34" wide, can take uo to a hundred hours each to produced. But, like most things other than wine, wisdom and perfect attendance, time served is not equivalent to quality. It is an interesting back story but in the end, we experience the actual visual image. Seeing it on the internet is enough to evaluate its content. Seeing it in person is helpful to evaluate its physical attributes and presence. For me, the former is the determining factor by far, but the later may be for others. Whatever floats your boat.
 
Charlie Lemay, I've figured out where you're going wrong. 34" is nowhere near big enough. Try having your images printed 20 feet wide. That's the answer. You'll also be giving potential purchasers the subliminal text that you don't want to be selling to people with small suburban homes but to folk with huge walls to display huge artworks. Also start asking huge amounts of money for your work. Good luck!
 
If Gursky intended his art to speak to me, I can't hear it, therefore perhaps I'm deaf.

If Gursky intended his vision to inspire me, I can't see it, therefore perhaps I'm blind.

If Gursky's work is admired and praised by everyone except me, perhaps I'm dumb.

Maybe.

But not so dumb as those who think Gursky is producing artwork that is in any way enriching our culture.

Gursky is only enriching Gursky.....
 
You can have an opinion about anything. My father thought he hated clams, so he never ate any.

I have seen the Guernica (I even saw it right after Tony Shafrazi defaced it), but it is not so much individual works.

If you have not seen Michelangelo's work, or Leonardo drawings you need to take some time off and do so. They are widely available in the US. Michelangelo's David-Apollo is in Washington DC from December 13, 2012, through March 6, 2013. Leonardo, you really should go to the Uffizi in Florence, no one should die without going to Florence. And Picasso, everyone can see a Picasso, great works are everywhere.

Content? Content?
I don't paint things. I only paint the difference between things. — Henri Matisse
Click to expand...
One reason that I wouldn't go to Florence is that given Italian driving standards, you may indeed die while trying to get there...

Cheers,

R.
 
dabick42 said:
If Gursky intended his art to speak to me, I can't hear it, therefore perhaps I'm deaf.

If Gursky intended his vision to inspire me, I can't see it, therefore perhaps I'm blind.

If Gursky's work is admired and praised by everyone except me, perhaps I'm dumb.

Maybe.

But not so dumb as those who think Gursky is producing artwork that is in any way enriching our culture.

Gursky is only enriching Gursky.....
Click to expand...
How on earth do you prove that Gursky is not 'enriching our culture' (whatever that may mean)?.

Cheers,

R.
 
Eastern sages have said all along that this, reality, is the dream. I decided long ago that the purpose of art is to "wake up" the artist, and in that process, to wake up others. Fame and fortune are possible results in this "dream" that can arise to lull us back to sleep.

I love Guernica, but the paint is applied so thinly and it appears that some areas have none at all. The strokes are free and spontaneous. I love it! By comparison to the high technique of the Flemish masters it appears to be shoddy, but to focus on that view misses the point. By comparison Gursky's high technique, large format impeccable Photoshop manipulation, Picasso's craftsmanship seems less. I used the word shoddy facetiously.
 
Charlie Lemay said:
Hi Roger,

You'd better stay away from Cairo.

all the best,

Charlie
Click to expand...
Dear Charlie,

I think I will... But in any case, I'd be unlikely to be driving/riding.

Purely personally, I'd rather have one of your pics on my wall than a Gursky -- but then again, a Gursky would probably fill half my biggest wall.

In a sense, yes, his big pics prompt all kinds of thoughts (not least on the nature of banality and slickness as an object of meditation) while yours, paradoxically, leave more room for me to think, even though they are often crowded and complex. Just personal taste, I guess.

Cheers,

R.
 
Thanks Roger.

I only make the digital pieces I am inspired to make. That'snot a good business plan. In an essay I read years ago by Robert Graves on art, which I have been unable to find despite numerous searches online, he says there are two kinds of art: the art of Venus and the art of Apollo. The art of Venus is inspired by the Muse and the art of Apollo is experimentation. In other words, one is intuitive and the other intellectual. He comes down on the side of inspiration over experimentation, and I agree. He says the purpose of experimentation is to hone your craft while you wait to be inspired.

The reason the art world is predominentlay intellectual is that art schools can teach experimentation, but they can't teach inspiration. It is something the artist has to allow, not something they can learn. All anyone can do is model it, no term by term measurable progress, no four year degree program. When Tom Wolf said in the "Painted Word" that Modern Art exists to illustrate its theory, he was talking about the intellectualization of art. If the artist statement makes intellectual sense, then the art must be significant. I don't think that follows. I have known some artists who write statements that repurpose their work depending on the prospectus of the show they are submitting work to. When I have asked them about this inconsistency, they have said they learned this "trick" in art school. Do the times make the artist, or does the artist make the times. It is always hard to tell in the present moment. I count myself fortunate that I did not go to art school or gain acceptance from the art world. I am free to listen only to my Muse and go wherever that takes me. So far, it has been a pretty interesting journey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Takkun
Surveillance culture, an article in The Atlantic
Replies
18
Views
1K
jsrockit
jsrockit
lynnb
Did Gursky clone out a murder in Rhein II?
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
tunalegs
tunalegs
peterm1
A fool and his money.....
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
airfrogusmc
A
menos
Konica Hexanon Dual 21-35 f3.4-4 - collimation
Replies
12
Views
11K
menos
menos
N
Photo Licensing: A Look at the Basics
Replies
0
Views
1K
noisycheese
N
Back
Top Bottom