What do YOU think of this photography?

T

Turtle

Veteran
Local time
4:52 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
2,625
I was perusing various links and stumbled across this and thought I would post it.

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/index.html
http://www.klemms-berlin.com/fileadmin/kuenstler/gebert/UG_portfolio_en_s.pdf

Personally, I have no time for it whatsoever, but I would be interested to hear from anyone who does. I am not trying to elicit rants, just get an idea if anyone on this forum would like to own such work, if they would display, and what it would do for them. I am struggling with what is left with such work when the concept part of the conceptual art is 'revealed'. I have strong views, but I am trying to get to what the concept of conceptual photography means.

With literature you can continually refer to it, enjoy reacquainting yourself with the exact words and their delivery. However, with this sort of work, the photographic component does not appear to have such subtlety and precision. It offers me nothing from a visual perspective and so I cannot see the particular value in the artwork itself. Its more like a piece of music. The value is in the music not the CD or MP3 file. In this sort of work, surely the value is in the concept, leaving the 'artwork' providing a rather bland functional role in supporting or facilitating, that concept?

I this regard, is is not rather unlike most art in that you do not go to see a thing or buy a thing or view a thing. You go to have an 'intellectual experience' which leaves little requirement for the physical work in the aftermath, assuming the visual component is not in itself stimulating. Personally, I found none of the photographs remotely stimulating and so why would a person buy the work?

How do you see the physical/conceptual art value/experience 'thing?'
 
This goes to prove the adage that there is no accounting for taste. I like both examples, but especially Ulrich Gebart's work presented in the second link. But I can easily appreciate that you do not.

Long ago I accepted that my own work would appeal only to a fractional minority.
 
Sure, Chris - there is no accounting for taste, but I am trying to get at what people might like about it; what you like about it and where that leaves you. Would you consider buying such work if it was affordable? If so, what would you do with it? Would you refer to it, display it or just like to have it as the embodiment of the concept. Would you feel excited looking at it, or stimulated, or would the concept do that without the work needing to be seen?
 
I definitely like his presentation, it really comes together there. Individually, the photos don't have much merit.
 
It's about semiotics

It's about semiotics

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.
 
Those shots have no relevance at all. Right now they are disappearing forever. The real facts they reproduce are of no interest to me, and the photographers are not creating a new reality, and they don't show a particular style either.

Cheers,

Juan
 
That's like your opinion man......

In my honest opinion I have to say that it does not give me much, however saying that it has no relevance at all...... if you like it great, if not well who cares
 
So Gebert's photos have no appeal for some of you. Is this because you didn't look closely, you didn't care to think about and understand them, or you think they are plain ugly?

I am not trying to make a verdict about anybody, but the question of wanting to own such pictures is only worth asking after the person considering this has pondered and understood the thoughts that lead to making this series. Without this, how could one possibly value the merits of such work?

Art is always ethereal, and it's not surprising that many people don't invest enough time and energy to appreciate it. That's no crime, and nothing to sneer about. It just shows lack of interest or knowledge.
 
I like Gebert's portfolio. Like Creagerj said, it comes together in the presentation, and has a certain kind of humor to it. The series in pages 18,19,20 is cool, I can totally appreciate it.
That said, as photography goes, the pictures themselves are nothing special.
 
Arjay said:
So Gebert's photos have no appeal for some of you. Is this because you didn't look closely, you didn't care to think about and understand them, or you think they are plain ugly?

I am not trying to make a verdict about anybody, but the question of wanting to own such pictures is only worth asking after the person considering this has pondered and understood the thoughts that lead to making this series. Without this, how could one possibly value the merits of such work?

Art is always ethereal, and it's not surprising that many people don't invest enough time and energy to appreciate it. That's no crime, and nothing to sneer about. It just shows lack of interest or knowledge.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arjay said:
So Gebert's photos have no appeal for some of you. Is this because you didn't look closely, you didn't care to think about and understand them, or you think they are plain ugly?

I am not trying to make a verdict about anybody, but the question of wanting to own such pictures is only worth asking after the person considering this has pondered and understood the thoughts that lead to making this series. Without this, how could one possibly value the merits of such work?

Art is always ethereal, and it's not surprising that many people don't invest enough time and energy to appreciate it. That's no crime, and nothing to sneer about. It just shows lack of interest or knowledge.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom