Demand's Different Approach to Documentary Photography

NY Times interesting article on this photographer <a href="http:

//nytimes.com/2005/03/04/arts/design/04KIMM.html">Here</a>

Claudia, I'm getting an error message on your link. Why don't you tell us what the article is about and give us your own thoughts.

i wouldn't what Mr. Demand i s doing documentary photography. He is building small

scale three-dimensional replica's (models of real places) based on photographs and then

photographing them . I'd like to see the real things. The article piqued my interest in his

work.

Alex, sorry...i keep forgetting you have to register to get the NY Times articles. basically, Thomas Demand uses documentary photos or his own memory to construct out of cardboard realistic models of scenes that have some significance. then he photographs these models as his final product. some of his photos are quite large, like 9 feet long. the models themselves are not preserved. it is difficult to tell that you are looking at a photo of a model except that they take on a simplified surreal look like photo-realistic paintings or "magic realism." you can Google his name to get more info. i am intrigued by the way he expands the meaning of "documentary." and as Ellis suggests, perhaps it is not "documentary photography" at all. but i find it quite interesting and raises questions that are fun to play with. a different twist in a Cindy Sherman kind of way.

I liked the way the writer connected the dots betwwen Mr. Demand and other artists and

photographers.

Mr.Demand,it seems, has a burning desire to contemplate

the resynthesis of certain snippets of the world as he sees it through his(and others)

photographs.And then uses photography to document these resulting sytheses.Now that

is some high brow parlour game!I must admit his work does look good,and is well

executed.Thank you for the link.

you're welcome. Zorfo. i see you arrived here yesterday. interesting name. what country might you be from if i might ask?

Eesti.

That's some weird stuff. Would it seem cool after the novelty wore off? Would I put it in my house? It reminds me of that first drink on an empty stomach...

As a scale modeller myself I'm impressed with the neatness of his work. Can't

say this approach does anything for me as a photographer, though. I

suppose the "art" of it is that he chooses such absolutely banal scenes to

model in such pristine detail.

 

Here's one of mine.<div></div>

And for something really mind-blowing...<div></div>

Mine again at a larger size. Printing these scenes of "replicated reality" extra

bit is, I suppose, another part of the art.<div></div>

And one more a little closer...Is it art? Or just hobby craft?<div></div>

Just had another look at Demand's stuff. They actually do have an odd

fascination that the model aircraft above don't have. The models are almost

TOO perfect -- while Demand's crafted realities are purposefully off. And I

suppose in the long run that's what makes them art my my model just a model.

Zorfo, Estonia?

I'm more interested in Donald's model planes. I've never seen such realism before. And they fly.

Alex, I can't claim the F-100 as my own. It was build by Joe Grice and took top prizes at the national scale competition called Top Gun. I thought I'd post it in this discussion of Demand's "false realism" since many her may never have seen this caliber of scale modeling.

 

As I said above what sets Demands work apart is the "not quite right" realism as well as the mundane scenes he chooses to model so closely. BTW, I'd again argue that if we as the viewers of his art need to be told which real life scenes these photo mockups are meant to portray (like who:s bathroom) in order to appreciate them as art this there's something wrong here.

Donald hit on what was bothering me about Demand's work. Yes, you have to KNOW that what he is photographing is a scale model and not the real thing. (Anyone read "The Real Thing" by Henry James?) Unfortunately, there are a lot of gimmicks in art these days. You cannot sell it unless it is "original" and to be "original" means often enough not a unique vision but mere novelty. This is novelty. It's interesting novelty but in the end will end up as curiousity and nothing more. Stuff like this usually has a short shelf life.

 

I much prefer Donald's photographs of his model planes. Perhaps Demand is technically a better photographer, but at least with Donald's photographs I don't feel jerked around. The photographs are of real model airplanes that are not only beautifully made but also fly.

 

Donald, I could not believe that pilot's nostrils--they were the more realistic nostrils I have ever seen on a model of a person.

Yes Donald ,you are correct.Estonia.Living in Canada now.Excellent model work and

lighting in your photographs here.

Nothng fancy on the lighting. I just waited until the light got nice around

6:30pm (summer) and had my two boys hold the model up against the sky!

 

Alex, and the pilot is just a G.I. Joe type figure.

>"I just waited until the light got nice around 6:30pm(Summer)"<Waiting for the light is a

legitimate and time honoured practise in photography.