Hans Aarsman at the Photographers' Gallery

I looked on http://www.photonet.org.uk today to see what was on at the photographers gallery in London, now i would

love to have an exhibition at the photographers gallery however i keep saying to myself that my work aint upto

scratch yet, wait until its spot-on. so i was rather dissapointed when i saw the quality of the work by Hans Aalsman

that is on the site. The wording to accompany the images is:

 

 

"18 July - 14 September 2008 How often does it happen, that you leave the shop without making the purchase after

all? Hans Aarsman

 

This project invites us to consider our compulsion to own, to keep and to collect. It invites us to slim down our

addiction to material things, using photography as a space and money saving device."

 

the three images to my mind are not upto scratch, and as Hans Aalsman has had a career in photography as a

photo journalist i would have expected better, the first image has a splotch of highlights upon the table that is off

putting, the image of the rocket ship has an annoying shadow, and the light bellowing in on the sandman to me is

unacceptable for exhibition standard - atleast that is what i was taught in college. My tutor would of teared me apart

if i handed in work of this standard for a college project, they look like they were shot on an auto mode. Am i missing

something here because i am confused? why is this work being exhibited, surely if the concept was that good the

curator would say "look, this is good, i'll show it if you shoot it properly" or would he not?

 

if i spent six months to a year working on a project, if that project was composed properly, exposed properly, if i had

spent the time doing the workbook, exploring other possibilities - black & white or colour, landscape or portrait etc -

and my work was turned down and then i found this was acceptable i would be completely and utterly gutted and i

feel for those out there that have found themselve's in such a position.

 

any views and/or enlightenment would be appreciated.

 

Ricki

I have to agree with you. I don't get this at all. I don't understand why this is worthy of an exhibition. There is no soul in these examples, I don't see the argument against consumerism at all and the photography seems poor to me. I guess it just goes to show you that "art" is purely in the mind of the beholder (or the curator). Maybe it's like the emperor's new clothes...no one wants to be embarrased by saying the obvious. Maybe the curator doesn't want to be seen as "not getting it."

I agree. It's not even mediocre.

It looks like he just grabbed a few things laying around the house. unimpressive.

....and yet the work is shown at the photographers gallery? i wanna write to the gallery ask them what's going on with that cus it's not me missing something

Art's not about the image, it's about the artist. Once you've managed to get yourself known as an artist, anything that you do is then accepted as being art - even if 99% of the general public would disagree. What do they know.

 

The artist in this case could easily say that his art was in provoking this discussion. He really can't lose.