._._z Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/arts/design/29WOOD.html <p> <i><b> Loretta Lux, a 34-year-old German painter turned photographer, has realized that a light touch is sometimes the most effective technique for digital enhancement. With so many choices at her fingertips, she has opted for delicate, minute alterations. Walking through her show of children's portraits at the Yossi Milo Gallery in Chelsea, one continually wonders if the boys and girls in her studies are software simulations, and why and to what degree they might be at the mercy of the artist's hand. </b> </i><p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 <a href="http://www.lorettalux.de/">Photographs</a> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I saw this article and what struck me was the writer's comment about the tradition of the artificial in "portrait" photography...the Victorian's fake backgrounds and the like. Edward Curtis used to dress up native Americans in costumes he thought would resonate with his viewers even though they had nothing to do with reality. In the 50's and into the 60's there was quite a bit of unreal hand coloring of images. Painters have been putting their portrait subjects into weird and often overblown surroundings and clothing for centuries. Given the Sturm and Drang over the veractiy of Photoshop and digital imaging, I continue to wonder what the big deal is. Isn't the end result all that matters? BTW, Lux's pictures which I have seen in person are as disquieting as any images I've ever viewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vatovec Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Fantastic work! How does output that on Ilfochromes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sliu Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 It is visual art, but not photography. End of the discussion. P.S. I don't mean photography can not be art, but some arts are definitely not photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Nice images: too bad that we can only see them in small format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Jake I was thinking the same thing looking at the web site. The images were both entrancing and disquieting at the same time. Can't really say why disquieting. May be it is it gives the subjects a an "exploited" look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Chip, I didn't feel the subjects were exploited. To me, what's odd about many of the images are the eyes of the children which have been intensified in some way. It also appears as if the direction of their gaze has been altered, but without seeing the original photos it's hard to know. And, I completely disagree with S. Lui's pronouncement that this is not photography. As stated in the article, the work is not markedly different from generations of portrait photography where the coloring and backgrounds are exagerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Jake it is in the eyes for me. Couldn't tell why; but you may have a point at to why. I hope they bring the show to the Natinal Gallery of Art in DC sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Interesting.They look,maybe unearthly is the best adjective I can come up with. (There was an early sci fi film where the kids eyes were strange and the hair was a strange color.) Not poor,not at all,just creepy in some way. Arresting for sure and an interesting experimental approach. (9 for originality finally!.) I can't see one on a wall to get used to,but I dont know. Like hand colored prints and yet not quite. I can also think of early chromes of the 30's that has faded strangely. Light touch may be actually more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshwand Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 I was just at Yossi Milo this past weekend; boy were those images creepy! She uses her own paintings and photogaphs as backgrounds pasted together in PS. Re: outputting to ilfochrome: digital output to transparency, then printed conventionally to R-print is my guess. There wasn't any info at the gallery, and I didn't think to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_watson Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 The look of these works gets "old" fast. Apart from the tonal delicacy and compositional savvy of Lux's images(e.g.,"The Rose Garden"), the children all start looking hydrocephalic or misshapen.I couldn't help thinking of the cranially-deformed, goggle-eyed pixie stereotype found in many anime characters. Highly disposable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 I think the care with which she chooses the backgrounds (which she paints) she inserts digitally and the discrete, discreet alterations of her subjects make them unsettling and less disposable than, say, William Wegman's dog photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_watson Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Disagree. Lux's work has a repellent quality I don't find in Wegman's dog scenes, however much I dislike them. But then perhaps Lux is just a high-brow "shock" version of Anne Geddes. Both contain a fairly high kitsch quotient, albeit one that appeals to very different audiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 Geddes is honestly working a kitschy, middlebrow vein. Wegman is a conceptual artist who accidentally fell into a kitschy, rich photographic vein, recognizes it as such, and is minting money while also more quietly doing other, non-photographic work. I think that Lux is different; she seems to be aiming for the disquieting, alien nature of childhood that many people forget or ignore, and is successful at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 <i> she seems to be aiming for the disquieting, alien nature of childhood that many people forget or ignore, and is successful at it.</i><p> Maybe I'm a bit old school, but I think Meatyard's work hits this spot much more strongly. His photographs of children feel like it did when I was a disquieted and alien child, whereas I find Lux's photographs look like an adult view of the disquieting, alien nature of childhood. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 That's probaby valid, but I like to see a thoughtful adult take, even though I like Meatyard's work very much. Both he and Lux have a lot of missteps in their work too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkantor Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 So much for gut reactions. (All very modernist interpretations, by the way.) How about considering these as examples of Postmodern portraiture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_kosoff Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 I think her photos of children are the best I have seen in my recollection. I have seen too many photos of children that are merely poor snapshots of what is usually all too popular and easily appealing subject. The Lux photos show these children with a degree of contemplation that i rarely see. In my view she is in a class by herself when it comes to child portraits. I hope she turns her talents to photographing adults as well. I don't care that she photoshops it, because she does it so well. The color palette is gorgeous, the lighting and choice of backgrounds are superb. www.kosoff.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_watson Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 How do you "test" Lux's work for "postmodern" content, John? Try as I might, I can't decode the portraits; their slightly monstrous quality seems to be their most salient feature for me and others I've spoken with. Someone who saw them remarked how the kids' portraits--with their swollen heads and bulging eyes--reminded him of eugenic tracts from the 1920s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 They remind me of paintings I've seen in old issues of <b>Juxtapoz.</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 RE: <<I find Lux's photographs look like an adult view of the disquieting, alien nature of childhood.>> Jeff, I feel the same way... The pictures show children, but clearly focus on adult perceptions. The work is about adults and their views - not about how children experience the world. RE: <<May be it is it gives the subjects a an "exploited" look.>> Chip, it is almost like the children are puppets on invisible strings and whose eyes can be moved at will, they are being presented as art like a painting, but the question is: are they being exploited? RE: <<I didn't feel the subjects were exploited.>> Jake, I wish I could see these images in person as you have. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voxx_voltair Posted August 7, 2004 Share Posted August 7, 2004 Greetings all, I'm new to the board. I first found out about Loretta Lux on a blog for web designers; I just saw a portfolio of her March 2004 show in NYC. I find that she uses a similar color palette to the American artist, Matthew Barney. She seems to outfit and make-up her subjects as well, showing her color preferences in pale, rather "dead" tones. After studying the photos for awhile, I realized that Lux has "Keanized" her work; meaning she has slightly enlarged the eyes, in a way reminiscent of the popular 60's artist whose pop paintings adorned the rooms of little girls everywhere. I like her stuff, but it's very effected all the way. - Voxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Loretta Lux had a number of images in Aperture 174 (spring 2004) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 She also had several images publish in Atomica magazine the "Sensual" edition - Vol.2 No. 1. Atomica is a new and often interesting magazine worth checking out from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now