The elaborately staged "street photography" of Jeff Wall/ MOMA opening

Vancouver artist Jeff Wall's exhibit is opening at MOMA (NY).<p>

 

Today in the "NY Times" Magazine, it's the subject of:<p>

 

(i) a <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/arts/design/24wall.html>

review</a>, and<p>

 

(ii) an <a

href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/magazine/25Wall.t.html>extended article</a>

Yet another example of overblown pretentiousness in the world of art photography. At least

that's the way it looks to me.

"Yet another example of overblown pretentiousness in the world of art photography. At least

that's the way it looks to me."

 

More rantigs and feet stomping from an outsider.

Perhaps "the insider" can enlighten the lowly masses then.

Rantings and footstomping? The world of art photography is all about keeping out people.

It's a world of people living in ivory towers who set bars of inaccesibility to folks at large.

How much work is out there that is rotten and cliched, but presented in a gallery setting

because the artist has a connection, or a way of taking something banal and writing a

meaning into it that only he/she sees? I've seen a lot of that. Maybe you have a gallery

connection, or know how to blow something that's without much merit into something else,

but I suspect the majority of folks on this board are indeed "outsiders." I resent your

remark- you make me out to be a crying wannabe. Go back to your ivory tower.

The first time I saw his stuff, I was astonished. I always thought the things that Cindy

Sherman was doing were interesting, but ephemeral -- what would "Marilyn" mean to

somebody in 2200? But Wall's stuff does seem to me to resemble painting, in the way he

assembles the work: if you read about what Seurat did with "La Grande Jatte," how he

assembled it and then painted and repainted it, you begin to see that Wall is doing something

like that. I think his photographs will be around for a long time.

 

JC

Thank you, Pablito! Good to get some support from a fellow member of the lowly masses.

Q: How many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Five. One to screw in the bulb, and four to say how much better they could have done it.

 

Is it possible to not like/not understand/not appreciate something without crusading against

it? Have you seen the stuff in person? Have you seen more of it that that limited NYT low-res

slide show? Do you know the artist's story? Is he really 'someone's nephew?' Why is it

"pretentious?" Because it's Large, or because he's making money from it? And, lastly, is your

own work 'better?'

David Louis, Feb 25, 2007; 01:19 p.m.

>>>More rantigs and feet stomping from an outsider.<<<

 

 

Please do differentiate between an insider and an outsider for us David.

To me, the best work in art, be it photography, or otherwise, stands out on its own. It

doesn't need an artist's statement, a background of the artist's life, or gigantic sizes. I

cannot say that my own work is "better" - I'm sure plenty of people think nothing of my

work, others have bought my work. But I don't go around stating why my work has

"meaning," or "purpose," and so on. Those kinds of attitudes seperate art from what

Pablito called the "lowly masses." This kind of work, while it does have its place, and is

technically brilliant, looks like an intellectual exercise that appeals to a few. And God

knows that only a few can actually afford to have it in their lives. Pretentiousness is when

there is an art work that is limited to a few people's understanding or appreciation, but

given such descriptors to create a meaning where there may be little or none to the work,

or no innovation to the work that is created, or too much press given to something that

really isn't all that special. And I didn't say I was "crusading" against this work. I just

think it's pretentious and overblown. Others may like it. All I did was register a comment.

I'm sure others will say it's pretentious, and others will think it's the greatest thing since

sliced bread. The whole art world is full of this sort of thing - too much image, not

enough substance. That's what I rail against. Not the work itself.

After reading that review, it read more like an advertisement to sell his images--than

anything else.<div></div>

Regardless of who took it, how big it is, whether it was entirely set up, or whether you know

the Hokusai print it is based on, "A Sudden Gust of Wind (After Hokusai)" is an amazing

photograph.

Motion picture photography, i.e. movies, are all staged, and vastly enjoyed. Similarly, I have no problem with staged still photography.

 

With regards to works of large format photographers such as Jeff Wall, Gregory Crewdson, et al, I think that if I saw their super-sized prints in a well lit gallery or museum setting, they might become interesting for me. At the book level, where the vast majority of us primarily want to enjoy photography in the comforts of our own setting, such bodies of work do nothing for me - art or no art, I don't care enough to categorize them. Alec Soth's, Andreas Gursky's and Edward Burtynsky's works also suffer from the same "scaling" problem for me, personally, in book format.

 

Strangely enough, or perhaps not so strangely, I do enjoy Stephen Shore's work in book format. Also, I'm a fan of Meyerowitz's "Cape Light" work, which I do enjoy at the book level. I went to a book store twice to look at the recent Meyerowitz book "Aftermath", but I just didn't feel the impact at the book scale, and didn't buy it. On the contrary, McCurry's and Nachtwey's post-9/11 images that I have seen so far have a great impact for me even at small book levels - perhaps because they used small format cameras? I don't know. Or perhaps because they are better photographers in my opinion - and Nachtwey most certainly is.

 

It might be interesting to visit a gallery or a museum to take a look at works of some large format photographers, regardless of whether that experience alone can be used to dictate what does or does not constitute "art-worthy" photography for some people, and reserve judgment until such time. Not all great works of art can be enjoyed equally well at all scales in all settings. e.g. Dali's "Discovery of America" is a piece that I did enjoy greatly in book print format, but my appreciation for it went through the roof when I actually sat in front of the original at the Dali museum in St. Petersburg, FL.

 

Scale often imparts its own meaning to art, and can sometimes be the sole important criterion for evaluating art.

Matt, I'm not a member of the lowly masses nor of the elite. I'm just allergic to the

outsider/insider lines some folks insist on drawing.... Having said that, I do not dismisss

Wall's work nor do I glorify it.

What Pistola said

<i>It doesn't need... gigantic sizes.</i><p>Your argument loses

credibility with statements like this. Who are you to say what size another artist's work

should be?

Fair enough Pablito - guess I should've just kept my mouth shut and let the elites and

proletariats battle it out amongst themselves.....

Yeah, Dr. Ruth say's size doesn't matter>.?.

<i>Pretentiousness is when there is an art work that is limited to a few people's

understanding or appreciation</i><p>I guess that means about all we're left with is

high grossing action flicks and Anna Nichole Smith and Britney news stories.

Whether you like Wall's work or not, it can't be dismissed as something that's gotten attention because of his connections or simply pretentious.

 

Wall's work operates on different levels, depending on the level of effort the viewer is willing to put into investigating them.

 

Visually, they are beautifully exposed large-format images, and I believe he usually displays them as transparencies mounted on lightboxes, giving them a wonderful luminance. As you study them you notice that things are very tightly composed and staged. It's not obvious at first but little details let you know that this is no random snapshot.

 

The next level of understanding requires either a masterful schooling in art history or a book about his work ;)

 

His photographs are often based on famous artworks, but interpreted through the photographic tradition. If you enjoy things like that... things like puzzles or mindgames, along with art history, then it becomes an interesting puzzle to ferret out the references.

 

Anyway, it's not like I figured this stuff out... I got through the 1st 2 levels on my own, but didn't get the art history references until I was forced to write a long research paper on him. It really does make the work more interesting, and it's worth the time if you like art history and photography.

The slide show presented show some interesting work. Staged or not I don't care it still held my interest. I'm not sure if these sizes are necessary. When I visted the "Where We Live" exhibit that recently was show at the Getty Museum most were also huge color prints. So I guess we can all agree that huge mural sized color prints are in vogue now in the photography art world. Give it a year or so and it will drop out of fashion to be replaced by something else.

 

What made me think was the passage where Wall describes his desire to make photographs that can be experienced like paintings. I guess that might explain the sizes and the glowing effect the rich colors will have in his images. I was also reminded of the current photography exhibit at the Brand Library and Art Center in Glendale CA that I also recently visited. Here we have work from about 10 local people. Prints were small 8x10 and 11x14 mostly if I remember correctly. However, what made this exhibit boring for me was how so many images had paint, and or multiple images (thanks to Photoshop) piled on top of the original photographic print that one really couldn't tell what the image was other then on an abstract level.

Hmmm...photographs made to look like paintings. I thought this had gone out of fashion as well, but I guess not. One photographer used a Holga and stitched numerous images together for a panoramic/collage effect which was nice; at least they looked like photographs compared to the others. Another set had colored thread woven though the paper at certain points which I thought was orginal. The rest though just looked forced and gimmiky like they were too concerened with creating art for arts sake.

 

In late March I'll be in the Bay Area and am looking very much forward to seeing the Avedon "In the American West" exhibit at the Cantor Museum in the Stanford University campus. I don't recall ever seeing any of Avidons work in person before. I like the book and I know that many of these prints are also fairly large. I expect to be blown away knowing what I do about the project and the amount of work that went into making the prints.

Photographs, paintings, or sculptures don't have to look like anything preconceived for me to enjoy them. I couldn't care less if art is created for art's sake, commerce's sake, or Pete's sake. If it doesn't grab me, I couldn't care less if it has the most wonderful creamy tonality and stunning sharpness and can be printed 40 feet by 60 feet with phenomenal details visible.

I didn't read all the previous posts. I like walls work to an extent. It is often very visually

pleasing. But knowing that it is staged does detract from it for me. It is for this reason

that I advise you guys to not underestimate the importance of artists intent and other

factors that lay outside the picture plain. Whether in a normative sense you think these

aspects should have any effect on our perceptions is irrelevant, because they do.

"If it's blurry and in b&w, it must be art" is a phrase I used to hear, and because of that silly statement, I used to get into arguments with some of my "artsy" friends. I have since grown to realize that it is the final results that will either move me or not, no matter if the masses call it art or junk, no matter the medium, and no matter if it is from a known artist or not...keeps me out of arguments this way. :-)Wall's work is "just OK", for me.

staged is the point of his work. Read "On the Nature of Photography" by Rudolf Arnheim.

Not only is the reading an amazing view on the phlosophy of photography, but will add light

to Jeff Wall's work. Wall breaks the boundries in which Arnheim constructs.

Also, just because someone is doing something different from everyother photographer on

photo.net does not mean it should be criticized. Maybe someone needs to question things

about our medium to progress. Where is photography going to go if the entire photographic

population did what you generally see here on photo.net? no where. In no way should Jeff

Wall be labeled as pretentious because he does not produce similar art work to you. At least

he is trying to do something that progresses the current understanding of the medium