The work of Susan Mikula

Susan Mikula is a contemporary photographer. She lives in Massachusetts with her life partner Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC news

commenter. Ms. Mikula has had many solo exhibitions and is represented by the George Lawson Gallery.

 

Almost all her photos are out of focus. They just don't speak to me. What's it all about--couleur, quasi-abstract forms, tone, veiled reality?

 

Her photos are priced at $1,000 and up, up. I don't know if she actually has buyers.

 

Take a look at some of her photos and tell me what you think.

 

http://www.artsy.net/artist/susan-mikula

To be fair, I should let Ms. Mikula speak for herself:

 

"Susan Mikula’s elusive art challenges conventions. Her physical subject matter is often abstracted, sometimes highly so,

and typically portrayed within a tight chromatic range; one that, nonetheless, contains an expansive scale of tone and

texture. Yet to call her art “abstract” is a misnomer—the end result often remains strongly figurative, even when no longer

overtly identifiable with its origins. Distillation is a more apt description of her process.

 

"Mikula creative roots rest deep in the aesthetic legacies of painting and photography, so it’s no surprise that her art is

sometimes taken for painting—but it is photography. Shooting exclusively with Polaroid films and cameras, Mikula works

in available light, and does no cropping or image manipulation after the fact. Her in-camera technique strips away detail

and softens edges only to better reveal the underlying and essential form and feeling of her subject.

 

"To capture and convey beauty as she sees it is always a present element in the work, but it is rarely only about the

inherent interplay of shade, color and form. There is a conceptual underpinning as well, and a narrative within. Mikula

also has an abiding concern with the physicality of the prints themselves: the materials and methods of their manufacture,

the structure and character of their surfaces and supports, their scale and their modes of presentation, and how those all

affect the relationship between the viewer and the art. Where certain aspects of her aesthetic reach back to the 19th

century Tonalists, these other facets of her creative process put her very much in sync with contemporary practice. The

result is work of depth and enduring impact.

 

"Born and raised first in urban/industrial New Jersey, and then in a small New Hampshire town, Mikula now lives and

works in rural Western Massachusetts and in New York City."

 

 

http://www.susanmikula.com/about-susan/bio

<p>I don't want to speak badly of any artist's or photographer's work or hurt their feelings. Perhaps to some, there is some artistic merit. It certainly seems to be her signature style. And if she can sell them or gets enjoyment creating them, good for her. The enjoyment of photography is why I do it. I could turn to Warhol's work, other than the nostalgia of the 60's, I don't get much of it. To me, much of Warhol's work looks like Junior High art projects. And some of his work is worth $millions.</p>

<p>Mikula's photos are not something I would be going for and to be honest, I have at times deleted images that looked similar in my camera, not realizing they could be worth a $1000. Maybe I have been wasting my money on sharp lenses and only need a nifty 50 with vaseline smeared on the outer lens and some other creative inexpensive DIY tricks. <em>Go for it Mikula!</em> :-) March by the beat of your own drum and make your art.</p>

<p>Next time I see an image like that in my camera, I will think Mikula was using this camera, then probably delete the image, and kick myself years later when I see a Mikula selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars.</p>

<p>I thing they're brilliant! Look at them large and look at them for a little bit, all kinds of different type of detail appears. Not necessarily pictorial detail, but subtle colors, textures and shapes plus the abstracted forms. They are too consistent to be "mistakes" and there's too much in them to simply dismiss them. I would love to see them at their real size.</p>

<p>Barry, try the "installed" "Portraits" section of her home page gallery to have an illusion of real size effect in a gallery. Her use of blur or OOF is not new but she does control the chromatic range which might be important in her results (subtle variations of tone?). They are on large fabric pieces hung while leaving folds in the material (intentional?). She uses Polaroid exposures which explain a bit the physical nature of the images. Apparently one has to look at the image for some time to see the subtleties. Not sure that I see them, but maybe I am too impatient. Perhaps some of her revenues come from art council grants. </p>

<p>I'm sure some of the effect of these pictures depends on presentation. As a gallery of images on a computer it's one thing. Put one in a frame and hang it on the wall, and it's likely to have a different impact. I like the abstract composition and color of some, but can't get past the feeling that more goes into the choosing and presenting than the making of them, and that there's an element of gimmick in it - a photographer's inability to make really interesting pictures conventionally. But that's a common and rather cliché view of abstraction too. </p>

<p>I think we have to be a little careful of judgment at the computer, anyway. Some art is pretty easy to appreciate in any context, and some less so. I've been surprised plenty in the past by how good some things are when you see them where and how they were meant to be seen. Sculpture that looks kind of silly in a picture, that in real life draws you in and compels you to walk around it and look inside it. Plenty of paintings look kind of ho-hum in a book, but striking in person. Don't, for example, dismiss Grandma Moses as a mere cute primitive unless you've seen her work in person. </p>

<p>So I'm suspending judgment, even though this is not generally the kind of photography I'd go for, and though there's a nagging sense of accident in the pictures' origin. I can look at one of those pictures and say "I could do that," and "I've thrown away things like that," and it's true in one sense, but I didn't turn them into art. I didn't choose them, and didn't print them. Maybe they had something important to say, but I didn't see it, or didn't bring it out; and seeing what to do with what you start with, and how to do it, is part of the process too. </p>

<p>Well, if folks pay that much, she's being successful. What she's selling is nostalgia, whether she realizes or admits it herself. Her images evoke bad photos from horrible little cameras in the 60's and 70's which is all that certain income-challenged folks could afford. I had one such camera. Who knew then that if I'd just stuck with my "art" long enough I'd be rich and famous?</p>

<p>Garbage stops being garbage the moment a human being looks at it and calls it art. Or so some would say.</p>

<p>If it's not speaking to you, then you should know that you don't <em>have</em> to listen to it.</p>

<p>Of course, art is what you decide it is, and what you make of it. Picasso made a bull out of a bicycle seat and handlebars. It was junk one way you look, and a Picasso the other.</p>

<p>There's always a gray area where it seems art is art just because someone says the person who made it was an artist. But sometimes it may be true. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I do kind of agree with Patrick and Matthew, it takes a good deal of chutzpah to be a successful artist, and whether S. Mikula is "successful" in convincing us I don't really know as yet. I'll have to read the reviews...</p>

<p>Is that all she does? It is nice but one track to me. It does make me think that a lot of stuff I threw out I should have saved.</p>

<p>"Art is anything you can get away with." - Marshall McLuhan</p>

<p>Thanks Arthur, I did look at them large and it did take a few seconds for certain things to appear. There's quite a lot of depth in the photos and when looking at them they remind of the the type of underpainting that the painter Richard Diebenkorn. Anyways I like these FWIW.</p>

<p>Hello all,<br /><br />Reading through this thread I see questions that have passed through my mind on many occasions. What is art? Is it the artist stating it? Is it someone else stating it? How does anyone begin to make it?<br /><br />If it's of any use I'll relate my experience briefly, I knew what I wanted to do but was scared of the expertise needed and having to learn about making montaged images from nothing very much. I started out trying to make figurative montages that would become still images and when that didn't feel right to make slowly crossfading self portrait figurative videos.<br /><br />It may seem Susan has happened upon a style that seems very narrow, yet within that she makes a huge variety of images, probably ones that we would all take and have everything sharp and in focus but then she applies her style to them. In fact every style is narrow but once into it the ideas that gradually emerge broaden out.<br /><br />Creating a style is one way into it but of course for as many people who have a style there are 1,000's of others who are quite happy to make something that makes them feel creative and who couldn't care less about a style.<br /><br />I have a sneaky feeling that everyone knows what they want to do but like I did they prevaricate and do anything but tackle it for fear of failure and the scoffs and sneers of those who don't like it. I reckon that's why we end up with the 'kittens and cottages' it's nice and safe.<br /><br />My answers to those questions; whatever the creator says it is, someone else agreeing does help, so does some accolades from exhibitions and festivals and lastly from my own experience to take two totally unrelated images and montage them, see what comes out and suddenly the muse will come back into the room.<br /><br />Cheers - Jem</p>