William Wegman

WW had a nice puff piece in the NY Times today. The picture shown looks god-awful to

me: a pastiche of what kind of musem he'd envisage:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/arts/design/12loos.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

Question is this: The dog stuff is cute and I'm sure the MOMA has a few prints. But can

Wegman continue to really create and go forward if he's busy making dog photos? I

doesn't. IMHO, amount to comment on anything really except that dogs look cute dressed

up: maybe a light reference to our human propensity for anthropomorphism, but

Winogrand covered that superbly in his slim volume: The Animals.

 

http://www.artcritical.com/appel/BAWinogrand.htm

William Wegman makes me want to jump off the nearest cliff. But hey, the guy has made a fortune off those dog shots. Whatever works I suppose.

Rick , I get the same feeling when I hang around with lemmings.:)

If you are at all familiar with his work, you would know that he does quite a bit more than make "dog photos". But those have brought him a sizable income and public recognition. And we all know from reading this forum that most work approaching serious art is distrusted and belittled. ;-}

I totally agree with Jake on both points. Belittling what does get recognition, regardless of genre, must be something inherent in all of us that take up a camera and show our results. Jealousy perhaps?

 

I know that Wegman does do more than these photos and even those are held in some regard in the art world for being more than 'cute'. They're certainly on a higher level than those awful photos of babies in flowers etc.

I presume you are referring to the esteemed ;-) New Zealand baby photographer Anne Geddes, Andy?

Didn't Ann Geddes team up with Celine Dion for a book? Now that is a lethal combination.

Oh thanks a bunch Rick.....

 

....I saw thatbook about 8 months ago and was deeply deeply deeply traumatised by it. I

am only glad that as it was in a bookshop, I never had to listen to the included audio CD.

 

I had pretty much recovered (it was a long haul) and now you have been and gone and

brought it up again. I can feel myself beginning to shake. The voices are coming

back........Now where did I put those valium ?

 

 

robert.

You will be ok Robert. Just find that valium and maybe have a nice shot of bourbon. I hate to do this, but imagine of Wegman teamed up with Geddes. Sort of like maybe All Dogs Go To Heaven?

Yes, Erin, it's Anne Geddes that I was thinking about - thank you.

Initially the name William Wegman meant nothing to me, so I did a bit of surfing and remembered I read an article about him a few years ago. The article included some memorable images such as Blizzard and Dusted, but it seems that much of his work (in my view) is totally naff (dogs dressed up).

 

Anne Geddes on the other hand often has clever ideas of ways to present babies. Yes she's sentimental, but rarely cliché and often surprising.

 

Whatever we think of either of these photographers, they have both tapped into a rich seam of commercially successful work. Perhaps most criticism is actually thinly disguised jealousy?

"Whatever we think of either of these photographers, they have both tapped into

a rich seam of commercially successful work. Perhaps most criticism is actually

thinly disguised jealousy?"

 

I don't feel envious of Wegman or Geddes. I'd rather be attempting, and failing at a more

investigative goal, no matter how vain, than shooting what amounts to pap (Geddes), or

pandering to popular sentiment (Wegman's anthropomorphism).

 

Now, the Pet Rock...that's genius! All you have to do is one prototype, then you're free to

spend your millions in pursuit of your own, or someone else's navel.

Simon -

 

with all due respect to you and your thoughts on Anne Geddes I truly and honestly find

every aspect of her photography that I am aware of (the baby photos) to be deeply, deeply,

disturbing. I greatly dislike her soft focus, her lighting, her colour palette. I detest her

sacharrine sentimentalisation and idealisation of her subject.

 

That Celine Dion should join in just twists the knife.

 

"No-one ever lost any money underestimating the taste of the people" [i paraphrase]

 

 

>

>

Not jealous, just sad for mankind........

 

;o]

 

 

(now where on earth did i put that valium......?)

"No-one ever lost any money underestimating the taste of the people" [i paraphrase]

 

I think it was PT Barnum (or was that, "This way to the egress?")

 

> > Not jealous, just sad for mankind........"

 

I'd guess there was a lot of crappy music and theater around Mozart's time. We only

remember Mozart, and Salieri, his jealous hack competitor, is known only by contrast with

the master.

I'm not saying that I would aim to emulate either Anne Geddes or William Wegman - it's not my type of photography, however:

 

Anne Geddes - I have bought her products in the past (greetings cards, calendars, etc.) because they succeed in their aim... to make people smile. Incidentally her images I have come across have never been soft focus as far as I can remember. I fail to see what is offensive about her work.

 

I wasn't aware of any link with Celine Dion until reading this thread, but I don't really see how that is relevant... they may appreciate each other, but we don't have to allow our views of one to affect our views of the other... if I did I would probably reject most of my favourite musicians for their political views. Incidentally I have a Celine Dion CD: I didn't buy it and I haven't played it much nor for ages.

 

William Wegman - with the exception of a very small number of his images: the ones I previously mentioned were Dusted and Blizzard - I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. In my opinion his anthropomorphism is cliché and naff.

 

It's worth considering an old friend of mine; A professional photographer whose passion was for industrial photography... he did studio portraits to make money to live and to fund his less profitable, but more fulfilling work. I am not saying that this applies to either Geddes or Wegman, but any of us could find ourselves doing something commercial (even naff) to fund our "métier".

I feel that it would be remise of me to not help frame the Bill Wegman story for you all. Back in 1978 the Board of The Southwest Craft Center (now called The Southwest School of Art and Craft) in San Antonio Texas installed a rather different Director Jeffery Moore. His mission was to drag the Craft Center and the City of San Antonio into the 21st Century. It was a troubled birth but it did happen. Jeffery had the help of several other enlightened individuals such as Rick Collier, who succeeded him as he went on to found and breathe life into the project Blue Star Art Complex, a premier center for the arts in San Antonio.

Jeffery�s game was to meld into the existing school program a system of Visiting Artist programs and an addendum Work Shop Program. Much of this still exists but heavily modified and forced into not so visionary a stance.

Bill Wegman was a marginally known Video artist who dabbled in still photography. Jeffery brought Bill to the SWCC and placed him in residence for three weeks with the Paper Studio and the Department of Photography and Electronic Media. Bill was steepened and required to hold a screening of his Video work with his dog Man-Ray (the first one). A public discussion followed. Jeffery recognized the need for Bill to do physical objects if he was to be recognized. So his other area of residency was the creation of hand made paper (40X60) inches and then Liquid Light and still images from his 35mm negatives to be printed on these.

The problem arrived with bill as he had just had a huge fire in his studio and all the negatives were soaked in water. We removed thousands of 35mm negatives and dried them then re-sleeved them. This was done by the photography faculty and students while Bill told everyone stories. It was a great opportunity for everyone.

Bill has or had at the time little darkroom skills to speak of, at least in my opinion. This of course has nothing to do with his making art objects. Under his direction, the artist Melanie Rush-Davis took the hand made paper and produced from Bills negatives the sixteen odd large prints that became the body of work that Jeffery then set up through the Bemus Foundation to be exhibited in New York. The show was a sell out and Bill�s career took off.

Bill is a righteous guy. He pulled one of the best prints from the body and gave it to Melanie for her services. She still has it in her home and exchanges notes with Bill. I got involved at the end because this was in the time when Liquid Light was still using petroleum based ether and Melanie was over come by the effects of the ether the last two days of production (yes I did the last two along with the minor �give away� prints).

As a strange side note, that place I mentioned at the top of this run the Southwest Craft Center aka Southwest School of Art and Craft (name change was also one of Jeffery import notions), put it in your special places to keep in your mind, it played such a diverse impact on a number of events for this country and past century. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.<div></div>