Misha Gordin

[goldfish]

Any Updates regarding the magnificent phonemena "MIsha Gordin".!

thanks alot

[matt_borengasser]

there's a website of new work here: www.bsimple.com

 

Since this is probably going to turn into a debate about the quality of Gordin's work, I'll start it off.

 

I hadn't seen Gordin's work before, and at first was interested/ curious. It has that effect. But like most things that are repeated, series can often run a good thing into the ground. Her/his work becomes (to me) sort of gimicky and monotonous. The "Crowd" images were much more compelling to look at before I realised they were montages of some sort--(PS?). And the people in the shadow boxes were neet the first time, but...

 

When I was in school so many years ago I found myself annoyed with professors who did the same thing year after year. Later someone refered to it as a kind of branding. By painting the same thing again and again an artist would become known for something that only he or she did. "You know, the guy that paints halfway open windows" people would say, or "you know, that artist who paints cross-sections of loaded handguns" or "that gal who paints fish suspended in air". And, of course all of these were called "conceptual". What I could never understand is what it was that could enable a creative person to do the same thing for so many years. I guess if you have a passion for something then you can repeat it, or it could be something obsessive that has gotten into you blood, but...personally I can't relate. And then there's the issue of conceptual. How about "cerebral"? I like "cerebral" better than conceptual. And it would be just as good a word wouldn't it? I mean, there just needs to be a word, any word that makes people feel like they can talk about what they can't really relate themselves or anything else to. It's a really 1980's, early 90's word. And its an "art circles" word that has been/ still is used to market a product. And to me it seems that Gordin's work has become just that. Look and you'll probably find it at the mall in the bins at Deck the Walls. (or is Deck the Walls a 1980's early 90's phenomenon that has already passed?) Good grief.

 

My two cents.

[grant_lupton1]

Matt, Re Gordin's work. My initial reaction was, "magnificent". However, as you point out, the majority of his work appears to be a variation on theme.

 

This seems to be symptomatic of the majority of contemporary and aspiring artists/photographers. It's a question of either "playing safe" or lack of imagination/artistic ability. Either way, longevity can not be assumed. Which can't be a bad thing - only the best (fittest) survive.

 

But why is it that photography arouses cynicism, even from other photographers? Is it because, in Gordin's example, the results owe more to PS than artistic skill? By this, I mean producing an original image and poncing about with it ad infinitum until "something" emerges.

 

Like you, I get bored with looking at the same photographs, but this is not the case with my favourite paintings, sculptures, architecture. Again, why? As an amateur photographer, I consider the ability to paint, sculpt or sketch superior to any photographic skill. An artist can be a good photographer, but the opposite isn't necessarily true.

 

A recurring theme on PN is the proliferation of "photographers" and their works as digital becomes cheaper, more sophisticated and commonplace. Is there a comparative increase in fine art - oils, water colours, acrylics, etc are readily available (and considerably cheaper)?. Is it because digital produces instantaneous art and gratification, and any shortcomings or errors can be rectified post-shot?

 

Grant.

[Spearhead]

<i>But why is it that photography arouses cynicism, even from other photographers? Is it because, in Gordin's example, the results owe more to PS than artistic skill? By this, I mean producing an original image and poncing about with it ad infinitum until "something" emerges. </i><p>

 

This is an issue with people who populate online forums, not necessarily "other photographers." There is a great resistance in the amateur community to learning the skills necessary to do more than set technical parameters on a camera, aim it, and snap. <p>

 

Oddly, it's exactly what painters and other artists have historically always been able to do that riles these people. Most great paintings have a certain amount of rework - some even complete rework as it evolves. Ideas and looks are changeable and correctable. What started as something rather insipid can end up as a masterpiece. For photography to enter that realm offers a much greater level of "artistry" than was possible before.<p>

[grant_lupton1]

Jeff, Your absolutely right: "most great paintings have a certain amount of rework".

 

What I need to reconcile now is why I'm generally against manipulation in PS, but not "exactly what painters and other artists have historically always been able to do".

 

Similarly, as a film user, why is it OK to for me to use a polariser to darken a sky, but to enhance elements via PS is questionable? Or, as noted elsewhere on PN, dark-room manipulation?

 

Perhaps it's the old chestnut, "Why should you have it easy (while I struggle with the old ways)"? A form of old-school snobbishness - "old" represents some kind of purity or craftsmanship. While this may be the case, it is also the case that the new makes much of the old redundant, ie correct exposure, b&w or colour, perspective control, colour saturation and contrast.

 

Therefore, it could be argued the new enables concentration on the image alone, or the artistic aspect. And isn't this the result we all strive for? We can all make perfectly composed and exposed shots, but only a small percentage of these actually achieve something approaching aesthetic or artistic satisfaction (to ourselves - if presented to a wide audience, the percentage may be less).

 

Despite what I've said above, and regardless of relevance, most people will acknowledge skill and craftsmanship. When I'm looking at old buildings here in the UK, I know many of the skills required to build a country mansion or church, up to as late as the early twentieth century, have almost - if not completely - disappeared. However, it stills inspires admiration and respect. Will non-digital photography become an anachronism or episode for nostalgia? Realistically, I think it's inevitable.

 

These questions and contradictions are addressed to myself as well as others. My position can change from my last post to this. My decisions are based on my knowledge and opinions. If someone provides an alternative viewpoint, which I hadn't considered, but with which I agree, I'll refine (and reinforce) my position. That's not indecision (says he, defensively), it's progress; the epitome of philosophical enquiry.

 

Grant.

[c.r._hips]

Grant. Art is evolutionary, just like anything else. Painters once made their paints by hand, then came tubes. then came the airbrush. then came the computor, etc etc. The manor by which the result is achieved is only a choice, not a requirement. The end result is what matters. It comes down to the expressive potential of the Art maker. Some have more than others. The way they got to the result only matters if it prevented them from getting there. As Artists our medium and our preferences therein relate more to the choices we make at each step along the way in the creative process. Digital photography is not a good thing only if it prevents you from expressing your self clearly. Anachronistic Art trends are all the rage these days, as young Artists find a need to go more deeply into their craft than the technological revolution requires.

[will_perlis]

"..it is also the case that the new makes much of the old redundant, ie correct exposure, b&w or colour, perspective control, colour saturation and contrast."

 

It's only very partly the case, as the examples in the various How-To-Retouch-In-PS books show and personal experience verifies. IMX, the idea that any idiot can create an instant masterpiece from garbage using PS can only be held until one tries it.

 

Doing great work under adverse conditions or using laborious techniques is admirable but I don't see where the working conditions add to the art itself. It has to stand alone. I note that garbage remains garbage no matter how hard it's stirred.

 

And as an aside, Gordin says "All images on this website are assembled & printed in a traditional darkroom". I'll accept that until it's proven otherwise. Does his art change in quality (however you judged it before) once that's read?

[Spearhead]

<i>Doing great work under adverse conditions or using laborious techniques is admirable but I don't see where the working conditions add to the art itself.</i><p>

 

Right. If something stirs me, it doesn't really matter how hard it is to make it, it matters that someone produced it for me to see.<p>

 

 

<i>And as an aside, Gordin says "All images on this website are assembled & printed in a traditional darkroom". I'll accept that until it's proven otherwise.</i><p>

 

I believe he does quite a bit with projection and in the darkroom, rather than using digital processing. At least in the past, I haven't seen anything recently.<p>

 

<i>Does his art change in quality (however you judged it before) once that's read?</i><p>

 

If it does, then why not just produce a fact sheet on how a print was produced and skip showing the print?

[thomas_sullivan]

...I don't know about any of the above....just know I first saw his stuff about 3 years ago, and still like it. It's about as repetitive as snowflakes are...and supposedly there are no two of them exactly alike. It's all been reduced to light, texture, and form. I think the fact that he uses human figures confuses a lot of people into thinking it's something different than pure abstract photography FIRST....and then the human "thought" of anything else is superimposed on top of that. even the website name aludes to this........bsimple.......in that it's stripped down to it's barest essentials. He may be using very complex technical procedures to produce it, but the image is raw...simple....although the message may, or may not, be extremely complex again. It's a paradox within itself. It facsinates me no end just staring at the images. I get totally lost up into the image, rummaging around in my brain to find things that connect any of what I look at....and yet usually coming away with "it is what it is"...and am very content with that.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>I never liked Gordin, and can't bring myself to liking him now

either. His work vaguely reminds me of MC Escher's, and I've never

been a fan of that one either. Too much focus on effect, on the

single image. To me, Witkin is much more interesting.</p>

 

<p>Other than that, I fully agree with Jeff.</p>

[matt_borengasser]

i mentioned photoshop because with Gordin's work, i originally thought he had found that many bald people to stand together in a crowd. or that he had found a lot of nude men and painted stripes on their bodies to create a kind of op-art effect. then when i realized that it wasn't that way at all, i felt let down a bit. But it's not because i don't appreciate PS. just in this case, the technical merit needed to put together Gordin's images didn't really match up to the effect (or vice versa). So, the images have that cheesy effect. And I think the cheesy effect is what we all fear most from PS or similar computer programs. I'm a fan of computer film animation as long as it isn't cheesy. And as long as it isn't computer animation for the sake of computer animation. And with photography you see a lot of the former and the latter nowadays. When PS is used well and achieves a good result, then that's great.

 

That said, I think that a lot of people who are against digital manipulation are against it because they have not reached a point where they feel it would do anything good for there work. It is, as someone has already said, about evolution. And nobody wants to rush evolution. So, to each his own. We're all at different stages with our work, moving in different directions. Last year, I might have said I would never use a digital camera, but this year I might completely change my mind due to changes in my needs, changes in technology, etc.

 

Lastly I think that sticking to one's own guns is good. If you feel that film speaks to you, use it. If you feel "hurt" when you digitally manipulate an image, then don't do it. I don't think that one necessarily needs to "come to terms with" certain leanings. Leanings are what make us unique, what gives our work a kind of "perimeter" that we feel is natural and meaningful. To many people, photography is so deeply personal and the process, the technique, the equipment, the choice of film and all the little idiosyncracies need to be maintained to complete this personalization. It's not logical, it's not practical, but it is TRUE to the one creating the work. And sometimes that's all that is important, even if it is "anarchistic".

[john mackay]

<p>I think in context, Misha's work in the traditional analogue environment of

the 70's and 80's was considered groundbreaking. I understand that seen outside

of this context, Misha's work might be considered derivative and repetitive.

However, I think that this is not always the artist's fault but that the art

establishment demands that artists exhibit a definitive and recognisable style

because that's what the buying patrons demand. In artistic terms however, perhaps Misha

is asking us to examine our own conceptions of repetition, derivation,

strangeness and novelty?</p>

<p>Cheers...John.</p>

[Brian]

Gordin's work has a look and a style which means his images are more like each other than they are like anything else, but this doesn't make him repetitive. He's just distinctive. The debate about how he does it seems kind of pointless. He's putting out original work that has the power to engage - that's enough isn't it. I admire his work and I like to visit it occasionally, but there's not one of his images that I'd want to live with.

[pico_digoliardi]

Gosh, folks, Gordin's life is hardly over. There's plenty of time to do other work. It's not

repetitive, either, just a consistent style but the forms are quite different.

[zoewiseman]

I'd like to point out that Misha Gordin does not do his work in photoshop. All his images

are created in a traditional darkroom. His skills are certainly mastered and I absolutely am

amazed at his talent.

[tomtomtom]

I think denying that Gordin is valid or claiming he is boring for finding a voice is silly.

 

In music, once an artist finds a "sound", they explore and refine that sound because they are trying to get to a higher place, and spraying buckshot all over the range of possible paths just dilutes their creative power.

 

That's not to say artists should stagnate. But the moment of finding a voice, even when it is minor, is powerful. And many people will envy or deride others who are trying, with every image, to get into digestible form what is in their mind, their heart, their soul.

 

Gordin's work reminds me of Robert ParkeHarrison. It allows both contemplation of the image, AND the contemplation of the force of work behind it. The admiration of both the art and the craft of it.

 

Have you ever seen a painting from a master? I started to tear up when I saw my first Renoir, because it was so astounding that a little jiggle of a paintbrush -- and I could see the stroke right in front of me -- conveyed a flower perfectly. I wasn't prepared for how powerful that was.

 

So, yes, for critique and appreciation of the image, the process does not matter. But for the full emotional or cerebral impact, the process does matter. We are not robots. We live in the same world, and can take up the same materials. But for true artists, they elevate what they take into their hands and create things we can only stand back and wonder at.

 

Admire Gordin for really trying to GET at something, and for doing what he does very, very well. You may not like it, but damn if he isn't knocking what he's trying to do out of the park.